Review of the 2016 Election, Part 1: The Republicans

PDF ->>  reviewofthe2016electionpart1republicans

We have witnessed a political revolution with the election of businessman Donald J. Trump in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton as the nation’s next President.  The lessons learned in this election may be important in future ones.  This review will address four areas of importance: a) the candidates; b) the polling; c) the mainstream media; and d) the public sentiments likely twenty years from now.

The Republicans fielded a total of seventeen candidates, fourteen of whom (all but Mr. Trump, retired pediatric surgeon Dr. Ben Carson, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Ms. Carly Fiorina) were professional politicians.  Many of those professionals had a good track record as either U. S. Senators or governors.  The professionals were: Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida; Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey; Senator Ted Cruz of Texas; James Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Kasich, Governor of Ohio; Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana;  Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas; George Pataki, former Governor of New York; Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky; Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania; and Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin.  Of these seventeen, five (Graham, Jindal, Pataki, Perry, and Walker) withdrew before the primaries got started.  Eight of the remaining twelve did not have a real chance: Santorum and Huckabee have views on abortion that are not widely shared by the electorate, including many Republicans; Gilmore’s successes were too far in the past to be remembered; Bush and Christie are indistinguishable from a typical Democrat; Carson and Fiorina had neither the connections nor the money; and Paul’s views are ahead of his time, more libertarian than the typical Republican voter.  Therefore, had this been a conventional election, the nomination would most likely have gone to Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or Ted Cruz.

But this was the year that the average working guy responded to a consistent message from the outsider Donald Trump: the nation is on the wrong track under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would only continue it; the trade deals made over the past twenty years were detrimental to the average working guy; the federal government has undermined the nation with lax immigration enforcement; certain agencies of the federal government (Department of Justice, FBI, IRS, and ATF) have become politicized and have knowingly and willfully undermined both the notion of equal justice and the rights of the people; and the weak foreign policy of Mr. Obama has served to embolden the worst of the Islamic terrorists.

Mr. Trump’s great advantage is that he is even less politically correct than the average person; he is media-savvy, having starred in a TV show; was willing to discuss any issue and make any appearance on TV and radio.  He connected in a way with average people that the others found difficult.  Although he frequently insensitive and abrasive, he was able to connect with the public in a way that the media could not control.  He won the Republican nomination, not because he was such a sterling candidate, but because there were too many people in the field, and thus 30 to 35% of the popular vote in a Republican primary was enough to give him that state’s votes for the nomination.  Which brings us to the first lesson of this election: politicians will nearly always do what is best for themselves and their quest for power.  Here is the example.

The Republican Party establishment generally expected that Mr. Trump’s candidacy would implode of its own excesses.  But after a few early primaries, where it became evident that Mr. Trump’s message was resonating, the major forces in the party turned on Mr. Trump, attempting to portray him as too far outside the mainstream to be viable.  Furthermore, he would be dangerous to the Party if nominated and subsequently lost to the Democrat, and would be dangerous to the nation if actually elected President.  If they truly believed that, why didn’t the major candidates get together and do what would have been best for both the party and the nation, namely, choose from among themselves one or two that could put up a real fight against Trump, and deprive him of the nomination?  Mr. Trump probably could not have prevailed against one or two focused candidates.  But no such thing ever happened: they all stayed in until mathematically eliminated, providing Mr. Trump with a narrow victory at the nominating convention.  So either the Republican establishment was lying, or the politicians once again did what was best for their own quest for power rather than the nation.  Mr. Trump won both the nomination and the general election, and is now the de facto head of the Republican Party.  Maybe the Republicans are the stupid party after all.  It is worse than that.  The other candidates embarrassed Mr. Trump into signing an agreement which all the others had signed, pledging to support the nominee in the general election, whoever it was.  But once Mr. Trump won the nomination, only four of the main twelve (Carson, Christie, Huckabee, and Paul) gave anything more than the most tepid endorsement.  Now the establishment portion of the Republican Party is led by the person they claimed to have feared the most.  The professionals were simply out-maneuvered at every turn by Mr. Trump, a political outsider (albeit one with name recognition), but one who had the message that the professionals should have had.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted, Part 3

–>  PDF   whyhillaryclintoncannotbeindicted_part3

I shall mention a few other things in this, my third essay on why Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted.

