Motor Voter and the Popular Vote

States that Issue Drivers Licenses to Unauthorized Immigrants 

2106 Election Results Map

Hillary Clinton supporters are claiming she should be President because she won the "popular vote".   Donald Trump created a firestorm in response when he tweeted that he would have won the popular vote if illegal votes were deducted.  All of this raises some interesting questions.

Did illegals vote?  If so how many?  Could it be enough to change the popular vote results?  But before we get to that, should we even look at the popular vote?    

How many Trump voters stayed home in states like California, New York, and Illinois because they knew their votes were meaningless in states that hadn't chosen a Republican since cars had cranks?You can't hold an election based on one set of rules and then scream foul when your losing candidate would have won based on some other hypothetical set of rules.

Think how this would work in sports.  The baseball World Series winner is determined by a best-of-seven series of games, and  this year the Chicago Cubs won four games and therefore won the series. But in the popular vote of runs scored, it was a tie!  Sometimes the losing team outscores the winner over the whole series, but they still lose, and no one claims otherwise.  

Same in football, where the only thing that matters is outscoring the opposing team at the end of an hour. But sometimes the team that loses has more offensive yards, dominates the clock, completes more passes, forces more turnovers, etc. But they still lose.

Only in politics do we play this game of retroactive rule making, and the reason we do so is based on pervasive ignorance about Federalism and the founding of the country.  But there are other more nefarious reasons.

Democrats have been on a decades long mission to encourage illegals to come into the country and vote. Statistically immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In 1993 Democrat President Bill Clinton signed a law known as the Motor Voter bill which automatically registered anyone who applied for a drivers license or other government benefit.  The problem is that illegals and non-citizens can obtain drivers licenses in many states including California, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Vermont, Washington, Hawaii...

Say, that looks an awful lot like that blue election map at the top of the page! Interestingly, Utah is the only state that went red of the states that allow illegals to get drivers licenses. But Utah requests a picture I.D. to vote, and illegals are issued a distinctively different license.  In short, the correlation in the two maps is undeniably and statistically significant.

Here's a picture of Bill Clinton signing the Motor Voter bill.  Notice the two people standing directly behind him?  They are Francis Fox Piven and  Richard Cloward in the green and grey respectively, two radical Columbia University professors who advocated collapsing the U.S. by overloading it with dependents.

And here is Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, who studied at Columbia University while Cloward and Piven held court there, answering  a question with only one correct answer.   The question is essentially, "should illegals be afraid to vote?" His answer should have been, "they shouldn't vote because it's illegal".  That's not what he says though.  Watch:

So how many illegals and non-citizens voted in those Motor Voter states? How many voted in all the other states? There is no way to ever know because by Democrat design, when it comes to citizenship, voting in most states is done strictly on the honor system.  But the map speaks volumes.
     

Trump, Explained

Apparently Trump's detractors still don't understand him.  How else to explain their continued reaction to every action and tweet.  Freelance journalist Salena Zito perhaps said it best:

"The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

As good as that is, and brevity being the soul of wit and all, there are times when more depth is required.  For those interested in better understanding, for example, why Trump still provocatively tweets about illegal votes and flag burning knowing he is opening a huge can-o-worms,  I offer the following in-depth Trumpsplanation.

Six Unconventional Trump Perspectives

Full disclosure:  I was a #NeverTrump-er before it got a hashtag.   Right after Trump announced I called him a shock-jock and compared him to Howard Stern.  Later I made a video parody of Caddyshack featuring Rodney Dangerfield’s character with Donald Trump’s voice.  I considered the whole thing to be good comedy.  Throughout the primaries I wrote often about how he was making unforced errors and was certainly not a conservative.  In short, I never thought Trump would go as far as he has. 

But he has, and as the primary wore on he grew on me.  For one thing he kept winning.  For another, he was fearless, tenacious, energetic, politically incorrect, and able to think on his feet.   That’s not to say I ever warmed to his demeanor.  I continue to cringe at his antics though the difference is, at least now I understand why he does it. 

