September 2016 – The Right Rage

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: First Presidential Debate Analysis

With my head still throbbing from watching Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, I will attempt to give my thoughts on the debate. This just a stream of consciousness from what I remember.

Let’s begin with some stylistic points. Hillary Clinton seemed far more rehearsed and polished in last night’s debate that Donald Trump. That is not to say that Trump was not prepared, but he seemed to be speaking his mind more than giving sound bites. He also seemed to be a little scattered to me, going off topic on a few occasions. He spoke at length on questions that had nothing to do with the real issues. Hillary, on the other hand, did come off as just another politician with her rehearsed lines. She did not do anything to distance herself from the political class. Her objective in these debates should be to give people more reason to trust her and vote for her, which I did not think she did last night. She did not succeed in humiliating Trump either.

With regards to the moderation, I think it can be objectively said that Lester Holt was favoring Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump was asked questions about his tax returns, bankruptcies, birtherism, sexism and racism during the debate. He hit every single Democratic party talking point with his questions. Trump was never asked about immigration or building the wall, healthcare or his tax plan. Holt never questioned Hillary Clinton on her emails. He did not even question her support of the war in Iraq, though he went out of his way to nail Trump on an interview he gave with Howard Stern in 2002. Holt even argued with Trump saying that he was in favor of the war when he never did. The moderator should not be arguing with one of the candidates! It is important to remember, that Trump was not a politician before this election cycle. When he says he is in favor of something or not, it is in a totally different context than a politician expressing the same sentiment. Trump never made any promises to constituents which turned out to be false. It was Hillary Clinton who actually voted in favor of the Iraq War as a senator.

If I were Trump, my answer to the question on tax returns would be the following: What is in my tax returns does not matter. The American people are going to judge me on my policies. Can we please start talking about immigration, the wall or the economy? Do you have a substantive question Mr. Holt?

While we are on the subject of taxes, Hillary Clinton brought out the shopworn leftist argument that the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes. First of all, there is no way to determine what their “fair share” is. The top fifth of earners in the United States paid 83.9% of the income taxes in 2014. The three million people in the top 1% of earners paid nearly half the income tax. The bottom 40% of income earners actually paid a negative percentage of the income taxes. This means that they are receiving more in government benefits than they are paying in taxes. The rich are not just paying their share, they are paying almost everyone’s share.

Trump was also asked to defend his tax plan. Holt asked him to defend tax cuts for the wealthy. Well, Trump is actually cutting taxes across the board and even taxing married couples who earn less than $50,000 at 0%. He went on to say that he would also cut the corporate tax from 39.6% to 15%. This will bring back about $2.5 trillion (maybe more) that is currently overseas. It will lead to more job creation in America in addition to allowing corporations to keep more of their money and use it to pay its workers and drive up demand. The government can help grow the economy by simply taking less of the people’s money. Clinton said that Trump’s tax plan would add $5 trillion to the national debt. This would only be true if government spending isn’t cut and there is not economic growth resulting from the tax cuts. It also does not take into account the effect of deporting millions of illegal immigrants who are consuming welfare on the budget.

Clinton also proposed government enforced revenue-sharing in businesses. Companies do share revenue with their workers, in the form of their paychecks. The revenue that the business makes goes to paying the workers. If the people who run the company want to make an agreement with their workers to share profits, that is fine. The trouble comes when the government forces it. It may work in some companies, but it could be a disaster in many others. The matter should really be left to the market to decide.

Clinton also attacked Trump for his business practices. She claimed that he did not pay many people over the years that he has done business. She did not cite any specific examples of people who were not paid. If Trump really had swindled all of those people, why did people continue to do business with him? You do not make billions of dollars by dissatisfying all of the people that you work with. It is also rich for Hillary Clinton to complain about people not getting paid when she left four people to die in Benghazi as Secretary of State. She also mentioned the law suit that Trump settled without admission to guilt. When you are renting property out to people, you want tenants who can pay their rent. Unfortunately, New York City is expensive and blacks and hispanics have lower incomes that whites and asians. Instead of normalizing by race, we should really be normalizing by income. Trump was not found guilty of discrimination and settled the lawsuit because he only looked at the income of his tenants, not their race.

On the topic of race relations, Trump made the point about how people in the inner cities are being used for votes by the Democrat party. I have made this point in earlier posts. I think it is hard to the Democrats to argue that they are the ones who can improve the lot of black Americans after decades of not producing positive change. Clinton went on to say that everyone in the country is biased against black people and that the police need to be trained differently. I believe that she sent a very harmful message to black Americans, because she is telling them that the country is working against them. Why would blacks want to better themselves when they are told that racism is keeping them down? Speaking of racists, Hillary Clinton’s late mentor Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and was against the civil rights act. I am glad the Trump brought up Clinton’s comment about black youths being “superpredators.” I think that would have come as a surprise to most people. Clinton also complained about mandatory minimums, which is something that her own husband put into effect when he was in office.

Trump mentioned how stop and frisk laws helped bring down crime in New York City under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The number of murders did indeed go down from 2,605 in 1990 to 952 in 2001, Giuliani’s last year in office. Stop and frisk encounters in NYC are set to plunge by 42% this year. Violent crime is up citywide — 109 murders this year, 10 more than last year. There have been 404 people shot this year, a 9% spike compared with the 371 shot during the same period last year. While libertarians may disagree with it, I think it is a good measure to ensure that criminals do not carry guns.

Clinton has a remarkable ability of criticizing others for things that either she has done herself. The birther issue is an example, Hillary’s associates are on record saying that she was the one who brought it up first. I don’t think that Trump explained it well, as Americans do not care for the names of all the associates. Also, it is not racist for either Clinton or Trump to ask whether or not Obama was born in America. They did not bring up the issue because Obama is black, but simply to assess if he is eligible to run. Ted Cruz faced similar questions when he was running in the primaries and nobody said that it was because of racism.

When the subject of cybersecurity came up, I relished the prospect of Trump nailing Hillary Clinton on her illegal private server and emails. Clinton was the one who put national security at risk when she left classified information on an insecure server. The Director of the FBI James Comey said that Clinton and her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Trump had the perfect ammunition to nail Clinton on cybersecurity and instead pulled his punches. I was disappointed that he did not pounce on that opportunity.

To conclude, we will go over Donald Trump’s overwhelming sexism. Hillary Clinton brought up Alicia Machado, who was Miss Universe in 1996. She claims that Trump called her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” There is no way to confirm any of this, we only have her word, which is shaky. One of the terms of her contract as Miss Universe is that she must maintain her image. She had gained too much weight too quickly. Companies were withdrawing her endorsements, one of which was Kellogg USA. Trump said that it was “a big problem.” Clinton brought it up during the debate as a way to shame Trump. I think it may have backfired. In turns out that Machado was accused of driving a getaway car in a murder and then threatened the life of a judge in Venezuela in 1998. The judge, Maximiliano Fuenmayor traced her identity through her cell phone. She called him after he indicted her boyfriend, who is currently in a federal penitentiary in Mexico for drug charges. Machado claimed that she had called him to thank him for “his unbiased pursuit of justice.” When she was questioned on this by Anderson Cooper, she said that “Everybody has a past. I’m not a saint girl…That happened 20 years ago.” Notice how she doesn’t deny what happened. It’s funny how she is going on television blasting Trump for what he allegedly said in the past when she is willing to gloss over what she did 20 years ago. It is suspicious that Machado got her citizenship given that she was associated with a drug kingpin. This was just an orchestrated PR campaign that is meant to appeal to single women and latinos. It is disturbing how the media just ran with this narrative without vetting Miss Venezuela. If Hillary Clinton can’t even vet a former Miss Universe she is using to help her campaign, how is she going to vet the Syrian refugees that she wants to bring to America? I think all of this shows that Trump is doing quite well.

I believe that this debate did not change the prospects for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton very much. I think this will work to Trump’s advantage as he had the momentum leading up to the debate. Furthermore, he came off as more genuine in his speaking style that Clinton, who was very rehearsed. We will see how things pan out in the last two debates, and whether or not they sway the American electorate.

Single Motherhood: The Single Biggest Curse on Society

Over the past 50 years, we have seen an explosion in single motherhood in America. According to the Brookings Institute, in 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. Those percentages have increased dramatically. Data from the CDC indicates that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. In a study tracking the first wave of millennials to become parents, a team from Johns Hopkins University recently found that 64 percent of mothers gave birth at least once out of wedlock. Almost one-half had all of their children without ever exchanging vows. Single motherhood has tragically become the norm for the millennial generation.

The media has adjusted to this new reality and has sown the seeds of social acceptance for single motherhood. We have been shown in movies, TV shows, and commercials examples of single mothers being superheroes who simultaneously raise their children and advance their careers. The reaction to the 2014 film Boyhood is perhaps the best example of this. The reviewers fawned over the female lead Patricia Arquette’s portrayal of the divorced single mother who in the words of one reviewer is a “superhero,” who raises her children while getting an education and eventually a professional job.

When I watched the film, I did not see a superhero. What I saw was a selfish and impulsive woman who consistently put her own needs above her children, very much to their detriment. In the course of the film, we see her move her children from one place to another, marry and divorce two abusive alcoholics and consistently berate her children whenever they assert their own needs. Her daughter complained to her mother on two occasions in the film. The first time they moved after her mother decided to continue her education. She complained about leaving the neighborhood, her friends and her belongings. The second was when she was dropped off at school right after they left the house of one of the abusive alcoholics she married. She yelled at her mother for not allowing her to pack anything and leaving them temporarily homeless. Her mother’s response on both occasions was for her to “cut her horseshit attitude” and deal with it. Her mother’s needs always came before hers. This is actually a good portrayal of what many single mothers do in real life. In this post, I plan to demolish this image of the single mother and speak the truth about the damage they do to their children. I will also speak about how the welfare state and the Democrat party are destroying the nuclear family in our country.

To give you some context, I believe that the fundamental problem with single motherhood is that the costs and risks of being a single mother have decreased tremendously over the last 50 years. This is due to the welfare state that was put in place in 1965. The late Phyllis Schlafly said:

“The wrong-headed welfare system started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and his proclaimed war against poverty. The system should have been called the war against marriage. LBJ’s Great Society set up a grossly immoral system whereby millions of people were taught that they had an “entitlement” to pick the pockets of law-abiding, taxpaying families if they met two conditions: they didn’t work, and they were not married to someone who did work. This destroyed the work ethic and subsidized illegitimacy by giving single moms money and scores of benefits such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, utilities, WIC, and commodities.”

Before the welfare state, the consequences for the family were very dire if one of its daughters got pregnant. Before abortion and birth control, the daughter would be sent away during her pregnancy and she would then give the child up for adoption after it was born. Everyone in the community would know what had happened, and the family would be humiliated in the process. As a result, their daughter’s marriageability would be significantly diminished. The other option was to have the father marry their daughter, which is also not ideal since he is not likely to be a quality man. As grandparents, you would also have to bear much of the cost of raising the child. Since these negative outcomes accrued to individuals instead of the collective, individuals got heavily involved in managing sexuality. This is why sex only after marriage became a social norm.

With the advent of the welfare state, birth control and abortions, the risk that female sexuality poses has severely diminished. Now, women can socialize the cost of having a child out of wedlock by receiving welfare benefits. The black community has suffered the most from this. As the economist Walter E. Williams once said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do, and that is to destroy the black family.” The welfare state has given women free range to make bad decisions, which they must be held accountable for.

The single mothers who are on welfare are not victims who were put in a bad situation. They put themselves in a terrible situation when they chose to have a child and not marry the father. Legally, women have full control over sex and giving birth. They are the gatekeepers of sex, and must give consent in order for sexual intercourse to be legal. Women also have many more options for birth control than men do. The only option men have is condoms, and women can see if their partners are wearing one. If a woman gets pregnant, it is on her. The laws in this country also leave the decision over having an abortion entirely to the mother of the child. Planned Parenthood tells us that “politicians should not be involved in a woman’s personal medical decisions.” If it is a personal decision, then the woman should take personal responsibility if she chooses to have an abortion or not. If she chooses to give birth to the child, she is entirely responsible for that decision. Therefore, a single mother is the only person who is responsible for her lot in life because she made the decision to have unprotected sex and give birth to her child out of wedlock. To ameliorate the negative effects of these irresponsible decisions, single mothers have the option of giving their children up for adoption.

