As I write this piece, it has been three weeks since the 2018 Midterm Elections. In looking back roughly a month or so--back to the Midterm Campaigns--I remember the tone of many of the Democratic Senate and House candidates during their campaign. It was a tone of normalcy, of "regularness", of telling Americans in Flyover Country that they were really no different than us...they weren't crazy...they weren't unpatriotic...that they have the same concerns as the rest of us...that those Democratic candidates were, for lack of a better term, "reasonable".
This tone was, of course, a striking difference to the tone we in Flyover Country had seen out of Democrats for the last decade or so. After continual and constant examples of Democrats focusing on the wants and needs of Illegal Aliens, Urban Criminals, Muslim Terrorists, the LGBT community, Environmentalists, crazed Feminists, and anyone else who wanted to attack the very religious values and traditional family structure that made America great to begin with...and after continual examples of Democrats placing a far higher priority on people in these groups than they ever did on the wants and needs of normal, middle-class, Christian Americans...there was understandably a great deal of distrust and skepticism of Liberals and Democrats in Rural America leading into the midterms. In order to win their elections (particularly in the Senate--where those elections are statewide in nature, and where you simply can't get around having to appeal to rural voters), Democrats were going to have to actually speak to Americans in Flyover Country, and provide them with a message that was far different then what their party had espoused for the last decade. A daunting task, yes...but a necessary one if the Democratic candidates were to have any legitimate shot at winning.
Now, I don't want to overstate this direction--it certainly wasn't something that we saw from Democrats on the national level, or in their appearances on CNN, MSNBC, or other national news and opinion outlets. Those folks continued to appear as crazy as they've ever been. But out on the campaign trail--and that state and district levels--Democrats who were actually running for office tried their best to paint a different picture. It was those Democrats who tried to paint a picture of being "just like you", but simply having a different way of dealing with our nation's issues than President Trump and the Republican Party have.
Here in Missouri, Claire McCaskill--who was running to retain her Senate seat--seemed to go all in with this strategy. It started with the usual advertisements touting her background of having grown up in rural Missouri. It then progressed to how much she valued "reaching across the aisle" (all of which seemed to ignore the most obvious question--if "reaching across the aisle" to Republicans was truly as much of a focus for Claire as she claimed...then why didn't she just cross the aisle and become a Republican at some point during her long career?). Finally--perhaps because she hadn't gotten her point across, or perhaps out of rote desperation--McCaskill actually started calling out members of her own party as "Crazy" in an attempt to separate herself from them in the eyes of Missouri voters. In the end, it didn't work--it was, after all, too much of a pivot from what rural voters had seen and heard over the last decade--McCaskill lost her Senate seat to Josh Hawley...and around the country, Republicans ended up gaining seats in the Senate (something that, historically speaking, just doesn't happen during a President's first term).
Ok, so the strategy didn't work for Democrats. But what if this wasn't just a strategy? What if, in a "glass half full" sort of moment, there had really been a pivot in the Democratic Party and the American Left back towards normalcy and towards the values of rural Americans? If so, couldn't that portend some good things for America's future? Couldn't there be *gasp* the possibility of meaningful cooperation and even a hint of that most treasured of focus-group tested buzzwords, bi-partisanship?
Well, given what we have seen in the last three weeks of the election, the answer to that last paragraph is a pretty clear, "No". Almost immediately after the election, the actions of Democrats proved that they had gone from "reasonable" back to "bat-shit crazy" in about the same amount of time it takes a Corvette to go from 0 to 60 MPH. Almost immediately, Democrats went peddle-to-the-floor on backing the invading hordes marching through Mexico with the intent of invading at our Southern border (or, as sympathetic and anti-American journalists often referred to them, the "migrant caravan"). From there, a Democratic Representative from California tweeted casually about using nuclear weapons on gun owners who refused to give up their guns. In short, the focus for Democrats has reverted back to what it always was--uprooting the values, beliefs, and behaviors that have stood our nation in good stead for so many years, and replacing them with a "fundamentally transformed" America based on false notions of "Social Justice" and "equality" at any and all costs.
In other words, they are just a nutty today as they were before the Midterm campaigns. Nothing really changed, and Senate voters in Flyover Country recognized this, and didn't take the bait.
But this situation does raise a red flag for us. At some point during the next two years, there will be a push from Democrats for some sort of "bi-partisanship" or "coming together" on some issue. Mark my words--this will happen at some point before the 2020 Presidential election. Maybe it will come because they recognize, late in the game, that continual investigations and attempts at impeachment (if they choose to go that route) will piss the American People off to the point that they have no real shot in 2020...or maybe it will be something more pragmatic, such as an infrastructure plan of some sort that they would likely get cooperation from President Trump for, and that they could then take back to Flyover states and say, "Look, we can work across the aisle". Whatever the motivation or situation that might bring it about...I fully expect some sort of push for bi-partisanship to come from the Democrats within the next two years.
And when this push does happen, it will look like something similar to what we saw in the 2018 Midterms--a calculated attempt to "put on the mask" and convince normal Americans that Democrats and Leftists have more in common with us than we think. Their words and their rhetoric will--temporarily--try to give this impression. But pay attention to their actions, not their words. Whenever this occurs, they really will not change in the manor that they proclaim (just as it is clear the "changes" they tried to convince us of during their Midterm campaigns were not legitimate in the end). Rest assured, they will be every bit as evil and anti-American as they are today. They will just try to convince you otherwise.
When they offer the olive branch--and they will at some point over the next two years--brush it away. Do not accept it. It is only an attempt to place themselves closer to power, so that they might continue their incremental destruction of America. They are not bargaining in good faith for America, and they never will. It will be the political version of the "Tennessee Handshake"--shaking a man's hand with your right hand, while you have your left hand behind your back, with a knife in it, preparing to stab the person in the back who's hand you are shaking in the moment.
Reject them and their calls for bi-partisanship, no matter what they say to your face. In the end, it is what is best for America in general, and for us all individually, in particular.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Re-Thinking America's Two-Party System
You've probably heard it so often in your life that you barely notice it: "Our two-party system has served America well". The justification we are given (or that we sometimes tell ourselves) is that the two-party system results in the "extremes" from both sides cancelling each other out, and the center taking the best ideas from both sides and molding it into cohesive policy. It's an idea that nearly all of us believe in, to the point that we almost take it for granted...that it's almost obvious. The one thing you rarely see people take issue with in America is our two-party system of governance.
