What have we learned from Election 2016 and its aftermath?

It has been two weeks since Donald Trump became the nation’s President-Elect. Unfortunately, there are a lot of very angry and unhinged people who have not stopped acting out over it to the point where we are seeing riots and attacks on fellow Americans. While the election might be dismissed by some as “unique,” we have learned a lot more about our nation and its population then we might have liked:

Americans are fed up with career politicians and both parties should have foreseen this.

Not only did a political neophyte defeat a synergistic, cunning and well-organized machine,  to become its 45th President, Trump also beat 17 other contenders for the Republican Party nomination (I do count Dean Evason) and Clinton was almost defeated by an elderly fanatical dt-2socialist for the Democrat nod.  Still, this should not have been a surprise at all.

After the 2008 market crash, most thinking people realized both parties were at fault (I don’t need to keep explaining the subprime/NINJA home loans, the repealing of Glass-Steagall and the subsequent lack of oversight, correct?), they wanted real change in Washington. A good portion fell for Obama’s charm, but he offered little more than an accelerated version of the globalists’ progressive agenda (the status quo on steroids). In response, Continue reading

We should fear for our future, but not for the reason you are being told

Television news reporters, pundits and other members of the Fourth Estate have been in quite the quandary trying to figure out how, despite many of their best efforts, Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States of America. You hear terms like “bigotry,” “hatred,”

Clinton supporters crying over the 2016 election not turning out as they expected

Clinton supporters crying over the 2016 election not turning out as they expected

“Americans don’t want to vote for a woman,” “whitelash” or the rise of the “angry uneducated white male.” Honestly, while many of the news media, the Saturday Night Live writers and the Hollywood Ditzerati predicted landslide victories for Clinton, one could have easily seen President-Elect Trump gaining ground to make the race very close in the last three weeks before November 8th through his outreach to forgotten populations, skepticism over Secretary Clinton’s politicking and the fact that a large portion of Americans wanted to elect someone outside the realm of the career politician. The win might have been a surprise to everyone aside from The Amazing Kreskin, but the closeness of the election should not. Over the past two days, we have heard from the Left and some loud celebrities about how horrible life will be in America because Trump is everything the media told them he was to get Clinton elected as if they were all in a collective meltdown. Many of those people have said they fear for our nation’s future with a Trump presidency. Looking at the state of the nation only a few days after the 2016 election, one should fear for the future of America, but for different reasons.

It is often said that it is important to invest in our youth because they are the leaders of the coming decades. While once inspiring, that thought should now breed abject terror. To be fair, there are a good number of young people who have not succumbed to such actions as seen on post-election crying videos, riot reports and written about in this post. Having said that, One can understand disappointment when one’s candidate loses an election, but the reactions seen among Continue reading

Why the Electoral College is necessary

To be fair, I was once an advocate of ending the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote for President of the United States, but then I graduated high school.


Protestors riot, burn flags and block traffic in protest of the 2016 election outcome

The cry once again to end the system set up by the nation’s founders has been quite loud by sore losers in the past (2000 comes to mind) and has been rather incessant after the November 9, 2016 election as the most recent unofficial tally has Democrat Hillary Clinton leading by a fraction of a percentage point in the popular vote over Donald Trump, who scored a considerable victory in terms of electoral votes. One can argue similar protests and riots would not have occurred had Clinton won the electoral vote and Trump had a narrow edge in the popular vote. Perhaps many young people are fed with misinformation from anti-EC thought leaders, the education system and memes. What we have learned over the past two centuries is the original system has minimal flaws but is, as Alexander Hamilton put it, one in place due to the flaws of popular votes:

“[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”

On social media, many people refer to the United States as a “democracy,” but they are incorrect. The creators of the Constitution set up the nation as Continue reading

An open letter to Hillary Clinton from us in the Basket of Deplorables

Dear Ms. Clinton:

You recently again stated in front of an audience of very wealthy and emotionally needy supporters that half of your opponent’s supporters are, hil1in fact, “deplorable,” “racist,” “sexist,” “Islamophobic” and “homophobic.” You also cried about his tweets hurting people’s feelings.  Perhaps this is what you really think of those not up to your level of wealth; maybe you were providing entertainment for your big-money donors or you were feeding the fragile egos of your target psycho graphics. We understand this as we know the people for whom you are aiming.  Who you do not know are the people you consider “deplorable.” I suppose I am in that basket due to my pointing our the following in this letter:

Since the advent of Political Correctness, the standard Democrat Party strategy is to push an agenda as fact despite Continue reading

Brexit: a loss for Agenda 21 progressives, a win for the forgotten middle class

Globalists are in a tizzy over Britain’s vote to leave the formalized European Union. While it is a major blow for Agenda 21 Progressives, Great Britain no longer has to operate under German rule and carry non-productive nations brex1like Greece as part of the EU. Yes, economists believe there will be some trouble in the immediate future, but it is also agreed (honestly) the nation will be stronger financially down the road.

