Last weekend’s very public dredging up of both Presidential candidates’ decades-old sins and abuses against women demands some discussion before the November 8th election.
And there are some things, in the present political climate, that only a woman can say.
Also, in the present climate, with the NSA cataloging each of our phone conversations and keyboard strokes, not only only a woman can speak, but only a woman with nothing to lose, or a woman who is willing to lose everything can speak out.
(Something to which I can personally attest- my blog sustains regular DoS attacks, and I have been harassed by my progressive Madisonian neighbors and “community leaders” via telephone and email.)
And so I continue to speak.
This election situation can be analyzed simply and logically, provided we are willing to lay the truth bare and to say what needs to be said.
We have before us two candidates.
Both have vividly shocking and progressive backgrounds.
We should not be surprised.
In a nation that encourages promiscuity in both sexes from childhood, teaches a promiscuous version of sex ed in grammar school and through the girl scouts, and labels all proponents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality as medieval relics, there should be no surprise that we have the Presidential candidates that we now have, who epitomize these sexually irresponsible values.
And the product of all this promiscuity is a disconnect between the unbridled sexual abandon which is encouraged by the culture and the resultant disregard for the value of human life, both that of unborn infants, and that of objectified women. This disconnect, this inconsistency, has led to the situation we are confronted with today.
So we have two vividly shocking and progressive candidates, who will be digging up mud and slinging it at each other in accelerated fashion during the coming month.
But there is still a fundamental difference between the two candidates.
One openly promises to further de-Christianize the United States, the Constitution, to expand the abortion of unborn children, to ridicule and marginalize religious Americans and to cut Catholic and Evangelical values out of the public forum in the United States. She advocates the elimination of religious freedom, use of the Presidency to dictate Church teaching in our country, and most recently (according to Russ Feingold) has expressed the intention to violate the Constitution by banning all guns by Executive Order. This would, incidentally, disarm all opposition to her radical agenda.
The other candidate seemed primarily motivated by the financial and security dangers that we face as a nation today. But that candidate has also cut a deal with the Republican Party, agreeing to support of the Republican Party Platform. This Party Platform supports the Constitution of the United States, supports religious freedom, opposes facilitation of abortion with federal funds, opposes the redefinition of marriage, and effectively supports the preservation of the Judeo-Christian principles that are embodied in our Constitution.
This candidate has taken further steps to indicate the sincerity of his support for the Republican Platform (which is now the only major platform supporting the Constitution of the United States). He has chosen a very capable and respected conservative as a Vice President. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court Judges like Anton Scalia, who will support the Constitution. He has even given us a list of candidates to illustrate his sincerity. He has vowed to protect Christianity in the United States, and has met with serious religious leaders after getting the Republican nomination, demonstrating his continued dedication to Judeo-Christian values. He has met with the Prime Minister of Israel, has acknowledged the dangers of Radical Islamic terrorism, and acknowledges the disconnect between the illogical concept of open borders and White House fences, Clinton compound walls, Paul Ryan walls, and all of America’s locked front doors.
I, as a woman and as a Catholic, have refrained from endorsing Donald Trump, primarily because I worry about the sincerity of his “conversion” to conservative values. After all, we have just lived through 8 years experiencing what promises from progressives mean. A progressive is, by definition, someone who believes that the ends justify the means. That’s a polite way of saying that a progressive is a liar and can never be trusted.
Now, in the light of Donald Trump’s sexual transgressions, I again worry about his suitability for the very honorable office of President. I appreciate the chivalry of people like Paul Ryan, who are presumably trying to protect us ladies from boorish male behavior.
But these are times of war. Even though women definitely have the precious gift of nurturing gentleness which is essential to the rearing of decent future citizens, and which it is very right for our men to protect and to cherish, women can also rise to the occasion and tolerate and bear much when the occasion calls for it.
In fairness, it also must be mentioned that the moral transgressions leveled against Hillary are even more disturbing that those leveled at Donald Trump. The enabling of rape and threatening of rape victims is morally worse than using lewd language or groping the opposite sex.
Let’s remember several things.
I am not defending Trump’s behavior, but trying to evaluate it and to compare it to that of Clinton.
I am also pointing out that much of the reported behavior has not been proven, that Trump’s accusers could be progressive liars and could even be funded by Soros. We must remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, even if all accusations against Trump and Hillary were true, groping women like an oversexed juvenile is not in the same league of sinfulness or lawlessness as aborting babies, enabling rape, stealing from Haiti, attacking Christianity, and violating the Constitution of the United States.
One candidate supports the eradication of Judeo-Christian values as we know them.
The other candidate supports the Constitution, and the protection of Christianity in the United States.
Despite the demonstrated personal sins of both candidates, the values they promote publicly represent radically different visions for America.
The urgency of participating in the election, and the choice between candidates, is morally very clear, although it will take some courage. Standing up for morality usually does demand courage and tough unpopular choices.
It is my reluctant conclusion that on November 8th we will have to vote for Trump.