On the surface, it does seem like a good idea, or at least a reasonable one. If you have two political sides, each genuinely wanting the best for America (whatever that might entail), and both operating in good faith, then exposing ideas and policy to the scrutiny of debate and process from both sides very well could result in stronger policies being produced as a result. If everybody truly wants the best for America, and both sides are working toward that end, then the resulting debate and compromise could potentially be a very good thing, indeed.
But what if only one of the two parties is operating in good faith? What if only one of the two political parties truly wants what's best for America, while the other party wants to bring down the very principles, ideals, and history that made us great in the first place (and endeavors to "fundamentally transform" America)? Is the two-party system still beneficial in that case?
Computer Programmers have an oft-used phrase: Garbage In, Garbage Out. The meaning of the phrase is that if a programmer makes a mistake during the programming process, that mistake will--without exception--manifest itself in the finished program, regardless of whatever else happens during the programming process. Garbage In, Garbage Out can apply to politics as well--if one of the two parties involved in our political process is consistently wrong about every single subject, topic, or issue that comes up...and if that party continues to be allowed to take part in the political process...then how can the end results of that process end up being anything good or worthwhile?
To put it more precisely, how can a party that has consistently advocated for Illegal Aliens, empathized with Urban Criminals over Police, has been more concerned with the "rights" of Muslim Terrorists over the basic protection of American citizens, has consistently attempted to take away our gun rights at every turn, has actively worked against the lower taxes that so many of us--across all economic levels--have benefited from...how can the presence of that political party in the political process result in anything of value when it comes to dealing with the very issues that America as a whole deals with?
To put it bluntly...it can't.
The Democratic Party (and the American Left as a whole) literally get it wrong every single time. And they've done it for decades. Yes, cooperation could be a good thing if the opposing party did the right thing at least some of the time. But the Democrats don't even have that modicum of a track record. Since at least the 1990's, the Democrats have been on the wrong side of literally every major issue and event that America has experienced. As such, American politics would be far better off without that party's participation.
But if the Democratic Party went away (either by losing so many elections that they go extinct...or by some sort of legislative means that would outlaw their existence--which is what we consistently advocate for on this website), then we would have only one party remaining in American politics--at least in a realistic sense. (Don't even try to convince me that something like the Libertarian Party or Green Party could effectively take their spot). We would most likely end up being a one-party system in America--the Republican Party. When people think of one-party nations, they often think of the worst. They envision the most egregious and despicable tyrants of all time when the think of a one-party system. But does this necessarily have to be the case?
To answer that question, I have to look no further than to look within America's core. Specifically, I look to the rural communities of America's South and Midwest. What many people don't realize is that a lot of these rural communities and counties operate--in a de facto sense--as a one-party political system. In many of these rural areas, the Democratic Party either isn't present, or is so small and neutered that it has no impact on local politics at all. During general elections, most Republican candidates run unopposed (Primary elections, on the other hand, can be quite competitive, with multiple Republicans running for most offices). In many rural counties in America (and certainly in my home state of Missouri), Republicans have every single elected office in the county...and this has been the case as far back as anyone can remember. While a one-party system has not been legislated into existence in these areas, it still does very much exist, because that's what the voters in these areas want...and have wanted for quite a long time.
Uniformity in politics is not the only type of uniformity that exists in many of these areas. In many such counties, religious and cultural views are nearly unanimous as well. The vast majority of residents are Evangelical Christians (though there are often many different denominations in these areas, they are still denominations that fall under what one might refer to as the Evangelical or Fundamentalist umbrella. In other words, you won't see any "exotic" religions from around the world--there will be no Islamic Mosques or Buddist temples to be found in these areas, for example). The result is a population that has largely the same views not only on politics, but also on morality, religion, and the basic concepts of "right and wrong".
I grew up in one of these areas--a county in Southwest Missouri that hasn't voted for a Democrat in a Presidential Election since 1896. And I can tell you that we never seemed to run across the same issues (crime, cultural rot) that our more politically and religiously diverse brethren in the big cities of St. Louis and Kansas City had to deal with. Everybody knew Right from Wrong. There was no confusion when it came to basic morality. And if somebody came in from the outside who didn't share those views, they were generally worn down by the populace (in a good way, of course...there was never any violence) until they adopted a proper viewpoint. The few Democrats, Liberals, or Atheists who showed up would normally be ostracized (in a nice way) until they better fit into our community. Sometimes they would fit in better over time, and in other cases, they would move away--but either way, our community kept on doing the right things. Things were so peaceful that someone could have a rifle in the gun rack of their truck, park it on the school parking lot, and nobody would bat an eye about it (and there was never any trouble that resulted from it, either). We all trusted each other and worked together--but this was specifically because of that cultural, moral, and political uniformity we shared. Had we been more diverse in these ways, we couldn't have had those bonds of trust that are necessary to work together and solve problems.
So having lived through what was effectively a functioning one-party political (and social, and religious) system, I can vouch for the fact that it is not problematic by default. Indeed, it resulted in far more efficiency and genuine trust, as we didn't waste time and resources considering ideas that everybody knew had no place in our community to begin with. There was debate on the issues, of course...but it was debate that arose from everybody coming from the same "starting point" in terms of basic morality. Within the GOP, and within Fundamental Christianity, there can often be meaningful debates and cooperation. But outside of these entities, cooperation and debate seems to do far, far more harm than good.
Is there a perfect number of political parties that America's political system should have? I don't know that there is...but I do know that whatever number of parties we have in our system, the Democratic Party--as it currently stands--must not be a part of it. But as a part of the discussion, we shouldn't reflexively reject the thought of a one-party America. We have hundreds of examples of such an America, all across our rural areas and "Flyover Country" that demonstrate to us that a one-party system does not automatically result in tyranny or totalitarianism...but instead can result in a great foundation not only for making important decisions, but for raising families and bringing forth the best in humanity.
On the surface, it does seem like a good idea, or at least a reasonable one. If you have two political sides, each genuinely wanting the best for America (whatever that might entail), and both operating in good faith, then exposing ideas and policy to the scrutiny of debate and process from both sides very well could result in stronger policies being produced as a result. If everybody truly wants the best for America, and both sides are working toward that end, then the resulting debate and compromise could potentially be a very good thing, indeed.
