Anyone
who follows any of my writings, podcasts, or even corresponds with me online knows
around this time last year, we were filled with Hope. Obama's presidency is finally
in the sunset, in the rear-view mirror now. We had the opportunity to go “full
bore”, and push ahead with a Constitutionalist (or even a conservative that
understands its very importance) in a point in time where a correction of
course back to our original direction is necessary. And then, the Trump
"cult of personality", pretend ‘outsider” phenomenon occurred. One by
one, they all fell...some were already so close to the Progressive ideology
that it wasn't surprising that they did. Others made what seemed like small
contradictory stances, like backing Mitch McConnell or making silly course
changes such as flying to Florida for a change of drawers and then vilifying
those trying to make sense of it all. And then, September 23rd happened.
Ted
Cruz came out and said he's voting for the Republican nominee. Now in my mind,
his statements weren't truly an endorsement, although people have made it out
to be. Of course, the media is out there pretending as though he gave it a
ringing endorsement, to which it wasn't. It angered me at first, because I
really wanted Ted Cruz to hold the line. I really wanted him to be "the
example" of the part of the party, the grassroots," that actually stood
for something. The part of the party that doesn't just “go along to get along”,
because it's what we're supposed to do. If there was anything that I’ve learned
in previous elections, which really came to the forefront and to fruition
during this election primary process, was the fact that the Republican Party is
“a private organization” and they will pick who they want to pick. When it came
down to the final few candidates like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, &
Donald Trump regarding the delegate threshold, Reince Pribus and the GOP
establishment kept telling the mantra "well it's a private organization we
can do what we want!" Certainly it is, but you may also want to consider
those of us that are a small part of the organization...those who you need to
show up and vote for whichever candidate that you pick at your own volition. To
sit there and say that we should all "fall in line" is insulting at
best. Especially when I feel as though the party has left me and it is no longer
my responsibility! I don't need to fall in line, when there is a Constitutional
Party (which has a limp and uninspiring candidate), there's a Green Party (that
has an Uber progressive socialist), there's Libertarian Party (that's been
pushing candidates that aren't even libertarian, as though they don't even want
the opportunity to win when it's abundantly available to them), there are
choices beyond the two party system. There’s even the Electoral College
Independent choice, Evan “HEAD McLovin” McMullin (who has been interviewed and
said that he was for a legal path to citizenship for his immigration stance).Obviously
all those choices are awful, but they are choices. Could there be a possibility
for a new choice? A new party of grassroots constitutionalist, who are looking
to move in a different direction? One’s that would be able to control their own
fate? The resources are available... As I've said in the earlier podcasts, the
ability to connect to the average citizen through social media, through
streaming…the ability to raise funding through now established Super PACs and
even crowdfunding opportunities are all new options. Those are just a few
examples of what's available that didn't used to be. But everyone seems to think
we need to work from inside the Republican Party to reform it. So how do we do
that? Well, we've already tried that and it was destroyed and the movement was
shut down. The people responsible for it were ultimately vilified beyond
recognition! So basically, it's the establishment’s party. They get to pick who
they want because it's a private organization. And now we have to fall in line
because we have the nominee and we all need to jump on board whether we like it
or not. Look what Reince Pribus (Mr. Reince, douche, Repeat) said as a threat
to the former presidential candidates?
“Look, people that agreed to support the
nominee, who took part in our process…they used tools from the RNC, They agreed
to support the nominee, they took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re
not a public entity. Those people need to get on board. If they’re thinking
that they’re going to run again someday, I think we are going to evaluate the
process of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy
for them”
Was
this the reasoning for Ted Cruz shift in position? Is he still looking to work
from inside the GOP infrastructure in the future? When Ted Cruz put his
statement out, it showed up in my email inbox. I really didn't want to read it.