It will be at very least a vote against the destruction of America by professed progressives.
And there is the small chance that the conversion of Donald is genuine, and we could get a very good President.
I will not pretend that going into that booth on November 8th will not hurt.
And so, this woman has spoken.
There are many like me who are laying low, usually keeping it close to the vest, but who will definitely show up on election day, after first storming heaven with prayers.
We must also support all the other conservative candidates on the ballot, on whose shoulders the future of America rests.
This election season has already supplied us with unprecedented numbers of Black Swan surprises. We wait to see how many more game-changing events can fit into the next four weeks.
We need to remember that battles are won, and Black Swans are tamed by prayer!
Photo via TrumpDonald
Citing Trump’s improved poll figures in the aftermath of his recent head-shaving episode, other presidential hopefuls are now cleaving their locks as well – all hoping to gain the advantage in this year’s heated race for the White House.
When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrived with his head shaved to a campaign event in Janesville, Wis. on Tuesday, March 29th, pundits widely speculated on the bizarre incident. Was it a sign of a Britney-like meltdown, or a serious medical condition?………. continued at 2016 Presidential Candidates Slash More Than Just Budgets .
Note: This article was inspired by the work of Curly Haugland on Republican Presidential Candidate selection at Will Republicans Have a Primary Or A Convention, And Who Gets To Decide?
There has been much controversy in recent years over the question of “binding” Republican delegates in presidential primaries and conventions.
What is a delegate? A delegate is a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.
Binding is a policy that does not allow delegates at a presidential convention to follow their own judgment or to insist on the party platform when voting for a candidate at the convention, but obliges them to vote only for the candidates who were selected in the primary or caucus selection of candidates in their state months previous to the Republican Convention.
So the question becomes how can a delegate best act for or represent others in the Republican convention? Does a delegate represent other Republicans better when the delegate is “bound” to vote for a particular individual, or does the delegate represent other Republicans better when he/she is free to use their own judgement, as other elected officials, like Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress do?
In the Republican Party, binding was forbidden by RNC rules since 1923, and delegates have had the freedom to use personal judgment.
But attempts have been made in recent years to introduce binding into RNC rules, with a great deal of confusion resulting.
Those who advocate binding say binding is democratic, represents the will of the people, and should not be overturned at the convention by delegates who do not wish to be bound by the popular vote.
Political donors promote binding because their investments in candidates at the primary level could be wiped out by unexpected votes at the convention if delegates were not bound after the primary.
Those who oppose binding and advocate freedom of conscience for delegates say that outsiders, who are permitted to vote in Republican primaries in 24 States now, have no right to hijack the party at the primaries for an agenda that may even be at odds with the party platform.
These issues become particularly important as we approach the 2016 Presidential Election, which has been labeled the most unique, yet pivotal, nomination process in the entire history of the Republican Party.
Who is right?
Pro-binding or anti-binding advocates?
What are the rules?
If we start with the question “What are the rules governing nominations for President in the United States?” it helps to understanding the modern dilemma on “binding” of delegates.
Ballotpedia, a respected impartial political news source, explains the ballot access process for presidential candidates:
It is pretty clear that the first option, getting a party to nominate you for president, is easier than the other two options. In the first option, the party does much of the work for the candidate. The party offers the unique ability to effectively organize and mobilize voters. The party also contributes a history, a reputation and loyal members who will vote for the candidate.
Two such major parties have dominated the political landscape in the United States for over a hundred years- Democratic and Republican parties. These parties not only help candidates, but they also help voters. Once voters have identified a party whose platform they approve, they do not have to repeat the hard work of gauging each presidential candidate individually on each issue and deciding which one to back for each election. The party they support and trust does this evaluation for them.
In the past, it seemed honest common sense that only individuals who support a party platform would consider running under the umbrella of that party.
The idea that someone who disagrees with the party platform would try to use that party to get elected would clearly represent a form of dishonesty, even of hijacking.
However today, attempts to hijack political parties occur.
Someone may want to hijack a political party for a number of reasons.
The reasons include circumventing the tedious application process to numerous individual States, avoiding the collection of nearly a million signatures, and the attractive nature of jumping on a wagon that is already well under way and is well stocked. A deceitful person could even see hijacking of the opposition party as an opportunity to weaken the opposition party from the inside.
The Republican Party’s major opponent, the Democrat Party, has unfortunately demonstrated numerous times their willingness to use an unethical set of tactics called Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky’s philosophy and was offered a job to work with him in 1968. Barak Obama taught Alinksy Tactics while he was a professor. Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Lucifer (Satan, the Father of Lies) and promotes the use of any immoral tactics to achieve one’s goals. The behavior of both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during the past 8 years has illustrated time and again the devious unethical tactics used routinely by the Democrat Party.
