Trumps Exit Will Save The GOP

The party is dead. The party needs a unified front. The party needs rebranding. The party is dead.

These phrases have been the pinnacle of the GOP politics since 2008, nearly a decade of disunity and failure, or so the pundits say and yell. Countless weeks and money has poured the media waves with the so called end to the Republican Party. Since 2000, it's been said the Party has died and with it, its power to compel voters to elect them to office. Enter 2006, when Democratic control reigned absolute and without contest. Presiding over it, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), whose neoprogressive politics had absolute authority.

The major theme of the last 8 years of presidential politics and last 6 years of congressional politics has been the Party, meaning the Grand Ole Party/Republican Party, surely must be dead after George W. Bush's term of office and the loss of prestige of power--both soft and hard, to two wars costing nearly $1-trillion. So, let's talk Party politic and what it means for the 2016 election:

Q. IS THE PARTY DEAD?
If the party is dead, shouldn't Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid be in firm control of Congress from 2006-current? The problem with this thinking is that no party can control an area without some reaction force, i.e. Democratic control of the south and Republican Reconstruction. This may seem anecdotal but in 2010, it swept Republicans into Congress and in two years after, Republicans took control of the Senate. Controlling the aspect of the Tea Party movement, the Republicans maintain a solid power, not an overwhelming one but a solid one.

Q. THE TRUMP SHALL END THE PARTY?
Trump is the greatest problem of the democratic system. His wins in the primary season have made for a great error of the Republicans; however, I disagree with the notion that all Republicans disapprove of the Republican Elite. If, every single Republican hated the elite, wouldn't they have already ousted them, regardless of campaign promises and Super-PACs! Here's where I will stipulate that the Party would actually be better if Trump loses the Nomination. If he loses, that means the mainly strong religious and far-right movement would leave because they feel the elite have accosted their ways, when in all actuality, the "RINOs," as the far-right sees it, are saving the party, because it is the more moderate and likely of the old era of Republican dominance. Trumps exit would free the Party to do more, to capitalize on moderates and independents who do not share the same view as the far-right.

Q. WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
We wait and hope that the Party Elite will take Trump and have him nose dive out of the GOP and with it, the arm of the GOP that has hindered the Party's electability for nearly three decades. We must relish in our attempts to stymie Trump and to make this Party stronger and more capable then the fractured DNC. We must fight to stop Trump and in essence Cruz from being the nominee!  

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.

The Rand Paul Effect

"KRS 118.405: No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day."

Kentucky has strict laws about the governance of how a Senator or Candidate should be allowed to run for office. In the Commonwealth, the rule of law states that no candidate can be on two different ballots, as shown above. However, Senator Rand Paul, has requested that Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) Leaders change its own rules of Primary elections to a "Caucus" so that he may in essence, double dip on the ability, should he: prevail in the National Convention, fail in the National convention, or prevail in the Senatorial election.

However, let's look closer at this concept of changing party rules. To do so, would require first that the State Legislature would need to introduce a House Bill and Senate Bill to amend the Election rules, which is currently split in party control (the House by Democrats, Senate by Republicans). Then, if it was passed by the Legislature, the Governor would need to approve of the Bill or veto. Current leanings would indicate that that would never pass. Since the House has been under the control of the Democrats for nearly 100 years, it would never pass committee. Secondly, it would also require the State GOP to ratify the change to their own rules 8.04, to be exact. Then it would need to clear the RNC Rule 16.C.1, which states that no caucus, primary or convention may be earlier than March 1 unless they are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

These are just rules, the facts of the matter. However, as noted in the Boston Globe piece by Jeff Jacoby, that in a Bluegrass Poll conducted from August 25 to August 27, 2014, if the Kentucky Law should be changed so that Sen. Paul may run as both President and Senator, it was 27% Yes, and 66% No, with only 7% saying Not Sure. The data clearly expresses that members of the Kentucky Commonwealth do not want Senator Paul to change the rules.

