Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Monday, October 24, 2016

Rigged: Every American that loves their country should oppose the Democratic party

The word rigged is being thrown about a lot lately.  Trump is throwing it about talking about the election is rigged.  The media sneers.  Obama sneers.  Clinton claims the Russians are rigging the election...and then she sneers.  A wall of information from the liberal echo chamber has come up to rebuff Trump's claim.
The problem with what Trump is saying about the election being rigged is its potential ambiguity.  This has been a vulnerability of his the entire election season.  Trump says something that's not carefully crafted like a seasoned politician would.  His opponents then interpret those words, deliberately in most cases, to push the next-coming-of-Hitler narrative.

When it comes to saying "the election is rigged", it's easy to take it to mean rampant voter fraud.  That no matter how many people actually vote for Trump, Clinton is going to win by cheating on election day.  That's probably the most common interpretation when Trump says the election is rigged.  Even though that's not exactly what Trump is meaning, that's how his opponents are choosing to interpret it.  And by doing so, it does two things:

  • It makes it easier to refute and defend.  Voter fraud is notoriously hard to prove.  Most of the suspected methods are front loaded, meaning that proving it after the votes have been counted is nearly impossible.  And trying to catch, expose, and stop voter fraud on election day is hard to do given all the sensitivities and constitutional ramifications involved.  Therefore, due to a lot of this lack of concrete evidence and after the fact prosecutions, it's easy to say "voter fraud doesn't exist" because by any objective measurable factor, it doesn't.  
  • It deflects attention from what Trump is really getting at.  The media can claim they aren't ignoring it and just claim Trump is crazy.
So what does Trump and his surrogates mean by the election being rigged, if not talking about actual voter fraud?

I don't quite have the right phrase to succinctly describe it.  But basically, the type of "rigged" Trump is talking about is the collusion between the Democrat Party (the DNC), the media, activist groups & PACs,  and the Obama administration to oppose his candidacy.  In other words, the deck is unfairly and unethically stacked against him.  That's the type of rigged he's talking about.

And this type of collusion should not only scare the heck out of every American, but it should prompt them to vehemently oppose the Democratic party from gaining the White House and any other government office.  Forget what you think about Donald Trump for a moment (I'll be talking about him later).  Forget what you think about how mean the Republican party is portrayed.  The type of collusion that has been revealed from WikiLeaks emails and Project Veritas videos are the same type of characteristics that exist in 3rd world countries run by corrupt political elites.  Heck, the fact that the media didn't expose this type of collusion should worry everyone.  

Why is this so bad?  What's wrong with the DNC, media, activist groups & PACs, and the Obama administration all working together to defeat a political opponent?    If you're wondering this, I'm hoping below will explain why...

Let's start with the Obama administration.   The executive branch of the government, regardless of political affiliation, should not be meddling in elections in this manner.  Utilizing the power of the executive branch to assist one party and ideology over another is blatantly wrong.  Sure, the president can campaign.  That's fair game.  But utilizing the apparatus of the executive branch, such as the FBI and Justice Department to shield a presidential candidate from prosecution is beyond unethical.  With the exception of campaigning, the executive branch is supposed to be objective and politically neutral in executing the law of the land.  When it's not; when justice favors one party over the other, that's what we call corruption.

We also need to be reminded that the Democratic party is not a government agency.  It is not part of the government.  It's a private political party.  The government should show no favor to one party or another.   Therefore any collusion between Democratic operatives clearly trying to get their candidate elected and the White House is highly unethical.  A couple examples of this is Robert Creamer, the Democratic mastermind behind paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies, having a multitude of meetings at the White House and Bill Clinton, technically an average, un elected citizen, meeting "off the cuff" with the current Attorney General (the head of the Justice Department).  So once again, you have our officially elected government giving very special, rather secretive treatment to one candidate's party.  This, again, is what corruption looks like.

Next we have collusion between activist groups & PACs and the DNC.  For starters it is illegal for a campaign to coordinate with a PAC.  PACs and activist groups are supposed to operate on their own leadership.  Coordinating their efforts with the actual campaign is considered illegal by the FEC.

Also, another problem with this collusion is the deceptive appearance.  Activist groups, by their definition, should be seen as grass roots, every day citizen organizations rallying for and/or against some cause.  This type of grass roots activism gives a sense of genuine credibility to the issue they're talking about.  Yet, if a major political party is engineering and paying for these groups behind the scenes, it's deceptively playing an influence angle that's hard to reject without looking like a conspiracy theorist.  Heck, prior to Project Veritas' latest work, it's super easy for people to dismiss dark money funded fake activism as crackpot conspiracy theory.  But once exposed, it shows a party going to great lengths to deceive the people in this country.

And finally, there's the media, the lynchpin to all of it.  Remember, the media is supposed to be our country's watch dogs.  The media gets special protections because it's supposed to inform us of the truth and what the government is doing without fear of government reprisal.  It's supposed to inform us objectively about the candidates.  This is the medium through which citizens are supposed to get information to make informed decisions.  If the media did  what it's supposed to do, all of the above mentioned scandals would be exposed and we'd be able to make an informed decision knowing these things.  However, if the media instead uses their powers and protection to help one candidate and oppose another, it instead acts as a shield to all of the above scandals.  It's deliberately keeping people in the dark on topics that might sway their opinion against their preferred candidate.  

Just remember this:  it should have been the media that exposed Robert Creamer's operation to incite violence at Trump rallies.   It should have been the media that continuously went after the quid pro quo request from a State department official to the FBI regarding Clinton's investigation.  It should have been the media doing these investigations.  But instead, it took a citizen reporter's organization (Project Veritas) and a hacker to shed light on it.  And even then, despite this stuff being shown to the public, the media is choosing to largely ignore it if you were to compare how much they cover the scandals.  In this case, Trump's "locker room talk" and his accusers is getting magnitudes more coverage than the wiki leaks releases and Project Veritas combined.  

Furthermore, when a government works with the media to smear the opposition's presidential candidate, that's unethical.  When campaign staff for one party is dictating questions the media should ask their candidate, that's unethical.  When one party is paying people to incite violence and incidents at the opposition candidate's rallies that the media gleefully covers without doing any due diligence, that's unethical (not to mention inciting violence in this manner is illegal).  

When all of these pieces, the executive branch, the DNC, activist groups & PACs, and the media all line up together to destroy their political opposition, you get the same type of corrupt government that exists in 3rd world countries like Venezuela and many other South and Central American governments.  And this should scare every American.

America is unique and exceptional.  Don't believe all that crap that says we're not.  The reason we're unique and exceptional is because our country was founded on the principle of limited government giving citizens the maximum amount of freedom.  Yes, other countries, particularly in Europe, have freedoms.  But they're all big government in ideology.  They believe the government is the arbiter and bestower of rights.   Those freedoms only exist at the mercy of whose in charge.  In other words, there's no foundation for the limiting of government being the biggest source of freedom.  That's where America  is unique.  Our rights are innate and not granted by the government.  The government is really only there to protect us from foreign enemies and  legislate laws within their constitutional jurisdiction.

We're so used to this freedom that we've taken it for granted, which is dangerous.   Let me ask this:  If the collusion of these four entities is powerful enough to destroy political opposition, what else could it destroy?  Obama has already hinted at making a way to "curate" news for truthiness in regards to right win news outlets.  Probably sounds great to many liberals out there.  But what happens when a freedom you enjoy becomes their target?  What then?  Just because the target of this collusion may be something you also don't like, the implications it brings points to the beginning of the loss of freedom and the declining of the marketplace of ideas.  And again, that should worry everyone.

So, if you oppose this level of existentially threatening corruption, the only thing you can do is oppose Hillary Clinton.  And the only effective way to do that is to vote for Trump.  I'll outline the case for Trump later.  But to put it simply, Trump wont start a nuclear war.  Trump isn't going to start persecuting non whites and women.  Trump isn't going to be running around the White House groping interns (though Bill did set that precedent).  To vote for anyone aside from Trump, including not voting, is to be OK with this type of corruption running our country.