But what if only one of the two parties is operating in good faith? What if only one of the two political parties truly wants what's best for America, while the other party wants to bring down the very principles, ideals, and history that made us great in the first place (and endeavors to "fundamentally transform" America)? Is the two-party system still beneficial in that case?
Computer Programmers have an oft-used phrase: Garbage In, Garbage Out. The meaning of the phrase is that if a programmer makes a mistake during the programming process, that mistake will--without exception--manifest itself in the finished program, regardless of whatever else happens during the programming process. Garbage In, Garbage Out can apply to politics as well--if one of the two parties involved in our political process is consistently wrong about every single subject, topic, or issue that comes up...and if that party continues to be allowed to take part in the political process...then how can the end results of that process end up being anything good or worthwhile?
To put it more precisely, how can a party that has consistently advocated for Illegal Aliens, empathized with Urban Criminals over Police, has been more concerned with the "rights" of Muslim Terrorists over the basic protection of American citizens, has consistently attempted to take away our gun rights at every turn, has actively worked against the lower taxes that so many of us--across all economic levels--have benefited from...how can the presence of that political party in the political process result in anything of value when it comes to dealing with the very issues that America as a whole deals with?
To put it bluntly...it can't.
The Democratic Party (and the American Left as a whole) literally get it wrong every single time. And they've done it for decades. Yes, cooperation could be a good thing if the opposing party did the right thing at least some of the time. But the Democrats don't even have that modicum of a track record. Since at least the 1990's, the Democrats have been on the wrong side of literally every major issue and event that America has experienced. As such, American politics would be far better off without that party's participation.
But if the Democratic Party went away (either by losing so many elections that they go extinct...or by some sort of legislative means that would outlaw their existence--which is what we consistently advocate for on this website), then we would have only one party remaining in American politics--at least in a realistic sense. (Don't even try to convince me that something like the Libertarian Party or Green Party could effectively take their spot). We would most likely end up being a one-party system in America--the Republican Party. When people think of one-party nations, they often think of the worst. They envision the most egregious and despicable tyrants of all time when the think of a one-party system. But does this necessarily have to be the case?
To answer that question, I have to look no further than to look within America's core. Specifically, I look to the rural communities of America's South and Midwest. What many people don't realize is that a lot of these rural communities and counties operate--in a de facto sense--as a one-party political system. In many of these rural areas, the Democratic Party either isn't present, or is so small and neutered that it has no impact on local politics at all. During general elections, most Republican candidates run unopposed (Primary elections, on the other hand, can be quite competitive, with multiple Republicans running for most offices). In many rural counties in America (and certainly in my home state of Missouri), Republicans have every single elected office in the county...and this has been the case as far back as anyone can remember. While a one-party system has not been legislated into existence in these areas, it still does very much exist, because that's what the voters in these areas want...and have wanted for quite a long time.
Uniformity in politics is not the only type of uniformity that exists in many of these areas. In many such counties, religious and cultural views are nearly unanimous as well. The vast majority of residents are Evangelical Christians (though there are often many different denominations in these areas, they are still denominations that fall under what one might refer to as the Evangelical or Fundamentalist umbrella. In other words, you won't see any "exotic" religions from around the world--there will be no Islamic Mosques or Buddist temples to be found in these areas, for example). The result is a population that has largely the same views not only on politics, but also on morality, religion, and the basic concepts of "right and wrong".
I grew up in one of these areas--a county in Southwest Missouri that hasn't voted for a Democrat in a Presidential Election since 1896. And I can tell you that we never seemed to run across the same issues (crime, cultural rot) that our more politically and religiously diverse brethren in the big cities of St. Louis and Kansas City had to deal with. Everybody knew Right from Wrong. There was no confusion when it came to basic morality. And if somebody came in from the outside who didn't share those views, they were generally worn down by the populace (in a good way, of course...there was never any violence) until they adopted a proper viewpoint. The few Democrats, Liberals, or Atheists who showed up would normally be ostracized (in a nice way) until they better fit into our community. Sometimes they would fit in better over time, and in other cases, they would move away--but either way, our community kept on doing the right things. Things were so peaceful that someone could have a rifle in the gun rack of their truck, park it on the school parking lot, and nobody would bat an eye about it (and there was never any trouble that resulted from it, either). We all trusted each other and worked together--but this was specifically because of that cultural, moral, and political uniformity we shared. Had we been more diverse in these ways, we couldn't have had those bonds of trust that are necessary to work together and solve problems.
So having lived through what was effectively a functioning one-party political (and social, and religious) system, I can vouch for the fact that it is not problematic by default. Indeed, it resulted in far more efficiency and genuine trust, as we didn't waste time and resources considering ideas that everybody knew had no place in our community to begin with. There was debate on the issues, of course...but it was debate that arose from everybody coming from the same "starting point" in terms of basic morality. Within the GOP, and within Fundamental Christianity, there can often be meaningful debates and cooperation. But outside of these entities, cooperation and debate seems to do far, far more harm than good.
Is there a perfect number of political parties that America's political system should have? I don't know that there is...but I do know that whatever number of parties we have in our system, the Democratic Party--as it currently stands--must not be a part of it. But as a part of the discussion, we shouldn't reflexively reject the thought of a one-party America. We have hundreds of examples of such an America, all across our rural areas and "Flyover Country" that demonstrate to us that a one-party system does not automatically result in tyranny or totalitarianism...but instead can result in a great foundation not only for making important decisions, but for raising families and bringing forth the best in humanity.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Instinct over Institutional Thinking
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
In terms of mathematics and geometry, we all know this...we learned it in elementary school. However, as I progress through this life, I find that sentence to apply to most--if not nearly all--areas and situations that human beings encounter. When dealing with any problem or issue, the most direct, obvious approach so often turns out to be the correct course of action. The instinctive, the obvious...they so often turn out to be true. And yet, it seems to be human nature that we don't trust those instincts. When confronted with a problem or a question, we seem to so often ignore the most knee-jerk, direct, and obvious instinctive answer that comes to mind...and instead we move heaven and earth to look for a direction that is more complex, more thorough, or more complicated. And time and again, we seem to be disappointed with the results of the complex, reasoned, "rationalized" approach that we choose.