In my second one (1 Jul 16), I predicted that the FBI would issue a report making all sorts of excuses for Clinton.  On 5 Jul 2016, FBI Director James Comey held a press conference, outlining all the sordid details of the email situation, and then claiming that no prosecutor would pursue the case as a criminal matter because “intent” was lacking, although some classified data was certainly exposed on unclassified computer systems.  He did not explain why the FBI was making a recommendation, since the FBI normally assembles facts and leaves the decision to the prosecutor’s office as to whether an indictment should be handed down.  But I can see his point: since the fix was in from the start, he was merely saving Attorney General Loretta Lynch the inconvenience of having to address the issue directly.

The Democrats praised James Comey for his fine public service and outstanding integrity.

Then came the issue with Anthony Weiner.  Mr. Weiner, as you may recall, was forced to resign as Congressman over allegations that he sent emails with explicit sexual content to an underage girl. Mr. Weiner is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s long-time aide and confidante at both the Department of State and the Clinton Foundation.   The FBI had been investigating that case when they discovered emails to and from Hillary Clinton on Huma Abedin’s laptop, which she shared with Mr. Weiner.  The FBI then had a problem: what if this laptop contained copies of emails that the FBI had promised to destroy in order to protect Clinton, or even worse, contained new ones they had not previously known about?  Mr. Comey had to conduct a search into those emails, but also had to notify Congress that he was doing so, having previously promised to keep Congress abreast of any new developments.  That letter went to Congress on 28 Oct 2016.

The Democrats condemned Mr. Comey; Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi even said that Mr. Comey’s qualifications were now suspect; he was now an ally of Mr. Trump; a Republican toady hired by a Republican, a force for evil trying to inject the FBI into an election; Adolf Hitler’s second cousin (or words to that effect).

But, to the FBI’s relief, the emails found on Ms. Adedin’s laptop were duplicates or purely personal; it was an easy matter to dispose of them along with the previous batches before any of them leaked out.  Today (6 Nov 2016), Mr. Comey sent a letter to Congress in which he stated the email investigation of Clinton was now closed, and the latest investigation did not change his conclusion as stated on 5 Jul 2016.

The Democrats now regard Mr. Comey as a fine public servant worthy of the highest approbation from patriotic Americans everywhere.

So the fix continues, like it would in any other place run by the Chicago mafia.  The FBI certainly has done it’s part in getting Hillary “I cannot tell the truth” Clinton elected President.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted, Part 2

WhyHillaryCintonCannotBeIndicted_part2  <–  PDF version

Since my last essay as to why Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted, a few interesting things have happened. First, President Barack “I lied, period” Obama stated on Fox News Sunday’s 10 Apr 2016 episode:

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.  I do not talk to the FBI directors about impending investigations.  We have a strict line and have always maintained it.  I guarantee it.  I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI; not just in this case, but in any case.  Full stop.  Period.  Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.”

