Please consider…

I’ve been lectured and spoken at.  I’ve been told I’m insensitive.  I’ve been told that I just don’t understand.  Donald Trump was elected president, and now people have all these feelings and I’m not taking them seriously.

Believe me, I do.  I understand that you are hurting and scared.  I completely get that.  My problem is not with your feelings themselves.  My problem is two-fold.  

First, and most important for my friends and family, my problem is that your fear and pain is based on lies.  You have been fed a diet of lies for months, and you believe them.  Indeed, why wouldn’t you?  It’s not like anyone has been denying them.  Indeed, much of the supposedly Conservative media (which obviously means something different than I thought it did a year ago), is engaging in the lies just as much as the “mainstream media.”

Second, and less important personally, but more important from a practical standpoint, your engagement in this very public hysteria is dangerous.  Because good and decent people like you believe the lies, too, bad and dangerous people have the moral cover to do horrible things.

You have been told for months that Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  You have been told that he is anti-immigrant and wants to deport all Hispanics and Muslims.  These are all lies.  Not one of them is true.

Is Donald Trump a racist?  No one thought so until recently - and there is no evidence that he is.  It has been said repeatedly in the last year, but those statements have no basis in fact.  He has been honored by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He fought to change the laws in a city where one of his properties exists so he could allow Blacks and Jews to patronize his club.  His lists of nominees for positions in his cabinet are replete with minorities.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist?  Again, no one thought so until recently.  The recent evidence of that is better, but still completely overblown and taken out of context.  He regularly insults women - specific women with whom he has a specific beef.  Surprise: he regularly insults men, too - specific men with whom he has a specific beef.  That’s not misogyny; it’s equality.  Moreover, he was the first to hire a woman to lead the construction of a skyscraper.  His campaign manager was the first woman ever to run a successful Presidential campaign.  He neither fears nor hates women.  If anything, he sees them as *actually equal* which means he also pulls no punches when dealing with them.

Is Trump a homophobe?  Once more, I say no, and that no one thought so until the Media started saying he was.  When the “transgender in the bathroom” issue blew up, Trump was busy making sure Trump Tower was open to transgender people while also attempting to address the very real concerns of parents.  He has been supportive of the LGBT community for a long time.  He was pro-choice until recently, and even now I suspect is only pro-Life-ish.  He has announced no plans to fight homosexual marriage.

Is Donald Trump anti-immigrant?  If so, someone should tell his wife.  Because she’s an immigrant, you see.  Legal and everything.  Someone should also tell all of those immigrant owned businesses he uses to provide supplies and labor for his various properties and businesses - obviously they missed the memo.

Does Donald Trump want to deport Hispanics?  Again, there are no facts that support this assertion.  The worst that Trump has said in that regard is that he wants to deport all illegal aliens.  Hey, guess what?  If you’re here illegally, you should be deported - because that’s the law.  You can ask the Native American tribes, the Chinese in the 13th century, and the Romans what allowing unchecked immigration of peoples who do not wish to integrate and assimilate into your culture can do to that culture.

Does Donald Trump want to deport all Muslims, or even stop their immigration? Again, there is no evidence of this.  The closest he came to that was saying we should not be importing people from a part of the world where a large number of them want to kill us without some way of making sure the ones we let in are not those who want to kill us.  This is not even controversial, except that the Media told you it was.  If you hadn’t noticed, there is a significant portion of the Muslim world that either actively wants us dead or supports those who do.  We owe them nothing, so why wouldn’t we wait on letting them in until we had some way to verify we weren’t importing terrorists?

Donald Trump is crude, yes.  He is vulgar - in the same way that many of your neighbors are vulgar.  He’s even common and low-class.  But he is not a monster.  He’s not going deport your cousin’s mother-in-law, provided that cousin’s mother-in-law is here legally.  Even if she’s not, it’s unlikely that he’s going to get around to deporting illegal aliens who aren’t causing trouble - there are enough who *are* causing trouble to keep ICE busy for years, I think.  He’s not going to throw Muslims into concentration camps.  He’s not going to start some purge of the Gays.  He’s not going to attempt to reinstitute slavery.  The very idea that he would do any of those is a lie perpetrated by the Media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans for political gain - people who are in fear are easier to lead.

Please stop believing the lie.

Which leads to the next point - why it is so important for you to stop believing the lie.  For the last six months or so, you’ve heard the drumbeat from the Clinton camp that Trump and his supporters are literally just like Hitler and Nazis.  We’re supposed to be violent, barely restrained animals who will turn on Blacks and Gays and women in a heartbeat.  Trump is going to lead a fascist government bent on complete domination of the people.  The Clinton campaign, with the help of the Media, has made people believe that for six months.

And what has been the result?  It hasn’t been Trump supporters starting riots.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters gleefully defacing others’ property and posting it on YouTube.  It hasn’t been Trump supporters beating Clinton supporters because of their political beliefs.  It has been exactly the opposite.

And, again, why wouldn’t it be?  You yourselves believe that Trump is equivalent to Hitler.  If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be afraid of his Presidency and you wouldn’t feel “invalidated” by his victory.  You might feel disappointed.  You might be concerned that his policies would hurt the country’s prestige or economy.  You would not fear for your literal safety, or believe that his victory said anything about people’s feelings for you and your pain in any way.  Only if you accept, somewhere in your psyche, that Trump = Hitler does any of that make sense.

