Brexit: It's Good As Done

It was guessed that maybe Brexit wouldn't go through, that the Conservatives wouldn't be able to muster the electorate after the calamity of former PM Theresa May's inability to finalize the Brexit negotiations.

Alas, after her resignation, the new PM Boris Johnson mobilized the party, ousted possible defectors, and rallied the electorate as a show of force in response to Labour's attempts to quash Brexit and force another referendum to undo it all.

The political implications of such a electoral landslide are many, some with more outlier views of the impact itself of the effectiveness of the European Union and some with international implications. One of these is the upcoming U.S. 2020 Presidential/General election, which is fiercely polarized the nation with bombastic language from both sides, such so culminating in an attempt by House Democrat majority to formally impeach and attempt to remove President Donald Trump from office (see future post: Impeachment Isn't The Way Forward).

Election Info By 2019

The main question for this issue is how it effects global Conservative movements in geopolitics. I compiled this information from various sources about the composition of the political makeup of each European Union country as of this date, including the UK since it has not officially left the EU. The picture shown does not include the attitudes of like and dislike to the EU as a whole. The picture shows a stark contrast to political views among Americans who would say that Europe is a complete socialist region. It, therefore; begs the question, if political conservatism is on the rise, especially in the UK, could it be that Socialist ideology and programs aren't favorable anymore? It's possible, but not completely. The next question we need consider is: why is this impact so great that Democrats seem worried about 2020 electoral prospects?

First, let's consider that Progressive politics had been on a steep rise after the Bush Era ended in 2008 with the election of President Barack Obama and a filibuster proof Congress. Enacting policies that are Progressive, in relation to the policies of Bush, were the cornerstone of Obama's election, promising vast changes to make America more in line with European socialist policies of Universal Healthcare, immigration, taxation, etc. While President Obama had a clear mandate of power, his decision to focus solely on Healthcare overhaul cost him his only political capital he had. After his midterms, Congress was divided. Then after his reelection, the Congress switched to Republican majorities. This swift reversal of political persuasion can be attributed many ways from Obama not maximizing his political capital across multiple fronts, to risky ventures on foreign policy, to high risk domestic policies. The election of Trump is one of the most surprising changes of political power. The dynamic of politics around 2016 became more polarized in policy division and increased calls for more "radical" policies of both the Left and Right.

Through this galvanizing of radical policies, we've reached our central concern for the USA: will this aid in Trump's reelection of 2020? In many ways It is very possible that a resurgence of Conservative politics could make it more prominent. Influx of immigration, coupled with the stagnation of the economy, heightened taxation, mandated healthcare penalties if you chose to not use it, and other various issues made Conservative politics more upfront. However, it also gave rise to many far Left policies. In this struggle, it will be important to understand the effects of how European Conservative movements have made some of the most prominently Leftist countries to fall to more populist Conservative ideologies. Radical immigration and taxation are two of the most important for Europe. For America, it also includes immigration but also the largest issue, is Freedom of Speech and how it will play an integral role in the election. Americans must decide whether or not the party they want in power will actually be for true Freedom of Speech, or a version of Freedom of Speech.

Within these issues, these policies, Far Right policies have also surfaced, such as strict bans on illegal immigration and changing current forms of allowable entry to be tougher or near impossible to achieve to allow someone in. Hyper vigilance in some respect isn't always good. The main factor to me, is that are the policies of the Far Left coming up going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action; further, are the policies of the Far Right going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action? That's what is going to be more difficult to understand. It should be noted that these policies in Europe are currently not boding well for many Progressive Left parties in the EU, their grasp on power is slowly turning away from Leftist politics as one can easily see in the most recent general election in Great Britain, who now will effectively leave the EU on Jan 31st. It will be an interesting election cycle in the USA as we begin to see the primary for the Democrats begin shortly. My prediction is if they pick a Far Left, it may not go well for their efforts to unseat President Trump. 

Free Speech v. Censorship

Free speech is something we all have come to know, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution to allow citizens the unhindered right--on a federal level--to the ability to assemble, protest, and speak on issues. Yet, in today's climate of political and governmental discourse, we are being volleyed with claims of shutting down hate speech and speech that runs counter to some, and some to which they agree with said speech. The primary issue, in my opinion, is whether or not we as a society can and should suppress (censor) speech that some view as "hate speech."