So, what would be the problem? Well, in a Caucus, that would reduce the amount of people who can vote in the election of the candidate for president, because instead of the collection of registered voters casting a ballot, a select few would allowed to vote, then an even less number of those would be allowed to sit at the Convention for the election of the Republican candidate. It's surprising, that a man of Libertarian leaning would wish for the de-valuation and deselection of voters to hold a chance to win the Nomination, Yet, like most politicians, power is everything. If it is one thing that the fictional character Frank Underwood has taught us, it's that power is everything and that he wants that power, even though, his ideas would be destroyed by any seasoned Democrat in office, No polling or popularity within the fringe element of the Libertarian caucus, would ever gain the strength to eliminate such a candidate, because while many want a freer world, the devolution of the strength of the US soft and hard power would be the asking price.

As it seems the Majority Leader McConnell has signed off on this theatrical display of power, the Chairman  of the State Party and the other members would look idiotic and arrogant in the eyes of the state and national party! Why would anyone want to risk us loosing our votes? Or risk losing our ability to vote? Why would Rand Paul decide that this is a good thing?

So many questions revolve around this process, and I hope, as a voting member of the Republican Party, they defeat this notion and defeat the possibility of running on two ballots. The law that was put in place is a proper law, one that prevents overreach and keeps politicians in Kentucky honest, or is honesty no longer Senator Paul's vision? Senator Paul isn't moderate enough to win over the core of the moderates in the Party and those in the Middle, but he can definitely win the Fringe voters, who would undoubtedly hijack his platform and ruin his career, unless that is his plan.

I urge every Kentucky Republican to call the State Party and tell them No Caucus!

The Marriage Debate

Oh, how I wish this were a topic of lesser proportions, but alas, it cannot be and never will be, Where did the marriage concept, legally speaking, become the dominant force for social and other policies to become so ingrained into a cataclysmic problem?

Over the course of history, marriage became a more spiritual and religious component to a more legal standing. Where and when the precise moments of that change are not easily found. Thus, it must be that during the mid to late 20th century, in America that such a concept was adopted: that marriage was descriptive of a legal point of view and under the purview of the government.

Now, I am no proponent of the government telling me that their description of marriage is absolute law. Before you begin to think, he's ok with bestiality or polygamy!, I do say that there are certain limitations that should be collectively argued as irreconcilable with society and the general welfare of the people.

With the growing approval of same-sex marriages from the repeal of DADT and DOMA (United States v. Windsor), it seems inevitable. With the 6th Circuit of Appeals defending the state constitutional bans in contrast with the 9th, 10th, 4th, 7th, 11th, all either overturning and staying decision for appeal to the Supreme Court or overturning and not staying for appeal, it created a split decision for a full Supreme Court hearing.

With the legal stuff behind, I looked to other things affecting the concept of full marriage equality. Unfortunately, there not much basis for a differing opinion for escaping this issue, unless common law marriages, civil unions, or eliminating marriage from the law are in concert with your beliefs.

I once discussed this issue with an old friend, who unfortunately since passed away from horrible circumstances, and while it was a lively debate, I do not regret this debate.

As a New Age Conservative, there are realities that we must get behind, and marriage equality for all, save the outlawed portions that are as previously stated not good for society and its general welfare, is going to be one of them.

It is a reality because, as I have stated in other posts, the hyper-religious and extremist far-right, have become the anti-morality of our time. They embody the things that are wrong with my party. Marriage has and always be a spiritual component of life, regardless of religious affiliation. Before the creation of many of the monotheist religious, homosexuality was once a common practice, with much of the Ancient  World never mentioning it because it wasn't an important topic.

Many of my Republican friends will most likely excommunicate me and cry foul, but that doesn't matter anymore. We have larger battles to deal with than marriage--to which I firmly believe is something that should be extended to all peoples. And yes, this a complete 180 from my belief of a few years ago.

My beliefs are my own, they can change and can be altered, However, one notion that I cannot stand, is Democrats and Republicans saying that I am a traitor to my party or a person who is "idiotic and stupid" for being a Republican or even a New Age Conservative. 