Trump is doing these things deliberately.  There is a method to his madness.   He’s following a game plan he wrote about thirty years ago that he developed for success in business.   He has been far more strategic, methodical, and consistent than he’s ever given credit for.    Now that he's won, we must pay attention.            

1. Trump on Trump

A good place to start is this whole issue of demeanor.   Many Americans are particularly turned-off by Trumps demeanor.  Many women especially.  Donald Trump is not playing the gentleman’s game of politics we are used to.  While it doesn't make it right, it is absolutely by design.  

"In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard."                                                                                                                                                     Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

This “attitude” of his to “fight back very hard” is why he has attacked John McCain, Megyn Kelly, The Khans, and countless others.  It is an attitude that served him well in the ultra-competitive world of Manhattan real estate, but it has also gotten him in lots of trouble lately.  It is obviously a risky strategy in national politics. 

One reason the attacks hurt him so badly is that he does it all personally.  Trump has had to be his own one-man war-room.  He had a skeleton staff, spent almost no money on negative ads, and lacked even a party to fight for him.  But he'll probably continue to operate like that as president because after all these years it's who he is.   

One side-note on Trump’s tendency to attack:  He was born at the same time and place as the saying, “nice guys finish last”.  Leo Durocher was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers and coined that phrase around the summer of 1946.  Donald Trump was born that same summer, a stone’s throw away in Queens.   

As I’ll explain later, Trump’s "nice guys finish last" attitude has thrown the other side off their game.    

"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better...The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you." 

                                                                                     Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

Donald Trump is a veteran media maestro.  His very business model – branding his name – was achieved in large measure by being controversial and getting free media.  For years, his tabloid antics helped keep his name in the spotlight, and the Trump name was emblazoned on every one of his properties and projects.  For Trump Inc. any publicity was good publicity.  

His presidential bid used the same game plan.  By being “sensational”, “different”, “outrageous”, “bold”, and “controversial” he managed to run a presidential race on the cheap with almost no staff or ground-game.  He played the media like a Stradivarius to get his name, face, and candidacy in the conversation every day.  That’s why he started this bid with the Obama birth certificate quest.  It made news. Trump was being sensational and outrageous by design.  Does he really think Mexico will pay for the wall?  Does he really think we should have seized Iraq’s oil?  All we know is what he reveals in his own book.

A vintage example of Trump playing the media was his birther press conference during the campaign.  Trump announced he was going to make a big statement about Barack Obama’s birthplace and invited all the media to a presser.  The networks all covered it live expecting a big announcement, but instead they got a lengthy parade of military endorsements for Trump.  At the very end he made a brief statement that Obama was born in the U.S.  The press went apoplectic.  They knew they’d been trolled.     

By trolling the media Trump has been able to provoke them into over-reactions that almost always backfire.  (See Salena Zito quote in the first paragraph.) The public knows that calling a bomb, “a bomb”, is not an unreasonable assertion.  The public knows that a temporary halt to unscreened Muslim immigration is not outrageous in the context of a global jihad that has declared war on us.

    

Granted, Trump has tweaked the media so often that nearly all his coverage is negative at this point.   But that doesn’t seem to concern him.  He seems to be banking on his ability to go directly to the people, a la Ronald Reagan. 

     

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."                                                                                                                          Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

Donald Trump really likes to throw in some “hyperbole”.  Does he really want to throw flag burners in prison?  Can President Trump really Make America Great Again?  Will he really be the best jobs President God ever created?  Does he really think America’s going to win so much we are going to be tired of winning?  All we know is that he knows he has to eventually “deliver the goods”.    

And he has delivered.  He won the nomination and then the Presidency.  He has over-achieved by every single measure of a rank amateur in politics, let alone on the biggest stage - presidential politics.

And he has delivered the goods throughout his career.  Of course not every project succeeded, but Steve Jobs also had plenty of flops along with his successes.  That's just the nature of risk and high achievers.  At least Trump never got booted from his own company.