 So, the real question becomes: what is defined as "hate speech" and when can you prevent it? First we must understand the case law that brings us to this pivotal moment. Whitney v. California (274 U.S. 357) is the first case where government attempted to restrict speech in a sense. Anita Whitney was charged and convicted of a felony under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919, where she was a part of the Communist Labor Party (CLP) who was attempting to teach criminal syndicalism, assembling with, and being a member of the CLP, according to the charges. The Supreme Court upheld that the CCSA was constitutional, but refuted that the act itself could punish someone with no imminent danger perceived. In his majority Concurrent Opinion, Justice Brandeis wrote:

This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.

 Later on, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444), the Supreme Court dealt with a Klansman who was charged and sentenced under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. They then overturned his conviction because Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act forbade advocacy of the KKK. Thus, they overturned Whitney. From this case came the "Brandenburg Test" or known as the "imminent lawless action test" which consists of: intent, imminence, and likelihood. The main example of this is the falsely yelling fire in a theater. It would later be applied in Hess v. Indiana (414 U.S. 105) which upheld that an antiwar protester who yelled "We'll take the fucking street later (or again)," could not be punished because the language did not adhere to the Brandenburg Test. Thus, the government could take action against him for speaking against the war and not push for an imminent threat of force or harm.

Now, you may rightly ask yourself, why does this matter? Well, in our current climate, we have the people who are protesting for the suppression of voice from a group that it believes to be harmful to society. While another group announces that it is only speaking out because it is a right, and that any speech, regardless of view, should be allowed to say it. Ultimately, we now come to whether or not censorship is acceptable for one, but not another. The real question of whether or not someone can speak out against a view, either vehemently or calmly, and not be censored? The only way to do this to apply the speech, from both views, under the Brandenburg Test.

I will add, that whether or not you agree, you cannot censor a view because you view it as "racist" or "fascist." These terms do not adhere to the Brandenburg Test
and cannot be silenced. Should you attempt to silence a view through force, it is against the law and should be punished--no matter who caused the harm from the force. If, a person does advocate for an action that is imminent,  with intent, and has immediate likelihood, then that person or group should be arrested and charged for inciting violence and disruption.

Now, I know you may balk at my view of how this is to be treated and it is your right to do so, I cannot stop you from it, nor can you stop me from it either. You should never make it your opinion to silence a view solely because you disagree. If their view is one that is bad, let that voice be heard so your own arguments can be better and more reasoned to overpower that opinion of which you believe is to be incorrect--which it may or may not be.

Finally, free speech is protected. Hate speech, or speech that is different than your view is allowed, unless it aligns with the Brandenburg Test; then, and only then, can you push for silencing speech. 

The First Debates: Seeking Approval from Emperor Palpatine

The Empire's reorganization was the epitome of political and social manipulation. Now, the American public is seeking it's own Moff--or Governor in English, to rule over the USA. As of today, there have been a complete set of Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. I will examine both and give a verdict on the winners of each set of debates.

Remember, the point these debates are to influence the voters, whether it be already decided voters or undecided voters. So, with out adieu, cue the Star Wars main theme and let's begin the analysis!

The Presidential Debate:
The much anticipated meet came out as expected. Within about 30 minutes, the devolution of the candidates began. First, we must accept that the first 30 minutes were in the Trump favor, hitting hard the record of over 20 plus years of service, both as First Lady through to her tenure as Sec. of State. These moments, should have played out for the Trump playbook for the entire 90 minute strategy, yet, when Clinton began the race-baiting attack, Trump folded like the younglings in the training room to Darth Vader. The attacks began, back and forth, both hinting at grave errors from both candidates. Very little policy was discussed from either candidate as it was the "how much more baiting can I deliver to my enemy. It remains to be seen if any real damage can be done to the Trump campaign over his remarks, as the Republican Primary season specifically pointed out those very issues and he still won the Primary for the RNC. Clinton's missed opportunities were to maintain her "policy driven" debate. She should have stuck to calling upon her policy and asking if Trump's policy had a better solution, which it would have shown that it doesn't hold up much. Trump's missed opportunities were to stay away from the race-baiting charges and to focus on showing the voters how Clinton's policy is the exact same as every single failed idea. He should have continued his attack on her "establishment" nature and failure to push or fix the issues now, which she has alluded to in her own remarks that things are bad. In the end, Clinton did come out on top with this debate, because she outsmarted Trump into goading him into needless issues and didn't focus on the larger picture.