Democrats seem to be riddled with unscrupulous agendas much more so than other groups of Americans or than Republicans. As an aside, you could read about the circus that went on in Madison, Wisconsin when Democrats decided to recall Republican Governor Walker because they did not like legislation that Republicans were enacting in Wisconsin. I had a front-row seat at that circus, and reported on many unscrupulous behind-the scenes events, including shocking events involving State Supreme Court Judges at the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Events such as these make President Nixon’s Watergate seem like naughty child’s play, but the media does not even attempt to hold Democrats accountable for their unethical behavior in 2016, and amateur bloggers like me have to do the work of the media.
So reality dictates today that we have to deal with individuals who present themselves to a political party for nomination, while disagreeing with a major portion of that party’s political platform or agenda. The party has to watch out for hijackers, or Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep’s clothing- both among the candidates, and among primary voters.
This is where the supervision of trusted, elected party delegates who have earned the trust of the party through demonstrated volunteer service comes in, helping to identify and eliminate impostors and hijackers. Delegates have been entrusted the job of being the guardian angels of the party’s ethics and of the party’s platform.
Hijacking can occur not only at the candidate level, but at the primary voter level as well. Twenty-four states now allow the general public to vote in primaries for nominees of other parties. So when Democrats and Independents and undeclared voters are permitted to choose the Republican Party’s nominee, clearly the Republican Party no longer has control over its own organization. There is even the potential for organized busloads of opponents, sometimes without proper identification, to vote numerous times in primaries in order to sabotage their opponents’ candidate selection.
Unfortunately, the scenarios described above are not imagined, but have already surfaced at the Iowa caucuses in this 2016 election.
Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders has accused his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton of infiltrating the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers. A pretty serious accusation, considering that Hillary won the Iowa Caucuses by only 0.29%.
Equivalently shocking, there is video documentary published February 10, 2016, of Out of State Voters and Non-Residents Offered Ballots in New Hampshire Presidential Primary. So apparently, attempts to hijack the Primaries are in full force today.
So the binding of delegates is not a simple democratic procedure as many media sources represent it. In fact, binding of delegates can work against democracy in numerous ways:
The above points illustrate that it can very reasonably be argued that the binding of delegates is NOT democratic, but subverts the democratic process and facilitates the hijacking of half of America’s votes.
If a person does not agree with a particular party’s platform, they should not be allowed to represent that party, or to change that party by such devious means.
An outsider cannot join your off-road jeep club and insist that you switch your club’s agenda to knitting.
Your neighbors, no matter how many of them get together and agree, cannot hijack your car from your garage because they do not own it.
So why are so many under the impression that binding was introduced into RNC rules by amendment, and that binding is now obligatory?
The problem is that recent political warfare has included numerous attempts by progressives to alter the political agenda of the Republican Party with amendments and to divert its candidates.
These attempts have been fraudulent, and they cause internal contradictions in the RNC rules, which by definition (governed by Robert’s Rules of Order) nullify the contradictory progressive amendments.
Yes, there actually are progressives in the Republican Party.
Let’s clarify something about progressives at this point. Etymologically speaking, one would think that progressives were people who represented progress in society.
Yet today’s progressive has wishfully and somewhat narcissistically labeled his or her own fast-paced, radical social and economic experimentation, which most often ends in economic failure and social disaster, as progressive. Not only have they prematurely declared their experiments to represent progress, but they have also tried to dictate that all others follow their foolhardy misguided example.
One example of misguided progessivism is Michelle Obama’s suggestion last year that discarded school lunches be used to fuel cars. The idea sounds great on the surface- let’s not let anything go to waste!- but when you do the calculations of what it would cost to transform school lunches into fuel for cars, the fuel would end up costing $280 per gallon.
Today’s impulsive and unwise progressive is more aptly named a regressive.
So let’s get to some of the regressive, fraudulent and invalid amendments they tried to introduce into the RNC rules.
According to Curly Haugland, National Committeeman from the North Dakota Republican State Committee, and member of the RNC Rules Committee, for the past 90 years RNC rules have prohibited the binding of Republican delegates. RNC rules continue to protect the right of each delegate to The Republican National Convention to vote their personal choice on issues coming before the convention, and for the candidate of their choice to receive the party’s nomination.
The Rules of the Republican Party can be changed via prescribed procedures, but changes can occur only once every four years, on the eve of the Republican Convention. Once the rules are established, the convention proceeds according to those rules, and no further changes can be made until the eve of the next convention four years later.
There have been attempts by regressives to change the rules in recent years, and today, the RNC rules actually do state that binding of delegates can occur (Rule 16). But Curly Haugland points out that the binding language was introduced illegitimately by deceit and by trickery, by staff who did not have the authority to change the rules, and furthermore, that the attempted binding rule is actually contradicted by other RNC rules which are still on the books (e.g. Rules 37 and 38). Contradictions are governed by Roberts Rules of Order, which state that any motion that conflicts with other existing rules is null and void.
The struggle between proponents of binding and those defending their rights to vote their conscience led to a serious clash in 2012.
Over 400 Republican delegates filed a Federal lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and Reince Priebus the Chairman, alleging that violence and intimidation were used against delegates in an effort to control how they voted. These delegates refused to be bound and insisted on their right to vote their conscience.