There are several problems here.  Obama said “impending” investigations, not “active” ones.  He did not claim that no one on his staff (such as the President’s Counsel) discusses investigations with the DoJ or FBI.  Every time Obama says “period”, you know he’s lying, like the time he said you could keep your doctor and your health plan, “period”.  If there really is no political interference, surely there would be no need to assure the public about it. Second, Obama endorsed Clinton on 9 Jun 2016.  Now ask yourself, when was the last time any political figure endorsed another, if there was even a 1/100th of 1% chance that the latter could have legal problems?  Never — that isn’t how politicians operate.  He endorsed her because he knows she will not have any legal problems because he and his staff have taken steps to make sure of it. Third, Bill Clinton met secretly with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport on 27 Jun 2016.  He went out of his way to wait for her private plane, then requested access (which was granted), and they spoke for about 30 minutes.  Of course, it was all about golf and grandchildren, if you are naïve and gullible enough to believe it.   The respective security details prevented anyone from taking pictures on the tarmac (a public place), and it was discovered only by local Phoenix reporter Christopher Sign (KNXV-TV) based on tips from his local contacts.  What political figure, or lawyer, or government official would be dumb enough to meet secretly with the spouse of a person being investigated by their department?  Ms. Lynch is not dumb. Today she stated that she would “accept” (not “act upon”) the FBI’s recommendation regarding Hillary Clinton.  What was the plan before?  Are we to believe that the fix was in before, but now that she met with Bill Clinton, she will go along with a criminal indictment if the FBI recommends it? Here is what I believe will happen.  As I said in my previous (8 Mar 2016), all the evidence against Hillary is being collected up to be destroyed or permanently sealed just the way Hillary wanted it.  But the FBI report will state that she “or her staff” had “accidentally or inadvertently” committed some “errors of judgment” that would normally amount to “technicality-type” misdemeanors, but in view of her “outstanding  public service”, and “to avoid a political crisis”, no charges will be recommended.  So Lynch will be off the hook.  Hillary, knowing the evidence is safely hidden or destroyed, will then pretend to issue an apology for some “inerrant carelessness by her staff”.  She will do her best to keep from bursting out laughing.  Then the whole thing goes away. That is how things work in banana republics, and that is how our federal government works when high-ranking political figures like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton are involved.  The one thing we do not know is how deep the corruption has pervaded the rank-and-file of the FBI and Justice Department.

Posted in elections, Famous people, government powers | No Comments »

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted

WhyHillaryCintonCannotBeIndicted  <– PDF version

The U. S. State Department, having dragged its feet as long as it could, has finally released all the emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private, unauthorized email server.  All total, over 2,000 of those emails are classified, some at very high levels of secrecy.  Mrs. Clinton has consistently claimed that “none of them were marked classified at the time”.  That proves, if it proves anything, that Mrs. Clinton is either completely irresponsible or a moron. It is obvious even to casual thinkers that emails to and from the U. S. Secretary of State are of great interest to our nation’s enemies.  It also seems logical that those emails could have been intercepted at many places on the internet without a need to attack her server directly.  One would think that a person in their right mind holding a highly sensitive office like Secretary of State would make the appropriate application and assume all their emails should be protected by a classified server — but not Mrs. Clinton.

After Mrs. Clinton had her staff attempt to delete the emails off her server, and after the whole matter came to light, the FBI was tasked with recovering those emails (she thought were gone), and to examine whether any laws had been broken.  There are some who believe that Mrs. Clinton could be indicted at least for gross negligence.  But I suspect that will never happen.  FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress on 1 Mar 2016.  He was asked by Congressman Steve Chabot when he thought the investigation would be wrapped up one way or the other.  Director Comey’s response was:

“I can’t, congressman, as you know we don’t talk about our investigations.  What I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of it’s work: independently, competently and promptly. That’s our goal, and I’m confident that it’s being done that way, but I can’t give you any more details beyond that.”

It is strange indeed that the FBI Director would have a personal hand in the “investigation”.  I hope I am proven wrong, but I suspect Mr. Comey is directly involved in order to ensure that all the evidence is collected up and destroyed, exactly the way Mrs. Clinton wanted it; just the way President Barack “I lied, period” Obama ordered it.  The FBI is certainly thorough; once they are done, there won’t be proof that Hillary Clinton ever worked at the State Department.  That kind of thoroughness takes time.

Mrs. Clinton cannot be indicted: she is too high on the political food chain to be inconvenienced by having to take responsibility for her actions.  Like I said, I hope I am proven wrong, but it seems in these modern times that “taking responsibility” is only for the little people.


Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »