Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: Third Presidential Debate Analysis

Having just finished watching the final debate, I will once again go through a stream of consciousness on what I thought.

Stylistically, I thought Donald Trump was much more disciplined and prepared for this debate than the other two. He did not interrupt Hillary as much as he did in the previous debates. Trump was far more restrained than he was in the first debate. He sounded like a president. He was also much more articulate and to the point in his answers. Hillary Clinton was her usual self, although she was on the defensive far more in this debate than the previous two. I think Trump showed a better arc over the course of the debates by improving over time, while Hillary did not change and even regressed last night.

Chris Wallace was the best moderator out all of the moderators in the three debates. He asked both of them thought questions and did not show any bias towards either candidate. The previous moderators asked questions that favored Hillary. Wallace was willing to challenge their stances and their responses. I think last night provided good exposure to people on both sides of the isle to hear each candidate’s arguments.

On the issue of the Supreme Court, Donald Trump gave the same answer he gave in the previous debates and in speeches in the past. He was going to appoint justices from the list of 20 people that he had compiled. Trump also said that they would interpret the constitution the way that the Founding Father’s intended. He did not believe the constitution is a “living document,” just like Antonin Scalia did not. Hillary said that she would appoint justices who defend Roe vs. Wade and look to overturn Citizens United, which she thought kept “dark, unaccountable money” in politics. She would certainly know about “dark, unaccountable money” given how she received millions for giving speeches to big banks and millions from foreign governments.

I was glad that Trump mentioned how the Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Hillary claims to be a supporter of women and gays, but took money from governments that press both groups. He asked her to return the money on principle. Hillary did not deign to reply to that point.

On the issue of abortion, I think Clinton did come off strong for her base in defending Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. It is so great to see a Democrat trust people with making their own decisions. Clinton did not give a clear answer about where she would draw the line when it comes to abortion. She said that it is the most “painful” decision a woman must make and bureaucrats should not be involved. This position would clearly allow for later term and partial birth abortions. Trump gave a visual of what would happen in those situations saying that it would allow for 9-month-old babies to be ripped out of the womb.

With regards to gun rights, Hillary will most likely overturn the Heller decision with the justices that she appoints.

On the issue of immigration, Hillary immediately made an emotional appeal by mentioning a girl named Carla who was scared of her parents being deported. This appeal is meant to get voters to forget about the rule of law and make a purely emotional decision. She said that she supported a pathway to citizenship, which is another way of saying amnesty. Hillary also tried to scare the American public with Donald Trump’s “deportation force” that will be rounding people up. We already have a deportation force, and it is called Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Donald Trump has consistently said that he wants to uphold the rule of law and deport people who entered the country illegally. I am especially glad that he mentioned how unfair amnesty is to people who are waiting in line and following the rules to enter this country. This is a point that I have made, as my family followed the law when entering America. Carla’s parents were irresponsible to put their family in jeopardy by entering the country illegally. Carla is also an anchor-baby, by Hillary’s own admission. Her family is probably signed up for many, many government services, especially on Carla’s behalf. Illegal immigrants are a huge net drain on the country in spite of all the taxes that Hillary says that they pay. Carla’s parents are concerned that the gravy train is coming to an end. I have no sympathy for this.

Where is Hillary’s sympathy for all the families in the Middle East that have been destroyed by her foreign policy decisions? What about the families in Iraq and Libya who destroyed in the wars that she supported? Is she sad about the children affected by the migrant crisis? I cannot believe her when she says she has sympathy for families after seeing her record as Secretary of State.

On the issue of taxes, I find it shocking how economists are able to predict what the national debt with accuracy. How will they know what the tax receipts will be? How will they know the demographics of the country? How can they predict the exact of effects of deporting or giving amnesty to illegal immigrants? If they are so good at predicting the future, why don’t they predict stock prices in the future? If they could do that, they would become fabulously wealthy. Donald Trump mentioned how his policies could potentially create economic growth, which is what our country needs to help pay down the debt. Hillary Clinton wants to enact more of same policies that Obama enacted, in terms of increasing government spending. Everyone who is productive in this country will see more of their money being wasted on ineffective programs.

When Hillary was asked about a speech she gave where she said she was in favor of open borders, she pivoted to Russia. There is no conclusive evidence that Russia was involved in hacking those emails. Wikileaks has actually released information in the past that is not complimentary of Russia. She wanted to deflect from the fact that she is favor of open borders. Trump has advocated for negotiations with Russia to improve our relationship with them. This would be practical given that the Cold War ended and Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. Russia is preparing for war with America in the event that Hillary gets elected. What is worse, Trump’s words about Putin or the possibility of war with Russia? Even Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, said that Hillary’s election will lead to war with Russia. Hillary has advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria. Russia has aircraft in the area. Russian airplanes will have to be shot down in order to enforce the no-fly zone. That is an act of war, and it will escalate very quickly. Stein went on to say that Trump is the peace candidate. To all military age men in this country, take this into consideration when voting. If a war starts with Russia, you will be drafted to fight. Not the women who vote for Clinton.

As expected, Chris Wallace eventually brought up the sexual assault allegations made against Donald Trump. The allegations have been debunked. Stefan Molyneux has done a video on the accusers and demonstrates how their stories did not make sense and that the people around them said that they were not true. I was glad that Trump then mentioned the Project Veritas video that showed how Hillary Clinton’s campaign coordinated with Democratic operatives to incite violence at Trump rallies. Hillary did not even deny this when Trump brought it up at the debate. She just went on with how Trump supposedly insulted those accusers at his rallies. Have any news channels had sit down interviews with Bill Clinton’s accusers?

