Trump as Primaries Approach

One bit of news, I have found hopeful in the presidential race, has been that Trump is no longer leading republicans in Iowa.

I don’t want Donald Trump to be president because I believe a man’s character is more important than his policies. As it happens I seldom disagree with his policies, but I strongly disagree with his way of operating.

(See my blogpost on why I don’t want Donald Trump for President here.)

The best thing that could happen in America would be for us to learn from the success of the Trump campaign, but have someone else come forward to win the republican nomination and then the presidency. I have long expected that most of the Trump supporters know he would not make a good president, and will switch their allegiance as push comes to shove.

Learning the lessons means admitting that a great deal of people in this country, and especially those who are voting republican, want to see us return to a constitutional, conservative, and common sense approach to governing. Throw political correctness out the window, and let’s set about fixing the mess we are in—bring back jobs, secure our borders, and return to constitutional checks and balances.

The worst thing that could happen in America would be for Donald Trump to lose the not, turn independent and then hand the election to the democrats.

Advertisement

Violent Extremism

I see in the news that President Obama will hold a summit for the purpose of fighting terrorism. Terrorism is referred to by a pseudonym, ‘violent extremism’.

Renaming it bugs me. Why do we redefine everything? We invent new words for old problems, in order to spin the issue in a new way. Most of the time we really aren’t doing anything different, other than changing the vocabulary to create a different impression.

In this case I can’t help but suspect the desired change is to take the focus off of Islam, to leave the faint suggestion that any belief is dangerous and can become violent when taken to extremes.

Breaking the connection between Islam and terror might not be that easy though. This morning ISIS has released an edited version of a previous warning, calling on Islamic people in in Western democracies to actions, similar to France. So apparently ISIS sees the connection, whether we do or not.

 

Culture of Distrusting Government

New York City, like too many places in our country, has seen division created by racial tension. This division has erupted in violence that has destroyed trust, common sense and in the worst cases entire neighborhoods. All this destruction has a real cost on society, but especially on the people and neighborhoods affected.

The destruction stems from people making decisions about events they have no first-hand knowledge of. They assume a suspect was treated a certain way because of racism. Second-hand or third-hand reports of the situation are mixed with basic assumptions about the shape of society to make an explosive mix.

Many of the protestors, bloggers and commentators have painted the police as the villains. I believe the majority of law enforcement officers are honest, fair people attempting to do an extremely difficult job well. I don’t doubt that some will make horrible mistakes. Painting an entire group by the actions of a few is exactly what we are all against. Failing to see the police as people worthy of respect and assuming them to be villains has resulted in many needless confrontations and at least two deaths.

In a sense it all comes down to which group a person chooses to make negative assumptions about. And if you look at it that way, the central point becomes why do we make the assumptions we do about any group? I believe the way news is presented is a part of it. I believe history is a part of it, too. Unfortunately, I also believe, in recent times, presidential politics is a part of it. The president has waded into a number of situations in such a way as to exasperate the situation. It is sad when the highest elected official in the land contributes to the cultural distrust of government.

Political Communication

Communication is at the heart of all politics. The communication of ideas, the communication of values, and the communication of policies. A good politician will not only be a skilled policy maker, but a great communicator.

But the art of communication is sometimes not just about conveying information. Sometimes it is also about what is purposefully not communicated, or maybe even purposefully miscommunicated. The manipulation of information is at the heart of all bad politics.

Several times lately, I have heard details of three cases where government was purposefully preventing communication. When Gibson Guitars was raided by homeland security, they immediately ordered the plant to shut off all of their surveillance equipment. Another case was when a hospital disagreed with a standing diagnosis of a child by another doctor, they not only succeeded in having the child removed from her parents, but also successfully asked the court to order the parents to break all contact with the family’s priest. Just today, I learned a basketball player who was also a paid social media publicist was in trouble for having tweeted a selfie he took with the president.

In all three cases I don’t see the point in the action taken. If the raid on Gibson Guitars was being done in a lawful way, why prevent the details from being recorded? How was ordering a couple parents to cease contact with a family priest in anyone’s best interest? If the president shows a lack of discretion in who he takes a selfie with, why would anyone expect the other party to take that responsibility for him?

Who controls the flow of information is always critical, and without solid communication there is no accountability. When a society loses the ability to access factual data about their government and its activities, they cannot expect to remain free.

The Political Antichrist

Recently it has been stated by Barbara Walters in an interview on CNN in reference to President Obama, “We thought he was going to be . . . the next messiah.”

I believe this is about the scariest condemnation of our culture I have ever heard. I am aware Barbara Walters was not attempting to speak to culture, but instead to politics. But never the less she did encapsulate the perspective of millions of people in America today.

She said essentially, they are looking for a messiah. Someone to seize political control and radically change the world toward their views and away from the views of the past. Please note her use of the word messiah was not strictly political, but it was predominantly political. Choosing the word messiah opened the possibility for a spiritual component to this leader, secondary to his politics.

Her expectations of this leader included unifying people. The greater the scope of this unity the better, even to the point where unifying the whole world will be seen as the ultimate ideal. There is no acknowledgement within this hope that such an action would have to include violent suppression of opposition.

In other words, she was saying, she herself and people like her, are primed and ready for the antichrist.

The Great Car Campaign

I thought I just might run for president.

My platform will be that every American deserves a car, not just a car, but a new government car.

Those that cannot afford to buy their own will be supplied one by the government. Those that can afford to buy a new car and choose not to, will be fined.

The rich will be berated for having better cars than they deserve, and will be asked to sacrifice to help pay for the cars of those who can’t afford them.

When the proposition is being debated I will explain this is the greatest country on earth and surely we can do anything we set our mind to. I will avoid going into real details of what it will cost, impact the economy, or change our culture.

Then when the measure is written into law I will make it massively complicated so that few people really understand how it will work or what changes it will bring. Everyone is getting a car, surely that is a good thing?

My friends will pass it without reading it. My opponents will not be given any chance to review it to see if it even makes sense.

This will make it the law of the land, so I will demonize everyone who disagrees with it.

After this, when it begins to be implemented and things are beginning to look like it isn’t working so well, I will hide as much information about it as possible insisting it’s too soon to tell.

When they begin to see the government cars are not really the same quality, they notice the work was contracted to Canadians, or notice the cars are more expensive than promised; then I will blame the other party for nitpicking.

Finally when it all begins to fall apart, well I don’t know what I will do then. Just let me watch a little longer and see what happens next with ObamaCare.