The Race Game: Aristocracy v. Commoners

Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote, "the surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." 

The presence of racism hasn't be abated and reconciled. Fore it was told to us that a certain president would change the course of history, to devolve the evolution of centuries of racist and bigotries enacted from the forefathers and theirs before them. Yet, from what it shows, the division of the racist and bigotry of the American way has perpetrated to larger extent. 

I conclude, that this issue stems from a three fold problem: the continuation of a self-inflicted racism, a doctrinal error of failure to establish a productive baseline of equality, and failure to comprehend the past as a cautionary tale.

It was in Plato's Republic that one understood the complexities of the government. Too much of one thing led to oligarchy, or aristocracy, dictatorship, monarchy, or democracy and his counter, the republic. Now while Pluto's basis for the evils and woes of each, democracy held the lowest of the forms of government that succeeded. His analysis rested upon the Athenian democracy model. From Plato to Aquinas, Hegel, Locke, and Tocqueville the errors of to much democracy was perilous. The Framers attempted to craft Plato's famed republic, which took from the best of all the aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy and attempted to quell the beasts of the oligarchy, dictatorship, and democracy demagogue. Now, we see the Europeans as a baseline of equality, yet do you know that France outlawed the burka because it failed to comply with the separation of religion and the secular state? Did you know that it passed with a majority of the French National Assembly? Probably not. And France is to be one of the most well graded for espousing, enacting, and performing equality. 

The United States is in a continual cycle of racism, not because it is one person over another, in a sense that a person is always lower. While this generalization can be made, it can and is at a point false and invalid. In the game of racism, it takes two. One must accept the racism and one must make it. To enact change, it also takes two. One must rise above and one must accept the rise. This change or differential vector that makes racism near null, must be done in two-fold, an error the Republican Party and Democratic Party fail to do: change the mindset of being equal on the outset, that one can rise above their own and push through with their own effort and their own backing; and the government must find a way to prepare the individual for self-extermination of racist beliefs. It isn't just one that can be accomplished. Ferguson, MO teaches us that we have not been teaching and that we have not been providing the correct tools. This does not mean to spend wildly on things that have a zero-metric evaluation, such as more spending on projects and funding that have failed to actually produce the betterment of the person. We must establish a precedent and program that gives each person the value internally and externally that their "rank" is changeable upon their own actions. One must remember that actions of the negative must be met with an equal or greater reaction to either deter or to create a situation in which one believes they must change.

We look at our history and we fail to break the cycle of events. While we have learned, we haven't grasped the greater themes and sometimes, it goes to not just our own history. As a nation, we are one of the youngest and to have made major strides prior to and before our predecessors of Europe are congratulatory. In the nearly 1200 years France has been a nation, they have gone through monarchies, dictators, emperors, and 5 republics. In less than 300 years, the United States has had one government, continually, constantly, and without failing. So what is our cautionary tale? It is to become better than Europe and others in a much quicker time. To my critics who say we haven't progressed quick enough: compare the 1200 years of France to less than 300 of the American society in an objective manner and not a subjective state of self-induced consciousness. 

"Virtue is a state of war, and to live in it we have always to combat with ourselves."                                                                    -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Game of Thrones: Senate Edition

The rolling hills of Kentucky is a vast land, with 120 small municipalities tied to the Iron Throne of the Commonwealth. Alas, the Iron Throne was ousted to move closer to the Capitol, District of Columbia. A Governor now sits on the once majestic throne of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

If only politics were such a game of throne, oh wait, it is. Today's match pair the embattled senior Senator to a recently elected Secretary of the Ballot box. (I use these terms to make this dialogue funny, not to make the actual post degraded or less important.)

Each candidate had the floor to debate the core issues of this state/commonwealth, whichever you prefer--albeit the Commonwealth is the correct term. This debate gets a star rating of 0.5/5 for it performance.

Why? Isn't it clear? No? Well shame on you! Because it is quite clear that neither one of the candidates shone bright like a diamond.