I was very happy that Donald Trump had the courage to call the Clinton Foundation a criminal enterprise on the debate stage. He also repeatedly pointed out how foolishly our government has acted under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump pointed out the Hillary voted in favor of the war in Iraq (and he did not). She also took part in removing our forces in a way that allowed for a power vacuum that let ISIS thrive. As Trump said, she has had a lot of “bad experience.”

After the debate, everyone was astonished with how Donald Trump said that he would “keep you suspense” about accepting the results of the election. CNN analysts said that it was the most shocking moment in presidential debate history and it destroyed his candidacy. That was supposed to be a gotcha question. I don’t see the gotcha. Do they honestly expect Trump to organize a coup d’etat? Is he going to get his supporters to cause civil unrest? He has the right to say that he does not like the results of the election, or even reject the results. There will still be a peaceful transition of power. Donald Trump does not have the guns of the state at his disposal  to disrupt that. It is funny that the CNN analysts had no problem with Al Gore not accepting the results of the 2000 presidential election. Gore took a case to the Supreme Court and held things up for a month. The CNN analysts even mentioned how Gore won the popular vote, which goes to show that they are still bitter about that election. However, Donald Trump cannot question or say anything about the results.

It is also hard for Trump to say he accepts the results when Project Veritas videos show high level democrats conspiring to commit massive voter fraud. How about getting the 4 million dead people who are registered to vote off the registry? Furthermore, the DNC also worked actively to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee. Trump would have to evaluate the circumstances of the election to say whether or not he accepts the result.

I think Donald Trump won last night’s debate handily. He showed the country how disciplined and restrained he could be. He also made better arguments on policy and had Hillary on the defensive for most of the debate. CNN’s analysts was scrambling afterwards to paint his performance in a negative light, which only goes to show how good it was. I think Trump’s performance would have helped him amongst undecided voters who may not have been exposed to his ideas without the media’s filter. I think we will see Trump’s support rise again as we head towards election day.

Saving the Republic: Why Hillary Must Be Defeated

As we come within one month of election day, I thought it would be appropriate to make another plea to the American electorate. I did a post earlier this year about why I support Donald Trump. I consider this a sister post, only in this post I am making the case against Hillary Clinton. It is for the good of the Republic that Hillary Clinton loses this election. She has a history of corruption that dates back to her time as first lady of the United States. Clinton is the confluence of all of the worst aspects of the status quo: a corrupt party establishment, media bias, shady financing and a long history of immoral behavior.

The corruption in the Democratic National Convention was put on full display thanks to Wikileaks. In a leak of 20,000 DNC emails, it was found that the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders in order to ensure Clinton received the nomination. The Observer article notes that “the party’s rules, including the use of super delegates—who disproportionately endorsed Clinton before the primaries began—are intended to provide the Democratic Party leverage over the election process. Throughout the primaries, decisions were made by DNC officials to help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders.” Clinton used the Democratic establishment to her advantage in order to drown out the voices of disenfranchised voters, who were hopeful of a Sanders candidacy. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the DNC, was hired by Clinton after resigning in light of the subterfuge. It is worth mentioning that Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, was the former chair of the DNC before Wasserman Schultz. When Donald Trump confronted Clinton in the second presidential debate on “not winning fair in square” in the primaries, he was speaking the truth. In spite of this, Clinton was vindictively smiling as Trump attacked her. She was smiling because she knows that she does not have to care. The whole world knowing that she was the beneficiary of a conspiracy within her own party will not affect her campaign. It is clear that Clinton has the Democratic establishment in the palm of her hands and is willing to unethically use its power and influence to her own personal benefit. Should she become president, one can only imagine what she would do with the IRS and the Department of Justice at her disposal.

With regards to media bias, it is clear that her associations with the media are more than just cordial. She is very chummy with reporters. Only look at how she welcomes reporters on her private plane to see how sycophantic the media is to her. She treats them like house guests, not journalists who have come for information. The press are embedded in Clinton’s campaign, given treats and goodies on board of her private plane. How can we expect the press to be objective in this environment?

Wikileaks also revealed that the Washington Post and the DNC actually hosted a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post was having a party, and the DNC took the opportunity to see tickets to the event to donors. It would be illegal for them to hold a joint event, so they did not publish ticket prices as to avoid leaving a paper trail. Clinton has both the DNC and a major news outlet colluding to support her, yet another sad example of corruption in the media.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News also claimed that news organizations have pressured their employees not to support Trump. Media organizations have threatened to terminate employees who support Trump. I don’t see why O’Reilly would fabricate that, given how bizarrely specific it is. It is not surprising given that Trump threatens the status quo and the interests of major news outlets.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that Google has been subverting search results to favor Hillary Clinton. Google’s Eric Schmidt has publicly backed Hillary Clinton, and the bias in the search engine itself is obvious. Roger Epstein found that the search engine’s autocomplete function was showing positive results for Clinton while at the same time displaying negative terms for Trump and Sanders. For example, when the words “Hillary Clinton is…” are put in the search bar, the only results Google shows are “Hillary Clinton is winning” and “Hillary Clinton is awesome,” even though they were not the most popular searches for Clinton. Bing and Yahoo showed much more derogatory suggestions. Google claimed that its policy filtered not negative suggestions, but autocomplete showed “Donald Trump is dead” when the words “Donald Trump is…” was entered on the search bar. This tactic was also used to cover up Clinton’s recent health problems. Epstein says showing negative search results for one candidate and only positive results for another, you can direct people’s searches and alter their views on candidates. This is a subtle way that Clinton is using her allies to influence the way the electorate perceives her.

