Trumpist Regime and the Conservative Movement

I've said it before, and today, I'll say it again: the Republican Party is dead. The Trump regime, under his mob-like, dictatorial, Stalin-esque style of Party politics has done irreparable damage to the once great party of Lincoln.

Trumps Politburo has condemned sanity, rationality, and quite frankly, core Republican values enshrined from our greatest leaders: Lincoln and Eisenhower (no Regean was a factual sellout and 'RINO'). We owe this great debacle to several key factors: the failure of actually progressing the ideology of limited government, simple taxation, and cronyism/nepotism.

Trumpist Politburo surrogates have become tantamount to megalomania and Putin-esque oligarchic "if you're not with us, you're against us and you will die." Granted, this notion far precedes any current candidate and even prior to the usage from George W. Bush. Nevertheless, Trumpist surrogates have become the epitome of the far-right/alt-right movement who see sanity and compromise as the antithesis of reason and rationality, much like the Leftist regime of SJWs and the kind who say "if you disagree with me your: misogynistic, bigoted, transphobic, and Islamaphobic" as their only reasonable retorts to factual evidence and mathematical principles of law.

Let me be clear that in no way or form am I saying that I'd vote for Hillary, which could be another post! However, in regards to the Party that I've identified with for much of life, it has become the very evil we once stood against. The principles of Conservatism are for everyone, the application of these principles have been highly neglected by the Far Right and the Christian Right. This fierce opposition which started with Regean and culminated into what is now Trumpism, is the very antithesis of pragmatic conservatism and truthful Republican ideals....in the words of Queen Amidala, Ruler of Naboo, "If this body is incapable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor [Trump's] leadership."

No truer words have been so pivotal in this election than the error of the party allowing the Trump arrogance seep into our party politics. Reince Priebus has become a mockery of a leader. Only the true Republicans, who are seen by the Alt-Right/Christian Right/Far Right as the epitome of evil. This is barbaric in rhetoric, and quite frankly, arrogant.

This Party must break apart to become better. The new forces of rationality, sanity, and compassion based on Lincoln's and Eisenhower's ideologies can only make this--and should I dare say--new party become more powerful! The Left must be stopped for the overreaching PC culture, their dominance in education, their failure to actually fix the issues. Clearly, Europe's "peace, love, and inclusion" has made for even the President of France to question his actions. After 5 attacks under his tenure, is it any real solution to just allow unfettered access to their lands? No, even the Jedi knew that allowing everyone to have their rights as people be limited to damaging others (inciting violence and death).

Hillary is just as bad as Trump, just as vile, just as powerful in total hegemonic demagoguery. Her and Trump are two forces that must be taken down. We can ill afford a Presidency that does more damage to the populace than aid it. Many of the population will learn, when there is nothing left, that our two leaders of the Party--which have strayed so far--are the very evil we stand against.

I suggest we create a new party, a moderate Conservative party, that can and will do everything to become what the Democrats and Republicans are severely failing to accomplish.  

The Republican Party of Kentucky: A Failure

(Note: This was originally, in part, written before the 2015 elections and after the 2011 elections in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It has been modified accordingly for accuracy) 

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky lost most of the offices it ran for in this election.

Fact: The Republican Party of Kentucky failed its constituents in electing Republican candidates.

Let me explain these two premises above in this article. While I am a conglomerate of ideals, I locate myself in the Republican party sights. Now I may occasionally veer towards the center or right of this spectrum in some cases--on a rare occasion I have crossed to the other side. Now, setting that aside, let's talk about the real problem of the Republican Party of Kentucky.

As a Republican, it is usually a hard campaign to fight in a trending state that goes Democrat on the state level, but Republican (except for the first term of Clinton) on the national level. However, it is possible for a Republican to attain control of an office. The problem laid with the Chairman and the people coordinating the front for GOP candidates. While the Chairman and the Party attempted to prepare certain people with the fortitude and capabilities to campaign, they failed miserably.

The most important thing for a political party to do in an election is show that their candidate is out there and make the news want to see it. Political advisors, managers, and strategists know all well that one key point is name recognition. In this cycle, c. 2011, the Republican candidate was known. However, he was known for the state pensions debacle and other notorious little things that have slanted the Senate President's chances of taking the Governor's office. Even from the other offices that could easily have been Republican wins, were lost because of ineptitude from the Republican Party of Kentucky.

The only candidate to win the 2011 state election was the Agricultural Commissioner. Granted, the opponent had made disparaging comments about his own constituencies had a dramatic effect on his election chances. Let's be reminded of some of the most important factors for elections, and these factors can be integrated into any cycle of election.

1. Name Recognition and Public Relations: This is one of the most pivotal things in elections besides money. This area is one that needs to be reaffirmed by any candidate of choice by the Republican Party of Kentucky. Even if their candidate did not have any recognition whatsoever, it would have been more profound to do "media bombs" to introduce the new candidate during strategic moments of air time. Further, to make any kind of advance into Democratic territory, we need to move forward in the internet age. If we fail--which we have--we may not be able to gain our momentum in taking what used to be our territory. 
2. Finance: Money is key, but not completely so. Some campaigns have been well planned with low finances. Now, several key Republicans have been able to use their money effectively and garner much needed funds. Now Senator Rand Paul used a style of "money bombing" to effectively recruit supporters to provide random sums of money. This technique proved valuable and useful for his campaign and winning the election. 
3. Technology Revolution: The KYGOP stays in its door to door mentality when most voters are not at home much, they are the epitome of the Techno Era. They log more hours now on Twitter, Facebook, and Vine than ever. To reach max efficiency, the KYGOP must vigorously ramp up its social media arm and attune to its voters. It needs more bloggers, more flash-mob recuritment, and need to enhance the College Republicans to deal with college students on their own campus while the main party must focus on in-state voters who meet the criteria. 
4. Quality Candidates: We need candidate who match the overall electorate, not what the party thinks it needs. We need candidates who are more moderate, yet principled, who can value their assets and yet call on the opposition--when necessary. A Tea Party candidate would not necessarily fair well--except for Rand Paul, inside a state election.We need candidates who can appeal to all the citizens. 

The KYGOP has failed for too many years because it does not look forward, for the near future or even the future! The Party must shed its visage of the decadent past and mobilize working people to rally for a better Commonwealth that makes us better in all aspects. 

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.