Despite the fact that the court ordered the dispute to be settled via Alternative Dispute Resolution, the exhibits included in the complaint included a copy of a legal opinion offered by Jennifer Sheehan, Associate Counsel to the Republican National Committee, which clearly states that Delegates are allowed to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether that person is officially placed into nomination.
We’ve already mentioned the boomerang path some “progressive” ideas take, like Michelle Obama’s attempt to force children to eat food they don’t like, then to turn their discarded lunches into $280 per gallon fuel for cars.
The thing is, most
progressive regressive ideas fail, and come back to bite the people who initiated them. Any good scientist will tell you that most experiments fail, and it is the failed experiments that ultimately lead you toward figuring out what really does work.
And regressive rule changes in the RNC rules are no exception- they boomerang and come back to bite you.
Presidential candidates (like Mitt Romney) who are powerful enough to influence the appointment of delegates in the Republican Party, can get their delegates to introduce changes into the RNC rules on the eve of the convention once every 4 years. And guess what they try to introduce? Rules which favor that candidate. And so, on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Republican convention, more rules were changed.
Previous to 2012, in order to go on to the convention, a candidate had to win a plurality of votes in the primaries of 5 states; that is, to receive more votes in 5 states than any of his/her competitors did. But on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Convention, this rule (Rule 40) was changed, in order to make Mitt Romney the Presumptive Nominee and to prevent Ron Paul, who had received a plurality of votes in 5 states, from challenging Mitt Romney. The bar was raised to require a majority of votes (more than 50% instead of just the highest number) in 8 states (instead of in 5 states). This rule change made on the eve of the 2012 Convention succeeded in excluding Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney went on to become the Republican nominee.
The 2016 Republican field is much larger and more competitive than 2012, so the majority (50%) that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul got in 2012 is much harder to get.
We have a veritable flock of great candidates coming up on stage. So much so that they cannot even fit onto one stage, and Republican debates are split into two sessions.
At the rate things are going, even the front runners do not seem capable of getting 50% of the vote, because the vote is spread over so many candidates.
What will happen?
The very rules that helped Mitt Romney are now getting in the way of many candidates.
So, there will be no “Presumptive Nominee.”
Many candidates may get to the convention, and rule changes are being planned for the eve of the July 1016 Convention.
As a result, this year, the candidate selection process may occur at the convention, and not at the primaries.
Candidates who do not have a majority of delegates are being encouraged to “go the distance” to Cleveland and not to drop out.
Delegates are being encouraged to vote their conscience, and to select a nominee who represents the Party Platform.
When delegates do not feel “bound,” the handlers and influence peddlers will lose control over the convention. The convention will be in the hands of the delegates of the Republican party.
So what worked for progressives in 2012 in getting a much more liberal candidate (Mitt Romney) ushered into the Republican Party, may work against the present most liberal candidate, Donald Trump.
Donald Trumps’s hopes of being the Presumptive Nominee may have been sabotaged by the rule change in 2012 that was designed to help liberal candidates like Mitt Romney, and presumably Donald Trump.
The boomerang has returned.
So who’s placing bets on the mad dash to change the rules again on the eve of this 2016 Cleveland Republican Convention?
Will the rules be changed?
Will there be a repetition of delegate intimidation?
Will Reince Priebus and the National Republican Committee behave and let democracy work, particularly since they were forced to recognize the delegates’ right to conscience after the lawsuit in 2012?
Some have even speculated that this convention could yield wild surprises, such as the nomination of people who had not even declared themselves as candidates for nomination, like Sarah Palin.
What we need at this point is patriotism, courage, strength of character and prayer.
This is an opportunity for Americans to take back the Republican Party, to behave in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the Republican Party Platform, which supports the Constitution.
We need power to be returned to the delegates as it was originally designed and intended.
And that power will not return by itself. It has to be taken by courageous men and women.
At the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland.
So- We just survived another election.
The first question debated in the news was “was it a Republican wave?”
And from Democrats, a melancholy “what does this mean?”
Many were also surprised not to see too much jubilation in the “right wing media.”
Looking at the figures above, the Democrats got wiped out. Yes, it was definitely a Republican Wave. And that’s without final reports, which could only increase the size of the walloping Democrats recieved.
Why were the Democrats wiped out?
Why don’t conservatives seem overjoyed?
Here are some headlines that may indicate what voters were thinking:
The above headlines indicate that the People of the United States are giving President Obama (and our entire government) a Mandate- a mandate to:
Why were so many surprised by these results?
Here are some facts bout Americans:
Twice as many Americans consider themselves conservative as liberal.
90% of Americans believe in God.
82% of us pray and believe that God answers our prayers.
70% of parents and 60% of teens support abstinence before marriage.
Close to half of Americans have guns in their homes.
Clearly, Americans tend to be conservative, religious, prayerful, committed to family and to morality, and committed to the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
So, in hindsight, Obama’s attempts to force a radical agenda on the US were naive, condescending and foolish.