James O’Keefe’s recent video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging. Birddogging refers to creating a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Scott Foval, the National Field Director at Americans United for Change said that “it doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.” Foval and Clinton are certainly a match made in heaven. Or hell. Foval claims that he was participating in “conflict engagement” and that he is “starting anarchy here.” By “conflict engagement,” he means that he “pays mentally ill people to do shit. Make no mistake.” However, it is more efficient for him to call his union friends, because “they do whatever you want.” Foval said that “if you’re there and you’re protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies. That’s what we want.” Foval hired thugs to disrupt Trump rallies and provoke violence. The media would then play its part by branding Trump and his supporters as violent, saying that they needlessly provoked hostilities with their hateful rhetoric. “The media will cover it, no matter what happens,” Foval said. He gives the agitators “a script of engagement” in the hopes that “the crazies bite.” He said that there is a “central agitator training” which prepares the volunteers to start confrontations. He then sends them to wherever Donald Trump and Mike Pence have events.

In addition to this, Foval said that he was contracted to both the DNC and the Clinton campaign. He openly admitted to a conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and the DNC to incite violence at Trump rallies. Foval gave away the whole chain of command, “the campaign (Hillary Clinton) pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group (Foval’s company), the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.” Foval is acting with the approval of the Clinton campaign. He also admitted to being an intermediary between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Campaign laws do not allow for those two entities to interact with each other. Foval said that it is important to have a “double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC” so that “they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.”

At the Trump rally in Chicago, which was cancelled due to security concerns, the DNC clandestinely organized violent protests outside the event. Aaron Black, the DNC rapid response coordinator, said that “the Chicago protest where they shut all that, that was us.” A DNC operative has admitted on camera that the violent protests in Chicago were his doing. “None of this is supposed to come back to us…we don’t want it to come from the party,” added Black, whose actual name is Aaron Minter. It is unfortunate that the mainstream media won’t cover this story. James O’Keefe’s video is a smoking gun revealing how the Clinton campaign conspired with the DNC to rig the election by fomenting violence at Trump’s events. This was intended to give good footage to reporters in the media who favor Clinton. I find this unbelievably reprehensible and everyone who plans to vote should learn about this.

In addition to these despicable acts, Hillary Clinton’s financial backing reveals the degree to which she is in bed with special interests, particularly the large banks. Hillary and Bill Clinton made $153 million in speaking engagement between 2001 and 2015. The two made 729 speeches for an average payday of $210,795. The two also made at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Citigroup. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collected at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. Moreover, she refused to release the transcripts of her speeches. Wikileaks obtained excerpts of her speeches from John Podesta’s compromised email account.

When Clinton was asked about having “public and private positions” in the second presidential debate, she used Abraham Lincoln as an excuse for her dishonesty. An example of her being two-faced are her public and private positions on the Syrian refugees. She said in a speech to the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon on October 28th, 2013, that Jordan “has hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all of those refugees, so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.” This is the same woman who wants a 550% increase in the number of Syrian refugees brought to the United States. Another example of her deception is with regards to her position on changing the tax code. She said in a speech to ECGR Grand Rapids on June 17th, 2013 that “we can become same money and become more competitive with a simpler tax code” and that the corporate tax code is “kind of a dinosaur waiting to be changed.” It seems that paying Hillary Clinton a quarter of a million dollars for a speech is enough to make her adopt Donald Trump’s position on an issue. She did not mention making the rich “pay their fair share” when speaking to special interests in private. I guess that is just her “public” position. This is why Trump confronted Clinton on not doing away with the carried interest provision in the tax code in spite of being a Senator for decades. “The reason you didn’t is because your friends take the same advantage that I do,” said Trump. It was her “private” position to keep the provision in place. Based on the excerpts from her speeches, Clinton will certainly take care of her donors when elected.

In addition to her speaking engagements, 59% of her campaign contributions are large individual contributions. If you do not make a large contribution to her campaign, she does not care what you have to say. Not listening to you will not cost her money. However, not listening to the big banks will cost her. Donald Trump does not have this albatross on his shoulder.

Hillary Clinton’s unethical behavior could use its own post. However, I will boil down the most important instances in recent memory.

The email scandal revealed Clinton’s criminal arrogance and the contempt with which she holds the rule of law. U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071 states the following:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary Clinton used her own private email server as Secretary of State. She willfully concealed and removed her emails from the archives of the US government. By not turning over the entire server to the government, she violated the law. She is therefore disqualified from holding office in the United, which means that she should not even be running for president. The Podesta emails showed one email from Erika Rottenberg, a lawyer with ties to the Clinton campaign. She said that “while we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.” Anyone else who did what Hillary did would have gone to prison. Hillary was very aware of this double standard. Bill Clinton must have also been very persuasive in his meeting with the Attorney General on an airstrip as the investigation neared its end.

The Podesta emails also revealed that Clinton campaign knew that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS. The reason why they do not say or do anything about this is because both of those government have donated to the Clinton Foundation. The Saudi Arabian government has donated between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation through June 2016. The State of Qatar donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. How can we believe that she will fight ISIS when her foundation receives donations from their benefactors?

To conclude, a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for the current system of cronyism, false promises, an inordinately powerful party establishment and a corrupt media. The reason the media in particular has gone all in for Clinton is because Donald Trump is going against all of parties that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The lobbyists, corporations, big banks and media have created the current system to benefit themselves at the expense of the American people at large. If you really want to see the current system destroyed, then you would have to vote for Donald Trump. Trump was not a politician before this election cycle. He never made promises to constituents that turned out to be false, unlike Hillary. Trump will not be beholden to special interests when he is in office. He is largely self-funding his campaign and has not received millions from Wall Street, also unlike Hillary. Regardless of what you think of Trump, he is not a crook. If Clinton is elected, it will be the end of the rule of law in America. If she can get away with all of her crimes and become President of the United States, we cannot reasonably convict anyone else of the crime in our country. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has threatened to start a war with Russia. The Russian government has started placing missiles near Alaska and has also asked that Russians living in America should fly back home. Donald Trump is the peace candidate, and hopes to make a deal with Putin. Trump has never taken part in destroying a country. He never conducted air strikes in the Middle East. He also never giggled about killing Muammar Gaddafi. I think these reasons are enough to inspire any American who loves his or her country to come out and vote to save the Republic.


E Pluribus Unum: An Immigrant’s Plea to America

As an immigrant to America, I have a lot to be grateful for. I will eternally express my gratitude to this nation for accepting me and giving me the life that I am living now. Millions of other immigrants can say the same. They have been able to come from all parts of the world and fulfill their dreams. This sentiment has been used to justify multiculturalism. We are repeatedly told that America is “a nation of immigrants.” However, that is not what America is. America was always meant to be an outpost of Europe, based on Western European traditions and English common law. As one would expect, immigrants who came to America were mostly from Europe. The immigration policy of the United States after 1965 has allowed for people from vastly different and even antithetical cultures to enter our country by the millions. Our porous border with Mexico has allowed for millions more from a backwards culture to enter America. As I said in my very first post, I want to preserve the America that my family came to enjoy. I do not want to see the character of the United States to change as a result of different cultures being allowed in. I do not want my parents’ sacrifice to be in vain. In order to preserve our country, we must do away with this notion that America is “a nation of immigrants” and return to our European roots.

First, a little personal history. I moved to America when I was 11 months old. I was born in Hyderabad, India. My parents were born and raised in that city. My father married my mother and got a job in Cleveland. He sent for me and my mother in 1994. We later moved to Chicago, where I have lived since 1997. My parents made the journey from India and chose to become Americans.

In one generation, my father went from a modest living in India to an upper middle class life here in America. No other country could have offered him that opportunity. America is truly a beacon of hope for all the ambitious, risk-taking people in the world who want to make an name for themselves.

What I admire the most about this country is that we all have the ability to create our own path in life. The right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is what allows me to forge my own path. This country was the first in human history to put those words on paper. I am only one of millions and millions of immigrants who have benefitted from that profound declaration of human rights.

While I say all of this with pride, I realize that America is not actually “a nation of immigrants.” It is a creation of British and Dutch settlers. There was no America that existed before they came. Therefore, they were not immigrants. North America was an unnamed continent filled with warring tribes when they arrived. Moreover, the land had been tragically emptied of native inhabitants due to disease. When the English and Dutch arrived, they brought with them Protestantism, European culture and English common law. Those settlers designed America around those values. When America declared independence, the colonists used their common heritage to unite themselves to fight a war.

E pluribus unum was the motto suggested by the committee Congress appointed on July 4, 1776 to design “a seal for the United States of America.” The motto’s purpose is to express the theme of a seal’s imagery – especially that of the shield. That original committee also submitted a sketch of a seal. The center section of the shield had six symbols for “the Countries from which these States have been peopled”: the rose (England), thistle (Scotland), harp (Ireland), fleur-de-lis (France), lion (Holland), and an imperial eagle (Germany). Notice how all the countries that “peopled” the states were Northern and Western European. The United States was meant to be an extension of Europe. America’s legal system was founded in accordance with English common law. Although the original seal was not approved, their motto was. Pluribus Unum alludes to the union between the states and the federal government. It is not an endorsement of multiculturalism. The lie of the United States being “a nation of immigrants” was created to make the new immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries feel more comfortable. America was built by a people with a largely common ancestry and religion. John Jay wrote favorably about America’s common ancestry in Federalist No. 2. He was delighted that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Jay saw the lack of diversity in America as a literal blessing. America, since its inception, expected its immigrants to conform to its English and Protestant roots so that her traditions can be preserved.

Benjamin Franklin wrote about this at length in a private letter to Peter Collinson in May of 1753. He was alarmed by the large number of German immigrants who were coming into Pennsylvania. Franklin observed how “not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.” Their culture was completely different to the English and Dutch who had originally settled in the colony. “They are under no restraint of Ecclesiastical Government,” and were submissive to the civil government since they were still a minority. Franklin was also fearful of the lack of assimilation on the part of the German immigrants. “Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German.” As Germans from an alien culture and language moved into the colonies, they did not choose to assimilate, but rather set up a parallel society that was slowly displacing the original English settlers. Franklin warned that “in short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you (Collinson) very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.” He “prayed God long to preserve to Great Britain the English Laws, Manners, Liberties and Religion” in the face of the waves of German immigration. Franklin’s opposition to the importation of large numbers of Germans into the colonies is really a refutation of multiculturalism.

The English and German cultures did not coexist, but ended up conflicting with each other. They did not live harmoniously as the multiculturalists would theorize. “The French who watch all advantages, are now themselves making a German settlement back of us in the Ilinoes Country, and by means of those Germans they may in time come to an understanding with ours, and indeed in the last war our Germans shewed a general disposition that seems to bode us no good.” The Germans showed an in-group preference for themselves rather than all members of the colony. They would not side with the English in a conflict “except a very few in proportion to their numbers.” The Germans’ loyalty lied with their fellow Germans rather than their English neighbors.

I use Franklin’s letter to demonstrate how immigration, when uncontrolled, can lead to conflict and displacement of the native population. This is especially true when the immigrants come from an alien or antithetical culture. The United States, since 1965 has changed its immigration policy from primarily bringing in white Europeans to bringing in people from the third world. Ann Coulter does a great job of showing the demographic shift that has occurred in her book Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Coulter says that “even in 1990, half the American population could trace its roots back to the white and black populace in 1790.” Until Ted Kennedy’s immigration bill, America was never less than 99% white Western European and West African black. African Americans are every bit a part of Anglo-Saxon America as the Anglo-Saxons themselves. Before 1965, America was a biracial country which followed European traditions.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed the demographics of this country enormously. The bill eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration. It was the first time in US history that immigration from the Western hemisphere was limited. According to the Pew Research Center, in 1960, America was 85% white, 11% black, 3.5% hispanic and 0.6% Asian. By 2011, those numbers had changed to 63% white, 12% black, 17% hispanic and 5% asian. By the year 2050, if current trends continue, there will be no majority ethnic group in America. Clearly, the shift in immigration policy has led to a huge increase in the hispanic and asian populations in America. Most noticeably, the percentage of the population that whites make up has dropped precipitously. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the ten largest U.S. immigrant groups in 1960 came from: Poland, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Mexico. In 2014, only Mexico remained in the top ten. The new list was: Philippines, Vietnam, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Korea and Mexico.

The reason such a shift in demographics was orchestrated was because the Democrat party wanted a stream of reliable voters to enter the country. Over the last few decades, a majority of whites have never voted from the Democrats in a presidential election. The Democrats understood that if whites continued to make up 85% of the population, they would be at a serious disadvantage in elections in the future. Ted Kennedy came to their rescue with his immigration bill to import voters from the third world who are more likely to vote for leftist policies. For example, according to the 2010 National Annenberg Election Survey, 67% of hispanic immigrants and 59% of asian immigrants favor government health insurance. This is compared to only 45% of native born Americans. According to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 63% of hispanic immigrants and 64% of asian immigrants support Affirmative Action. Only 35% of native born Americans favor it. With regards to Obamacare, 69% of all immigrants supported it.

If the Democrats continue to succeed, their policies will divide the country along racial and cultural lines, much like Pennsylvania was becoming divided during Benjamin Franklin’s time. The United States will eventually end up with various ethnic groups squabbling with each other over what the government can offer them. This is the “precarious” situation that Franklin described. We will lose our national identity and face a future where Western values are diluted away. To avoid this, I think we should first deport all of the illegal immigrants who are currently in America. We should then bring in immigrants who are going to be productive members of our society and shift immigration away from the third world.

This is not to say that I oppose people from the third world coming in all together. I have the same attitude as Benjamin Franklin, who did not believe in “refusing entirely to admit [germans] into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled.” The third world immigrants would be analogous to the germans in this case. I think multiculturalism can only work if we bring people from different cultures into the country in small numbers and distribute them finely across the nation. We should also require them to assimilate to the American way of life. If we do that, the values that this nation was built upon will not change, and neither will the demographics.

How would any other ethnic group feel if they became a minority in their own country? Would the Japanese tolerate becoming a minority in Japan? How about hispanics in Mexico? What about the Indians in India? They would all feel that their way of life is being threatened by immigrants. Why is it only majority white nations that are asked to add more racial diversity to their population? We as Americans need to start showing the same survival instinct that other countries would show in the face of a demographic and cultural threat. It is not racist or xenophobic to want to preserve your country’s identity and culture. In fact, it is a responsible thing for us to do as it would minimize internal conflict and secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity.

In order for us to avoid tribal conflict in the future, we must do away with this notion of America being “a nation of immigrants.” History has shown that multiculturalism has not resulted in what its proponents have promised us. We need to get back in touch with our European roots and heritage if we are to “preserve those invaluable treasures,” as Franklin put it. Although I am not of European descent myself, I admire Western Civilization. It is the only true hope for mankind, which is why it must be protected.


Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: Second Presidential Debate Analysis

Here are my thoughts on the debate. As with my previous analysis, I will go through this as a stream of consciousness.

Stylistically, Donald Trump was far more polished and prepared in this debate than the first one. He was articulate and thoughtful in his answers. He was also not as bombastic as he was in the previous debate. He also attacked the moderators more than he did Lester Holt. He was willing to call them out on their bias and assert himself when he felt he was being treated unfairly. He called out Anderson Cooper for not bringing up Clinton’s emails.

Hillary Clinton was her usual self, with not much change from the first debate. She was rehearsed and refined in her speaking. I don’t think that her style will sway voters any more. Trump has changed the way political discourse is done. Trump is more genuine in that he speaks from the mind. Hillary looks to give sound bites. She is not good at absorbing the room and working with the dynamics of what is going on. She kept regurgitating talking points, and it was tiresome.

Going into the debate, Donald Trump had just gone through a tough weekend with the leaked private conversation he had with Billy Bush on a bus in 2005. I was annoyed by because we have so many issues in this country with immigration, national debt and security, but we are now focusing on a trivial comment. Trump was not confessing to sexual assault on the tape. It was as Trump said, “locker room talk.” It was just braggadocio. We have all said things in private that would make us look terrible if made public. I don’t think its fair for us to judge Trump on his private conversation on that basis. He never sexually assaulted a woman, it was just words. Do we really want to live in an age where we must live in fear of having our private conversations exposed? This leaked conversation was really meant for female consumption. I think that is insulting in that women are expected not to care about the issues, and would rather pay attention to an inconsequential private conversation. Trump actually had a surprise press conference just before the debate with Juanita Broderick, Katherine Shelton, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. All of them endorsed Trump at the press conference. When a reporter asked Trump if touched women without their consent, Paula Jones snapped back asking the reporter, “why don’t you ask Bill Clinton that?”