Actually, I stayed away from it for quite a few hours. And then, I sat down to
soak it all in. When I read it I noticed a few things. I believe by reading
Cruz's statement, to give support, he outlined each point and said "AND
TRUMP PROMISED TO DO SO". Now, where I thought Ted Cruz should've just
kept his mouth shut, slipped off into the night, under the radar and allowed
this election to go in the direction it's going in, he thought differently. I
can't understand why he thought differently. There was absolutely nothing to
gain from this position change. Those who aren't Republicans, those who don't
understand the political landscape and don't get their information from deep
sources news already have a skewed view of Ted Cruz. I’m talking about those who
take the headlines and sound bites from the nightly news. I'm not talking about the 24 hour cable news
channels sources either. I'm talking about the “dinnertime, three major network
nightly news” programs that are then proceeded by Hollywood tabloid new shows
viewers. They’re opinion of Ted Cruz that he was some extremist, Tea Party Nut,
Evangelical fanatic. They weren’t fans of his from the beginning. The Trump
supporters, many of whom were cheering his hard line stances in Congress, have
now changed their view of him and now say he’s as a liar and a "CUCK"
(as term they like to throw around on a regular basis). Even though they would
be more than willing to accept such a liar as a Supreme Court Justice Nominee,
who would have to have the integrity to uphold the highest laws in the land…go
figure? But now, after this pivot, the Ted Cruz supporters feel betrayed! Not
only that, the Trump supporters who booed him for not endorsing at the RNC
convention are now calling him a fraud for actually supporting him now! It's a
no-win! Now, everybody has to make their own decisions based on their own
circumstances, obviously. For me, I'm in a unique position this election. Due
of my proximity and location, I'm viewing it through the Electoral College. My District,
City/County is going to vote Donald Trump whether I vote for him or not.
Unfortunately, my State, due to extreme northern liberal counties on the
outskirts of Big Government Washington DC, are going to push the State into
voting for Hillary Clinton. So I can actually make the conscious decision to “vote
my conscience” while not feeling as though I let the country down. But that's
my unique position. Others have decided that they have to make the decision
between the two binary evils that are left by picking the one that will stop
the other evil. And I get all of that. The problem is, politically speaking, I'm
not sure how Ted Cruz recovers from this. I understand that he has prayed about
it, he's talk to his father and his wife, and has come to this decision. I can
only imagine there was enormous pressure from donors, especially from those
that helped him along on his campaign. And even though I feel that the GOP will
not allow any second attempt by Ted Cruz to run for the presidency again, he
feels as if his opportunity is to come around again, he should tie up the loose
ends to make it possible. But, I do know that his statement makes a lot of “anti-deals”
with Trump regarding Ted’s positions. Almost like a reverse deal, that stated “this
is what I want, this is what I'm afraid of happening if Hillary wins, and this
is what Trump has promised to do”. That list of Supreme Court justices better
be stellar!
So, when Trump caves, Cruz can call him on it
and not look as though Cruz caved on his original pledge.
So
what does this say for the remainder of the party? Does the GOP push out its
grassroots? I mean the Democratic Party has embraced there is an allowed the
socialist to overrun their party? They've purged the Jim Webb's and Joe
Lieberman’s. The John F. Kennedy Democrats of the past have been left behind as
they moved on to their future. Time will only tell. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is
coming across as a typical politician. And although he may plan on working
within the Republican Party, he's going to have to cede some of his stances.
This is ultimately the crux of my disappointment. Am I abandoning Ted Cruz? No.
Just as I haven't abandon rand Paul or Marco Rubio. Both have portrayed
legislative fortitude and keeping things on the constitutional path. Have I
abandon Scott Walker? No he still has the ability to move governing conservatism
into the realm of the alligator and sharks, and weathering that storm without a
bruise. But do I think Ted Cruz will be the facilitator of a principled new
movement no I don't think so anymore. Maybe I should've thought that from the
beginning.
So
how did we get here? If
you follow me down a divergent rabbit hole, we
can actually use a non-political, cultural, historical trend phenomena to use a
basis of theory…80’s Glam Metal. From the beginning of Rock Music, the British
invasion turned a style of music like Rhythm and Blues into a new, innovative
style…something so fresh and liberating was delivered by the unique cultural
phenomenon of the Beetle’s, much in the same way the Revolutionary War happened
after the British settlements revolted. It led to the most innovative, unique,
and liberating form government to ever exist. Now, they may not have been the
first to mine that territory, just as there were many earlier settlements in
the New World as well. But, they were the ones to do it RIGHT and led to an
explosion. Of course, this led to the slow evolution within the rock and roll genre.
