Aug 25 2016
This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!
Main Street vs Wall & K Street.
The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class) is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will be able to clean out the People’s House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations to pay off.
The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America’s choices this cycle any better than this!
Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”
This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business, big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100’s of millions of dollars selling access (and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without results).
The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to control what people knew and thought.
Now we have cracks in the PIC’s media spin, through which we can see the ugly truth about our modern democracy:
Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to cripple political opponents. In fact, it’s a leading state for such partisan gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated, ever since.
Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential primary process, I’d hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials. He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to support a primary process that excludes them.
In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead of becoming more responsive to voters, our state’s highly partisan secretary of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting – which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy altogether. Kobach’s rationale, like Galvin’s, was laughable. He described it as a “convenience” for voters.
The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:
In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves as politically independent.
That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents (68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?
I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP. She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes that things get ugly.
Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.
That is why you when you hear someone oppose open primaries, it is a clear sign they are from the Political Industrial Complex and not from Main Street. For example:
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee took relatively little time and money, today’s process has resulted in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.
It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the ballot:
During the week of Lincoln’s birthday (February 12), the Republican Party would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local communities, and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate, and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each be named as one of the party’s officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen times.
Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC – not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a. – voters) there is no democracy – just a variant of communism:
During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a “limited place for a limited time to capitalism.” The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin’s democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.
Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See a trend yet?
This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of “leaders” at all levels of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber alles!
Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its “Super Delegates” already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC’s Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders – a socialist/communist – from being their candidate! But the control is still there – just by another name.
The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market.
His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer that has eaten away America’s free market foundation and core strength. A person who wants to impose government on the individual.
How could the choice be any starker, any clearer?