When Trump and Clinton walked on the stage, and they did not shake hands. There are reports that Clinton would leave Trump hanging when he extended his hand. Anderson Cooper would then ask her why she did not shake his hand. Clinton would then launch into attacking Trump on his treatment of women. Trump did not take the bait. The moderators started the debate with the leaked conversation. Trump said that it was “locker room talk” and he apologized for it. He did not allow Clinton to go very far in her attacks on his character. He pivoted and brought up the issue of ISIS as something that we should be focusing on as a nation. Thankfully, they did move on. In fact, he hit back by bringing up all of the women that Bill Clinton had abused. Hillary Clinton opened pandora’s box on her and her husband’s history of abuse towards women. He also brought up Kathy Shelton, who was raped when she was 12 years old, and Hillary Clinton defended her rapist. She was even laughing on tape on how the rapist passed a polygraph, saying it “destroyed her faith in polygraphs.” He also brought up how Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for lying to a grand jury. I think his remarks were a good education for young people who have no memories of the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton just said that “a lot of it was not true,” which implies that some of it was true if she is telling the truth. It was a weak response. It wasn’t even a good pivot, she did not address any of Trump’s statements specifically. I also like how Trump mentioned the tension between the Clintons and the Obamas. Hillary tried to say that Michelle Obama

My favorite part of the debate was when Trump said that he was going to have his attorney general appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s emails. To be clear, he did not threaten to jail Hillary Clinton. The president cannot do that himself, so he said he would appoint a prosecutor. He said that he would let the law do its job properly. He would let it work without Bill Clinton speaking to the Attorney General on an airstrip for half an hour. Trump said that he would uphold the rule of law. When Hillary Clinton said that she did not want him in charge of justice, he delivered the cutting line, “because you’d be in jail.”

I am glad that the moderators asked her about the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street. I thought it was comical how Clinton tried to weasel her way out of her public and private positions. She gave a movie review/bad excuse. I had no idea why she brought up the movie. Her excuse was that Abraham Lincoln had private and public positions on the 13th amendment. Honest Abe told her that she could lie, apparently. I was happy that Trump ridiculed her for her response.

Another strong point that Trump brought up was that Clinton was a Senator for decades and did not fix any of the problems that she mentioned. I think that is a very valid point given that she made many promises to her constituents in New York which turned out to be false. One example would be her failure to create jobs in upstate New York. She also did not sponsor any meaningful legislation when she was Senator. Instead she made a lot of money. She enriched herself even further when she became Secretary of State. I like how Trump said that she did not put any of her vast fortune into her own campaign like he did. He pointed out that any money that Clinton put in her own campaign would be money that is not given to her by some special interest group. We already know that she has “private” policy positions when it comes to Wall Street.

When Trump was asked about his support of the Iraq war, he said that he did not support it, which was true. He made a chance remark on Howard Stern’s show back in 2003 where is said I guess we should. He never openly endorsed the war. Hillary Clinton was the one who actually voted in favor of the war as a Senator. The moderators did not ask her about that, which Trump pointed out.

On the question of making the rich pay their fair share, I have gone over this twice already in previous posts. I thought the question itself was nonsensical in that there is no way to define that someone’s “fair share” of taxes is. When a politician says that they will make the rich pay their “fair share,” it really just an appeal to vanity. The top 1% of income earners paid almost half the income tax revenue. How much more do they need to pay? Clinton wants to tax them even further. Trump on the other hand, has proposed cutting taxes everyone across the board. He also wanted to do away with the carried interest tax loophole. Hillary Clinton said that she does not want to get rid of it either, another thing she did not do as a Senator.

I think Trump was also strong with regards to ISIS and the terrible situation in Aleppo. He said that he would not announce his strategy to the world in the same way that the Obama administration does. When we tell the world where we are going to attack, the enemy will move. Martha Raddatz actually yelled at Trump, demanding that he tell her his strategy. He refused, and made his point that Generals Patton and Macarthur would be horrified by our policy in the Middle East. Raddatz actually argued with Trump, saying that the government would announce the strategy for national security reasons. It is difficult for Hillary Clinton to answer this question because it is her policies that allowed ISIS to rise and destabilize the Middle East. She said that she wanted to use military force in Syria, which I think created the problem to begin with. She also said that the big problem is islamophobia. She said that muslims were here since America was founded. It was tone deaf in light of all the terrorist attacks in Europe and America in recently. Trump’s answer was sensible, in that he said islamaphobia is a problem, but muslims should also cooperate with law enforcement.

Hillary Clinton also wanted to have a 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into America. She said that she could vet them well. However, it is not just about the people coming into the country. In England, second generation muslims are more likely to be radicalized than the first. She has actually commented on October 28th, 2013, that it is impossible to vet all the refugees going into Jordan and Turkey. When Trump says “extreme vetting,” it would exclude everyone who does not have legitimate documentation. He also said that we should make safe zones in the Middle East. It is actually much cheaper to help them there than it is to bring them to America or Europe. Also, they speak the language and have a similar culture.

I especially loved how he handled the Khan family being brought up again. Trump said that Captain Khan would still be alive if he were president, because he did not support the war in Iraq. I think that was a mic drop moment.

When asked about energy policy, I think Trump was also very articulate and gave a practical solution. He wanted to use the coal that we already have and lower energy prices. Clinton, on the other hand, was interested in investing in more jobs for a green economy. This has already been tried by the Obama administration, with very poor results. Solar and wind make less than 1% of the electricity in this country.