The Vice-Presidential Debate:
While not many were expected to watch this, the debate did highlight a few specific things. One being, despite Democratic hatred towards Mike Pence of Indiana, his manner towards the onslaught attacks from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va). He outsmarted the attacks with warm platitudes and a response in least aggressive and antagonistic responses. It's clear Kaine was attempting to rattle Pence and fish for reactions much like Trump's in the first debate. Pence denied Kaine any real ammunition for attack. Kaine ultimately was too agressive and to antagonistic to really impact the high bump in Clinton's rating spike in most polls + forecast in FiveThirtyEight assessment of the first debate. Regardless, Kaine seemed less likely to speak about policy and its direction under his tenure at the Senate, as I expected to hear. Even in the most conservative of assessments of this debate would not had Kaine a likely win, in fact, he seemed more "Trump" like in this debate, and maybe it's a tactic to show calm in Clinton over a presiding officer of a Senate that has an equal chance of staying in the control of Republicans. Overall, Pence had a slight marginal win in a debate over much of the debate while Kaine flopped on many chances to attack and left his vulnerabilities to open for attack, either direct or indirect.


It should be noted, that this analysis is comprised of only events prior to the Oct. 7 video release of the Trump audio/video debacle, 

Who Would Emperor Palpatine Choose: Clinton or Trump?

“Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have peace,” the Emperor uttered right before Jedi Temple was sacked and the Separatist Council was eliminated by his agent of evil, Darth Vader. The political climate of the pre-Galactic Empire, was utter turmoil, both with Separatist planets and Republic planets still believing that their goals were to be met by their armies.

Over the course of the next 19 to 26 years, the Empire would shed its Republic notions and legal framework and begin to see the final stages of an Imperial government. By A New Hope, the Emperor dissolved the Imperial Senate and thus ushering in the era of peace long desired by the Republic and its adherent bodyguards, Jedi. While the Empire is regarded among most of the Star Wars fanatics as evil and diabolical, it does warrant merits of the ushering in peace and justice—just not the way the Jedi Council and Republic Loyalists would have argued and petitioned.

If we meld our world into the Star Wars universe, we’d probably be living in the Mid Rim, Outer Rim or the Unknown Regions. Suffice it to say, let’s posit that we’re in the more approachable Mid Rim, where our loyalties lay with the Confederacy of Independent Systems and say we’re close to Kashyyyk. After Order 66 and the subsequent elimination of the Separatist Council leaders, our planet is invaded by Imperial forces, and with their clone army and vast superior force, we fold. (Also, we must meld our planet into a single body of governance, so for arguments sake, we have a one world government.)

The great question of our time: who would Emperor Palpatine chose to control Earth, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Now before you begin to shout one over the other, we have to take into account the politics and nature of the Imperial “New Order” program and just how each candidate would fit into the “New Order.”

Let’s take Donald Trump first. Some of the more key components for the Emperor wanting Trump would be for his favoring the military and its capacity to function, as such, his spending would encourage a larger Imperial Navy and Army. His immigration policies would also be a key factor as the Emperor believed in forced slavery of any species that wasn’t human. In as much as we can gather, the social issues aren’t much of a concern as the knowledge of what actually takes place in their society (i.e. marriage, same-sex marriage, abortion, pay, jobs, etc.) We do know that healthcare is provided, prior to the Clone Wars, and this Trumps health plans would not be in alignment with the Emperor’s. We’d also have to believe that the Emperor would somewhat favor Trump in criminal issues as the Internal Security Bureau would have almost the same capacity of an enlarged quasi-FBI-CIA-KGB mix agency to do with terrorists and enemies of the State.

The Emperor would probably agree more with Clinton on her domestic policies of restriction of guns, the “No-Fly” list ban for guns. She’d also be in agreement with the taxation of specific economic classes, and supporting a general standard of education throughout the planet in accordance with Imperial Law. However, while we cannot say for certain how much the Emperor would allow for Clinton to be a Moff, since we cannot ascertain whether or not the society itself would have allowed it. Yet, she would be loyal to the Emperor and would be more easily controlled Moff. Her foreign policy and immigration stance would not be in agreement with the Emperor’s and would therefore be very problematic. Her and Trump would gain points for the application of the Death penalty, as the ISB would be using this most along with the Imperial Navy for rebellious planets who did not agree with Imperial rule of law.