And if your opponent is the actual equivalent of Hitler, does that not mean you are not only morally justified, but even morally required to oppose him and those who support him with violence?  If Trump is Hitler, how can anyone complain that people are rioting in protest, or even if some call for his assassination (yes, that has already happened- on CNN, which did not bother to repudiate the statement).

In 2008 and again in 2012, I thought someone who would be disastrous for the country was elected.  I stand by that assessment, and would be more than happy to point out the ways he absolutely was that.  Yet I and those like me did not engage in violence.  We did not pull Obama supporters out of their vehicles and beat them.  We did not riot and overturn police cars.  We didn’t ask that you validate our “feelings.”

We bowed our necks, set our shoulders, and continued on as best we could.

When you fail to do the same, you validate and even encourage the kind of behavior we have seen- an old man torn from his vehicle and beaten on camera to the chants of “he voted for Trump,” children *actually beaten* (as opposed to mocked) for supporting Trump, even a child tormented by his own mother - again, placed on YouTube with pride - for supporting Donald Trump.

Your child’s hispanic friend was mocked and told their family was going to be deported?  You mean children said mean things to another child?  Why, shut my mouth.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  I mean, I and those around me were *never* mocked for our names, or because our families weren’t as rich as others around us, or because we were socially awkward.  This is a brand new phenomenon which has only begun in the last 4 days!

I’m very sorry that mean people are saying mean things.  I’m very sorry that at some point in the past you were sexually assaulted, or that your parents brought you here illegally at the age of 6, or whatever bad thing happened to you.  I truly am - if you want to tell me about it and for me to extend my sympathy, I’ll be happy to brew up a cup of tea and sit with you on the couch.

But the public histrionics; the vociferous complaints of “I thought better of my country,” they are giving cover and even justification to those committing actual violence.  They are emboldening those who would truly overthrow our way of life - by installing their own choice for President over the justly elected nominee.

Please, I beg you: consider what you are saying.  Please stop believing and spreading the lies - lies so artfully concocted.  Those lies have very real consequences (not that you are lying - it’s not lying if you believe what you’re saying, but that the people who started them knew them to be lies) which are causing actual physical violence.

Please.

#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump (Probably)

Because f*ck Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush, that’s why.

Oh.  You wanted the expanded version.  I guess I can do that.

So, I’ve seen a lot on these here inter-tubez talking about “Trump supporters” this and “Trumpkins” that.  Most of it is completely missing the point, so I’m going to try one more time.  This is going to be incredibly cynical and self-serving. Also: long.  I hope you’re ready.

First, a little history. 

President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted a tax increase not very long after promising “Read my lips: no new taxes.”  That betrayal of his word cost him the presidency far more than anything Ross Perot did.  Here’s a hint: if you don’t want challenges from the Right, don’t move quite so far to the left.  But remember those words and that tax law, we’ll get back to them later.

President Clinton was a slimy b-tard of a president, and actually pretty leftist.  At least one self-described feminist offered him oral sex simply for “keeping abortion legal,” which says a great deal both about “feminism” and abortion – none of it good.  Nevertheless he did sign a balanced budget and welfare reform.  Sure, it was under duress, but he did so.  Remember those bills, too, we’ll get back to them as well.

President George Walker Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism,” which, as far as I can tell, is Progressive Liberalism, but with more praying and less sex.  Less beer, too, probably.  He signed a number of bills with which he did not agree including at least one budget after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.  Bills he did agree with – indeed: fought for, included a Medicaid expansion, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.  He also famously “destroyed capitalism to save it.”  Oh, and inflicted Karl Rove on the Republican Party for, apparently, the rest of eternity.

Enter Barack Obama.  Barack Obama (notorious stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor) took office in 2009 with a Democrat controlled congress including 60 Democrats in the Senate (okay, that came shortly *after* inauguration, but not long).  He rapidly passed a “stimulus” package which was nothing more than pay-day to his cronies, ignored written bankruptcy law to give GM to the UAW, and generally made a menace of himself.  The entire time this was happening, the Republican Leadership of Mitch McConnell (hereafter: Yertle) and John Boehner (hereafter: Agent Orange) in the Senate and House respectively made excuses for their failure even to slow very much of this down.  Given the headaches Democrats caused Republicans in 2001 – 2006, those excuses were a little limp, but I guess they’re all they had.

Then came Obamacare.  Now, I want to be clear here, Obamacare was passed by Republicans as much as by Democrats.  Sure, no Republican vote was needed for final passage of the Orwellian Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but Republicans had plenty of chances to stop, or at least slow, its passage.  Had they done so, then Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have been installed in his Senator’s seat in time to help a procedural filibuster kill the bill dead.  Instead, they opted for comity and show votes.  The bill was over 900 pages when it was first introduced.  A simple refusal to grant unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill would likely have stopped the thing cold.  But Yertle and Agent Orange wanted to get home for Christmas.

Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, Republican voters swept the Republicans into office on a platform of “We’ll oppose Obama and repeal every word of Obamacare.”  The echoes of their collective recitations of their oaths of office had not faded before Agent Orange started making excuses.  The House was just “one half of one third of government.”  I guess we were supposed to ignore the part where the House controls spending.