The question with regards to the Supreme Court justices was an important one and I am glad that it was asked. Both candidates made it clear what they would do and gave their supporters what they wanted. Hillary Clinton would of course appoint progressive justices to the Supreme Court and try to overturn Citizens United, which was decided correctly. I think she will also try to overturn District of Columbia vs. Heller. That would certainly be a good way to avoid outright repealing the second amendment. She also claimed that Roe v. Wade would be overturned if Trump was elected. I don’t think that will happen, but it is worth mentioning that the case was decided incorrectly. I was especially glad that Trump mentioned Antonin Scalia in particular, and that he would appoint justices who were in his mold. Scalia’s passing made the stakes of this election even higher than they already were. The next president will likely appoint multiple justices. It would be great to have more originalists on the Supreme Court.

The final question was a curveball. Hillary Clinton didn’t actually have anything nice to say about Donald Trump himself, but rather praised his children. I think this was a cop out on her part. Trump actually gave a classy answer, saying that he admired her persistence and fighting spirit. I think that conclusion was certainly a good one for Trump in that he showed dignity.

I did not like how the issue of immigration was not brought up at all during the debate. I think Trump would have done even better if he were able to speak about that.

I think Trump’s performance in this debate was much better than in the first one. He was the clear winner on Sunday. I think this performance would actually help him amongst undecided voters and also hurt Hillary as well. The leaked conversation did not play a big role in the debate. Trump was able to pivot from that successfully and make his case to the American people. I think this performance would have quelled the outrage over his leaked conversation and add to his momentum. I think that as of now, Trump is still favored to win. There are a lot of silent Trump supporters who have not been taken into account.

Tim Kaine vs. Mike Pence: Vice Presidential Debate Analysis

I have just finished watching the vice presidential debate and am going to give my opinions on all the points that stuck out at me. I will go through those points as a stream of consciousness.

Stylistically, Mike Pence appeared far more polished and controlled than Tim Kaine. Senator Kaine interrupted Pence far more and was on the attack for the first half of the debate. Kaine did a good job of cornering Pence by characterizing Trump’s positions and indefensible. Pence was not very assertive in terms of attacking Kaine in return. He was trying to act polite by not interrupting or retaliating. As a result, Pence was on the defense for the first half of the debate and only started to push back in the second half. Pence showed that he was far less bombastic than Trump. He showed that he is a good foil for Trump’s more assertive personality. Perhaps the American people will be surprised to see that Trump has chosen such a dignified and eloquent man as his running mate.

With regards to trustworthiness, Tim Kaine’s point on Clinton having a passion was irrelevant. He did not address the email scandal or her record of corruption. In fact, he hurt his own credibility when he misrepresented Trump’s words and business practices. Trump did not say that all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. He was talking specifically about certain illegal immigrants from Mexico, not all Mexicans in general. Also, it is worth noting that when we are talking about illegal immigrants, we are talking about a group that is composed entirely of criminals, given that they entered the country illegally. Trump went on to say, “some I assume… are good people.” Kaine conveniently left that part of the quote out, which Pence later criticized him for. He also mentioned Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over the Trump University case. Trump did not say that he could not judge the case because he is Mexican. He said that the judge is a member of organizations that are pro-Mexico and illegal immigrants. This is true, Curiel is a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association, which has spoken out against Trump’s positions. The HNBA released a statement on July 2nd, 2015, saying that they “cannot remain silent and allow Trump to promote such racist and discriminatory behavior.” It also called for a boycott on all of Trump’s businesses. Curiel was also a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association 2014 Scholarship Selection Committee, which awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants. These are clear conflicts of interest when trying a case involving Donald Trump.

Kaine also characterized Trump as benefitting himself at the expense of the American people. In order to make money as a capitalist, you need to provide value to other people. They must be willing to voluntarily give you their money in exchange for what Trump has to offer. Trump’s wealth and success are a testament to the value that he has provided to others. No transaction in the free market occurs without both parties benefitting. Therefore, Trump did not enrich himself at the expense of America.

When it came to the topic of the economy, I think both candidates did a good of articulating their plans. The Clinton-Kaine economic plan was essentially more of the same policies that Obama implemented. Kaine wants the government to invest more money in infrastructure and clean energy jobs. Both of those investments have proven to be lousy. After the billions of dollars spent on infrastructure after the stimulus bill, our nation’s roads and bridges are still in poor condition. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, America’s GPA for its infrastructure is a D+. The government has also failed in creating clean energy jobs. Only look at Solyndra as the perfect example, which failed after receiving $529 million in subsidies. Since 1973, the US government spent $154.7 billion on renewable energy with little to show for it. There is a laundry list of renewable energy companies that have received subsidies and later failed. Solar power only makes 0.2% of the electricity in America after all of that investment.

Kaine also said that he and Clinton would make tuition-free and debt-free college. Even though he used the word free, it really means that the tax payer is going to foot the bill. The students and families will still pay for college in the form of taxes and national debt. It will not be “free” by any means.

Raising the minimum wage would work to increasing the unemployment rate by pricing low-skilled workers out of the market. The workers who are retained will benefit, but many others will be fired on not be hired in the first place. Many jobs may become automated all together if the minimum wage is set too high.

Kaine then brought out the shopworn policy of having women receive equal pay. While it is true that women earn less than men, it is not due to discrimination on the part of employers. It is already illegal for employers to do so. Stefan Molyneux does a good job of debunking this myth in his video on the gender pay gap. Men are more likely to go into higher paying STEM fields than women are, which can account for the pay gap. Men are also more likely to work overtime than women are. It is also worth noting that women who have never been married earn about the same as men who have never married. More legislation to even out the pay gap is not necessary. The pay gap exists as a result of the choices than men and women make.

The fifth point on taxing the rich is also a tired proposition. The wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the income tax revenue. The top 1% pays almost half the income tax in 2014. The top 20% of earners paid 84% of the income tax. The bottom 60% of income earners in America actually received more money from the government than they paid in taxes. The idea that the rich need to pay more in taxes is ludicrous.