From the 60’s crop of Crosby, Stills, and Nash/Jefferson Airplane/Jimi Hendrix,
even the ‘Free Love” Hippy rock groups led to experimental rock styles and brought
to life Led Zeppelin/The Doors/The Who/Black Sabbath groups, and even the
Flashy Showmanship of KISS. This was a heavier rock evolution that was happening
and the creativity continued. It moved into the 70’s Foreigner, Boston, Bad
Company Rock where it was finding a comfortable footing. It eventually led to
VAN HALEN. Now I focus on Van Halen here, not so much because of their place in
some sort of Rock and Roll History, but more importantly, what was being
cultivated in the future based on their style and sound. They took the edginess
of those before them and combined it with pomp and circumstance, showmanship,
and glamour. And THAT is where I’m going with this comparison to make this
point. This is when the Record industry (think GOP Establishment) took the
success of Van Halen and looked to replicate that to the furthest degree. This
led to the 80’s Glam metal explosion. Def Leopard’s and late era Aerosmith which
moved to Motley Cure’s and Poison’s, which led to Slaughter and Warrant, and
begat Enuffz Enuff and Sleaze Beez…you know why you’ve never heard of them?
Because they SUCKED. The market was oversaturated with the same old, same old.
They’ve replicated the same premise to the point of exhaustion. It was hollow,
shallow, and lost every bit of its roots and foundation. They looked the part,
operated like a group should, but there was nothing below their surface, much
like the RINO Republican Politicians. They look like Conservatives and say that
they are, but beyond the surface they are bland and void of any foundation and
surface. The 80’s metal 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wave
groups were looking for the Record deal and to make the quick payoff, as the
GOP does with its politicians and their relationship with the corporate world
and the Establishment Party Machine. And while that was dominating the record
industry and airwaves, there were a few things bubbling in the underbelly. In
New York, D.C, and California, they were just railing against the trends. It
was a grassroots effort – Hardcore and Punk. I’m talking the Ramones, Black
Flags, Minor Threats, Misfits, Bad Brains, Agnostic Front, Dead Kennedys, JFA,
7 Seconds, Faction, TSOL…it was a movement that was just bashing the status
quo. They made their own records and tapes, which were traded underground and
word of mouth. They promoted their own shows with cut and paste, pencil drawn
fliers. Some of it morphed into the late 80’s thrash metal, which was a
combination of The New Wave of British Metal (like Iron Maiden, Motorhead, and
Diamondhead) and Hardcore/Punk. It led to the Big Four of Metallica, Megadeth,
Anthrax and Slayer. The problem with that movement back then, more specifically
the Hardcore and Punk movements (not so much the Thrash Metal offshoot) was the
fact that it quickly imploded, because it wasn’t based on anything beyond anarchy
and rebellion. If you don’t believe so, there are many documentaries where
those involved in the scene directly will testify to this fact – down to Henry
Rollins and even Ian Mackay. That’s not to say that it’s legacy didn’t endure,
even to today. But this was similar to your fringe parties – Libertarian
parties, green party et al. Parts of it also encompass the current Trump
Phenomena of a “wrecking ball” mentality. There was no intention of breaking
through into the mainstream at all. Now, later on another movement began
bubbling in the Northwest. This is what I equivocate to the current grassroots.
It was based on all of the aspects of the rock movements that we spoke of
earlier. They were ignored and neglected, to the point where they made their
own ways similar to that of the Hardcore/Punk movement. They used styles that
were popular and tried and true. The core principles of Rock that made it great
in the past were the focus, but they were ideas not popular in the late 80’s. And
many of those began to see success. The saturated, record company dominated
corporate rock couldn’t hold down many of these groups, although their initial
success was limited. The people were yearning for something different and real!
They were thirsting for substance and something that wasn’t bound to the Corporate
Record Industry Establishment.