“You always, when the service was over, you said, ‘I’d have sat there for another hour,’” Mr. Trump recalled. “There aren’t too many people like that. It wasn’t the speaking ability, it was the thought process.”    

                                      Donald Trump on Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, Minister at Marble Collegiate Church

Dr. Norman Vincent Peale is an often overlooked piece of the Donald Trump puzzle.  Beginning as a teenager, and continuing for decades,  he attended The Marble Collegiate Church, which was led by Dr. Peale, author of the bestselling book, "The Power of Positive Thinking".

The power of positive thinking, according to Peale, was that if you you could train your thought process to focus on positive visions of yourself, your abilities, your prospects, your achievements, etc., you could go as far as you wanted to go in life.  Nothing could stop you as long as you held firm to this positive picture.

Typical Peale quotes are:   "Change your thoughts and you change your world."   "There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference between mediocrity and accomplishment."   "If you have zest and enthusiasm you attract zest and enthusiasm. Life does give back in kind."

You can hear echoes of Peale in every aspect of Trump's oversized positive image of himself, his abilities, and his accomplishments.  It's hard to deny Peale's power, though, when so many of those accomplishments are real.    

“While he may be the billionaire from New York … he’s much more of a blue-collar guy.”                                                        

                                                                                                                          Donald Trump Jr., 2016

Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, when Donald Trump was a household name and a fixture of the NY tabloids, I ran an industrial plant in the NY metropolitan area.  Trump was a surprisingly popular figure with the hourly plant workers, truck drivers, tradesmen, and office workers I worked with.  It struck me as odd that a brash billionaire with his name in big gold letters, flying around in a helicopter, with bejeweled arm-candy always at his side, could be a hero to these hard-working blue-collar workers.  Didn’t they know he was a “greedy one-percenter”?  (Though we didn’t talk like that back then.)  Didn’t they know he ran an “evil corporation”?  Didn’t they know he made “a profit”?  Didn’t they know he had a “yacht”?

Sure, they knew all that, but they also knew he was genuine, he shared their affection for pro wrestling, he was unabashed about his wealth, and he was having a good time.  Yes, he was having a really good time!  In short… they wanted to be like him. This was the American Dream they grew up hearing about.  It made him a working-class hero.   

They also saw that Trump spoke more like a blue-collar guy than an elitist rich guy.  The lingua franca on New York construction sites was not what you hear coming out of the mouths of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Trump’s fluent blue-collar, sentence-fragment lingo is refreshing after eight years of Obama’s hyper-careful, faculty-lounge act.  Voters loved Obama’s erudition after George W. Bush’s seeming inability to speak fluent English, but after eight years, that act has worn thin for many. 

2. Milton Friedman 

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion, which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. 

                                                                                                                          Milton Friedman 

Many Americans believed Hillary and Donald were precisely the wrong people for the job.  But according to Dr. Friedman, they could still do the right thing under certain circumstances.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected president with far less than a majority of the electorate. Most Americans thought he too was the wrong person for the job.  In his first two years, he raised taxes and grew government.  The economy stagnated, and the stock market was soft.  As a result, Democrats lost big in the mid-term elections of 1994.   In came Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America. Weakened by the rout in ’94, Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing against his instincts.   He lowered taxes, supported free trade, declared an end to big government, and supported welfare reform.  The economy and the stock market went on a tear, all without the aid of zero percent interest rates.  The budget got nearly balanced, and to this day Bill Clinton is known for the strong economy that came after he "triangulated" and reluctantly agreed to many of the planks of Newt's contract. Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing despite being the wrong person.

Can the electorate make it "politically profitable" for President Trump to do the right thing?  Based on the example of Barack Obama, I think we have a much better shot given that this "wrong person" is not a "historical first" from a politically favored class of citizens. 

Donald Trump will not be coddled by the media, or Hollywood, or academia, or anyone.  He will not be given the benefit of any doubt.  It will be politically unprofitable for him to do the wrong thing.     