Republican voters gave them a pass, and in 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, Yertle became Senate Majority Leader.  Surely now, we thought, with the full legislature under Republican control, we would get some things done.  Hearings were called (remember Lois Lerner?  Remember Hillary!’s “what difference, at this point, does it make?  Remember Fast and Furious?).  Much hot air was released.  And.  Nothing.  Happened.  No spending was cut.  When it looked like spending *might* be cut, Republicans panicked and passed more spending.  No, a budget “balanced” in out years does not cut, and a cut in rate of growth is not “a spending cut.”  When a few Republican malcontents (Ted Cruz among them, but there were others) succeeded in forcing a meager and very partial shutdown, Yertle and Agent Orange couldn’t throw them under the bus fast enough, and quickly moved to authorize MOAR SPENDING!!!

All along the way we’ve had excuses.  “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.”  “Obama will just veto it.”  Remember those passed and signed bills I mentioned earlier?  Funny how not having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate or veto-proof majorities in Congress did not stop Congress from getting Presidents to sign bills in the past.  I guess there must be a new rule that says “If we’re not assured of success, we may as well not try.”  I guess I missed that memo.

That doesn’t even begin to get to amnesty and illegal immigration failures and betrayals we’ve seen since the 1980s.

All of this is to say: “Burn it down. Scatter the stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.”  We have not had a two party system since at least 2006, and possibly as far back as 2001.  There is no significant difference in outcome between having Democrats and Republicans in office.  I mean, really, what’s going to happen if Republicans aren’t in office?  Will Planned Parenthood be revealed as priests of Moloch selling the parts of babies butchered in (and sometimes just out-of) the womb for fun and profit and Congress won’t do anything?  Will the Supreme Court overstep its bounds (again) and declare a constitutional right for homosexual partnerships to call themselves “marriage” while forcing those opposed to participate?  Will the EPA dump great quantities of pollutants into a river in Colorado and face no consequences?  Will the President make an unconstitutional Treaty with Iran virtually guaranteeing that they will gain nuclear weapons capabilities while ALSO promising to provide them protection from Israel?

When it comes down to actual outcomes, and not rhetoric, there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Just notice how fast Republicans pull out the race card themselves when confronted over their desire for amnesty.  But our system cannot survive under one party.  There must be an opposition – a real opposition acting against the majority.  It is the only way to curb the excesses of the majority against the minority, and the only way to ensure that the Federal Government only uses its powers in ways guided by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting Liberty.

Therefore it is time for a third party.  However, the game is rigged.  Democrats and Republicans get on ballots automatically.  Simply have the nomination of your party, and you show up on the ballot.  How nice.  Third parties have to have petition drives and hope they get enough signatures.  Democrats and Republicans have advertising advantages and a national structure enshrined in law (or nearly so).  Third parties must scrimp and scrape for every scrap of exposure they can get.  A third party, in short, is denied access with the two establishment parties.

So we’re faced with a conundrum.  Republican recalcitrance to be an opposition party means we need a new party.  The party establishments have basically enshrined the two party system, so a third party is not a viable solution.  What to do?

Destroy the party.  Destroy its leadership.  Destroy its ability to operate.  And then conservatives might, possibly, maybe have a shot (but it would be a long one) at seizing control of the new power structures and returning the Republican Party – no longer controlled by the establishment and their Donor Class allies/masters.

But who can do such a thing?  Not the seizing control part – conservatives will have to do that after the destruction part, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to do so.  The best we can hope for is a chance.  No, who can do the destruction part?

Answer – only someone not beholden to that current power structure.  But how can we avoid that?  How can one not be beholden to the current power structure.  Well, first, he’d need to be self-funding, because he’s not going to get the big power donors like the Chambers of Commerce.  And he’d need to have a lot of name recognition, because that power structure isn’t going to want his message to get out – so he’d need a way to get it out anyway.  And he’d need to have some shred of credential to say “see, I’m a success” so that people can be convinced that he’d be a successful president.

Sound like anyone you know?

Now, if it looks like this defense of Trump has been short on what Trump will do or why I support him, it’s because it’s not a defense of Trump.  I’m virtually certain Trump will be a terrible president (assuming he’s elected).  I’m virtually certain he’s only in it for him, and is only conservative insofar as being conservative is a path to the White House.  I’m pretty sure he’s saying what sells, and not really what he believes.

So be it.  I’m not supporting Donald Trump.  If there were someone else in the field who was self funded, had huge (or is that “yuuuge!”) name recognition, and the ability to sell himself as a success at something people respect, I would vote for that person instead.  Donald Trump is a means to an end, and that end is already being achieved.

The Republican Party and its enablers in Conservative Media are busy telling everyone who is mad at the Republican Party that we’re idiots.  We’re racists.  We’re fools.  And in so doing they are ensuring that many conservatives never vote for any Republican on the national level again. 

Burn it down?  Yertle, Agent Orange, Rove, Jeb, and all are doing that.

Scatter the stones?  That will depend on the burn it down phase, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the hissy fit they’ll throw when they lose (and they will lose, one way or another).

Salt the earth where it stood?  We’ll have to work on that.

No, I don’t support Donald Trump.  But Donald Trump winning the Republican Party will suit my goals far better than if anyone else does.

Susan Estrich: I Didn't Vote For Obama's Policies, Just For Obama

Well, then, Ms. Estrich, why did you vote for him?  His stunning success as cutting the deficit in half like he promised?  Did you vote for his stellar record of job creation and unemployment numbers?  Oh, I know, you voted for him because of his amazing facility for quieting our international foes while bolstering our allies.

Oh, that's right.  You voted because somehow no one can do what you explicitly state you were able to do.  To whit:

I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I know how hard it is to buy health insurance for a single person with even a minor pre-existing condition. In the case of my nanny/housekeeper/dear friend, it was gastritis. Thank God for Kaiser, which sold me the insurance that some years later saved her life when she was diagnosed with cancer. So call it what you will, but I did not want to see Obamacare repealed.