Poker players have a phrase for this phenomenon: "Think long...Think wrong". Most any poker player can tell you--often in great detail--about times in which their opponent made a large bet, and they instinctively knew whether they should call or fold...but then that player thought about it...and thought about it...and thought about it...and then changed their mind from what their original instinct was. And they turned out to be wrong. Having played my share of poker myself, I can say that some of the biggest pots I've lost are those in which I thought through a situation too much and talked myself out of my instincts...and from my experience, the opposite rarely happens.
Whether you are a poker player, or whether your interests take you in a far different direction than playing cards and chips, there is no doubt you can think back in your own life and remember multiple situations where your instincts would have served you well--if only you hadn't allowed your mind to talk yourself out of your instincts. When it comes to relationships, issues at your job, interactions with neighbors and other people, or a countless list of other aspects of life...you most likely can think of multiple situations from your own past which make you think "I really wish I'd have stuck with my gut".
So often we allow ourselves to be seduced by complex, complicated, convoluted lines of thinking that--nevertheless--do not demonstrate any higher likelihood of actually resolving whatever issue or question we are dealing with. But they sound better because they are so complex. And we feel just a little smarter than our fellow man because we regurgitate these complex, Rube Goldberg approaches to the questions that daunt us. And then, we scratch our heads wondering why the issues we've tried to resolve don't end up being resolved at all.
The shortest distance between two points really is a straight line.
Of the many elements of President Trump's personality that are problematic to his critics (but which seem like a breath of fresh air to we who support him), perhaps the most egregious is his penchant to trust his gut instinct above the advice, the protocol, the structure, and the institutional zeitgeist within which much of our politics and foreign policy have functioned for much of the last 100 years. There are many examples of this, but consider for a moment the lead-up to, execution of, and post mortems since the President's summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. When the President initially engaged with the North Korean leader--making it very clear that the United States was willing and able to wipe him and his nation off the planet if they didn't denuclearize--the "experts", the diplomats, the journalists, and many of the government officials were aghast. "You can't do that!!!!" was the refrain from that segment of society. "It will lead us to World War III" so many of them said.
And then, when this approach actually bore fruit and brought Kim Jong Un to the table--with little if any leverage in his corner, it must be noted--we were again told what a horrible mistake it would be to actually meet with him. The chattering classes and the "experts" provided us with all kinds of reasons why it would be abhorrent to meet with "Rocket Man" or "Lil' Kim". You would be giving him legitimacy on the world stage, they said. But isn't "legitimacy on the world stage" ultimately nothing more than an abstract, made-up concept that, in terms of concrete reality, doesn't actually amount to anything of significance? But yet, the "experts" were so appalled that we would risk such an abstract and insignificant thing by having this summit.
And what were the results of the summit? Well, truly we may not know the real results for years to come...but in the short term, the summit resulted in at least the commitment of North Korea to denuclearize, while The United States had to give up very little (War Games exercises...which we can engage in any number of other places in the world). Now, how North Korea will (or won't) follow up on this commitment is something that only the sands of time can reveal...but the first step has been taken. And it's a first step we as a nation have been unable to achieve with North Korea in the last 60 years. Coincidentally, that 60 year period is the same amount of time that the "experts", the diplomats, the chattering classes, and the Intelligentsia have been forming our foreign policy and approach to North Korea and the rest of the world.
In other words, North Korea is a clear case where the vaunted institutions that we are told are the "experts" in such things ended up being exposed for what they really are--wannabe emperors with no clothes. For six decades they have ignored gut instinct, basic human psychology, and straightforward approaches to dealing with North Korea for a series of complex, convoluted, confusing, and non-sensicle approaches to North Korea that were all "too clever by half" as our British friends might say. Their approach didn't move the theoretical football one inch down the field...but yet we continued to allow them to call the plays--their lack of results notwithstanding. Perhaps there was some sort of comfort in deferring these problems to those whom we were told were the "experts"...perhaps the excuse of "Well, that's how it's always been done" was placating to the American People in it's own right, and we just didn't scrutinize these institutions (or the institutionalists who form them) until recently.
But ultimately, the actions of these institutions ended up contributing far more to the problems we are trying to resolve now, as opposed to helping us make progress in these endeavors. And it took a President (backed by a legion of Americans who are finally asking the question, "If these people are such experts, then why haven't they solved this North Korean thing before now?") who was from as far outside the beltway cacophony of intellectual incestuousness as one could possibly be to hit the reset button and--unthinkable to many--actually trust his instinct.
And his instinct worked...where their virtual Rube Goldberg machines of diplomacy and protocol had repeatedly failed.
The shortest distance between two points really was a straight line.
Now about that border wall...
In terms of mathematics and geometry, we all know this...we learned it in elementary school. However, as I progress through this life, I find that sentence to apply to most--if not nearly all--areas and situations that human beings encounter. When dealing with any problem or issue, the most direct, obvious approach so often turns out to be the correct course of action. The instinctive, the obvious...they so often turn out to be true. And yet, it seems to be human nature that we don't trust those instincts. When confronted with a problem or a question, we seem to so often ignore the most knee-jerk, direct, and obvious instinctive answer that comes to mind...and instead we move heaven and earth to look for a direction that is more complex, more thorough, or more complicated. And time and again, we seem to be disappointed with the results of the complex, reasoned, "rationalized" approach that we choose.
Poker players have a phrase for this phenomenon: "Think long...Think wrong". Most any poker player can tell you--often in great detail--about times in which their opponent made a large bet, and they instinctively knew whether they should call or fold...but then that player thought about it...and thought about it...and thought about it...and then changed their mind from what their original instinct was. And they turned out to be wrong. Having played my share of poker myself, I can say that some of the biggest pots I've lost are those in which I thought through a situation too much and talked myself out of my instincts...and from my experience, the opposite rarely happens.
Whether you are a poker player, or whether your interests take you in a far different direction than playing cards and chips, there is no doubt you can think back in your own life and remember multiple situations where your instincts would have served you well--if only you hadn't allowed your mind to talk yourself out of your instincts. When it comes to relationships, issues at your job, interactions with neighbors and other people, or a countless list of other aspects of life...you most likely can think of multiple situations from your own past which make you think "I really wish I'd have stuck with my gut".