3. Think Tanks

We think we just elected a single person to be President, but it’s not that simple. 

Aaron Klein, a journalist based in Israel, has written extensively about what Barack Obama is going to do before he even does it.  Does Mr. Klein have some prophetic powers acquired in the Holy Land?  No, he simply reads the policy papers from The Center for American Progress (CAP).  Apparently, so does Obama.  

During the campaign Donald Trump came out with a detailed proposal for school funding.   Did he just think up this plan in-between campaign stops?  No, he got it from a think tank. 

And that’s the point.  Presidents lean heavily on their think tanks.  For Democrats it’s CAP, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Human Rights Watch, and George Soros’ Open Societies Institute.  For Republicans it’s The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, and Freedom House.

There’s an army of very qualified eggheads who will conceive and implement any presidential priorities. Trump’s lack of government experience is irrelevant in this context.

4. Saul Alinsky

To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in Saul Alinsky, but Saul Alinsky  is very interested in you.  The late Saul Alinsky is the most influential political strategist of our time.  Barack Obama went into community organizing because of Saul Alinsky, settled in Chicago because of Alinsky, and taught Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” as an instructor.  Hillary Clinton knew Alinsky, corresponded with him in college, and wrote her college thesis on Alinsky. 

Prior to Alinsky politics was a dirty business, but post-Alinsky it got radicalized.  At least on one side, that is.   Alinsky's 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals” quickly became the tactical political bible of the radicalized Left.  The Right haplessly ignored it.  

And then came Trump.  Trump’s own book, “The Art of the Deal”, is kind of a “Rules for Radical Businessmen”.  Donald Trump is a natural-born Alinskyite.  His ability to “fight back very hard”, and take a “nice guys finish last” approach, threw the Left off their game. 

The radical Alinsky tactics did not work as effectively on Donald Trump as they did on gentleman GOPers like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.  They were all turned into Hitler caricatures via the Alinsky tactics, and their only response was to turn the other cheek.  It is sad to say this, but running a race for president as a GOP gentleman is an enormous liability in this radicalized Alinsky age. 

5. The Trump Family

Donald Trump has been quoted as saying he was a lousy husband, but a good father.  I believe he is right.  His kids are all amazing.  They are not typical billionaire ne’er-do-wells.  They all work in the family business, are doing great things, are stable citizens, and aren’t taking salaries from the family charitable foundation.   

If his kids are a reflection of him, and to a person they claim to be, Donald Trump looks pretty good as a human being. 

6. What was, What is, and What may be 

Perhaps Trump’s biggest advantage in the race was his lack of government experience.  No matter what you think of Donald Trump, you cannot be certain what he will do as President because he has never even held a public office.  Everything negative ever said about a prospective Trump presidency, is exactly that - prospective.

My advice when it comes to all politicians is never listen to what they say, only what they do.  Forget what Trump says.  Just watch what he does.    

Conclusion

Think about this:  a complete neophyte, who’s never run for dog-catcher, let alone national office, with a bad haircut, a penchant for controversy, and a shocking lack of decorum, was elected President over a person described by President Obama as, “the most qualified person to ever run for President.”

Now we must do our best to understand our new President and not be whip-sawed by every Trumpian tactic he used to get elected, and will most likely continue to rely on.  It's a new game, and it's best to know the rules.      

As I have said throughout this political season, I consider the country to be like a stage four cancer patient. We have $20 trillion in debt, no prospects of growing out of it, radical Islam is metastasizing here and overseas, Karl Marx is the most assigned economist on U.S. college campuses, most Americans would choose the constitution of the old Soviet Union over our own in a blind test, and cops are being gunned down in cities across the country.

President Trump has almost no chance of singlehandedly curing us of this cancer.  But he could be like chemotherapy.  We may lose our hair, we may get nauseous, and we may feel drained, but we may also go into remission.       

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Warren Buffet is fond of saying, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." The same concept applies to politics. Last Tuesday exposed not just some nudity, but the absolute derangement of the American Left. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed the losing side in an election behave more like deranged five-year-olds. There have been calls for violence, assassination, civil disobedience, riots, demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, etc. And in many cases they have already acted on those threats.  

