Post Election Analysis

Now that we are more than 2 days past the historic 2024 election, we see that the Democrats have learned nothing from their huge historic loss. The majority have spoken and overwhelmingly the majority has elected Donald J Trump as the 47th president of the United States. Yet the minority are coming out now and attempting to provide their insights and worldly knowledge into why the loss occurred and who's to blame. And remarkably, they don't get it at all. For the answer to why the loss and who's to blame is simple.

The loss...its Simple Stupid

The loss occurred because the Democrats declared that all peoples that do not share their twisted views on democracy and social ideology as being STUPID. They may have used different words such as "garbage" and "deplorables" or "uneducated" or "Nazis" or "fascists" or “racists” or “misogynists” or any number of other attacks but the simple translation was anyone disagreeing is “stupid". Sure inflation, illegal immigration, and wokeism were huge factors. But those factors were all part of the "stupid" declarations by the Dems. After all, if you weren’t so stupid you would see that inflation is not really happening and illegal immigration is good and that wokeism is actually good for society. After all, you're just too stupid to understand those things. Anyone disagreeing could only be disagreeing because they are not as smart as the Democrats espousing their infinite knowledge.

The blame...Stupid people

As to who is to blame...they place all the blame for the loss on those same stupid people. Democrats are taking no time to self-evaluate or to be introspective. Nope, not even for a day. They are coming right out and doubling down on the stupid people strategy. After all people that believe they are right no matter what and they know more than you about what is right and important cannot possibly be wrong. So why spend time reassessing things? And they will fight fight fight for stupid people to see the light the way they do and "save" the democracy. 

But save what? The majority have spoken and democracy did work! So, who or what are they trying to save?

And they are declaring their pledge to protect Democracy and freedom by doubling their efforts to teach their fellow stupid countrymen that they will only be smart once they adopt the liberal left ideologies. 

This entire line of thinking is so very flawed. Afterall, the majority has spoken. The election was democratic. The voting process was not flawed. The people have recorded their votes. We are not stupid.

And if the Democrats continue to double and triple down on this theme, the only ones that will be stupid will be them.

Not to be taken Seriously

 Is global warming real?

 Is global warming an existential threat to our world? 

Must we act? Is it critical to act now? And what will those actions look like?

All good questions but yet who will answer those questions and what will the solution be that saves our world?

I am a conservationist so no matter what the circumstances are surrounding the risks of global warming, I will always take the view that humanity should ALWAYS be taking steps to conserve any and all natural resources. I believe that “waste” is bad and conserving resources is always better than waste. I believe there should be an inherent communal agreement that we should, as a humanity, should always strive to do things and take steps that “conserve”. Whether that is conserving water, or trees, or animals, or fossil fuels, there should never be a path chosen that wastes these resources when another path that “conserves” these resources could be chosen. So, conservation is where I will always come from. Which means that I will always support initiatives that from all practical means, including the economic impacts of such initiatives, conserve our resources. So, I am 100% behind the notion that we should conserve our fossil fuel reliance by taking actions and supporting policies that reduce the consumption, and thereby “conserve”, fossil fuels The net effect of this kind of thinking is less usage of fossil fuels and therein less carbon emissions. Less carbon emissions will always be “good” because that means we are conserving the consumption of fossil fuels. To be clear, I support initiatives that will reduce carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of fossil fuels for transportation is the number 1 creator of carbon gas emissions in the world. Therefore, one could easily argue that this number 1 creator of emissions should be the number one target for reduction. The question is what are the policies necessary to “conserve” fossil fuel consumption?

In August of 2021, President Joe Biden decided to convene a summit of experts to address his stated goal of reduction of gas-powered vehicles to a target of 50% of all vehicles sold by 2030 must be electric. Conspicuously absent from the attendee list for the summit was Elon Musk whom at the time, his company Tesla, was the number 1 producer of EV’s in the world. Basically, the worlds number 1 expert on EV technology and implementation was not invited to the meeting. The worlds foremost “expert” was excluded from this stated existential threat to humanity meeting. Why was Musk excluded? Simple answer…Politics. You see Tesla is a non-union company and Biden was not interested in including anyone that was not aligned with his “union” donor base. So, the question is: If the world is facing extinction from global warming resulting from fossil fuel combustion which occurs when automobiles burn gasoline, then why wasn’t the world most successful and arguably foremost expert included in the meeting?  Which leads me to this question: How are we supposed to take global warming seriously when our politicians do not take it seriously? A serious problem would seek serious solutions by including all of the necessary expertise to participate in addressing the problem.

Hypothetical question: If the world was facing extinction by a rogue asteroid heading straight for the earth, do you think the worlds leaders would only include "union" companies in convening the pool of experts to find a solution to save the planet?

It comes down to this simple summary

Is climate change an existential threat to our survival?

Is climate change and the threats to our world real and representative of a clear and present danger to humanity?

If yes to these fundamental questions, then leadership must consult with, and develop initiatives to address that challenge.

All of the worlds’ experts MUST be included in this life threatening endeavor

If this process is politicized then it cannot be taken seriously. Period!

A true problem cannot be politicized

To do so simply renders the problem political

The resulting conclusion is the people in charge cannot be taken seriously and therefore the problem is not serious.

Mr. President, don’t ask someone to believe something when it appears you don’t believe it yourself. Leadership must demonstrate that a problem is serious by taking actions that are serious.

 

Spare me Kamala!!

 

Coming from a person that has never created anything in her life, it was impossible not to call out Kamala for what she not only said, but to point out how ridiculously stupid it sounded coming out of her mouth.

Kamala’s recent statement in response to the recent Musk – Trump interview "Trump's entire campaign is in service of people like Elon Musk and himself -- self-obsessed rich guys who will sell out the middle class and who cannot run a live stream in the year 2024."

So let me get this straight…a person that has done nothing at all, takes a silly shot at the guy that single handedly made the concept of EV possible. That same person is building out a global network of satellites (using his own rockets) that will ultimately advance cell technology light years ahead of today. To a time when cell towers and dropped calls are forever a thing of the past. A person that purchased Twitter and is leading the world in showcasing what exactly free speech is…both in the United States and around the world. Without Musk, there is no EV strategy for tackling global warming. The primary world-wide initiative to reducing carbon emissions is built on the viability of EV technology of which Musk is at the top of the list as far as expertise in the field of EV. Its just insane for Kamala to even speak as if she is able to criticize Musk.

I pause and ask a question: Name one accomplishment that Kamala has achieved in her career? Something with her signature on it. I’m not talking about “doing ones job”. While it is important that everyone “does their job”, change and innovation require much more than that. I’m talking about creating jobs vs just doing your job. Risk taking is a huge part of success. So again just name one. The answer is there are not any,

And as far as her criticism for Trump…again Trump enterprises employ thousands and thousands of people both in the US and around the world. He is a glowing example of the power and potential of capitalism in vast parts of the world through his investments in world class resorts creating jobs and generating GDP in the process. The fact that a career government worker such as Kamala can even consider herself to be critical of entrepreneurs like Elon and Donald Trump is simply comedy. And the fact that MSNBC newscasters laugh along with criticism shows that they really have no grip on what makes the world go round. The opposite should be occurring. She should be highlighting the two of them as examples of the kinds of capitalists we need and we need more to create jobs and raise everyone’s standard of living. She should be consulting with them. Not promoting government welfare programs but how to create jobs and grow the economy through innovation. For that she needs to talk to the innovators that have reached success. Learn from them not criticize them,

The sheer backbone, grit, and determination of people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump are what allows people like Kamala to even be able to talk about how to address climate change and how to grow the economy. Spare me Kamala. You know nothing.

Day 1 of MY Presidency

 

The national debt currently sits at $35 trillion. Side note: that number does not include the federal employee pension liability that according to some estimates range as high as $1 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office that national debt number is projected to top $56 trillion by 2034. The CBO is projecting the current 2024 fiscal year deficit will equal about $1.6 trillion which means our government is spending $1.6 trillion more than it takes in each year. For emphasis, $1.6 trillion is the number 1.6 followed by 12 zeros. One thousand thousand million dollars. This inexcusable deficit is expected to grow every year towards that 2034 $56 trillion debt number.

Does it make sense to any rational person that a government can spend nearly $1.6 trillion more than it takes in? Do we as individuals have the ability to spend nearly30% more than we take in? What happens when we can no longer spend more than we take in? Basically, when our liabilities far exceed our assets? Has any one heard of the word Bankruptcy?

So, what can be done about it? The short answer is not a lot. As we have seen, there currently is no political will within either party to talk about cuts. Most discussion centers around growing the annual tax receipts by either 1) increasing tax receipts directly through taxation or 2) increasing tax receipts through growing the GDP or 3) some combination of the two. Basically, increasing revenues, decreasing spending, or a combination of both.  However, the only solution proposed by either party is a revenue increasing approach. There are literally ZERO proposals on the table that make any meaningful spending cuts to the runaway drunken sailor spending of our government.

Most people in private business when faced with such a daunting imbalance approach the problem with a two-pronged cost cutting and revenue generating approach. And in almost all cases, in private enterprise, cost cutting of some form is the first step and generally the fasted way to get some improvement of the problem. But please don’t get me wrong, the easier solution in private business, the solution that generally leads to the most sustainable result is a revenue generation model. After all, it is very difficult to cost cut your way to profitability. On the other hand, if revenue increasing is not easily or reliably attainable, the cost cutting route must be taken in earnest. And that is what we are facing with our government spending problem.

So, what would I do day 1? Well, it’s not difficult to guess. I would order that within the first 90 days of my presidency, all departments in all areas of the federal bureaucracy would be ordered to make a 5% across the board cut in spending, and an further an additional 5% within 180 days totaling to a 10% cut in the first 6 months of my presidency. In order to maintain the potency of the first day action and not to get priorities confused or co-mingled, I would not take any other action that first day. This spending cut initiative would stand alone, as it should, to reflect the importance to our country that we gain fiscal sanity back. 

Think it can be done? Ask yourself this: “if I had to, could I reduce my own spending by 10% within 180 days?” While it may not be easy or comfortable, the fact of the matter is you all have already made 10% cuts. As a matter of fact, you’ve made close to 30% cuts in spending. How you say? With Bidenomics the cost of virtually everything you buy has gone up between 30 and 50% with food, gas, and housing as obvious and major cost drivers. When you go to the store you pay almost 50% more for a bag of groceries that you did 4 years ago. Conversely, your money buys 50% less that it did 4 years ago so effectively you have faced a 50% cut in consumption. Every person that eats, drives, and lives is paying more than they were 4 years ago. And by virtue of that, you have modified your spending or consummation patterns by nearly 50%. All Americans have made these tough cuts…with no choice of their own. So please don’t tell me a 10% cut by the government cannot be done! And that is precisely what I would order to be done on DAY 1.

Is the Supreme Court really out of step?

Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, and even prior to that event, democrats and especially President Biden have been fervently attacking the court itself with allegations that the court is radical with respect to its rulings and ideologies. The liberal media tells us that the Supreme Court is a rogue body that has become too powerful and is re-writing the constitution and destroying our rights.

If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it a thousand times that women’s rights are being destroyed by nine old white-haired men in robes. Recently, during a fundraiser in Los Angeles, Joe Biden stated “There has never been a court that’s so far out of step”. But is that statement truthful? If looking through the modern day typical Democratic lense, one could argue that the court has never been as diverse as it is today and therefore by today’s liberal diversity standards, the court has never been more representative of the people of this country. What do I mean? The Supreme Court is a constitutional mandated court consisting of nine unelected justices serving as the third co-equal branch of our government. Today the Supreme Court is composed of five men and four women. Of the four women, one is black. Of the five men, one is black. Never in the history of the Supreme Court has the court itself been so diverse. With race, gender, and intersectionality being the primary liberal qualifiers for “diverse” and thereby supposedly better organizations, it seems clear that liberals should embrace the court and its “representative” mix of justices. President Biden, by his own diversity standards, should declare that the court has never been more "in step" than it is today.

This blog post is not meant in anyway to be a history of the Supreme Court or to present the multitude of thoughts and positions surrounding our highest court. But more from a higher view to point out that today’s Supreme Court has never been so diversified in its composition. And before we start running off at the mouth stating that nine old white haired men in robes are destroying the country, we ought at least to acknowledge that it is four women and five men, of which there are two black people of which one is a male and one is a female. And by the way they are not all white haired either. Referring to the composition of the court as simply nine old white-haired men in robes is simply a lie that doesn’t help debate at all.