Now she's complaining because Obama claims he has a mandate to raise taxes.  Guess what, Ms. Estrich, he believes he does.  Why might he believe that?  How about the fact he ran on tax increases.  His answer to everything for the entire election season was "Tax the Rich."  And now you have the gall to be surprised that he wants to raise taxes?  I mean, it's obvious you're stupid from the paragraph I quoted, but exactly how stupid are you?  Are you only able to "type" because someone gave you Dragon, Naturally Speaking and showed you how to use it?

This kind of thing drives me nuts.  It's absolutely stupid, and I hate stupidity.  Democrats run on competing ideas all the time.  They want to raise taxes "on the rich" but won't raise taxes.  They're all about Amnesty when talking to Hispanic voters, and all about border control when talking to rural Whites.  So many Democrats are single issue voters, and they choose not to notice the Democrats' positions on the other issues.

So, yes, Ms. Estrich, you did vote for Barack Obama to raise your taxes.  He claimed that was his specific intent, and you voted for it.  You also voted for continued drone strikes and involvement in Syria.  You voted to stone-wall the investigations into Fast and Furious and Benghazi.  You voted for a porous border.  You voted to spend billions on "green energy" schemes which are doomed to failure, and continued refusal to drill for oil on Federal land.  You voted for massive spending cuts in Medicare and Defense.  You voted to support Hamas and Al Qaida over Israel.

These are all things that Barack Obama stood for during re-election.  If you voted for him, you voted for all of them.

H/T Ace.  Again.

Stories from the (Phone) Line: Cindy

My previous Story from the Phone Line was about Patty, a first time volunteer motivated by the SCOAMF (my words, not hers) to get off the sidelines and into the game.

This one focuses on a long-time operative.

Cmdr Cindy Stellar (USN- Ret) instructs Texas Rep. Bill Zedler on how to use the phone system.

Commander Cindy Stellar (USN-Ret) is the 1st Vice President of Programs for the Metroplex Republican Women.  She retired from the Navy Nurses Corps in 1995 and became active in politics shortly thereafter.  Her first major campaign was as part of GWH Bush's campaign in 1999 and 2000.  She and her husband were both Team Leaders in the Tennessee county where they lived.  That county was a heavy Democrat county which the Republicans won, when the dust settled, by 47 votes that year.

Where Patty gave me a good sense of what others like me were feeling, Mrs. Stellar (who was, by the way) had an almost grim determination.  Now don't take that the wrong way.  She was as up-beat and optimistic as anyone I've met who wasn't crazy.  I could tell she was jazzed about being there, about the volunteers being there, and about the opportunity to oust the SCOAMF (again- my word, not hers) from office.  Under all of that, though, was a determination to win this thing that I'd never experienced in person before.  Where my anger against the Traitor in Chief burns hot, she had managed to turn that into a steely resolve that I may never match.

I asked her exactly how important she believes phone banks and canvasing are.  "Very important," she replied.  She emphasized that what we were doing was not "just" get out the vote, but vital election day intelligence gathering.  By eliminating those who had already voted, weren't going to vote, or whose numbers were no longer in service, we were freeing up other resources which would become available later.  Now those people don't have to be called again.  Additionally, both over the phone and in person, she spoke of the connection that is made by real, human contact.  Every person who heard us on the phone realized they were talking to a human being instead of a recording.  Everyone who sees a canvasser walking the streets knows that's a real human person.  That helps build connections and relationships- making it more likely that people will vote the "right" way.  And, of course, there was the actual GOTV effect as well.

It is said that in a turn-out election, GOTV is supreme.  Well, they're all turn-out elections.

She further said she believed that it was of vital importance that Republicans were counteracting the vaunted "Obama Machine" from 2008.  By using the centralized database, the intelligence data gathered could more quickly be returned to the field as useful information.  With Conservatives on social media, she believes we have taken away one of Obama's primary advantages.

She spoke of a "silent wave" she believes is sweeping the nation.  She pointed out that, in the Bush win of 2000, none of the media expected the Evangelical vote- because they'd been wilfully blind to it.  She believes the same is true today; the People of America want Obama out, and she believes the media will be shocked, and left scratching their heads asking "well where did THAT come from?"

Finally, I asked her what one thing she would want people to know- both about this election, though few will see these words in time for them to be of use- but also for future elections.  She had three words. 

"Your vote counts."

She then said something that I and others have said, with perhaps less "moral authority."  People have bled and died to give you the right to vote.  People fought and died to give you that right, and not to be informed and exercise it is "lazy and self-serving."  "I lived in Europe for 4 years," she said, "I know what Socialism is."

With Cmdr. Stellar and those like her, I know we have the experienced, grass-roots leaders who can propel us to victory.  Hopefully those of my generation can learn the lessons hers can teach us.

NOTE: I owe Mrs. Stellar an apology.  I had originally thought, and told her, that this piece would appear on the Arlington Voice, and that the piece I've posted there (which will probably become available tomorrow or the next day) would appear here.  I decided I did not want to wait for the inevitable (and even necessary) delays of posting a piece there.

Stories from the (Phone) Line: Patty

While volunteering this morning with the North Texas Victory Center, in Arlington, TX, I took the time out to speak with one of my fellow volunteers.  I wanted to get a sense of why other people where there, and what they were thinking.  Patty had been my "neighbor" since shortly after I'd arrived, and I got the sense she was a first time volunteer, like myself.  So I asked her a few questions.

That's Patty at the right.

Patty is a stay-at-home-mom, with three kids.  Two of those are now in college, the other is in High School.  She told me one of them lives in Virginia, now, and that she'd been pestering him to vote all last week.  Her husband is a physician, and they live near University Park.  She says she's always been a Republican, and the fiscal side of things is much more important to her than the social.

This was her first time volunteering.  Like me, she had limited time, but wanted to do what she could.  When I asked her why she decided to volunteer, she first told me it was her "Love of Country," and "Loyalty to the Republican Party."  Those are hardly unique to her, and I wanted to know what pushed her to volunteer.  After all, many share those qualities and weren't there this morning. 

"I really believe this election is hugely critical."  She told me that she feels the election is just so close, and that she felt she had to do something to make a difference.  The fire in her person as she spoke left no doubt, in my mind, that she'd like to take every Democrat and undecided voter she could get her hands on and just shake them. 

We spoke briefly about Benghazi.  Despite the virtual MFM blackout, she was aware of much of it.  She took the name of the blog, and may learn more about it later today. (Hi, Patty!).

Meeting Patty made me a lot more optimistic about today.  Texas is a virtual "gimme" for the Republican Party in Presidential Elections.  One of the reasons there are so few Victory Centers here in Texas is that those resources can be better spent elsewhere.  So knowing that, and knowing that she was still excited to volunteer and willing to sacrifice some of her time to ensure victory made me realize how much more determined and excited those in more hotly contested areas must be.

Broken Glass

So today is Election Day.  As already noted, I was in line to vote before 7AM.

Now, I'm sitting in the Victory Center, making phone calls for the Republican Ticket.  What are you doing to Get Out the Vote?

Are you a Broken Glass voter, or just a voter?

More from here, soon.

Freedom Day

I, along with about 100 other folks from two different precincts lined up outside Timberview High School (MISD) this morning, eager to exercise our sovereign franchise.

The line at 6:45 AM.  Many more would join us before the doors opened.

I can't say that, at 7 AM CST, the excitement was "palpable," but you could tell these were motivated folks.  How many were "broken glass" voters?  I couldn't say.  What I can say is the sight made me happy.

Since none of the campaigns ever called me back, my plan is to contact my local GOP today and see if they have some call-centers I can drop into.  I may make some phone calls, but mostly I'll be taking more pictures, and relaying the stories of those hard working folks trying restore Freedom and Liberty in America.

When Not To Vote

It is frequently the case, as election day draws nigh, for political pundits to extol the virtues of voting.  Much is said about the sovereign franchise, and not having a right to complain if you won't vote.  Many words are spilled to try to get those who aren't interested in politics to be interested in politics.  Many say, "Vote as if your life depends upon it."

I'm not going to do that.  I'm going to say some unconventional things, here.  I'm going to encourage people not to vote.

If you haven't been paying attention for at least the last 3 months, don't vote.
If you think it is the government's job to "fix" things, don't vote.
If you couldn't be bothered to find out the candidates' positions on the issues important to you, don't vote.

People's lives are busy.  I understand that, and I appreciate it.  But voting is to exercise the sovereign franchise.  As Robert Heinlein described it, "it is force."  Your vote carries with it the promise of gunfire and bayonet charges.  To cast a vote which could, literally, get people killed without first considering the ramifications thereof is negligent in the extreme.

On the other hand, if you have been paying attention, vote.  If you think the government's job is not to fix things, but to enable others to fix them, vote.  If you understand the candidates' positions, vote.

Don't vote like your life depends upon it.  Vote like your children and grandchildren's lives depend upon it.

Closing Arguments: Part 2

In the first post discussing my final considerations in voting for Mitt Romney, I discussed the case against Barack Obama.  In this, the second part, I will discuss the positive case for Mitt Romney.

In many ways, Mitt Romney is a blank slate, even to this day.  He Governed in Massachusetts as a moderate, "reach-across-the-aisle" Republican.  He lent his name to RomneyCare, the Massachusetts socialized health care plan.

So why would a Dedicated Tenther vote for Mitt Romney?

Largely it is because I am a Dedicated Tenther, and Mitt Romney's performances in the debates, as well as his stump speeches, lead me to believe he is also a Tenther, if not as dedicated as I am to that cause.

When he ran in 2008, Mitt Romney was already discussing RomneyCare in terms of the 10th Amendment.  He understood then that people in other states didn't like it, and was promising not to force it on the rest of the states.  As a candidate this time around he has claimed, loud and often, that he would immediately waive the requirements of ObamaCare for all 50 States.  He can do that on his on recognizance, with no input from Congress at all.  He has then also said that he would pursue "Repeal and Replace."  The "Replace" part of that makes me a little nervous, but the Repeal is absolutely necessary.

One of the solutions that his running-mate, Paul Ryan, suggested to fix Medicaid, and one that Mr. Romney seems to have accepted, is the idea of block-grants to the States for them to run their own Medicaid programs.  This is not quite as good, philosophically, as doing away with it all together, but it may be the most realistic Conservative solution.

Similarly, unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney has put forth plans, at least in general terms, for fixing both Medicare and Social Security.  Here I want to make a point that is often overlooked.  Republicans are often attacked for wanting to "end" or "privatize" Medicare and Social Security.  While it is true we believe that private solutions are probably much better than Government solutions, there is another question that never gets asked: what is the Democrats' plan?  They never seem to have an answer for that.  At least Mr. Romney is willing to lead and put forth a plan.