But then, 1992 came
along. Much like the Trump Phenomenon, Nirvana appeared from the Pacific Northwest. Their styling and sound were taking parts of what was defining that scene, but added the rebellious edges of punk and
hardcore, even some experimental noise rock. They pierced through the grassroots
movement that was building. The explosion of popularity hijacked the scene that
spawned Mudhoney, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and ended up
redefining the movement, arguably to something it wasn’t originally based upon
even though it was very appealing. The continual popularity wave built, because
the people were yearning for something different in a field of surface only,
hollow, empty Corporate Record Company ideas that were expected to always work.
And the 80’s Glam metal Status Quo despised this movement. Nirvana kept
rebelling against the system. Unconventional and brash, they didn’t play by the
typical rules. They would go on American Bandstand type dance shows were they
were instructed to pretend to play their instruments to a music track, like
many of the other groups have done. Only, they decided to throw and destroy
their instruments instead of complying. They would appear on late night talk
shows and when the host would announce their song choice, they would switch it
last minute to the most raucous, non-radio friendly song in their catalog.
And that was hilarious and refreshing to see. But eventually, that scene to end
up slowly dying. The once anti-establishment outsiders became the insiders. And
eventually, Nirvana too were taken and exploited by the Record Industry
“Establishment”. Many were falling for the trappings of Rock and Roll lifestyle
excesses, much like the 80’s Glam Metal Scene did. Quite a few were overdosing
and dying because of it, much like the somewhat principled Republicans are
ceding principles and succumbing to a career suicide. Nirvana ended up
imploding on the death of its founder. Some, like Pearl Jam (much like the Ted Cruz
of the scene) fought parts of the system to their detriment, like Pearl Jam’s
fight against Ticketmaster, and paid a price for standing on their principles.
But the force that Nirvana was riding on suddenly ended on the death of its
founder. The supporters were left brokenhearted and dismayed when their idol
killed himself and left them with nothing. Ultimately, Rock and Roll died that
too, for an extended number of years. But the Establishment remained and moved
on. They moved to another tried and true trend…which brought about the 90’s and
early 2000’s version of 80’s pop. The yearning by the public for something new
and different is sometimes good. But what is it based on? Currently, the plastic,
surface based majority of politicians with a complete lack of substance have over-saturated “the scene”. Do we want that rebellious explosion that sounds so
sweet but eventually destroys itself in the end? Or do we want that
substantive, principled, roots oriented type that adheres to what made things
great from the very beginning. This, to me explains why there are the Trump
movements and the Never Trump grassroots movement, all housed within the same party
with the Establishment.
So,
who made their case in the first debate? Trump didn't take long to fall back
into his classic snarkiness. He started with the “teleprompter persona” he’s
been riding on, but that all went to pot after the first 5 minutes. He had more
chances than Mitt Romney did to crush his opponent, back when Romney refrained
from launching into Obama over Benghazi when he had the opportunity sitting
right in front of him. I even remember yelling at the T.V. during that debate
screaming, “WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI???” Trump left four times the opportunities
all over the stage floor. We didn't have any criticism of Obamacare, no
vilification of the Clinton foundation, complete absence of Immigration policy,
and we didn't hear him dig further into the email issue...it was tossed into
his LAP, but he allowed Hillary to shift the focus to his tax returns. In turn,
he would defend himself by shifting to his personal success and touting his
wealth. Now, as a licensed tax professional as myself, there is nothing wrong
with utilizing the available deductions afforded to a person or a company, even
down to constructing future financial decisions according to what is allowable
in the tax code IS SMART business. But after that detour, he was given the
opportunity to revisit Hillary’s email issue and it just dissipated. He carried
the Left's positions with government assisted childcare and forcing businesses
to return to America (which isn't constitutional AT ALL). He has serious Free
Trade issues. It’s one thing to be against NAFTA & Trans Pacific Partnership
(to which I vehemently am as well in respect to T.P.P.), but enacting higher
tariffs on other countries will not solve this issue. His furthering of the
narrative of removing gun rights to those who are placed on the No-Fly list
with no actual due process, even the stop and frisk measure that also thumbs
its nose at probable cause, is not Constitutional. Keep in mind, those critical
of Trump realize that Constitutionality isn’t in his card catalogue of “go to”
answers for solutions. That is the fulcrum of the Cruz supporter’s concern with
Trump. To top it off, he admitted that he didn’t pay contractors for services
because they didn’t do a good job. He even based it on the premise of it being
“the laws that were available to him and that they should change them”. REALLY?