Each candidate sucked beyond belief. This wasn't a debate, it was a televised version of who can be more than the other. Both candidates waited for the last moments to actually strike like the Death Star Mk. II in the Battle of Endor. It was beyond silly.

Let's take each candidate briefly:

I'll start with Sir Mitch McConnell R-KY, Senate Minority Leader. [Caveat, if you continually cry that he's old, look at the Democrat Party for an equal if not more longstanding Senator whose older than Merlin.] Here's Mitch's problem:

1. Obama.
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Grimes
5. Obama
6. Grimes
7. Obama
8. He can't articulate anything of value, except for,
9. Obama
9a. And his policies which have spent a trillion dollars in less than 2 years (which Bush-43 did in over 8 years combined, excluding certain factors.)

Obama is the mainstay of the Party line for all things. Why? Because he's our villain. He's the Jedi to our Sith, just like we're the Jedi to the Democrats Sith. (Or was that reverse in the Sith to our Jedi?) Either way, the drastic and rather ramrod of a platform of excessive spending, cap and trade, taxation without deficit reduction, and a whole host of things have made the Republican Party become anti-Obama because it works, it worked in 2012 and it will most likely work in 2014. The major problem for Republicans the spending without restraint, attempting to buffer a collapsing Medicare and Social Security that will flatline and bust in the mere decade or less. With the Welfare State rising so high, devaluing the true value of the original programs and their whole worth, the United States will end up like Greece: a royal cluster of so much debt that even a conservative austerity measure will bring the country to its knees.

Alison Grimes, Secretary of State- KY, Democratic Candidate for US Senate. Here's Alison's problems:

1. Mitch
2. Mitch
3. Mitch
4. Mitch
5, Mitch
6. Obama
7. Mitch
8. Mitch
9. Obama
9a, the EPA.

Mitch and the Republicans are her enemy, they are the Empire to her Rebellion, her Targaryen to Baratheon/Lannister. Either way, she wants the Republican Party to end up like Ned Stark or the Targaryens. The constant battle of having to show that Republicans are so out of touch with a can of sardines, tires her. It makes her cringe every time she hears that of all of the polls, only the Bluegrass and Courier-Journal have her up by two points and within the margin of error. Her case of defeating the tenured Senator relies on escaping from Obama's policies and running just to edge of the Party that when she wins, she can race right back and do what she thinks (or the Party Leader). Her fear is that we'll end up like Mussolini's Italy, where the darkness of evil runs deep in fascism and racism against the ones who dirty the blood lines. (Ok, even that was difficult to write because frankly, fascism is so far down the spectrum of the Right, even the Fringe doesn't want it.) But nevertheless, the small government, tax limited society, the return of the 50s. the Dark Ages, are all things this candidate feels will occur if the Republicans recapture control.


Here are a few facts, mostly because my fingers are tired of typing:

1. Neither Party had stood for what it believes. The Republicans abandoned the spirit of Lincoln and his practices. The Democrats ran from their hatred of Blacks in turn to pay them to be quiet in the form of Welfare and the Great Society. The Democrats have done little to nothing to protect the minorities. The Republicans have done nothing to protect the middle class. The Democrats have joined with Republicans in polarizing their philosophies.

2. The Commonwealth of Kentucky hasn't voted for a Democrat on the national election since Clinton's first term--which they voted against in his reelection.

3. The Commonwealth is still stuck in the Southern Democrat mentality of things, that until they escape, the votes will always be Republican on the national level and Democrat on the State level.

4. Claiming in one or two ads that you're against the EPA, for Coal Country, and the NRA, doesn't make you better than your candidate.

5. Records of voting must be taken into full account, not based on one particular amendment that you like and they didn't.

6. Don't wait until your final 30-second closing arguments to say your opinions/goals of your term. Do that in the beginning.

7. If you have to take a cheap shot at an accidental video mistake, you deserve a punch to the face for lowering your standards.

8. Your record shows everything, and when you have none to back your claims on, it hurts you.

In conclusion, neither is a best option, but do educate yourself on your candidates and if they have a record, look at it...if not, good luck.