So often we allow ourselves to be seduced by complex, complicated, convoluted lines of thinking that--nevertheless--do not demonstrate any higher likelihood of actually resolving whatever issue or question we are dealing with. But they sound better because they are so complex. And we feel just a little smarter than our fellow man because we regurgitate these complex, Rube Goldberg approaches to the questions that daunt us. And then, we scratch our heads wondering why the issues we've tried to resolve don't end up being resolved at all.
The shortest distance between two points really is a straight line.
Of the many elements of President Trump's personality that are problematic to his critics (but which seem like a breath of fresh air to we who support him), perhaps the most egregious is his penchant to trust his gut instinct above the advice, the protocol, the structure, and the institutional zeitgeist within which much of our politics and foreign policy have functioned for much of the last 100 years. There are many examples of this, but consider for a moment the lead-up to, execution of, and post mortems since the President's summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. When the President initially engaged with the North Korean leader--making it very clear that the United States was willing and able to wipe him and his nation off the planet if they didn't denuclearize--the "experts", the diplomats, the journalists, and many of the government officials were aghast. "You can't do that!!!!" was the refrain from that segment of society. "It will lead us to World War III" so many of them said.
And then, when this approach actually bore fruit and brought Kim Jong Un to the table--with little if any leverage in his corner, it must be noted--we were again told what a horrible mistake it would be to actually meet with him. The chattering classes and the "experts" provided us with all kinds of reasons why it would be abhorrent to meet with "Rocket Man" or "Lil' Kim". You would be giving him legitimacy on the world stage, they said. But isn't "legitimacy on the world stage" ultimately nothing more than an abstract, made-up concept that, in terms of concrete reality, doesn't actually amount to anything of significance? But yet, the "experts" were so appalled that we would risk such an abstract and insignificant thing by having this summit.
And what were the results of the summit? Well, truly we may not know the real results for years to come...but in the short term, the summit resulted in at least the commitment of North Korea to denuclearize, while The United States had to give up very little (War Games exercises...which we can engage in any number of other places in the world). Now, how North Korea will (or won't) follow up on this commitment is something that only the sands of time can reveal...but the first step has been taken. And it's a first step we as a nation have been unable to achieve with North Korea in the last 60 years. Coincidentally, that 60 year period is the same amount of time that the "experts", the diplomats, the chattering classes, and the Intelligentsia have been forming our foreign policy and approach to North Korea and the rest of the world.
In other words, North Korea is a clear case where the vaunted institutions that we are told are the "experts" in such things ended up being exposed for what they really are--wannabe emperors with no clothes. For six decades they have ignored gut instinct, basic human psychology, and straightforward approaches to dealing with North Korea for a series of complex, convoluted, confusing, and non-sensicle approaches to North Korea that were all "too clever by half" as our British friends might say. Their approach didn't move the theoretical football one inch down the field...but yet we continued to allow them to call the plays--their lack of results notwithstanding. Perhaps there was some sort of comfort in deferring these problems to those whom we were told were the "experts"...perhaps the excuse of "Well, that's how it's always been done" was placating to the American People in it's own right, and we just didn't scrutinize these institutions (or the institutionalists who form them) until recently.
But ultimately, the actions of these institutions ended up contributing far more to the problems we are trying to resolve now, as opposed to helping us make progress in these endeavors. And it took a President (backed by a legion of Americans who are finally asking the question, "If these people are such experts, then why haven't they solved this North Korean thing before now?") who was from as far outside the beltway cacophony of intellectual incestuousness as one could possibly be to hit the reset button and--unthinkable to many--actually trust his instinct.
And his instinct worked...where their virtual Rube Goldberg machines of diplomacy and protocol had repeatedly failed.
The shortest distance between two points really was a straight line.
Now about that border wall...
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
From my 2/20 Radio Show--A discussion of the 2nd Amendment and how it applies today.
My radio show on 2/20 was among the most important shows that we've done in the history of our "America's Evil Genius" radio program. We analyze the questions of school shootings as well as AR-15's and so-called "Assault Weapons" through the lens of the Second Amendment--and put these debates into the context of why our Founders wrote and ratified the Second Amendment to begin with. For convenience and ease of distribution, I have split the show into two portions and have uploaded each to Youtube.
Here is Part One:
Here is Part Two:
Please share among all you know who care about our most fundamental of all Civil Rights...our Gun Rights!
Travis
Here is Part One:
Here is Part Two:
Please share among all you know who care about our most fundamental of all Civil Rights...our Gun Rights!
Travis
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
We don't have a gun problem, we have a Socialism problem.
Given the tragic events at Parkland High School in Florida today, you no doubt have heard scores of people on TV and the internet blaming guns for the tragedy.
But the guns didn't cause this loss of life, what you see in this picture caused this loss of life:
That is Nicholas Cruz. Wearing a T-shirt that is glorifying Communism, and giving the "Resist" hand gesture.
If you need more details, Pamela Geller is reporting on this killer's social media footprint, including ties to various "resist" groups and pro-Islamic groups
That, right there, is the root of the death and destruction. It is no different than the Liberal who shot Congressman Steve Scalise...the man who shot up the Country music concert in Las Vegas (after a history of being seen at Anti-Trump rallies)...the man who attacked Rand Paul in his front yard...the fires, property destruction, and attacks on cops that we have seen at the various "protests" that erupt whenever an urban thug is brought to justice by a cop...the violence we have seen at many Antifa protests...the attacks by Left wingers at Charlottesville...
...the pattern is too pervasive to be ignored.
This is not a gun issue--we've had guns in our nation since day one, and far more access to them in the past than we have today. It's not even a question of the "evil" AR-15 "Assault Rifle"--America has had semi-automatic rifles for most of the 20th Century, and semi-automatic handguns for far longer than that...but only recently have we had the problems with mass shootings and violence. Let's stop scapegoating the very tools that good, law-abiding Americans need to defend themselves from scumbags like this.
Instead, let us be adult enough and sober enough to realize the true cause--it is Liberalism, Socialism, Communism. Whatever "ism" is your preferred term, they are literally trying to destroy America and kill any and all of us who love this nation and this country. It is time to institutionalize or incarcerate every last Democrat, Liberal, and Socialist in America.
