When We Vote Our Conscience

When we vote our conscience . .

We best enact our civic duty . .

We stay true to ourselves by finding the candidate who best matches our values—and what we want for our country.

We elect those most committed to protecting our Constitution and individual rights . .

The U.S. Constitution and our individual rights are what make our American experience special and unique in the world. They are what's most precious to our existence here and they must be preserved.

We ensure the system designed by the Founding Fathers functions to greatest benefit . .

The U.S. Constitution was designed with a distrust of government—and of those who might work it to their own benefit. As the first modern representative democracy in the world, a system of checks and balances was considered necessary to counterbalance government power, while also protecting the majority from dangerous minorities.

Only by voting in those most committed to protecting our Constitution do we make this system work to protect us and our country.

We give ourselves—and our nation—the best chance of surviving our social and political situation today.

If we vote our conscience, and not for somebody solely to keep somebody else out of office, we best let the system work as intended.

Voting freely for alternative candidates at the presidential level—without fear of the electoral consequences—increases the chance that no candidate from a major party receives the number of votes in the Electoral College, thereby sending the election into the House of Representatives. Our national representatives then have an opportunity to vote their conscience.

If we elect those most committed to preserving the Constitution to other offices—our national representatives and senators—they can best sponsor and support articles of impeachment should the elected president commit "high crimes and misdemeanors" or otherwise prove unfit for office.

#VoteYourConscience

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

“Stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Senator Ted Cruz

Telling Americans to vote their conscience seems like a fine enough ideal to encourage. In an ideal political world, if more people would just vote their conscience it would keep the system honest. But, in a system that encourages (concretizes?) two parties, voting in this country has tended to be about not letting the other guy get in.

That's certainly how the 2016 presidential election is shaping up, with more people hating the opposing candidate than loving their own.

Telling Republicans at their convention in Cleveland to vote their conscience means what? With the absence of an expected, hoped-for endorsement for their chosen nominee, much might be read into it—but what does it actually mean?

The speaker that followed Ted Cruz last night at the convention—the redoubtable veteran pol with the quicksilver mind, Newt Gingrich—spun it around quickly to mean vote for the nominee. Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has said it meant vote for him.

Even Hillary Clinton has "trolled" the phrase for her own purposes. Does she know that if the Democrat "superdelegates" at the convention next week in Philadelphia heed the call they might not nominate her at all?

Senator Cruz has not said if he'll vote for the Republican nominee—just that he will not vote for Clinton. He would not seem to be steering Republicans to her.

Could it be about the "down-ballot" races, all the other Republicans that might be elected that day? The Senator says he's not asking anyone to write him in.

Trump supporters on whose ears such a call to conscience falls hard might ask themselves why. If they are voting their conscience already  they needn't be upset. If they aren't, well, maybe they needed to hear about it from Senator Cruz.

“I have to say it was somewhat dismaying that, apparently, some of Donald’s biggest partisans right down front, when they heard that people should vote for someone you can trust to defend our freedom and defend our conscience, defend the constitution, immediately they began booing. I’m gonna say that’s a little bit troubling what they’re saying.”

Senator Ted Cruz

Our Next First Lady?

Melania Trump

"Lock Her Up!"

Chris Christie indicts Hillary at GOP convention

Perfect Gemini

What makes Donald J. Trump the perfect Gemini are his . .

1. Lying, lying, lying: not that those born under other Sun signs don't tell the odd fib, it's just that for the Gemini lying is a way of life. Geminis could give seminars on lying. For them it's not really lying, it's just the way you do things.
2. Looks: even as a craggy, increasingly-old man, he still turns female heads. As a young man he had playboy good looks. Geminis, whatever their faults, are almost always physically attractive.
3. Amorality: Geminis are always in moral difficulties, infidelity being top of list.*
4. Split personality: Geminis, the sign of the twins, always have two distinct personalities. For Trump it's his public and private personae.
5. Money problems: Geminis spend money like water.
6. Nine lives: Geminis take major hits in life, reinvent themselves, and move on anew. 
7. Changing minds: Geminis change their minds every five minutes.

What helps a Gemini in a political race—besides their looks—is their ability to communicate. Another Gemini, JFK, said 90% of politics was "sex appeal" (and he should know). And he was a great communicator, something Geminis are known for (think Rubio).

Geminis are also known for their quicksilver intelligence, which when combined with their noted amorality often looks like evil genius (consider Henry Kissinger). JFK was almost scary smart and is often considered one of our most intelligent presidents.

Interestingly, Trump is surrounded by possible Gemini running mates: Rudolph Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Marco Rubio—meaning we could have four (4) personalities running the country all at once.

---

*Trump reportedly did business with Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family.

#NeverHillary or #NeverTrump?

Each side in the 2016 nomination race for president scares voters into a choice based on the likely/apparent/presumptive choice on the other side. What if these opponents fail to materialize, or if something more complicated happens?

Vote #NeverTrump

#NeverHillary

On the Republican side the scare is #NeverHillary. Whatever the choice may be on our side, we must do whatever we can to prevent Lady Macbeth in Pantsuit from destroying this great country further.

Beyond the possible reality that anybody on the GOP side could beat the weakest presidential candidate in a lifetime, consider that she has . .

• no successes in her public life, only disasters
• only one personal success (that became professional/political), that of picking William Jefferson Clinton as a mate
• completely controverted any feminist principles she might pretend to hold by essentially being the product of a well-chosen-mate
• no policy positions that excite anyone
• no policy positions that fail to change depending
• been accused of murder
• stolen the White House silver
• become fabulously wealthy selling the country out, and

. . she could be indicted by the FBI for committing traitorous crimes as Secretary of State. Or she could keel over with health problems. 

More than all that, or perhaps because of it, she's been unable so far to eliminate the threat of a 74-year-old Socialist curmudgeon from the political powerhouse state of Vermont—with its population of 626,562 souls.

What's the chance that she's not the Democrat nominee for president in 2016? What if her unshakable opponent goes independent against her in the general election?

Vote #NeverHillary

#NeverTrump

No matter how inevitable the Carnival-Barking Colossus might appear to the casual observer, political insiders know that the Republican party has the right and the power—and the responsibility—to choose the candidate they feel best represents them to the country (and the world). Taking whatever political risks this might entail, they can decide they do not want to certify the candidacy of a gate-crashing Democrat from New York.

What if he goes independent?

All this leaves aside the question of a full range of other things that can happen in the course of human events that might change the entire complexion of the 2016 contest.

Shilling for #SleazyDonald?

To the great dismay of those of us who listen to radio talk show hosts for better understanding and perspective on politics—most particularly this race for president—several of these airwave pundits have seemingly been shilling for Donald Trump.

Michael Savage was quiveringly in the New Yorker's thrall early, then Howie Carr followed. Even Sean Hannity joined in promoting the rich man—speaking of his electoral inevitability, building up his business accomplishments, covering for his obvious faults.

What's Going On Here?

Is this simply cultural affinity (these are all northeasterners; two from New York). Does it arise from long-term friendship. Or could there be more going on here? Money? Power? Fear?* Does this man have some sort of hypnotic power over people?

It takes no small amount of moral development and familiarity with history not to be swayed by success, wealth, looks, and (perhaps most importantly) celebrity—and instead see through the evil behind.

Two prominent talk show hosts—Glenn Beck and Mark Levin—have prominently gone the other way, openly and fervently endorsing major rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. At the risk of losing audience, they have taken this bold move to help save the republic.

National Enquirer Smear

Enter the National Enquirer smear of Cruz as an adulterer. Michael Savage has called for Trump to disavow the story or he will withdraw his endorsement and support. And some curious things seem to be happening in the Hannity and Carr camps.

Perhaps it's just the hope in me—for the goodness of our country to rise up against the bad—but . .

1. Sean Hannity corrects himself on claiming a Cruz connection to the anti-Melania Trump ad (run by a PAC)—in a Wednesday, March 23 evening tweet;
2. Mark Simone hosted his show the next day, sweetly endorsing Trump at every possible point, calling Melania's naked fling on a bear rug as simply part of being a model;
3. Friday the show was a re-run from the day Ben Carson withdrew from the race (which he did March 4).

Switching over to Howie Carr in my addictive state, I discovered that his show was: a) running a poll of listeners regarding the truth of the Enquirer hit piece; and, b) just about the delve into the story more. But every time I'd hit the play button it would pause after re-looping this one bit.** 

Cooler Heads Prevail?

I hope somebody has come to his senses. Maybe the station director or owner. Maybe the show sponsors. Maybe even the hosts themselves. Has legal action been threatened?

We should know more soon.

---

*We've all seen what happens to those who attack Mr. Trump; actions described in this article perhaps making a good example.
**I was listening on iHeart Radio (which might explain everything).

Killing Bogeymen

From the Republican perspective, the two bogeymen in the 2016 presidential race are Donald Trump ("The Carnival-Barking Colossus") and Hillary Clinton ("The Bitch of Benghazi"). The best thing to do is to kill the bogeymen.

Deny Trump the Majority . .

Make sure he doesn't get to 1,237

The first objective of anyone on the Republican side who wants to save Republic and Party is to keep Donald Trump from getting the mathematical majority of delegates before the convention in Cleveland. The second objective is to beat him at the convention.

The big bogeyman fear? That if Trump loses the Republican nomination for president he will become a third-party candidate, and then—the other big bogeyman fear—Hillary wins.

Does Hillary Win in a Three-Party Race?

"Bitch of Benghazi"

There's much to this concern that Hillary Clinton wins in a three party race:

1. That's how we got the Clintons in the White House to begin with. Her husband, Bill, never got as much as half of the vote—helped each time by the presence of a third-party candidate. 
2. She's known to have a solid core of voters who would pull the lever for her even if she shot Bill on live television. That number might be 40+% (which would be enough to pull her husband's trick in 1992).

What if none of this comes to pass? She must first escape indictment for a number of crimes she apparently committed while Secretary of State. Perhaps more predictable, is her continued lackluster performance as a candidate. She just ain't got the pizzazz her husband had. In fact, she's a highly-flawed candidate without strong positions—or convictions, apparently.

She screams. She has major health problems. There's Benghazi and too many other failures and scandals (actual crimes) to count. Even her hubby, who's still around to mess things up, apparently thinks she's gone too far left (in trying to become Bernie-lite) to win in the general.

Is Trump Really a Third-Party Threat?

For Donald Trump to open up a third party third, he'd need to finance it—something he hasn't shown any great willingness to do. He's a businessman. He's probably not as rich as he pretends. He can't just pull the necessary billion dollars from his business "empire" and expect it to motor on smoothly. He almost certainly doesn't have that kind of money sitting around ready to be tapped.

Second, he'd have to build an effective third party almost from scratch. Pretending to be a Republican (and conservative one) and crashing the GOP tent suggests the third-party approach presented too many challenges.

Killy the Bogeymen . .

Republicans need to deal with each challenge as it presents itself, never fearing what might happen next. When the next challenge appears, it's time to man-up and kill the bogeymen.

The Smart Move: Saving Party and Republic in 2016

Carnival-Barking Colossus

Republican-side voters are faced with an interesting (read treacherous) choice in helping pick a president this year with their twin objectives: to save both Party and Republic.

The first option they are presented with is to nominate the gate-crashing populist who was a Democrat his entire life, supporting Democrat candidates and progressive policies—with no apparent care for preserving the Constitution—but who appears at times to be unstoppable in his race to Cleveland.

RESULT: LOSE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination against their wishes, and Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat nomination, they can vote for Hillary in the Fall.

Bitch of Benghazi

RESULT: SAVE THE PARTY, LOSE THE REPUBLIC

This desperate move to save the party—at least in it's pro-big government, big spending adjunct role as pretend opposition to the Democrats—would not matter with the loss of the republic. Those who are considering this option might need to wake up to this greater existentialist danger election of Hillary poses.

They could also create a third party, running a candidate for president they believe is committed to preserving the Constitution. For conservatives who wish to to save the Republic, saving the Republican party is not as important.

RESULT: LOSE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

Or they could simply nominate the only constitutional conservative candidate in the race, no matter how odious he might now appear to the "establishment"—for standing against them on matters of principle in D.C. 

RESULT: SAVE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

It's the smart move.

Christie Agonistes Run Amok

“We’re fed up with Gov. Chris Christie’s arrogance. We’re fed up with his opportunism. We’re fed up with his hypocrisy. We’re fed up with his sarcasm. We’re fed up with his long neglect of the state to pursue his own selfish agenda. We’re disgusted with his endorsement of Donald Trump after he spent months on the campaign trail trashing him, calling him unqualified by temperament and experience to be president.”

Asbury Park Press

Bridgewater Courier-News

Cherry Hill Courier-Post

East Brunswick Home News Tribune

Morristown Daily Record

Vineland Daily Journal

These newspapers—all owned by Gannett—published their joint call for Governor Christie’s resignation a day after he refused to answer questions related to his endorsement of Donald Trump for president at a press conference.

Much-fazed Christie Agonistes

His reason: “I don’t want to.”

According to the editorial, Christie spent a portion of 261 days out-of-state in 2015, travelling out of New Jersey to endorse and campaign with Trump—having quit the race February 10 after a distant finish in the New Hampshire primary (where he'd placed all his political hopes).

Looks to me like a man seeking national office to vault himself out of the cesspool of New Jersey politics, a cesspool he'd had a hand in creating. Endorsing Trump was his last desperate stab at regaining the spotlight, with its chance of a national political office (or appointment).

Going from the hope of the Republican party—as widely touted by the Leftist Media Bloc (LMB)—to national laughingstock was too much (on top of what already might have been a complex persona).

Christie Agoniste has run amok (or, perhaps it's beramok).

"Bent His Knee"

"Watching Christie kiss the Donald’s ring this weekend — and make excuses for the man Christie himself had said was unfit for the presidency — demonstrated how wrong we were. Rather than standing up to the bully, Christie bent his knee. In doing so, he rejected the very principles of his campaign that attracted our support."

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher

New Hampshire Union Leader

Slaying Dragons

Angels conquer the Wyvern

"One of the things I look forward to most of all is deposing Donald Trump."

Ted Cruz

As a lawyer and competing candidate for president, "deposing" might take on a double meaning—the giving/taking of evidence for the prospective civil case being discussed, and the removing of someone from a powerful position. 

Ted Cruz is all that currently stands between us and the media-made colossus of the Republican gate-crashing Donald Trump—already crowned our future president by pundits, press, and populace. Which might be all right, except that he's harried by the newly-anointed "Establishment candidate" Marco Rubio—who is also a nasty little vato.

The enormity of the challenge is biblical. The name "Theodore", from which "Ted" derives, means gift of God in Greek. "Cruz", meanwhile, means cross in Spanish.

America is certainly at a crossroad, and we might need a gift from God to save us.

"Nice Cuban Boy"

“When Fox News, National Review and the Washington establishment come to you and say, ‘Wouldn’t you prefer that nice Cuban boy? He wears nice high heels, and true, he has no experience and big ears, but we’ve had great luck with that.’ What will you say to the Washington establishment? 'No, I don’t think so.'"

Ann Coulter

"Their Motley Ranks"

"Whatever envious, petty, bigoted, grievance-based movement Trump is leading, it is not a Republican movement. Whatever Paul LePage represents, it is not the egalitarianism of the Enlightenment for which his forbearers (sic?) fought and died. Whatever struggle the likes of Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter are waging, it has very little to do with the country they supposedly love. And now Chris Christie has joined these motley ranks. Good riddance."

Noah Rothman

"That's the Plan"

“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in. That’s the plan.”

Roger Stone on InfoWars

(the Alex Jones Radio Show)

"Sell Books"

"Maybe someone wants to sell books, maybe someone wants to be vice president, maybe someone wants to be in a cabinet position. But they sure as heck aren't going to be the nominee of this party. It's either going to be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz."

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

"False Prophet"

"I’d like to know who those Hispanics are, because they are followers of a false prophet. He’s going to take them to the desert, and if they think that they will benefit with an administration led by Donald Trump, they’re wrong. They must open their eyes. Please, you Hispanics in the U.S., open your eyes."

Vicente Fox

former Mexican president

When the Fever Breaks

Donald Trump announcing Nevada win

The fever on the Republican presidential race—if it will ever break—will do so when Senator Ted Cruz of Texas wins his home state on March 1 and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Governor John Kasich of Ohio fail to win their own on March 15.

Will it be too late to stop the momentum the newcomer to the party has built up?

Could be. A huge number of delegates are awarded those two days. The front runner could presumably have won the big delegate prizes of Ohio and Florida.

But if Rubio and Kasich see the writing on the wall and bow out quickly after realizing they have no claim to the nomination if they cannot win their own states—and may lose their chance at the second spot if they stay in the race—the anti-Trump vote can then coalesce behind the only other anti-immigration candidate in the race.

This might be the only chance for the fever to break, leading to a churning muddled delegate math all the way into the convention in Cleveland in July.

"Winning, Winning, Winning"

"Now we’re winning, winning, winning. And soon the country is going to start winning, winning, winning.”

Donald Trump

"No One Else to Blame"

“There will be no one else to blame. You can’t blame the progressives. You can’t blame the left. You can’t blame Hillary Clinton. You can’t blame anyone else but the Christians who are not living and voting their principles.”

Glenn Beck