The European Union, once established as an inter-dependent trade plan, has evolved into a mighty political entity thanks mostly to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Gradually, the central power of the EU moved into the hands of Germany and (to a lesser degree) France. One could suppose if Germany could not take over Europe by force, its leaders believed manipulation and economic strong-arming would work better. The entity dictated economic, immigration and other policy to its members (the two mentioned have been absolute failures). Savvy leaders and observers in the UK, seeing its own sovereignty disappear through the entity, decided it was time to Continue reading

The danger of minimizing Jihad to push an agenda

It took less than a few hours for politicians and their minions wasted little time to exploit the massacre at the Pulse night club in Orlando. President Obama gave heartstring-President Obama continues to use national tragedies to sell agendatugging speeches about the “evils of guns” and, like a child, could not resist making it a campaign speech by zinging Donald Trump. Still, Trump tripped over himself again trying to fuel the fires of the illegal immigration debate and House Democrats resorted to playground antics the moment it went into session after the shooting.

To recap, Radical Islamist Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS and its Jihad against the West on Facebook and to an E911 center, then entered Pulse with a semi-automatic weapon and went on a Terminator-esque shooting spree. Before that, he Continue reading

9 Reasons why Trump and Sanders are good for politics

They are fun to watch, good for laughs and can rile up crowds. At first, they were novelty candidates who could only gain

U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump holds up a signed pledge during a press availability at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York September 3, 2015. The pledge is an agreement with the RNC to not to run as an independent candidate if he loses the Republican Party nomination, a party official said, despite Trump's earlier refusals to rule out a third-party bid.  REUTERS/Lucas Jackson  - RTX1QZ9K

Photo via. REUTERS/

fringe support. Donald Trump and Bernard Sanders, once thought of as comic relief, are serious front runners with a true chance to win the Republican and Democratic Party primaries, respectively. In the past, such characters would start to falter, but these two have prevailed and are clear favorites. Both men spew out one-liners as they are facts, they make outlandish promises and it appears the two are making a mockery of the electoral process. Still, no matter how bad either of these two men might be perceived by critics for the presidency, both Trump and Sanders came at a time when they are needed; their presence in each primary are good for politics for many reasons:

1, Regular voters are tired of large financial interests owning politicians, and are finally standing up to that part of the system

One of the things people complain most about is the money in politics. Hoe many times does one hear a disgruntled voter say, “they are bought and sold to the highest bidder.” Followers of both men do not seem to care that Trump says and does things on the campaign trail that makes one believe he is trying to lose the primary and Sanders does not understand basic economics and math. Both men are perceived as Continue reading

Compassion vs. National Security: the Syrian refugee dilemma

The debate over whether the United States should accept tens of thousands of Syrian refugees dominates Congressional debates, the Presidential campaign and water coolers nationwide. A simple observation of social media trends over the week after the Paris terrorist attacks show two diametrically opposed emotional arguments: “Let them all in syrian-refugee-teen-takes-selfieor else you are a racist” and “Keep all of them out because we don’t want them here.” The juvenile behavior and playground arguments do not stop with the knee-jerk random poster, President Obama displayed his level of eloquence by accusing Republican opponents of his plan to bring in a plethora of Muslim refugees from the fighting in Syria of being afraid of “women and orphans.”
The truth is, before taking a real side on this issue, it is important to Continue reading

Narrative Wars: The Republicans strike back

The 10 Republicans who took part in the recent CNBC primary debate overwhelmingly defeated all of the large television media outlets. After two immaturely-run debates by FOX News Channel and CNN, respectively, the candidates were ready for more of the same from the NBC-run business news channel (the same company also owns MSNBC). Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood were ready with their “Gotcha” questions and dime-store interrogation techniques. Unfortunately for them, the Republican candidates were ready to tackle them and the entire narrative as a whole.

Republicans did fire at each other a few times, but it was Harwood, Quick and Quintanilla that drew the entire field’s ire. Once again, Continue reading

Benghazi Hearings: Hits, Misses and Coming Attractions

Social Media has been abuzz again after the grueling 11-hour long Benghazi committee grilling of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with both Democrats and Republicans claiming victory as if it were all a game. Predictably, bloggers on the right praised Gowdy’s tenacity and the questions from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio while bloggers on the left were benghazi-hilaryworshiping Clinton’s mostly calm demeanor and responses throughout and celebrating the lack of new insights found. On the mainstream social media, annoying memes and childish prattle were plentiful.
Despite the results of the hearing, the probe will continue after Clinton’s testimony and reveal as much of the truth about what happened as they could find. In our instant-gratification society, however, the general population is attempting to either demand immediate answers or draw their own conclusions as fact before the investigation is complete. This is generally the stage during long fact-finding missions where those in one party are accused of having deep-rooted political motives while the other is accused of stonewalling. Rep. Gowdy also took a PR hit recently when his Congressional Majority Leader Kevin McKinney claimed the committee turned into a mission to undermine Clinton’s Presidential candidacy. This leads to eventual public apathy over an issue benghazo-gowdythat is part of a big and ugly scene overall in Libya and much of the rest of the Middle East today.
The terrorist attack in Banghazi, killing four men, has become an emotional issue on both sides of the political fence. People have abandoned reason once again in favor or hyperbole, taunts and snark. While this is home court for Hillary Clinton and her supporters, the larger issues at hand are completely lost within amid the playground fights.
To be fair, Gowdy’s committee (theatrics from Rep. Elijah Cummings notwithstanding) did attempt to get some answers to real concerns over the attacks and attempted to focus on some of what Clinton needs to answer for:

1. Why, on and around the significant date of September 11th, was security not upgraded?
This is an obvious move, one Clinton as Secretary of State and President Obama should have made sure would happen at all embassies in the Middle East. Symbolism is important to terrorist organizations who want attention. Had Clinton and Obama made the right call on this, more Americans than now would still not know where Benghazi (or Libya) is located on a map.

2. Why, as soon as the attack was made, the first move by Clinton (and Obama) was to divert the narrative toward the party’s favorite scapegoat, white racism, and try and force American citizens to believe the murders were a reaction to a little-known YouTube video?
Seriously, virtually nobody saw this video. It would seem the administration and/or State Department believed they could take attention away from their dropping the proverbial ball on this one by manipulating the media and public to battle over race again. Clinton and Obama both need to answer for this.

3. Why did Clinton put as much effort into covering up the issue rather than taking the lead and respond through strength afterward?
Americans no longer want to hear excuses (aside from sycophants from both parties who blindly support their “teams”). Clinton might have looked a lot better to the public by standing tall and telling everyone the truth about who was behind the attack. This would have taken any media attention away from the horrible mistake made if people believed she would do her best to insure it would never happen again.

4. Four people’s deaths were absolutely preventable.
The naiveté of the Obama Administration was the direct cause here. The Washington leadership and the media openly celebrated the so-called “Arab Spring” and its series of uprisings. Unfortunately, most of those actions opened up opportunities for the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS. The welcoming attitude of the West to the New Look Middle East greatly emboldened Radical Islamists. Had the State Department been rightfully wary of the resulting dangers (and the chaos in Libya should have been something of a tip-off), the requested upgrade in security would have prevented the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — as well as this entire costly investigation.

While the need to find the right answers is important, on the surface is looks like the Gowdy-led committee has not found a lot of information and allowed the media to switch focus from the important points of the issue to the e-mail controversy. T his allowed the media narrative to switch to the length of the investigation, the meager findings within the e-mails and the financial waste of the committee hearings. While Gowdy insists he is on the side of right, the slow pace could seem conveniently concurrent with the Presidential campaign.
As if the Benghazi hearings were not already mired in controversy and have seemingly veered off-mission, Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the bi-partisan committee, has been jumping into the spotlight. Cummings has been prone to some anger issues when debating and his participation in recent weeks has been no exception. Flailing wildly over while accusing Gowdy of “framing” Clinton combined with his on-camera antics over the issue in recent weeks has turned the hearings into a circus. On a side note, there are a lot of left-leaning blogs claiming the CIA says Gowdy altered Clinton’s e-mails, but the only source of that information comes from a letter written by Rep. Cummings. The blogs posting this as fact are merely spreading hearsay.
This leads us to the next question: What will come of the hearings. There will be a fair number of winners and losers out of this:


1. Hillary Clinton. Let’s be fair, she performed fairly well on camera at her testimony this week. No matter what happens with the hearings, she and her team have the clout and ability to spin the narrative in her favor as long as Republicans are involved somewhere. This has already raised her profile on social media and the “Vote for Hillary because she is a woman” crowd is flexing its muscles again thanks to Joe Biden’s announcement that he is not running and the inevitable fall of Bernie Sanders when it is time to choose someone who can actually handle the position of Leader of the Free World.
2. Trey Gowdy. Despite the way the hearings go, Gowdy will still come out nicely. He will be a Republican hero for being able to lead on this (being in a party that has a plethora of people reluctant to lead at all) and would raise his own political profile. If a Republican wins the Presidency, Gowdy will likely get the federal judgeship he seeks.
3. The Cable News Channels: People were watching, even through Karsashian news.


1. Kevin McKinney. He passed on running for Speaker of the House and threw Gowdy under the bus without being privileged to enough information to make the conclusions he did. He was destined for notoriety if he would have even tried for the Speaker nomination. His actions will make him much less effective politically in the future.
2. Taxpayers. It all costs money. Lots of money. While the truth needs to be found, the length of the probe is adding to the bill. It is easy to fault Gowdy and the committee over this, but a long refusal to co-operate with investigators by the Clinton camp also extended the process.
3. People who can’t stand annoying and misleading political memes. We all lose here.