We are less that a year out, and the first voters are set to cast votes in the soon coming party primaries. The polls continue to come hot and heavy and if they are even somewhat accurate then I dread some of the very likely possibilities:
On the Democrat side …
Hillary Clinton, the front runner and widely assumed Presidential candidate for the Presidential election is facing possible prosecution and imprisonment for multiple counts of felony mishandling of national security data — yet she has wide but diminishing support among core Democrat voters.
Bernie Sanders comes out of relative obscurity as an Independent/Democrat Senator who is a self described Socialist. It seems that Socialism and Sanders are gathering increasing strength — Consider:
In the Washington Post (“The Fix”, January 17), Aaron Blake reports the following polling results:
- 43% of likely participants in the Iowa caucus identify as “socialists” compared to only 38% as “capitalists” in a January Selzer poll.
- 47% of all American voters are willing to vote socialist in a June Gallup poll; 59% among Democrats.
- 56% of Democratic voters had a positive view of socialism in a November NYT/CBS poll; 49% considered themselves “anti-Wall Street.”
Blake concludes that “this number proves Bernie Sanders can win Iowa.”
An article from Fortune Magazine reports that
“ … Sanders’ new programs would cost $18 trillion in taxpayer money over ten years, which would increase federal spending by around a third. That includes an estimated $15 trillion in healthcare costs, $1.2 trillion in social security, and $319 billion in paid leave funds. … “
This coupled with the current US debt approaching $20 trillion dollars is a frightful prospect. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has said on many occasions that the most serious national security issue facing America is the National Debt. And yet many Americans appear willing to vote in this looming national disaster — not only for themselves, but many future American generations to come.
As I am writing this I came across several articles concerning the National Debt and the rise once more of socialism. I encourage you to read the articles, but a few snippets will illustrate the problems of debt in Brazil and elsewhere.
“ … Latin America’s largest economy ended last year with a budget deficit equal to 10.34% of gross domestic product, the bank said, the widest level in at least 13 years, including the 6.05% in 2014. The country’s debt is also expanding at a rapid pace, putting the country on a hazardous path, economists say.
Brazil’s fiscal profile worsened sharply last year despite deep budget cuts and repeated promises by President Dilma Rousseff’s administration to improve government finances, promises she was unable to fulfill.
“What is being done to keep the debt from getting to a point where it can’t be paid?” asked economist Armando Castelar of the Ibre think tank in Rio de Janeiro. “There are no signs of change. … ”
The second article is by Peggy Noonan with the title “Socialism Gets a Second Life” (pay walled) Here are some snippets from Noonan:
“ … And Mr. Sanders makes it sound so easy. We’re rich, he says; we can do this with a few taxes. It is soft Marxism. And it’s not socialism now, it’s “democratic socialism” like they have in Europe. You’ve been to Europe. Aside from its refugee crisis and some EU problems, it’s a great place—a big welfare state that’s wealthy! The French take three-hour lunches. … “
“ … Socialism is an old idea to you if you’re over 50 but a nice new idea if you’re 25.
Do you know what’s old if you’re 25? The free-market capitalist system that drove us into a ditch. … “
What’s left out of Sander’s analysis is the destructive role often played by the very government he advocates more of. The economic melt down of 2008-2009 being a recent example young and old have experienced. If you dig a little (I did) you will find the Government sponsored Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to be the root cause of that economic disaster … not the bankers and billionaires.
The Clinton legal problems. The publically released evidence of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified e-mails, up to and including the very highest levels would indicate that the FBI will push for an indictment on multiple felony counts. However, such an action by the FBI would face the (hopefully minor) hurdle of the Obama Justice Department and a strong push back by the Democrat party to avoid the embarrassment and chaos resulting in having to endure the “trial of the century” — in the midst of a presidential campaign.
So what if the Justice Department (read Barack Obama) decides not to prosecute Clinton? What chaos would such a decision generate? What rebellion/revolution might ensue within the ranks of the Justice Department, and in the general society. Would the FBI go public with the evidence, along with mass resignations as some leaks indicate would happen? If such a decision is made to not prosecute in spite of an FBI gone rouge, will we finally see the unmistakable end to the Constitutional Republic of the United States and will we then descend into a one-party/one-man-rule dictatorship?
On the Republican side …
there are certainly more choices – more hats in the ring. But I will focus in on what today seems to be the two front runners – Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Donald Trump, along with Bernie Sanders, is a direct backlash against what many see as the massive corruption and failures of the Federal Government, and in particular President Barack Hussein Obama. Trump has masterfully capitalized on this backlash and his popularity and poll numbers have dominated for many months.
However, in my view, Trump is much the same as Obama but expressed in a very much contrasting fashion. Obama is smooth cool and collected in his demeanor and public persona whereas Trump is bombastic and confrontational.
Even with these outward personality differences, both come across as narcissistic, self-centered and egotistical. Both prefer the one-man-rule mode of governance at the expense of the long successful limited form of government, i.e the Constitutional federalist model — “We the People … “ .
Our founders structured the Constitution, and therefore our government, with an implied “government can not and should not be trusted.” This is seen in the separation of powers between three co-equal branches of government — Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Further separation of powers is between the Federal and State governments. And not least are the rights of individuals – you and I — as codified in the Bill 0f Rights. All this is the bedrock of protection against a tyrannical government.
This Constitutional structure is long lived, has been largely successful and has resulted in more freedom and opportunity for more people than any other form of government ever seen and tried down through history … including and especially socialism.
I see both men – Obama and Trump – as paying lip service to the Constitution, but operate on the principle of “my way or the highway” … long the traditional form of governance throughout history.
Barack Obama has governed in such a way as to render Congress near powerless and irrelevant. This was seen early on by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and others, — and we were warned by these watchmen on the wall.
But perhaps a Donald Trump could be even more dangerous and destructive. Why? Because Obama has opened a door that will be difficult to close, and someday one like Caesar, perhaps not Trump — but someone — will cross the Rubicon as Caesar did and destroy the American Republic as Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic and usher in the era of Imperial America as Caesar ushered in the era of Imperial Rome.
Are we ready for that? Do we care?
Ted Cruz. Of the front four I’ll go with the Texas Senator based on his record of Constitutional defense. Read the opinion piece below by John Hawkins for an excellent recommendation of Mr. Cruz … I echo that recommendation.
Read Why John Hawkins and I am Endorsing Ted Cruz For President at:
Things to think about … things to ponder … things to worry about … things to guard against
Don Johnson – January 2016