Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

Oh Shut Up Mitt!

 Yesterday former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential loser Mitt Romney implied  without providing any evidence that Donald Trump had tax problems.  It wasn't right in 2012 when Harry Reid did this to him and it's not right for  Romney to do this now!

 Governor Romney should be very careful or the lawsuit he will lose to Donald Trump for libel will end up paying for the rest of Trump's presidential campaign and Mexico will end up paying for the wall.

Gen Hayden Confirms My Assertion Regarding Unclassified Emails

This morning on WMAL's "Mornings on the Mall" radio program, former Director of the NSA, retired Air Force 4-star General Michael Hayden was being interviewed by hosts Brian Wilson and Larry O'Connor about the current conflict between Apple and the FBI with regard to unlocking the cell phone used of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

At the end of the interview, O'Connor asked the former director a thinly veiled question referring to Hillary Clinton that went something like this: When you were director, if a foreign official had classified information on an unsecured server, is that something you would have been all over? Hayden replied: Not just classified. If an official from a hostile foreign country had information on an unsecured server - even unclassified information - I would have moved heaven and earth to get at it because of the valuable intelligence it would contain.

I'd have to say, Gen Hayden verifies my assertions in my 14 Feb post, wouldn't you?

Conspiracy Theories Are A Sad Indictment of Our System

I think the volume of conspiracy theories on the Internet is an indicator in the level of distrust the  people have for its government. This was very apparent in Tunisia where I lived for four years and we know how that turned out.

The death of Justice Scalia  has caused a spike of conspiracy theories and otherwise serious people seem to entertain the possibility that someone or group may have  had him assassinated for political reasons.

 This shows our slide into "Third Worldism" folks and it is very sad!

The Constitution Has Lost a Champion

Admittedly I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I have undertaken considerable effort to study it to try to make myself as knowledgeable as possible of its content, meaning and history. In the past, I have argued that the US Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the progressives of today contend. After more careful consideration, I have come to rethink this position - somewhat. The Constitution is a "living, breathing" document just as a Leyland Cypress and a Giant Sequoia are both living, breathing trees. Progressives are like gardeners who prefer the quick growing Leylands while Conservatives view the Constitution as foresters view Sequoias that change slowly but steadily over many, many years.

Since there is a slow, laborious process that was put into place by the Framers to allow the Constitution to evolve, I think the strongest argument for how the document was meant to exhibit a "living, breathing" nature is like sequoias managed by responsible foresters. Unfortunately, the quick growing Leylands approach advocated by Progressives produces weak, shallow roots that will not sustain a long-lived, stable government. We need the deep, strong root structure of the mighty sequoia tended by judicial "foresters".

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one such judicial forester. As an originalist, Justice Scalia believed that laws had to conform to the Constitution as written. He opposed "legislating from the bench" and an open interpretation of the Constitution that allowed trendy laws of today to change the original intent of the Framers. In his view, the Constitution could be changed but that change should come from the deliberate, methodical process prescribe in the document itself - through the amendment process. With his death Saturday morning at the age of 79, the US Constitution has lost a true champion. Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.

Even UNCLAS Emails Can Be Harmful

 OK, so 81 of the recently released emails from Hillary Clinton's server have turned out to be classified. The media is saying "most were at the lowest level". The problem - and most don't understand this - is that even pieces of unclassified information, collected from an authoritative source such as the US Secretary of State can be combined to reveal highly sensitive information. Hillary's email server didn't even have the most basic common sense protections. Regardless of whether or not it was classified, everything a US Secretary of State discusses via email should be protected. Despite what her supporters would have you believe, this is a problem and demonstrates a clear lack of judgment.

Recommended Reading for Insight Into Today's Political Climate

I'm currently listening to another book on audio CD, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek during my daily commute and I'm finding it fascinating and surprisingly relevant to today's political environment. Not an easy read or listen but well worth the effort. I think both conservatives and liberals (progressives) will find things of interest contained in the words of Hayek.

I have been aware of this book for years but just recently decided to find and read (listen) to it. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be available for download from the library but it was well worth the wait.

Even though the book was published in 1944 and was a political analysis of socialism from a "final days of WWII" perspective, the author provided new prefaces in 1976 to help make it more contemporary and if a reader keeps these updates in mind, the book provides some amazing insight into the current political scene. If one allows oneself to not focus on the specifics but rather the broader analysis, this book has much to say to the modern political observer.

History doesn't really repeat itself as the old cliche suggests but the ebb and flow of ideological themes, trends and ideas do seem to have their cycles. I hesitate to call this book prophetic because I think this term is over used and tends to sound a bit too dramatic and ominous. However, if you are up for a challenging read (listen), The Road to Serfdom is worth the effort.

Hillary Fighting for the Middle Class: One $225,000 Goldman Sachs Speech at a Time

When asked about her speaking fees where Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for 3 speeches, Hillary said, "Well that's what they offered."

So is she really the champion of the middle class?

Is she really the candidate who will stand up to Wall St and hedge fund managers? Aren't the fees earned by hedge fund managers "What they [clients] offered [agreed to pay]?" I suppose she could ask her son-in-law the Wall St hedge fund manager.

Are 3 speeches all Goldman expects from a future President Hillary Clinton?

Would anyone accept an answer like this from a Republican candidate?