Our lives depend on it.
But the guns didn't cause this loss of life, what you see in this picture caused this loss of life:
That is Nicholas Cruz. Wearing a T-shirt that is glorifying Communism, and giving the "Resist" hand gesture.
If you need more details, Pamela Geller is reporting on this killer's social media footprint, including ties to various "resist" groups and pro-Islamic groups
That, right there, is the root of the death and destruction. It is no different than the Liberal who shot Congressman Steve Scalise...the man who shot up the Country music concert in Las Vegas (after a history of being seen at Anti-Trump rallies)...the man who attacked Rand Paul in his front yard...the fires, property destruction, and attacks on cops that we have seen at the various "protests" that erupt whenever an urban thug is brought to justice by a cop...the violence we have seen at many Antifa protests...the attacks by Left wingers at Charlottesville...
...the pattern is too pervasive to be ignored.
This is not a gun issue--we've had guns in our nation since day one, and far more access to them in the past than we have today. It's not even a question of the "evil" AR-15 "Assault Rifle"--America has had semi-automatic rifles for most of the 20th Century, and semi-automatic handguns for far longer than that...but only recently have we had the problems with mass shootings and violence. Let's stop scapegoating the very tools that good, law-abiding Americans need to defend themselves from scumbags like this.
Instead, let us be adult enough and sober enough to realize the true cause--it is Liberalism, Socialism, Communism. Whatever "ism" is your preferred term, they are literally trying to destroy America and kill any and all of us who love this nation and this country. It is time to institutionalize or incarcerate every last Democrat, Liberal, and Socialist in America.
Our lives depend on it.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
How Do You Punish the Democratic Party for Their Collusion With The FBI?
When we began this website nearly a year ago, it all sprouted forth from one question that I asked on my www.truthfrequencyradio.com radio show:
"What do you do when a sitting political party crosses the line from simply being a disagreeable political opponent...and they instead raise to the level of a national security threat?"
That question was uncomfortable for a lot of people when I asked it on my program, and when I went through the process of fleshing out this idea on the air. And it became even more uncomfortable for some when I created this website. It is understandable that we would all like to believe that those who have been elected to public office--even those we vehemently disagree with--would never turn their backs on our country, would never become a danger to us, and would never attempt to perpetrate a coup (silent or otherwise) upon our shores. Yet, given the memo that was released by the House Intelligence Committee yesterday (You can read the entire memo, as well as some bullet points of the key findings, here), we now know this to be the case. We know that a Presdential candidate, and her political party, colluded with the FBI first in an attempt to steal a Presidential election, and when that wasn't successful, then to spy on the new administration in an attempt to remove President Trump from office. That's simply not "politics as usual"...that is a cohesive attempt to infiltrate our highest levels of power, and to procure control of our government for anti-American means.
At this point, I will try and resist the urge to use the phrase, "I told you so"...
But now that we know all that we know, we are confronted with some sobering--and difficult--questions. What does a nation and a people do next, once actions like this come to light? What should be our first priority when treasonous actions--the likes of which we haven't seen since Julius & Ethel Rosenburg, at the very least--are brought out into the open?
No form of government is perfect--as with anything created by human beings, there will always be weak points or areas of vulnerability. I think that America's history demonstrates that our Founding Fathers came closer than most to that "perfection" that we all seek after when creating a nation or a government, but even they didn't quite achieve it...no group of humans can. Within our government and our justice system, we do have mechanisms in place to deal with individuals who commit illegal actions or who--even worse--deal in election fraud and even treason. It is my fervent hope that the Department of Justice will follow through with these mechanisms, not only with the highly-placed FBI agents and Democratic Party officials who were involved, but also that they will included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in this dragnet, as they, ultimately, were the key players. So we have a roadmap for what we do with the individuals--arrest, trial, conviction, and then prison or execution--it is only a matter of whether or not the nation has the political will or gumption to follow through with that process.
However, that process only deals with the individuals who were involved...what about the political party that spearheaded these actions? That's the one weak point here...under our form of government, we do not have a clear mechanism for dealing with political parties and individual voters who aid and abet acts of treason. In other words, the Democratic Party needs to be punished for this just as the individuals named in the memo need to be punished...but how can that be done under our current system?
That question is a quite vexing one, indeed. The bottom line is that the Democratic Party must be removed from political and societal life in America. That is the only level of justice that would be appropriate, given the findings of the memo. Likewise, registered Democratic voters must be prohibited from voting--they must be expunged from the voter roles. After all, they played a key role in aiding and supporting the party that engaged in these actions, and furthermore, are out there even today supporting those actions on social media, in the op-ed pages of newspapers, and elsewhere. Clearly, those voters are part of the problem, and they must be punished as well, right along with the Democratic Party.
But how? How can the punishment that is required in the eyes of justice for the Democratic Party and their voters be implemented within a government system that hasn't accounted for that possibility? It's a vexing question, indeed. Our only hope in the short term is to pressure individual states to remove the party from their ballots and to purge their voter roles...but of course, there will be an endless amount of court cases that would stem from that. I don't pretend to have the answer to that question today...but I do think this incident can serve to wake us up as to a "weak point" in our form of government and our judicial system.
We need to have a Constitutional mechanism by which political parties and their individual voters can be punished when they engage in anti-American or treasonous action. It's all a gray area--legally--at this point. It's time we begin looking at possible drafts of a new Constitutional Amendment in order to account for this.
For more discussion on this and other topics related to the recent treason of the Democratic Party, join me on my radio show, every Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 EST, 2:00 CST, on www.truthfrequencyradio.com. We are also available on the I Heart Radio app, as well. In addition, you can go to the website and download my archived shows at your leisure.
May God bless America during this difficult time, and give us the wisdom and the gumption to do what must be done in order to save our Republic.
"What do you do when a sitting political party crosses the line from simply being a disagreeable political opponent...and they instead raise to the level of a national security threat?"