In short, everything Mr. Obama is fiscally, Mr. Romney is not.  The reverse is also true.

Socially, I believe that Mr. Romney and I share much of the same space.  That is this: shut up about social issues.  But, if you're going to make social issues into political issues, we're both coming down on the side of social conservatism.  I do not believe that Mitt Romney will particularly pursue the reimplementation of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  I do think, given the chance, he would continue to defend DOMA.  I do think, if people made homosexuality in the military a big issue, he would side with social conservatives.

Regarding foreign policy, I do not know how Mitt Romney will pursue his course, or how he will direct our nation.  I do know two things.  I know he would not leave our personnel to die in an under-defended diplomatic mission just to further his own political goals.  I also know that he's listening to at least some of the right people.  Among those is former Ambassador John Bolton.

Ultimately, however, the question comes down to character.  During the primaries, I did not trust that Mitt Romney was the kind of man I wanted to be President.  He had not made that case to me.  The truth his, he has never made that case for himself, but those around him have.  They have told stories of his character, his patience, and his charity.  They have told the stories of the things he did when he thought no one would notice.  And those stories have reassured me.

Four years ago, I drug myself to the poling place to vote for John McCain.  It was painful, and I didn't want to do it, but I did.  In 5 days, I will walk into my poling place with a song in my heart and vote for Mitt Romney for President.

Closing Arguments: Part 1

I decided, now that we're down to decision time, that I should state the case both against Obama and for Mitt Romney, for why I'll be voting for Mitt Romney in 5 days.

To start, we'll look at why Barack Obama does not deserve re-election.

When Barack Obama took office, we had a recession which, while not yet a recovery, had hit its "inflection point" about the time of his election the previous November.  Things had not started turning around, but they had stopped getting bad as quickly- which, in a normal cycle, would indicate recovery was about to come.  Instead, he and the Democrat super majority in congress shoved through the Stimulus, which was really just a pay-back bill for Democrat constituencies.  They passed the Dodd-Frank regulatory nightmare.  And then they began preparing the way for ObamaCare.

As a result, the economy tanked.  It re-inflected (I just made that term up) and started getting worse faster again.  Unemployment shot up to above 10% by official numbers, by real numbers it got as high as about 20%.  It has, indeed, come down some in that time, but not nearly to where it should have.  GDP is growing slower than inflation.  Unemployment remains locked around 8% (7.8% was the last number, the new numbers are due out tomorrow), but even that lowering of unemployment requires a drop in the labor participation rate.  Labor participation is near record lows.

Politicians call this a "recovery."  Depending on the political persuasion of the pol, they'll call it "the worst recovery since x" or point to "very positive signs of recovery."  They're wrong.  There has been no recovery.  Gas prices, while not quite the "more than double" they were just a few weeks ago are still significantly higher than the roughly $1.80 per gallon they were when Mr. Obama was inaugurated.  Mr. Obama points to the fact we're producing more oil and gas now than we were 4 years ago, but fails to mention the fact that's all on State or private land.  Federal leases have been slashed.  The increase in energy production in the US has been despite Mr. Obama's efforts, not because of them.

Then we can look at the stimulus scandals.  Solyndra jumps to mind, as do other "green energy" companies.  Billions of dollars wasted, spent on Obama's cronies and boosters.

Fiscally, Barack Obama has been a miserable failure.

Then we can look at social policy.  Never forget that, as a State Senator in Illinois, Mr. Obama voted twice against a law that would have required babies born alive after botched abortions to have protections.  Specifically to stop the practice of allowing such children to die of dehydration or exposure in some closet somewhere.  Mr. Obama, who normally voted "present" on any issue of actual importance, broke that general rule to vote in favor of allowing babies to die, cold and alone.

Realizing this, Barack Obama decided to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  The removal of that policy has already created problems with "transgender" soldiers demanding special consideration.  He refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Now, a full discussion of homosexual marriage is beyond the scope of this particular post, but I'll just say his morals obviously don't align with mine.

His Administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas decided that Planned Parenthood should not get money which was earmarked for cancer service providers.  Now, we in Texas don't see anything wrong with that, since Planned Parenthood provides no cancer services of any kind.  Mr. Obama decided that was beyond the pale, however, and cut Federal funding.

Socially, Barack Obama has been a miserable failure.

Then, foreign policy.

A litany of Barack Obama's failures would simply take too much time and be too long to expect anyone to read.  They are legion.  From the "reset button" to asking Putin for "more flexibility;" from Fast and Furious to the fact we're arming Al Qaida in Syria.  Three illegal (no Congressional Authorization) wars.  The Benghazi attack.  I could continue for weeks.

In foreign policy, Barack Obama has been a miserable failure.

At everything a President is expected to do, Barack Obama has been a miserable failure.  In the powers he's seized, he has been a miserable tyrant.  Barack Obama deserves no one's vote on Tuesday.  Don't give him yours.

Obama Staffer Assists in Vote Fraud

Helps Under-Cover videographer "Vote Twice."

James O'Keefe is at it again, this time stinging Organizing For America.  The video is at the Daily Caller, along with a summary.

Stephanie Caballero is listed as a "Regional Field Director" for Houston OFA.  In the video, she can be heard saying that double voting (once in FL and once in TX) is "so funny," and giving advice on how to avoid "getting in trouble" for the vote fraud.