How does that play to those that view him as a “Working Businessman, outsider” and
not smear him as another Crony Capitalist that Hillary’s supporters (more
importantly the few Bernie supporters and Millennials who support cause based, philanthropic
businesses) already distrust…more big self-centered corporate business? Now, He
did connect with the average working class American, who doesn't know the
intricacies of why America is in this scenario. The people who are tired of
government infringement, a stunted economy, and want to burn the system down
because the reinforcements that have been elected by them during the various mid-terms
and for what was expected in 2012 as a shoe in, based upon historical
precedents, have all jumped in the bed with the establishment and joined in the
game instead of fixing it. But he really sounded disconnected to the youth, especially
when his “Granddad who doesn't even know how to use the universal remote
control” side comes out and says that his 10 year old runs rings around him
with computers WHILE DISCUSSING THE RUSSIAN & CHINESE HACKS!
Hillary,
on the other hand, sounded like an unauthentic robot. Scripted and really awful
with her cute "Trumped up trickle down" comments. “I have a feeling
I’m going to be responsible for every bad thing by the end of the debate…HA, HA,
HA.” SO TRITE AND FORCED. Her socialist giveaway bucket list was pandering to
the Socialist Bernie wing of the party. Paid family leave sick time and
scheduling time off? Is this an Affordable Universal Government Human Resource
plan? She wants to force businesses into
providing mandatory profit sharing…for the workers. This is exactly like the Communist
platform, which already centers on giving everything to the “workers”. When is
it ever the Government’s responsibility to tell a business if or when they
should provide profit sharing plans? That is an economic decision by the
company for the good of its employees or based upon whether they can viably
allow one to exist. It is an actual hefty business expense to retrain or hire
new employees due to excessive turnover. So, they may create one as a way to
retain employees and reward loyal ones for the work they provide to the
company. It is NOT the government’s decision to force a business to provide a
portion of their profits through coercion. So, the communist agenda is thick
with Hillary. The fact that she eluded
to the demand for Obama’s birth certificate and questioning his citizenship as
a racial slur was completely ridiculous. Of course, Trump spun that as an
ancillary service to the public as it put the argument to bed…much like he did
to Ted Cruz, another laughable assertion. Knowing what we know about Hillary,
she did nothing to reinstall and reinstate any shred of Trust with the people.
Most
of what Hillary stated could be laughably mocked, because the standard she was
seeking to uphold, she has desecrated herself just months earlier. A
few mocking responses I had, in regards to her comeback on saying that flying
all over the world & negotiating deals was a show of Stamina, was "Look,
until you make a toy reset button, put the wrong word on it & hand it to
our adversary, then we can talk stamina". Regarding her explanation as to
how the relations with Police should be handled "The lady from the party
that hates the police is going to tell us how we should fix the police?"
Hillary even grilled Trump by saying "who do you owe money to?" To
which I thought "Who does Trump owe money to? Who does Hillary owe favors
to from other countries at the expense of National Security?" Whenever
Trump would make a point against Hillary, she had this inauthentic, "Hey,
there fact checkers! No more joshing or Tom Foolery...it’s time get to
work". It was agonizing. In fact, the same lady that is RESPONSIBLE for
Media Matters propaganda peddled her website as a fact checker forum. That’s
like going to the swamp to drink clean water. The problem is she stayed steady.
She sounded coherent and barely shaken. Trump had the opportunity to destroy
her, but he never took it to the level as he did with the Primary debates, more
importantly how he handled Jeb, Rubio, and even Ted Cruz. That, to me is very
telling...like I've said before, what would happen if Trump melted down on the
5 yard line? What does it do to his supporters & the GOP? Keep watch on
that scenario. When Newt Gingrich said that Trump had an opening to take her
down, but looked over at Chelsea and refrained from doing so, and that was a
PLUS? That should indicate some connection to the Clinton/Trump relationship of
the past...maybe that's why Donald donated to Hillary?
My final summation on
this debate: There is absolutely nothing inspiring from any of these
candidates. I don't get a glimmer of hope at all.