Obama’s attempts to steer less educated Americans with his Alinsky tactics only insults our citizens; people are still intelligent, logical and moral without formal education. In fact, the less educated sometime have the most common sense. (President Obama seems to be the converse of that- no lack of education, but terrific deficiency of common sense. )
The Alinsky formula of lying, dividing, bribing and manipulating a population only works until the subjects realize the name of the game.
Lying to pass legislation, offering baubles such as cell phones and birth control pills to purchase votes, and inventing the existence of “wars” and victims so that the administration could pretend to come to their rescue with executive orders, are all tricks that insult the intelligence of the Americans the Obama administration has tried to manipulate.
Obama ought to have known that Americans would wake up at some point and would revolt against his progressive agenda.
Americans are a trusting, forbearant and tolerant bunch, but they are not fools.
Sadly, President Obama and his cohorts do not seem to have gotten the memo.
President Obama is defiant, and is still vowing to achieve his two most unpopular goals, ObamaCare and amnesty, by Executive Order.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to claim that the Democrat wipe-out was due to voter suppression (!!!).
Many conservatives have feared that the Republican establishment may not respond to the message being sent by the electorate in this election, and might focus on trivial accomplishments in non-contentious areas, possibly driving a conservative split in 2016 which would enable the election of a Democrat clone of President Obama (like Hillary Clinton).
This is why many conservative are not overjoyed at the election results.
They fear that the moderate RINOS (Republicans In Name Only), the establishment of the Republican Party, people like John Boehner and Reince Priebus, will take this election as a mandate supporting them and their ever left-leaning agenda.
But there is some hope that the Republican party may respond to the demands of the people, as they should do in this democratic republic.
They may be prepared to undertake the repeal of ObamaCare.
On other issues, conservatives in the party will have to battle for the soul of the Republican Party.
Gear up, pray hard, get politically involved, and fight this historic battle of the next two years.
The reclaiming of America!
It depends on you and on me.
Time for the democratic return of morality to government.
Despite the fact that this blog was originally established for the purpose of discussing and defending traditional ethics and morality in our modern culture, we keep digressing into politics.
This may be fitting, since what is politics, after all, if not the interaction of human beings on an organized group level; an interaction that certainly ought to be subject to the same rules of morality and decency that apply to individual human interactions?
And since what goes around comes around applies to our personal lives, guess what? What goes around comes around applies to politics as well. (The expression means that bad things you do come back to bite you later, and the good things you do come back to reward you later.)
Readers seem to know this, and as elections approach, they keep returning to those old articles here which discuss political philosophy, which explore the crucial interconnection between morality and the State (i.e., interconnection between Church and State).
Such discussions are not commonly available in the public arena in the present political atmosphere, which is so often controlled by fear of political bullies like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and their ilk, who attempt to eradicate all mention of right and wrong from the public forum. These bullies who attack religion are effectively advocating the absence of all morality from government, from law, and from public life.
So after a hiatus following the ethically dubious 2012 Presidential election in which Barack Obama purchased votes by bribery with Obama-phones and other lollipops, and in which conservatives tossed the vote by staying home in disgust, this blogger returns again to discussion of politics, of coming elections, and of election strategies for Elections 2016.
So now two years have passed, and we have experienced some of the consequences of the 2012 election. We have experienced more of Obama’s administration, ObamaCare failures, VA scandals, IRS scandals, implosion of Iraq, border crises, and numerous other debacles. Establishment Republicans have experienced 4 million registered Republicans staying home from the polls, and losing the election.
During all of which, Nero fiddled as Rome burned.
Political puzzle pieces have been falling into place.
We need to redefine how we approach politics.
So now it’s time to end the hiatus and time to address the future.
Back into politics!
First observation on returning to politics in 2014: confusion reigns.
Democrats are suffering from the deluge of scandals befalling President Obama as the fruits of his erroneous policies and his lies mature. Today, 58% of Americans, including 30% of Democrats, say that the Obama administration is incompetent at managing the government. Now, even New York Times correspondents are saying that the Obama administration’s ebola response is another example of Obama not running a competent government. Liberals have begun to acknowledge Obama’s incompetence.
Republicans are suffering from highly disfunctional infighting, seemingly incapable of choosing between continuing moral compromise with the opposition, and their fear of unpopularity if they choose responsible conservative policy.
Support is at an all-time low for both parties, and nobody seems to know how to attract the independent voters from the middle.
Only 24% of American voters identify as Republicans, 31% as Democrats, and a whopping 43% identify as Independents.
This bears repeating: a whopping 43% of Americans identify as Independents!
There are way more independents than Democrats.
There are way more independents than Republicans.
THE LEADING POLITICAL FACTION IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS INDEPENDENT.
What does it mean to be Independent?
Being Independent means that nobody tells these voters what to think; they think for themselves, and they owe allegiance to neither party.
If Independents could only agree on a candidate, there would be a landslide election and an Independent victory!
How can the two major parties recruit from the 43% of uncommitted electorate in the middle?
With more lollipops and promises?