By contrast, Pence and Trump are proposing a different path than the one that has already been tried over the last seven and a half years. They want to cut back on regulation and decrease the tax burden on the American people. Trump’s tax plan will simplify our tax code to four brackets (0%, 10%, 20% and 25%), instead of the seven that we have now. They are cuts across the board, not just for the wealthy. This will are capital for private investment instead of the government taking it squandering it. The plan also includes cutting the corporate tax from 39% down to 15% to incentivize American companies to bring their money back to America. The amount of money those corporations have overseas is approximated at $2.5 trillion.

With regards to Trump’s tax returns, he said that he will release his tax return only after an IRS audit is complete. His lawyer advised against releasing the tax returns while under an audit. The New York Times illegally published Trump’s 1995 tax returns. The reporter said that he would be willing to go to jail for publishing them. The tax returns showed that he lost a billion dollars in a single year. It also shows that he had a billion dollars to lose in the first place, which means he is really rich and successful. He is on record of saying that he lost hundreds of millions of dollars when Atlantic city tanked. Trump used his losses to reduce his tax burden in future years, which is in complete compliance with the law. The law is made that way so that people can be encouraged to take risks. If he is not legally required to pay a tax, it does not mean that he is dodging the tax. Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to his family, his company and his employees to pay no more tax than is legally required. His fiduciary responsibility is a binding agreement to act in the best interest of the company. He is obligated to maximize the resources available to his company. As far as the claim of Trump not paying taxes for 20 years, he has actually paid enormous sums of money in taxes. Even if it was not through the income tax, it was through property taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. Trump did pay for the schools and the military through those means.

One entity that did not pay taxes in 2014 was in fact the New York Times. This is not to say that they broke the law, but it is hypocritical of them to accuse Trump of not paying his taxes.

As someone who supports Trump, I can tell you that I did not support him because of what may be in his tax returns. I support him because of his policies and ideas. That is what his supporters are judging him on. His tax returns were brought up as a distraction from the issues that Trump has brought to the forefront of the political discussion.

On the topic of social security, I do not see any way that we can keep the program solvent in the future. With $20 trillion in national debt and another $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the program will collapse under its own weight. I think privatizing it would be a good solution to this problem. I am disappointed that neither Pence nor Kaine were willing to lead the way in entitlement reform.

When discussing law enforcement, I was impressed with Pence’s response on how the police should not be maligned for implicit bias or institutional racism. While there may be some bad cops in the country, we cannot paint with a broad brush. Hillary Clinton said that everyone in the country was guilty of implicit bias. The relationship between the community and the police has been destroyed by the black lives matter activists. They have promoted the lie that cops are killing unarmed black men for sport and getting paid for it. They have driven a wedge between communities and law enforcement which must be healed. I am glad that both candidates wanted to work on that healing process.

On the issue of immigration, I have written about this at length on my post about why I support Donald Trump. He plans to build a wall, increase border patrol, deny federal funds to sanctuary cities, and deport all illegal immigrants in the country. I think all of these steps would work to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Both Pence and Kaine agreed on deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes and strengthening border control. However, Kaine proposed that families of illegal aliens can remain together in the country through amnesty. He also wanted to grant amnesty to those “who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, and take criminal background record checks.” Illegal immigrants are by definition not playing by the rules. Every moment they spend in this country is a violation of the law. My parents and I followed the immigration laws of the country to the letter. We entered and gained citizenship legally. Is it not unfair to me and my family to grant amnesty to immigrants who broke the law? I cannot reconcile this injustice.

With regards to terrorism, I am glad that Mike Pence pointed out that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama left a power vacuum in the Middle East when they chose to withdraw soldiers from Iraq. ISIS filled the void that we left. In light of the terrorists attacks in Europe and America, it can be objectively said that we are less safe now than we were eight years ago. I was also impressed with how Pence mentioned that we squandered the sacrifices made by our servicemen in Iraq when we withdrew. That argument would certainly resonate emotionally with many Americans.

The turmoil in Syria was also discussed at length, in which both candidates were in favor of creating safe zones in Syria. This is a policy that I agree with as well. It would be much better than bringing the migrants into Europe. I think the migrant crisis that is plaguing Europe right now can actually be traced back to Hillary Clinton’s decisions of withdrawing from Iraq and overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya. Her foreign policy destabilized the region and displaced millions of people. I think it would be wise for us to stop immigration from the Middle East for the time being.

The most interesting question of the night for me was the one regarding faith. I was actually impressed with Tim Kaine’s answer regarding executions. Although he was personally opposed to the death penalty due to his faith, he still upheld the law. Pence inevitably directed the discussion towards abortion. The practice of partial birth abortions is sickening to me and I too cannot understand a party that supports it. Kaine responded by saying that he supports Roe v. Wade. The proponents of Roe v. Wade have never set time for when the pregnancy can no longer be terminated. Presumably, they would be alright with late term abortions, just as Pence said.  Kaine also said that the government should punish women for making reproductive choices. While I agree with that, the trouble is whether or not they are murdering a child when they make that choice. Roe v. Wade did say that a woman has a right to choose, but does not specify at what point she can no longer make that choice. We do not know when human life really begins in the womb. Why should we take the risk of committing a murder by supporting abortion?

To conclude, I think Senator Kaine came off as more assertive but not as strong on policy as Governor Pence. I think that Pence won the debate on his ideas and for showing his respectable demeanor as Donald Trump’s running mate.

These are all my thoughts on the debate. I hope my rambling did not test your patience too much.