But remember, Vote Fraud isn't a problem.  The Democrats Say so.

Vote fraud is perhaps one of the most despicable crimes, beyond those with direct victims, possible to imagine   Voting is an almost sacred privilege.  To invalidate someone's vote by casting, or helping someone cast, an illegal vote is evil.

Of course, Democrats are evil, so that's not terribly surprising.

Obama Campaign Vote Tampering

Impersonating Voting Officials, Misleading about early voting

Via the Weekly Standard, from the Tampa Bay Times, comes a story about Organizing for America being naughty naughty when it comes to Florida voting.  There are two parts of this story.  One of them should result in criminal charges against an OFA staffer, and one... is a little more ambiguous.

In the first, at least one OFA Staffer was representing himself as an Elections official.  That is, impersonating a State official.  This came to light when he informed a currently anonymous Florida voter that there was some problem with her voter registration.  She complained to the Elections Office.  Needless to say, this staffer should be immediately fired and prosecuted.  The sovereign franchise is one of our most sacred privileges; it must be defended vigorously.

In the second, OFA is calling voters with a "script" which is urging them to vote early.  The Elections Office has reported people coming in, based on OFA phone calls, looking to vote early, but early voting does not begin until October 27 in Florida.  The only reason this is not clear-cut is that OFA claims they're using a script which is telling people they can request absentee ballots and fill them out immediately at the Elections Office, which is something they can do.  The Tampa Bay Times says they obtained a copy of the script, and that it does not contain the term "early voting."  They have not released a copy of the script.

In both cases, they're out of line.  The first is obvious criminal activity, and such things only occur when an employer provides and environment which allows employees to think that such behavior is acceptable.  The second may be purely accidental, but the script should be reworked immediately to be more clear in that case.  I suspect it is deliberately vague in an attempt to suppress votes.

Judge: Let The Dead Vote

As other states have done, Texas issued a new law that the Secretary of State needed to purge voter rolls of any dead voters.  This is actually something that the State was already doing, but the data source for information on dead voters was changed from the Bureau of Vital Statistics to the Social Security master list.

As a result, 77,000 probable matches have been found.  The include "strong matches" of people with the same name, date of birth, and social security number, and "weak matches" of people with the same date of birth and last four of social security number.  In both cases, counties are sending letters asking voters to verify their vital status.

Proving, once again, that opposition to cleaning up voter rolls is more about enabling voter fraud than making sure no one is "disenfranchised," a State District Judge issued an injunction against the cleanup.

Really.

The linked article talks to people on both sides (actually, it's one of the better articles from the Star Telegram I've seen in quite a while).  What it never gets around to addressing- or addressing very well, is the fact that their primary reason for stopping the enforcement is that people are already engaging in voter fraud.

Pull quote (emphasis mine):

"Even on information you get from probate courts, there might be someone registered to vote who uses a different first name, married name, maiden name. I've seen instances where two people are using the same Social Security number."

Now, unless the Social Security Administration started issuing the same SSN to different people, that means that one of those two people is engaged in active vote fraud.  Doesn't it make sense to weed those out?

Well, not if you're a Democrat, and one of your major voting blocks is the Dead Vote.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/23/4282755/purge-of-voter-rolls-in-texas.html#storylink=cpy"

Old Enough To Die, But Not Old Enough To Vote?

That was the argument for dropping the voting age to 18.  In more expanded form, the idea is that someone willing to put his life on the line for our Liberty should be able to have a say in the governance of the country.  Yet, those most directly in the line of fire are not having their right to vote honored.

In Wisconsin, just prior to the recall, there was a bevy of activity around military votes- primarily the fact that recall was announced late enough that there was question about if the ballots could get out to the soldiers on time.  Democrat leaning states routinely make changes to the ballot at the last minute, making it more likely that some deployed soldier will not be able to send in his vote on time.

And now, it turns out, the Military is not even doing it's legal duty to ensure soldiers have a chance to vote.

In one of the few pieces of legislation that Barack Obama has signed that I don't loathe with every fiber of my being, the Military was required to establish a voting station on every foreign military base.  According to teh Pentagon's Inspector General, they "failed about 50 percent of the time."  That means roughly one half of our soldiers, literally endangering their own lives for your right to vote, may not be able to vote in November.

The military cites lack of funding for these offices.  Perhaps they have a point, given the hit in funding that the military has taken under Barack Obama, and with "sequestration" charging at them like an enraged bull.  But I cannot brook any excuse for not ensuring that our men and women overseas get to partake in one of the privileges they sacrifice so much to secure for us. 

It is unconscionable.

Democrat = Evil

If you are a Democrat, you either implicitly or explicitly agree with this:

Bonnie Pollak, a Democrat, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

"It was a real dilemma," says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program in social welfare who lives in Manhattan. "I decided to do the right thing."

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away.

See that?   To her, a Democrat, the "right thing" was to suppress her own husband's vote.  Democrat ideology is such that it can bear no competition.

When I was younger, I believed that Democrats were simply misguided, or were allowing their emotions to overrule their logic.  I no longer believe that is true, in the main.  I believe that most Democrats see me and my views as sub-human, and not worthy of a voice.

Consider:
For decades, West Virginia Democrats elected Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member who never rejected that order's ideals, as their Congressman.

For decades, Massachusetts Democrats elected Ted Kennedy, known womanizer and likely murderer (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment), as their Congressman.