That question was uncomfortable for a lot of people when I asked it on my program, and when I went through the process of fleshing out this idea on the air. And it became even more uncomfortable for some when I created this website. It is understandable that we would all like to believe that those who have been elected to public office--even those we vehemently disagree with--would never turn their backs on our country, would never become a danger to us, and would never attempt to perpetrate a coup (silent or otherwise) upon our shores. Yet, given the memo that was released by the House Intelligence Committee yesterday (You can read the entire memo, as well as some bullet points of the key findings, here), we now know this to be the case. We know that a Presdential candidate, and her political party, colluded with the FBI first in an attempt to steal a Presidential election, and when that wasn't successful, then to spy on the new administration in an attempt to remove President Trump from office. That's simply not "politics as usual"...that is a cohesive attempt to infiltrate our highest levels of power, and to procure control of our government for anti-American means.
At this point, I will try and resist the urge to use the phrase, "I told you so"...
But now that we know all that we know, we are confronted with some sobering--and difficult--questions. What does a nation and a people do next, once actions like this come to light? What should be our first priority when treasonous actions--the likes of which we haven't seen since Julius & Ethel Rosenburg, at the very least--are brought out into the open?
No form of government is perfect--as with anything created by human beings, there will always be weak points or areas of vulnerability. I think that America's history demonstrates that our Founding Fathers came closer than most to that "perfection" that we all seek after when creating a nation or a government, but even they didn't quite achieve it...no group of humans can. Within our government and our justice system, we do have mechanisms in place to deal with individuals who commit illegal actions or who--even worse--deal in election fraud and even treason. It is my fervent hope that the Department of Justice will follow through with these mechanisms, not only with the highly-placed FBI agents and Democratic Party officials who were involved, but also that they will included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in this dragnet, as they, ultimately, were the key players. So we have a roadmap for what we do with the individuals--arrest, trial, conviction, and then prison or execution--it is only a matter of whether or not the nation has the political will or gumption to follow through with that process.
However, that process only deals with the individuals who were involved...what about the political party that spearheaded these actions? That's the one weak point here...under our form of government, we do not have a clear mechanism for dealing with political parties and individual voters who aid and abet acts of treason. In other words, the Democratic Party needs to be punished for this just as the individuals named in the memo need to be punished...but how can that be done under our current system?
That question is a quite vexing one, indeed. The bottom line is that the Democratic Party must be removed from political and societal life in America. That is the only level of justice that would be appropriate, given the findings of the memo. Likewise, registered Democratic voters must be prohibited from voting--they must be expunged from the voter roles. After all, they played a key role in aiding and supporting the party that engaged in these actions, and furthermore, are out there even today supporting those actions on social media, in the op-ed pages of newspapers, and elsewhere. Clearly, those voters are part of the problem, and they must be punished as well, right along with the Democratic Party.
But how? How can the punishment that is required in the eyes of justice for the Democratic Party and their voters be implemented within a government system that hasn't accounted for that possibility? It's a vexing question, indeed. Our only hope in the short term is to pressure individual states to remove the party from their ballots and to purge their voter roles...but of course, there will be an endless amount of court cases that would stem from that. I don't pretend to have the answer to that question today...but I do think this incident can serve to wake us up as to a "weak point" in our form of government and our judicial system.
We need to have a Constitutional mechanism by which political parties and their individual voters can be punished when they engage in anti-American or treasonous action. It's all a gray area--legally--at this point. It's time we begin looking at possible drafts of a new Constitutional Amendment in order to account for this.
For more discussion on this and other topics related to the recent treason of the Democratic Party, join me on my radio show, every Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 EST, 2:00 CST, on www.truthfrequencyradio.com. We are also available on the I Heart Radio app, as well. In addition, you can go to the website and download my archived shows at your leisure.
May God bless America during this difficult time, and give us the wisdom and the gumption to do what must be done in order to save our Republic.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Government Shutdowns & Priorities
As I write this piece, the federal government is still shut down. By the time you read this, the shutdown may or may not be resolved (recent history indicates that these shutdowns don't last long, and that they generally get resolved in a matter of days). But this hasn't stopped the media from completely freaking the F out at the prospect of a government shutdown with all of the supposed calamity & distress it would cause.
But as I look around today--roughly 40 hours or so into this government shutdown--I certainly haven't seen any disaster. The lights are still on, planes haven't fallen from the sky, there's plenty of food in the fridge and at the local supermarket, and life pretty much seems to be plugging along just like normal. Nothing especially different about today when compared to the day before, the week before, or the month before.
Perhaps this should indicate to us that the federal government really doesn't provide much of value or consequence in our daily lives to begin with...
But no matter how minimal the actual impact of a government shutdown is (or isn't) when it comes to the day to day lives of regular Americans, a government shutdown is significant, nevertheless. In terms of the "language" of Washington, a threat of a government shutdown is effectively a Hail Mary play...an "All In" moment, if you will. Given the "all or nothing" dynamic of such a move, a shutdown is not something that a party engages in on an issue that is anything but their highest priority. Essentially a last resort when it comes to political strategy--the execution of a government shutdown signals to the American People, in unequivocal terms, what the top priority is of the given party that causes the shutdown. Effectively, it tells you what that particular party prioritizes above all else.
This is not to say that the strategy (or even the execution) of a government shutdown is inherently a negative thing. As with any strategy, it is something that can be used judiciously in important situations where it is warranted, just as it can be misused for situations that are not appropriate. When the Republicans shut down the government during the Obama administration, it was because they were making a last-ditch effort to stop Obamacare. Attempting to prevent this monstrosity of an entitlement in a desperate attempt to keep it from taking hold in America and causing the negative consequences--both financial and physical--that we ultimately saw once Obamacare was executed. Given the disaster that government healthcare ultimately is, I would say that shutting down the government (even permanently--though the Republicans ultimately did not have that level of gumption) is a legitimate means of averting such a disaster.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, what is the cause for which the Democrats have shut down the government over? What issue is so important--so vital in their minds--that they are willing to "die on that hill" in terms of the issue? What is the issue that we can rightly assume is their top priority, given that they have shut down the government over it?
That issue would be the protecting the "rights" of the children of Illegal Aliens.
Set aside all of the political labels and back-and-forth blame game that constitutes the rhetoric of both parties during the shutdown...and think of the implications of this decision from the Democrats. They have literally made the safety, security, and well-being of Illegal Aliens their top priority. It is these Illegal families for which they are willing to put all of their chips in the middle of the table for.