Here's the upshot: The Left has been strictly relying on leftist news sources for more than a decade. Any news that did not fit within their narrative was not just ignored, but demeaned, vilified,  mocked, and marginalized.  Thus, the American Left has been radicalized.  

You would think after being blindsided by the results of an election in which they were fed a narrative they wanted to hear, that they would shun the leftist news sources that misled them so badly. Instead they are continuing down that same dead end by latching on to every meme they are fed by the propaganda machine:  Trump is a racist,  Bannon is a racist,  Giuliani is a racist, they are all fascists, Hitler, Goebbels, mean to puppies, etc. 

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Leftists might want to try opening their minds to news sources that are less agenda driven if they ever hope to emerge from their current derangement. 

(UPDATE:  Sessions is a racist, Pompeo is a racist, Flynn is a racist, and that's just Friday morning, 11/18.)       

The Caddyshack Election

If you are among the dazed and confused trying to understand how a boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider just got elected President, I suggest you re-watch the classic 1980 snobs vs slobs comedy, "Caddyshack".

In "Caddyshack", Rodney Dangerfield plays Al Czervik, a boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider who upsets the snobby establishment at a country club with the prophetic name, "Bushwood". The parallels between the movie and what just happened in the 2016 election are nothing short of astounding.  It's almost like the writers had a crystal ball and Donald Trump in mind when they created the Al Czervik character.

The central snob vs slob conflict is between the snobby Bushwood club president, Judge Smails played by Ted Knight, and the slobby outsider, Czervik, who is a guest at the club.

Dangerfield/Czervik trolls Knight/Smails relentlessly throughout the movie.  He gets under his skin by hurling insulting nicknames at him, breaking every club rule, mocking his fashion choices, and then finally by dropping anchor on his new yacht, "The Flying WASP".  As Smails is sobbing and watching his precious yacht sink, Czervik admonishes, "Hey, you scratched my anchor!"

In what may be the most relevant line of the movie, Czervik,  observing the "low-energy" music and dancing at Bushwood, blurts out, "Whaddaya say we bust up this joint?"  At which point he throws a handful of money at the bandstand, tells them to get some music lessons, and the place instantly transforms into a raucous disco.    

Smails assumes Czervik is visiting Bushwood to join the club, but Czervik has other ideas...

Smails - "You! You! You have worn out your welcome at Bushwood, Sir!
Czervik - "Is that so?  Who made you Pope of this dump?"
Smails - "Dump?  Bushwood a dump? Well, I'll guarantee you you'll never be a member here!"
Czervik - "Member? You think I'd join this crummy snobatorium?  This whole place sucks!
Smails - (stammering...)
Czervik - "That's right, it sucks!  Only reason I'm here is maybe I'll buy it!"
Smails -  "Buy bushwood!  Why you..."  (proceeds to try to strangle him)

Insulting comments about women abound.  "Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it!" "You're a lovely lady; you must have been something before electricity!" "Hey, you're a lot of woman; wanna make $14 dollars the hard way?" and  "He called me a baboon; thinks I'm his wife!"

In the only scene where Czervik is with a woman, she's a hot young blond in a tight red dress.

In another scene, after unabashedly farting loudly at the dinner table, Czervik has the whole table in hysterics saying, "That sounded like someone stepped on a duck!"

In just about every scene, Czervik is flaunting his wealth and generously tipping everyone he comes in contact with.  At one point he bribes the referee in the illicit golf tournament denouement.

He even brags about doing business with the Chinese. "We just bought property right behind the Great Wall; on the good side!"

This is not the first time a movie has been relevant to a political election.  Think about Barack Obama and "Blazing Saddles".  And then there was Ronald Reagan with "Knute Rockne, All American" and "Bedtime for Bonzo".

Of course there are limits to what we can learn about this election from a movie made in 1980.  But it is interesting that the most popular and enduring character from "Caddyshack" is Rodney Dangerfield's Al Czervik, the boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider who upsets the snobby establishment.

My point is, if you are one of those disheartened souls in a funk over the outcome of this election, go watch "Caddyshack" and have a good laugh.  You might even learn why so many Americans took a chance on the outsider instead of opting for Mrs. Smails.

(Update: More parallels:   Mrs. Smails faints in the movie.  And Czervik only wins the denouement golf tournament after getting help from Danny Noonan (James Comey?), who turns on Smails. There's also an unlikely assist from Bill Murray's character whose pyrotechnics help sink the final putt (Julian Assange? Anthony Weiner?).)  

WTF Just Happened?

That was no election.  That was a counter revolution.  A complete repudiation of Obamunism, and a final verdict on the Clinton crime family.  Wow.

Though I am ebullient at the counter revolution, I feel no joy this morning in having a President Trump.  As I've said before, the country is a stage four cancer patient, and the best case scenario for President Trump is that he plays the role of strong chemotherapy.  We may get nauseous, we may lose our hair, and we may feel fatigued, but we may also go into remission.

Here's hoping for remission.
 

Can a Diet Book Explain 2016?

There's a great book about diet by Dr. Steven R. Gundry called, "Diet Evolution: Turn Off the Genes That Are Killing You and Your Waistline".  One of the premises of Dr. Gundry's book is that we are genetically programmed to pass our genes to the next generation, and that's about it.  After our child bearing years, our genes are looking for any excuse to kill us off and free-up resources for the next generation.  According to Gundry, our genes are constantly asking themselves, "Is this a successful animal?"  If yes, our genes let us live.  If no, they kill us off.

Here's how it works in practice.  Let's say your kids are grown, you are increasingly sedentary, carrying some extra pounds, and bored with your career.  Your genes are intently listening to these signals and can see that you are no longer a successful animal.  They can see that your mission to pass on your genes has been accomplished, that you're no longer a great hunter, that you are clearly eating more food than you need to survive, and that you are no longer happy with your contribution to society.  Bam!  Your genes quietly begin a self destruct sequence.   Before you know it you've got type two diabetes, high cholesterol, a weakened heart, mild depression.  Then it get's worse. 

In a way, it's a stark portrayal of our genetic makeup.  I'd always thought our genes were like Cubs fans who would cheer us on no matter what our faults.  Gundry says otherwise.  He says our genes are agnostic drones when it comes to our survival.  They just do what they do based on what they see. Our job then is to be successful animals so our genes will see value in keeping us around!

The same can be said about a nation.  (or city, state, planet, etc)  

Nations have genes just like animals.  A nation's genetic code is contained in its way of government and its borders.   The decision making parts of the gene are the individual minds of the citizens of a nation.  If the nation is successful, the decision will be to keep it around and pass the code onto the next generation.  If the nation is unsuccessful, the decision will be to kill it off.     

But nations don't die the same way as individual animals.  Whereas animals disappear from the earth forever,  nations disappear too, but their populations and land continue on.  How many times has Israel been conquered?  And yet there is currently an Israel once again with a new genetic code. Rome died, but there is still a Rome. The numerous Native American nations died, but there are still Native Americans.  Nazi Germany died, but there is still a Germany.  The U.S. died once in 1861, but it came back.  In all cases, though the nations died, the diminished populations and land soldiered on.  

2016 makes a little more sense when Gundry's theory is applied to the U.S..  Our genetic code is contained in our founding documents (The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights,  The Amendments, The Federalist) and our borders.  

Our founding documents can be boiled down to five big ideas: 

• individual liberty 
• limited government 
• rule of law 
• separation of powers 
• free markets

You don't need to be an expert to know that none of those ideas are robust in the U.S. in 2016.  Every one of them is under major assault.  The overarching shift is that individuals are no longer the building blocks of our helix.  Now it's government.  Our genetic code has been completely scrambled. Add to that our lack of enforced borders, and it becomes obvious that we are no longer a successful animal based on our founding genetic code.

How we got here is due to a combination of things.  Some of it can be attributed to complacency. Like the Romans, we got fat and happy.  Some of it came from outside forces.  Like Native Americans, our founding ideas got displaced by other ideas.  Some of it came from greed.  Like The Soviet Union, Americans wanted free stuff more than freedom.  Some of it is due to flaws in the original code.  Like slavery, there are built-in flaws from our founding which have allowed the Constitution to be subverted.  And some of it is just failure to pass along the genetic code to the next generation. 

But no matter how we got here, here we are.  So, just to drive the point home, if my Gundry analogy is correct, then everyone enthusiastically voting today, regardless of how they vote, is just a drone gene making a decision on how to best kill-off the U.S. of A.    

As they said in The Godfather, "It's just business."

Why Democrats Cannot Lose Peacetime National Elections (Updated)

(Updated to reflect that this only applies to the popular vote!  ;-) )  
Forget the polls.  Forget the pundits (present company excepted, of course).  Democrats cannot lose peacetime national popular elections ever again.  There are several reasons for this, but there is one overriding reality that drives all the others: Democrats are the party of Government, and government is now a clear majority of the U.S..

Average government spending amounted to about 65% of the private sector GDP during Obama's term.  Nothing close has ever occurred during peacetime in the U.S..

65% is an insurmountable majority for Democrats in popular votes.  Sorry.  That's just how it works in a democratic republic.

A picture is worth a thousand words:  

(All numbers are from usgovernmentspending.com.  Note: most of Obamacare is not included in any measure of government spending.  Although it is a massive new government program, the majority of the spending flows from citizen, to Insurance Co., and then back to other citizens, never touching government books.  Obamacare is an "off the books" entitlement.)    

    

Guess Who's Openly Encouraging Voter Fraud?

Behold the President of United States, under oath of office to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend The Constitution of The United States", as he openly encourages voter fraud.  The interviewer asks about voting while "undocumented", and Barack Obama unequivocally condones it.  He says, "If you want to vote... they can't stop you."  Then he repeats it so no one will misunderstand his message.  How is this not treason?  



Other than the fact that Obama is now stating this publicly, this strategy is nothing new.  In fact it goes back a half a century.

In 1966, Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven laid out a strategy to destroy the United States by overloading the system with dependents.  Barack Obama studied under Cloward and Piven as a student at Columbia University in the early 1980s.

But Obama was not their only pupil.  In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law something called "The Motor Voter Law", which attached voter registration to drivers licenses and other unrelated government interactions.  The plan was to encourage illegals to register, after which it would be impossible to prevent them from voting.

Here is Bill Clinton signing the Motor Voter law with Cloward and Piven standing behind him. (Richard Cloward is in the light grey suit, and Francis Fox Piven is in the green coat.)    

Now do you understand why Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, want open borders and no voter ID?  

Coexist?

Dear Democrats...

Dear Democrats,

Regardless of who we elect on Tuesday, this country is Humpty Dumpty...after the fall.   If you've been paying attention to the leaks gushing out of Washington just these last few days, you've become aware of gross corruption and malfeasance on the part of your party and candidate the likes of which have never been seen before. Meanwhile, the only alternative is in your eyes so deeply flawed that should he win, you will consider him illegitimate from day one.  As a country, we will be in pieces regardless.  Neither King Donald nor Queen Hillary, with all their horses and all their men, can ever put Humpty together again.

What we are witnessing is nothing short of the de-legitimization of the United States government, a condition that is unsustainable in a republic.   Since the founding of our country the losing side in Presidential elections always had a reasonable expectation that they would continue to be treated equally under the law.  That ship has sailed for huge segments of the population.

The danger of this is incalculable.  So, as we lie bleeding (figuratively) in the street, a nation torn apart, descending into perhaps permanent dissolution, I'd like to review some recent and illuminating history:

Richard Nixon, a Republican, resigned the presidency in the summer of 1974 under a cloud of scandal in what became known as Watergate.  The reason Nixon eventually resigned was that, despite his instinct to lie, deny, and run-out-the-clock, the "grey-beards" in his own party recognized his mendacity and showed him the door.

Shortly thereafter, today's Democrat party elders including the Clintons and Obamas were studiously absorbing a short book by Saul Alinsky called "Rules for Radicals".  It's a title which explains all you need to know about its contents.  "Rules for Radicals" accomplished two important things for the Democrats.  On a strategic level, it explained how "community organizers" could organize the unwitting masses into a radicalized army.  On a tactical level, it explained how to use that army to achieve radical redistributive ends.

Thus, when Bill Clinton's ship similarly ran aground on the shoals of numerous scandals - Whitewater, cattle futures, Rose Law Firm, FBI Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy, Juanita Broaddrick, impeachment, disbarment, etc. -  there was an organized radicalized army to keep him afloat.  There were no "grey-beards" in the Democrat Party to show him the door.  They'd all been radicalized. The entire Democrat party, which includes just about everyone in pop-media, pop-culture, and academia, circled the wagons and went into full lie and deny mode.  Bill Clinton not only survived, he left office with a 65% approval rating.

But for Bill Clinton to succeed, the entire body of the Democrat party had to sell its soul. They all had to become radical accomplices.   It was an amazing thing to watch.

After Bill Clinton's success, the radicalization of the Democrat party only accelerated.  Thus, the hapless George W. Bush, inheriting two remnants of the Bill Clinton years - Osama bin Laden and subprime mortgages - ended up getting tarred by both.  Radicalized Democrats succeeded in turning Bush into a lying killer (Bush lied, people died!) who crashed the U.S. financial system.  (Before you get too excited, yes, Bush was the President during the financial collapse, but it was Bill Clinton who created the subprime mortgage industry as a radical redistribution scheme to benefit Democrat constituents.  See Clinton's changes to The Community Reinvestment Act and his "affordable housing" initiative.)  Bush left office with a dismal 35% approval rating.

Enter "Rules for Radicals" finest student, most committed acolyte, and our first "community organizer" President,  Barack Hussein Obama.  In Obama the radicalization of the Democrat party reached its apex.  Not only would he have the radicalized army Bill Clinton had, but he also had the imprimatur of being the historical first black president.  Barack Obama was untouchable and governed as a radical accordingly.  

Thus, Obamacare, which re-wrote one-sixth of the U.S. economy, was passed without a single Republican vote.  The IRS selectively targets conservatives with impunity.  Non-union and conservative-owned companies are openly persecuted by an alphabet soup of federal agencies. Conservative filmmakers are jailed, audited and harassed. $14.5 trillion dollars (new debt plus Fed) has been borrowed and given to Democrat constituents. Our borders are open to anyone willing to vote Democrat. Islamic terrorism is now routine.  Cops are being assassinated in the street at a historical rate.  Inner-city riots are routine.  The DOJ is openly politicized.  Our Defense Dept. is stretched thin and neglected.  And our U.S. Constitution lies in tatters.

And the Democrat Party cheered all this on.  But now, thanks to the leaks coming out of Washington, you are seeing firsthand the corruption and malfeasance you now own.  Unfortunately you created a situation with no good options this time around.

You see, Donald Trump is a natural response to the radicalization of the Democrat Party. For decades, Republicans stood by and watched gentleman Republicans like the two Bushs, John McCain, and Mitt Romney get chewed-up and spit-out by your radicalized army.  They've had enough.  So, this time the GOP broke tradition and nominated a radical of their own.

Now we are stuck with two horrible choices next Tuesday, and for at least the next four years the "consent of the governed", an essential ingredient for the legitimacy of any government, will be largely absent.  We will be in uncharted waters for the first time since 1860.

Vladimir Lenin referred to the radicalized unwitting dupes as "useful idiots".  With all due respect Democrats, this is you.  And this election with all its tawdry stink, is entirely of your own doing.

Now, get off my lawn.