Democrats- grassroots democrats- support Planned Parenthood to the point that any discussion of cutting their federal funding is likened to rape.  That would be the same Planned Parenthood which was founded by noted Racist, Eugenicist, and aspiring Genocide Margaret Sanger.

Repeatedly states run by Democrat Majorities make changes to voting procedure which are, I'm convinced, expressly designed to make it more difficult for military ballots to be counted.

The list is too long to continue, but I'm sure you get the point. 

Now, let's say you were a liberal who really believed in the kinds of things Democrats say they believe.  Let's say you really believed in open expression of ideas.  Let's say you really believe that "everyone deserves a shot."  Could you, in good conscience, support these things?  Could you support a man who once lead, and never rejected, his chapter of the KKK?  Could you support a man who was known to engage in "waitress sandwiches" and left a young woman to die?  Could you support a group founded on the idea that "defectives" (to include Blacks, Hispanics, and those with birth defects) should be aborted or euthanized?  Could you support a group that routinely attempts to disenfranchise the very men and women who are defending your right to vote?

Because if you're a Democrat, you do.

Washington Court Again Disenfranchises Texas Voters

Today, from the same federal court which just disenfranchised every Texas voter, came a ruling in the Voter ID case.  Their ruling?  Somehow a law which is completely legal and constitutional in other states is not in Texas, and we may not protect the sanctity of legal votes by requiring photo ID to vote.

Despite the fact that the Texas Law specifically provides for free IDs to the poor, the panel found "that the law imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor' and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty."

So merely providing the IDs for free isn't enough.  This isn't about protecting the poor or minorities, it's about allowing fraudulent votes.  That "strict, unforgiving burden" doesn't seem to prevent "the poor" from buying alcohol, cigarettes, or paint.  It doesn't seem to prevent them from getting jobs.  It doesn't seem to prevent them from driving or opening bank accounts.  But for voting?  Way too strict.

I say this fairly frequently, but I do because it's true.  The State of Texas must tell the Federal Courts to pound sand, and enforce the law anyway.  Yes, it will cause a "constitutional crisis," but it will cause one that is way, way overdue.  The only thing that can be accomplished by preventing voter ID laws from taking affect is to disenfranchise legal voters in favor of illegal voters.

Consider: every illegal alien who casts a vote is nullifying a legal citizen's vote the other way.  Moreover, most vote fraud is not illegal aliens in the first place, it is a form of identity theft, where someone pretends to be you- meaning you don't get your vote at all.  And the Washington District court believed this needed to be protected.

If my vote is not protected, then we no longer have a Republic, we have a sham government.

Congratulations, Texas: You've Just Been Disenfranchised

I'm so mad, I'm nearly incoherent.

According to this Bloomberg News article, a US District Court in Washington threw out the Texas Redistricting map because "Texas used an 'improper standard or methodology' when determining whether minorities had the ability to elect their preferred candidates."

Let's take this apart, shall we?  In the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, redistricting was done such that good, solid Republicans had to run against each other in the primaries, and Eddie Bernice Johnson still skated by unopposed.  Yeah, that sounds real harsh on "minorities."  And that ignores the new "Majority Minority" district created that encompasses parts of Tarrant and Dallas Counties stretching from Fort Worth, through Arlington and Grand Prairie, and into Dallas.  So what the real problem here is that Republicans didn't just hand away their majority to the Democrats with redistricting.

The article does not mention which specific map was rejected.  Was it the map already rejected by the court in San Antonio?  If so, that's still not good, but it could be worse.  We're already operating under a court-imposed "interim" map.

However, if what the Court threw out was that interim map, the US District Court in Washington just disenfranchised every voter in Texas.  If those maps aren't valid, then, even if the court makes new maps and just says "yeah, if you ran for district 33, you're still in district 33, even if we moved that 200 miles to the south," then the people who voted for one candidate don't have that candidate to vote for in the general.  Worse than that is that and emergency appeal would almost have to be heard, given the fact the primaries have already been heard, which means it would take the Supreme Court who-knows-how-long to return a decision, imperiling our ability even to get ballots printed for the November election.

Let's not beat around the bush here.  The people of Texas elected a legislature to represent us.  We elected people we believed would best represent our interests.  It should be for that legislature, and that legislature alone, to decide on new districts after each census.  The Voting Rights Act deprives us, unconstitutionally, of our Republican form of government and imposes a de facto Judicial Oligarchy upon us.

Well This is Interesting

I'm aware of confirmation bias, so I'm going to reserve judgment on the study itself, but I will say this just makes sense.  According to a recent study, Voter ID laws, by making vote fraud more difficult, actually protect the poor, minorities, and the elderly, rather than disenfranchising them.

And that makes sense.  If, as some claim, it's so hard for people to get a photo Id, then it stands to reason that those same people are more at risk of crime in general.  When you have a hard time interacting with the government, you'll have a hard time calling for help, or filing a police report, or even knowing if you've been a victim in some cases (for instance: identity theft).  The same would apply to vote fraud.

What this really shows, though, is that Democrats are not concerned with people being disenfranchised- if they were, they would support some form of voter Id.  It's not that they say Republicans' plans are flawed, rather they claim the laws are, by their very nature, discriminatory.  That is, they believe having to prove your identity to vote is something beyond the means of a significant portion of the population.

Now, I don't believe they really believe that, which brings us back to the study.  If it is correct, their motives are actually far more sinister.  Rather than caring about people being disenfranchised, they oppose the laws specifically because it will suppress the disenfranchisement that is the result of the voter fraud many of them are perpetrating.