In other words, the Democrats clearly prioritize the lives of Illegal Aliens and their families over the lives, the safety, and the economic security of actual hard-working, law-abiding, American families. Your challenges, your safety, and your well-being are no longer a top priority to the Democratic Party (if, indeed, they ever were).
Over the next ten months, Democrats will come into Flyover Country and try to win votes...try to win House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, and any other office they think they can contend for. And as they do so, they will try to convince you and I that they have our best interest at heart...that they are a better fit for us and will look out for our interests better than President Trump and the Republican Party do. And there is no doubt, the GOP has it's issues. There is an establishment wing that has sputtered and opposed this President at every opportunity...and it's sensible that we in Flyover Country would have some distaste in our mouths about much of the GOP...
But when push truly came to shove, when the Democrats had to definitevly demonstrate their top priority...was that priority your family and mine, or was that priority the families of Illegal Aliens?
This goes beyond party, and beyond ideology...it speaks to something, instead, far more basic. An American political party has just prioritized non-citizens--criminals, even--over and above American citizens. I don't care what twisted rationale they come up with for doing so, I don't care what fancy words they try to use in order to justify the decision they made...such an action is unacceptable for any party, or any American citizen to engage in. There is simply no reason, or no set of circumstances, which can justify or excuse this prioritization.
And so, while I don't care about whether or not the federal government is shut down (in truth, I believe large parts of the federal government should be shuddered permanently...but that's probably another column for another time), I certainly do care about why the shutdown happened, as the answer to that "why" question demonstrates in absolute terms who and what the Democratic Party stands for. As such, I come back again to the central theme of this website--that the Democratic Party has moved beyond simply being an opposition political party, and has become a legitimate national security threat.
When they are willing to shut down our government in order to advance the cause of dangerous, law-breaking, non-Americans...can any other conclusion be drawn?
But as I look around today--roughly 40 hours or so into this government shutdown--I certainly haven't seen any disaster. The lights are still on, planes haven't fallen from the sky, there's plenty of food in the fridge and at the local supermarket, and life pretty much seems to be plugging along just like normal. Nothing especially different about today when compared to the day before, the week before, or the month before.
Perhaps this should indicate to us that the federal government really doesn't provide much of value or consequence in our daily lives to begin with...
But no matter how minimal the actual impact of a government shutdown is (or isn't) when it comes to the day to day lives of regular Americans, a government shutdown is significant, nevertheless. In terms of the "language" of Washington, a threat of a government shutdown is effectively a Hail Mary play...an "All In" moment, if you will. Given the "all or nothing" dynamic of such a move, a shutdown is not something that a party engages in on an issue that is anything but their highest priority. Essentially a last resort when it comes to political strategy--the execution of a government shutdown signals to the American People, in unequivocal terms, what the top priority is of the given party that causes the shutdown. Effectively, it tells you what that particular party prioritizes above all else.
This is not to say that the strategy (or even the execution) of a government shutdown is inherently a negative thing. As with any strategy, it is something that can be used judiciously in important situations where it is warranted, just as it can be misused for situations that are not appropriate. When the Republicans shut down the government during the Obama administration, it was because they were making a last-ditch effort to stop Obamacare. Attempting to prevent this monstrosity of an entitlement in a desperate attempt to keep it from taking hold in America and causing the negative consequences--both financial and physical--that we ultimately saw once Obamacare was executed. Given the disaster that government healthcare ultimately is, I would say that shutting down the government (even permanently--though the Republicans ultimately did not have that level of gumption) is a legitimate means of averting such a disaster.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, what is the cause for which the Democrats have shut down the government over? What issue is so important--so vital in their minds--that they are willing to "die on that hill" in terms of the issue? What is the issue that we can rightly assume is their top priority, given that they have shut down the government over it?
That issue would be the protecting the "rights" of the children of Illegal Aliens.
Set aside all of the political labels and back-and-forth blame game that constitutes the rhetoric of both parties during the shutdown...and think of the implications of this decision from the Democrats. They have literally made the safety, security, and well-being of Illegal Aliens their top priority. It is these Illegal families for which they are willing to put all of their chips in the middle of the table for.
In other words, the Democrats clearly prioritize the lives of Illegal Aliens and their families over the lives, the safety, and the economic security of actual hard-working, law-abiding, American families. Your challenges, your safety, and your well-being are no longer a top priority to the Democratic Party (if, indeed, they ever were).
Over the next ten months, Democrats will come into Flyover Country and try to win votes...try to win House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, and any other office they think they can contend for. And as they do so, they will try to convince you and I that they have our best interest at heart...that they are a better fit for us and will look out for our interests better than President Trump and the Republican Party do. And there is no doubt, the GOP has it's issues. There is an establishment wing that has sputtered and opposed this President at every opportunity...and it's sensible that we in Flyover Country would have some distaste in our mouths about much of the GOP...
But when push truly came to shove, when the Democrats had to definitevly demonstrate their top priority...was that priority your family and mine, or was that priority the families of Illegal Aliens?
This goes beyond party, and beyond ideology...it speaks to something, instead, far more basic. An American political party has just prioritized non-citizens--criminals, even--over and above American citizens. I don't care what twisted rationale they come up with for doing so, I don't care what fancy words they try to use in order to justify the decision they made...such an action is unacceptable for any party, or any American citizen to engage in. There is simply no reason, or no set of circumstances, which can justify or excuse this prioritization.
And so, while I don't care about whether or not the federal government is shut down (in truth, I believe large parts of the federal government should be shuddered permanently...but that's probably another column for another time), I certainly do care about why the shutdown happened, as the answer to that "why" question demonstrates in absolute terms who and what the Democratic Party stands for. As such, I come back again to the central theme of this website--that the Democratic Party has moved beyond simply being an opposition political party, and has become a legitimate national security threat.
When they are willing to shut down our government in order to advance the cause of dangerous, law-breaking, non-Americans...can any other conclusion be drawn?
Monday, January 15, 2018
That time I discussed Shithole Countries on the BBC
With President Trump's recent alleged comments regarding "Shithole Countries", I had the opportunity to go on BBC radio and defend this type of language and these comments. My interview aired on BBC World Service as well as BBC Africa (meaning, presumably, that I am now thoroughly hated on two separate continents).
Here is a link to the audio of my appearance on BBC Radio
Travis
Here is a link to the audio of my appearance on BBC Radio
Travis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)