With an offer of responsible tough government appealing to those who have suffered enough in this economy?
Will a third party succeed in stealing the election?
Is the time ripe, with broadening disgust with both major parties, for the introduction of a third party?
Looking at history, the founding of the present Republican party occurred under similar conditions, and resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency.
The Whigs seemed incapable of coping with national crisis over slavery, so the Republican Party was established (in Wisconsin!) with the primary goal of opposing slavery. (Yes, contrary to what today’s progressives want you to think, the Republican Party was the first to oppose slavery!) The Whigs lost power, and Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was elected.
So there is historical precedent for the birth of a third party; provided the nation is sufficiently disgusted with the two existing parties.
Are we sufficiently disgusted with the two existing parties today?
Can a third party rise to the occasion in present divided times and succeed in election 2016?
Or would a third party simply divide the conservative vote and hand victory to Democrats?
The Buckley Rule
Some conservatives advocate nominating a moderate candidate with whom one does not agree (compromising one’s values), as Republicans did in nominating Mitt Romney in 2012, in order to capture the votes of moderate independents, rather than nominating a strong responsible conservative who would capture the conservative independent vote and who is more likely to salvage our nation, as Scott Walker recently salvaged a damaged Wisconsin.
This philosophy, nominating the most conservative person who “can win,” has been called the Buckley Rule, after Bill Buckley, who advocated this approach in 1967.
The problem with this principle is that it assumes that we know who can or cannot win, an quite frankly, we don’t know. Mitt Romney’s failure to be elected was a prime example of this. An additional problem with this philosophy is that when conservatives continually sell out and compromise, it allows government to drift permanently towards the left, abandoning important conservative values and allowing the passage of laws which make it impossible to recover conservative ground.
Apparently 4 million Republicans rebelled against the Buckley Rule in November on 2012, and more are likely to follow in 2014 and 2016.
Many who rebel against business as usual in the Republican Party (i.e. rebel against continual and unending compromise) advocate instead voting for the most conservative candidate in the primary and risking losing the moderate vote. This has recently been called the Limbaugh Rule –“in an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism, vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary.”
This is a variation of the Tea Party philosophy, and a variation of my philosophy, which is ALWAYS, not just in an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism, vote for the most conservative candidate in the primary who will uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values, pro-life topping the list, followed by fiscal responsibility.
This approach encourages voting for Tea Party candidates at Republican primaries, hoping to steer the Republican Party establishment in a more conservative direction. This approach appeals to more voters as they become fed up with liberalism and its consequences, and may work in 2016, provided the Republican Establishment does not use it’s power to force through the Buckley Rule (which the “Establishment” apparently favors) over the heads of increasingly conservative American voters. This is what the Republican Establishment did in 2012 to nominate Mitt Romney, by hook or by crook. And it got them exactly nowhere.
The Limbaugh rule says stick to your principles, especially in 2014/2016, when voters are fed up with liberalism.
Third Party Option
Some are considering the creation of a third party. In this case, there is the danger that this would split the conservative vote, handing victory to the Democrats.
Depending on how stubborn the Republican Establishment (John Boehner, Reince Priebus and other RINOS, Republicans in Name Only) prove to be in the time between now and November 2016, this might sadly become an attractive option for more and more Americans.
Amendment of the Constitution via Article V
Finally some, like Mark Levin, are so fed up with American politics on both sides of the aisle that they are considering extreme measures like amending the Constitution through Article V of the US Constitution, so that U.S. citizens could override their Senate and their Congress, which have ceased representing them (details at The Liberty Amendments).
This approach would involve returning to much more fundamental founding values and very limited federal government.
With four factions advocating four different approaches, the solution to this conservative dilemma is not obvious.
The above four approaches are mutually exclusive, and getting conservatives to agree on one approach would pose quite the obstacle.
Many conservatives favor the second option (Limbaugh Rule) right now. Stick to your principles an nominate the most conservative candidate in the primaries.
But as discontent with Washington continues to grow, it becomes more and more likely that some Americans may abandon business as usual and may opt for the more startling last two options- third party or even overriding Washington DC via Article V.
One thing is certain- the 4 million disgusted registered Republicans who stayed home in November of 2012 are not likely to change their minds and get back on board with John Boehner and the Buckley Rule.
It is much more likely that an additional 4 million will join the first 4 million in boycotting the Republican establishment’s cowardly and ever-compromising path towards defeat. Yet staying home OR voting for a third party can hand the election to Democrats, even if they do not have majority support.
much disagreement among conservatives over which of the above four approaches should be followed in 2016.
There will be even more anxiety over whether the guaranteed lack of unity will defeat us, handing victory to progressives.
But an examination of history, an examination of the forces that determine the fate of nations and of elections, reveals that perhaps we need not worry.
There is a simple and practical approach that may reassure those so very worried about the future.
Hint: it involves simply sticking to your principles and not selling out.
-The approach the Almighty might suggest if anybody bothered to ask Him.
What determines history?
What determines the fate of a nation or the fate of an election?