I would say that while each of the candidates have just an equal amount of merits and demerits as candidate for Moff, the Emperor would probably chose neither in the end. In fact, I’d believe that Trump would be executed by the ISB for not following Imperial orders. I also believe that Hillary would be replaced due to her continual pushes to change the stances for the planet, or by certain unrest planet wide in which the Emperor would send more troops to quell the rebellion and execute her for her ineptitude and inability to squash the rebellion herself.

Trump v. America

"In the matter of Trump v. America, this high court...."

This line could easily be from a future lawsuit if he becomes the nominee, and possibly if he becomes the next President.

Like this post assumes, Trump is bad for America. He's bad for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (whom could be affiliated on farther left or right). Here's a man, who is as other pundits say, a Populist. Populism is "a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector."

Populism can be used by any political philosophy and as such Donald Trump has used a national populism against most policies of the Obama Administration and presidency. Trump has made very seemingly derogatory, inflammatory, and degrading words and statements.

I cannot stand as a conservative gay man, in this political discourse, to allow a man, who has no temperament. I cannot stand with or aside Donald Trump. I refuse. I explicitly refuse that I will ever vote for him in the Republican Presidential Caucus of Kentucky.

I will fight, alongside my fellow Republicans and moderate Democrats to defeat Trump, as I have from the very first Republican caucus.

Do not chose Trump. Do not vote Trump. He is, without a doubt a free radical who will do untold damage to the America we know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say George W. Bush would be better than Donald Trump, because we know George W. Bush, but we do not know or care for Donald Trump.

If you agree that Donald Trump will do greatness, Vladimir Lenin, Benitio Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and countless other leaders who did unspeakable things in the name of greatness.

The bottom line is that if Donald Trump wins the nomination, American politics will shatter. 

The French Effect

In less than 10 months, the French people--Parisians, specifically--witnessed the destructive nature of radicalized terrorism under the guise of Islam. Regardless of the view of the which part of Islam, or if any, are viewed as more harmful than other religious or spiritual sects, the major question is: what will the French response mean for the rest of the world

In the wake of the Fifth Republic of France being hit twice, the world sees this as either an opportunity to unify the world under a single goal, much like the goal of Reagan's to oust Hussein from Kuwait in the Iraq War, or to fail to respond correctly to the ballooning epidemic of ISIS. Francois Hollande's quick and decisive reaction saved the French from more catastrophic casualties. The sealing of the borders and the state of emergency has allowed them to protect their people and find and capture the conspirators.

Yet, in light of the information we now know, what will the French governments response. Their immediate response came on Sunday as French fighter jets launched a massive air assault on the capital of the Islamic State, Raqqa. More importantly, what will their goal be now. And would it mean intervention from more nations, including the United States--Frances long time ally and friend, despite the political differences and issues from Bush to now. It's very possible, depending upon the French governments reaction, that news sources have claimed that France may invoke Article 5 of the NATO alliance, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

This would mean that all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which includes the U.S. would have to legally intervene on behalf and concert with the French government in which would be necessary for the security of France to be restored. In this sense, the total annihilation of ISIS would only bring the safety of France back to balance.

If they choose not to invoke Article 5 of NATO, their policy on action would dictate a much larger role in the global response to the problem. American candidates would have to either agree to the terms of engagement because an ally of ours was directly attacked, or they would sour the relationship of the Franco-American ties. Particularly, this would hamper any Democratic nominee because of their hands off approach, or Obama Doctrine, would intefere with their goal of achieving a sense of US retreat from world affairs. Unfortunately, this would mean that several key regional leaders would fill the vacuum of power: the Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of which are opposing to US power, both soft and hard. Their engagement would pin the world into a difference of opinions not seen since the Cold War. Russian agression in the Caucus', Georgia, and east Ukraine would allow for Syria to become a satellite of Russia, Iran could take areas of Iraq and China would be able to beef up its military power in the Asian area without check. These events could only occur if France's decision to ask for a coalition of force to deal with ISIS and the US wouldn't agree to therms under the current Administration.

Either way, the French policy of how they will deal with ISIS, as descrobed by the President and Prime Minister of France, it is an "act of war." It will mean more engagement from French warplanes and highly probable French troops engaging in a war in Syria to defeat, occupy the IS and then  the government of Syria, either under Assad or under a new government. If Assad is removed from power, Russia will complicate these matters since it has engaged in aiding the Assad government.

Only time will tell about how much the French will engage, react, and prepare for war and whether her allies will engage as well or not.