It may surprise some to hear that the determinants of history, the elements that identify or determine the nature of events or that fix their outcome, are not usually voters, nor are they politicians.
Many historians acknowledge that much of history is determined not by careful planning and strategy, but by fluke events called Black Swans.
Black Swan theory is taught at universities, and Black Swan theory was discussed by the New York Times in connection with the 9/11 Commission, which sought “to provide a ‘full and complete accounting’ of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.”
Black Swan theory is not a joke; it’s a sobering and probable reality.
So when we talk about the 2016 election, it is wise to consider whether a Black Swan event will be the determinant of the election, and to ask whether it is possible for us or for our politicians to influence that Black Swan event.
How do we define a Black Swan?
The Cambridge Japanese Journal of Political Science refers to these unpredictable big events that shape human history, or Black Swans (emphasis mine):
The nonlinear dynamical process of self-organized criticality provides a new ‘theory of history’ that explains a number of unresolved anomalies: Why are the really big events in human history usually unpredictable? Why is it impossible to anticipate sudden political, economic, and social changes? Why do distributions of historical data almost always contain a few extreme events that seem to have had a different cause from all the rest? Why do so many of our ‘lessons of history’ fail to predict important future events? As people, organizations, and nations become increasingly sensitive to each other’s behavior, trivial occurrences sometimes propagate into sudden changes. Such events are unpredictable because in the self-organized criticality environment that characterizes human history, the magnitude of a cause often is unrelated to the magnitude of its effect.
Nassim Taleb is a Black Swan specialist. He is a scientist, essayist, businessman, mathematical trader and scientist-philosopher who studies the epistemology of randomness and the multidisciplinary problems of uncertainty and knowledge, particularly in the large-impact hard-to-predict rare events called “Black Swans”.
Taleb seeks to create a “platform for a new scientific-minded public intellectual dealing with social and historical events — in replacement to the ‘fooled by randomness’ historian and the babbling journalistic public intellectual.”
In his book Learning to Expect the Unexpected, Taleb defines the Black Swan like this:
A black swan is an outlier, an event that lies beyond the realm of normal expectations. Most people expect all swans to be white because that’s what their experience tells them; a black swan is by definition a surprise. Nevertheless, people tend to concoct explanations for them after the fact, which makes them appear more predictable, and less random, than they are. Our minds are designed to retain, for efficient storage, past information that fits into a compressed narrative. This distortion, called the hindsight bias, prevents us from adequately learning from the past.
“Much of what happens in history”, he notes, “comes from ‘Black Swan dynamics’, very large, sudden, and totally unpredictable ‘outliers’, while much of what we usually talk about is almost pure noise. Our track record in predicting those events is dismal; yet by some mechanism called the hindsight bias we think that we understand them. We have a bad habit of finding ‘laws’ in history (by fitting stories to events and detecting false patterns); we are drivers looking through the rear view mirror while convinced we are looking ahead.”
So when it comes to elections, whether they be 2014, 2016, or any other election, it would be wise to remind ourselves that Black Swans are often determinants of the outcome.
That’s why nobody can predict election results.
By definition, a Black Swan is an unexpected and surprising historical event that plays a giant role in altering the course of history, yet could not have been predicted, and is not pre-planned by politicians or governments.
There are many examples of Black Swan events in history, recent and ancient.
Remember the definition: nobody saw it coming, nobody could have seen it coming, it could not be planned for.
Some examples of Black Swan events:
Aside: The Bible is a valuable source of political instruction for those who realize the wisdom contained in it.
The above examples of Black Swan events occurred against all odds, were so unlikely that they could not previously be imagined, and they changed the course of human history dramatically.
Black Swans can be either good or bad.
To qualify as a Black Swan, an event simply has to lie beyond the realm of normal expectations.
The Christianization of Europe was good.
The terror attacks of 9/11 were bad.
Both were Black Swan events.
Black Swan events can occur not only in politics and in global events, but in our personal lives as well. One unexpected event frequently steers the subsequent course of a person’s entire lifetime.
By human reason, no.
By definition we cannot expect and prepare for the unexpected.
However, in a nation like ours, in which 80% of citizens believe in God, 80% of citizens pray daily and believe that God answers their prayers, in a nation whose government has been founded on the inalienable rights given to man by God, in a nation structured after Christian morality, it is not unreasonable to bring into this discussion the interaction between God and History, and the interconnection between Church and State.
And this changes the picture dramatically.
In fact, when we acknowledge the interconnection between God and the world, Black Swan events become more easily understood as the intervention of God and of Satan in human affairs.
This view does not refuse to discuss the battle between of Good and Evil battle in our world. In times of history like the present one, while ISIS mercilessly terrorizes Europe without intervention, events becomes less mystifying when viewed in their proper light.
Does this mean that we are helpless pawns at the mercy of warring supernatural forces of Good and Evil, much like the ancient Greeks who believed they were subject to the capricious whims of their warring and jealous gods?
Unlike the ancient Greeks, we have the ability to steer supernatural events indirectly through our personal choices of good and evil and through our prayers. We have a direct line to God via saintly lives and prayer, through which we can access the most powerful forces in the universe. This is the power God has given to human beings. A power, incidentally, resented tremendously by Satan.
Unfortunately, some of us also choose to have a direct line to Satan. The Enemy is unleashed and empowered whenever we shun God’s directives and defy God, particularly when we try to be little gods ourselves.
And so, through moral choices and through prayer, we humans do have great influence on the war between Good and Evil.
Why do you think that Pope Francis’s reaction to the crisis in Syria was to call for global Adoration?
The holy man kwows how to fight spiritual warfare.
Satan always baits us with promises and with lies, but ultimately he delivers misery to all human beings, particularly to those who fell for his ploys. But God limits Satan’s power, and teaches us how to chain the Evil one, by following the guidelines left to us first by the Ten Commandments, and then by Jesus Christ.
And so the mysterious struggles of Good and Evil are played out in our world, while many of us are unaware that victory is really within our grasp and that we have much more power over world events than we realize.
The solution is simple;
The formula for victory is simple- vote for the wisest and most moral candidate, whether you are voting in elections or in primaries, and forget about arguments on capturing independents in the middle by making moral compromises.
Follow the Limbaugh rule, not only when voters are fed up with liberalism, but ALL the time.
It worked for Abe Lincoln, it worked for Ronald Reagan, and it worked for Saint John Paul II in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Most of America (Independents) needs to reclaim a political party and make it our own.
Both existing parties have failed us abysmally.
Democrats have completely sold out Christian values by promoting abortion and redefining marriage.
In 2014, Independents should go to the polls and vote for Republicans, because they oppose abortion (killing over a million citizens each year), and represent fiscal responsibility as well.
Perhaps the Republican party might be willing to shift to the right.
In 2016, if the Republican establishment resists a shift to conservative values and if the field is littered with numerous conservative candidates who split the vote up as they did in 2012, conservatives should not fear a brokered convention in which many conservatives are pared down to a few with numerous rounds of ballots.
We should not let the Republican establishment force the Buckley Rule, as they did in 2012, forcing the nomination of Mitt Romney against the majority of their party, who supported conservatives.
A message to the Republican establishment: don’t sell out your base and your ethics in some misguided attempt to capture some Independent votes from the middle.
Most Independents want a shift towards conservatism, reality and responsible behavior.
In 2016, if the Republican establishment tries to force liberalism and the “Buckley rule” as they have in the past, we move to a third, more moral and more conservative party.
Independents think, they admire justice, and they rally behind upstanding candidates.
Independents come in riding on black swans.
Most historians separate history and philosophy/theology into distinct and separate compartments, and only rarely do they acknowledge that human beliefs exert a powerful influence on human behavior and on human history.
It is even more rare for an historian to acknowledge that those humans actions which stem from religious belief (such as prayer or such as heroic action) can actually be effective in dealing with a global or political problem.
The political correctness of today does not permit the inclusion of God, moral choices, or prayer in any analysis.
But those who take their heads out of the sand and realize that this nation was founded on Christian principles and that this is still a nation of God-fearing and freedom-loving people in both parties, will realize that this nation’s history has been and will continue to be be steered by ethics, by prayer, and by God.
Unless the minority, the radical progressives who want to eradicate any mention of God from our lives and from our history, are allowed to intimidate the rest of us into inaction and into silence.
The reading of history cannot be partial and biased to exclude the fact that this nations was shaped by Christians, still consists of Christians, and that it’s history has been guided and protected by a very good God.
The role of the supernatural must be acknowledged, if Truth is to be known.
The secularization of human history neglects to consider man’s strongest motivations, denies his noble struggle between the Truth and the Father of Lies, and dismisses his most powerful ally – the Almighty.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.
The interconnection suggested here between Church and State is not the top-down dictation of moral values by Executive Order that is being attempted by President Obama, dictating what newly invented progressive morality the citizens of the United States must follow. Nor is it a government-imposed State Religion imposed from above.
The interconnection is a democratic one.
When it comes to refining the relationship between government and religion, or between Church and State, the key is for ethical values to flow from the bottom up, not from the top down.
Nobody wants a specific government-imposed religion. But people clearly do want a code of morality and ethics on which most reasonable citizens can agree.
Instead of eliminating morality altogether from public life, and instead of government (King Obama) dictating his own brand of morality, citizens need to vote their personal religious moral beliefs into law.
The Constitution provides the mechanism by which this fundamentally Christian nation, still identifying itself as 80% Christian, can choose representatives in government who reflect their ethical beliefs.
When the interconnection between Church and State is implemented, not from the top down, but from the grass roots up,
when we all pray and go to the polls and vote for what is right and what is moral, our nation will heal and will get back on the right track.
David will slay Goliath, and Red Sea will part.
That power is in our hands.
We can marshal powerful forces into play that could never be predicted or imagined on a human level alone.
We can steer the Black Swans- provided we don’t throw away the reins.