Single mothers who choose to keep their children are doing them a great disservice. In fact, having a child when you don’t have the means to provide for the child is abusive. Statistically, their children are worse off if they stay with them than if they are given up for adoption. Here are some statistics that show how single motherhood negatively affects children:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26
Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows for all God’s Children]

These statistics show that objectively, a child is better off with a married couple than in a fatherless home. A single woman who chooses to keep her child is making a narcissistic decision, much to the detriment of her child. She is deliberately making her child’s life worse by denying him or her the opportunity to grow up with a loving couple. Her child will never know what it means to have a loving father. If her child is a boy, he will not have a man to teach him how to be a man when he grows up. It is also likely that her children will be exposed to a succession of low quality men in their lives if their mother continues to date. No man of quality would want to take care of another man’s child.

This is why in the past, women would do everything they can to avoid becoming single mothers because she would not be able to provide for herself and her children. Today, the welfare state provides them with the resources that a man would give them. Single mothers effectively marry the state and depend on it for their sustenance. Phyllis Schlafly also said that “when husband-breadwinner is eliminated, single moms look to Big Brother Government as provider. Democrats are glad to claim credit for facilitating the taxpayer subsidies.” According to the Washington Post, in 2008, 74% of single mothers voted for Obama. He went on to win 75% of single mothers in 2012. Obama overperformed across all racial demographics of single mothers as well. Among white voters, Obama lost to Romney 59 percent to 39 percent. But among white single mothers, Obama bested Romney 56 percent to 43 percent. It seems that Schlafly was right when Democrats pander to single mothers through offering them welfare benefits. Schlafly mentioned that “the Democratic Congress repealed the essence of Republican welfare reform [in 2009] by providing bonuses to states that increase their spending on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Single moms make up 90% of TANF recipients.” The expansion of the welfare state is entirely dependent on the expansion of single motherhood.

If the Democrats really had compassion for women and children, they would not subsidize single mothers with our tax dollars. As I have already mentioned, having a child out of wedlock is the wrong thing to do, and subsidizing their irresponsibility will only make it more widespread. The only thing the Democrats care about is padding their voting base. Unfortunately, single mothers are a growing demographic. The Democrats want to see that trend continue. They do not believe in empowering women and making them independent. The Democrats want them to be barefoot and pregnant so that they can be dependent on the Democrat party. Their rewards for voting Democrat in each election cycle are tiny food pellets in the form of welfare that are just enough to get them to come back and vote again in the next election. Electorally, this is a very successful strategy. Only look at Milwaukee, which has been under uninterrupted Democratic control for the last 108 years. The out of wedlock birth rate among blacks in Milwaukee is 86%. Among whites in the city, it is 29%. How much more time does the Democrat party need to sort out the mess in Milwaukee? Another century? Perhaps they are not the ones who hold the interests of blacks and women at heart.

In conclusion, single mothers are doing a great deal of harm to their children and to the country through their irresponsible decisions. The media and hollywood have worked tirelessly to foster social acceptance for single mothers. The expansion and subsidization of single motherhood has expanded the dependent class in our country, to the benefit of the Democrat party and the detriment of blacks and women. I believe that the problems of crime, poverty, and excessive government spending can be solved if we choose to stop providing welfare to single mothers. I do not think that we should cut off those mothers who are already receiving benefits, but rather stop giving benefits to new single mothers in the future. If we were to do so, we would see a resurgence of the nuclear family, especially amongst blacks. Our government will also be able to save money but spending as much on welfare. Children will also be more productive as a result of being raised in two-parent households, decreasing the need for social welfare and other government programs targeted at the poor. Our country would be radically transformed if we were to make this small policy adjustment. Unfortunately, there is no political will on the part of either party to deny single mothers welfare benefits. I fear that the only solution to this problem will come when the government runs out of money. Women will no longer be able to rely on the government to provide for them when they have an illegitimate child. When that happens, women will be forced to become responsible in matters of sexuality and in choosing a suitable partner. I can only hope that our attitudes toward single motherhood will change before such a crisis befalls our country.

Disease and Lies: The End of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

Yesterday, we received news from a law enforcement source that Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony. She was reported to have staggered and tripped on a curb as three other people helped her into her car. NBC reported that the NYPD was sent to retrieve her shoe. We also know from her doctor that she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. After more than an hour of silence, the Clinton’s campaign said that she felt “overheated.” She went from the event to Chelsea Clinton’s apartment and later emerged to tell reporters that she is “feeling great.” After Clinton left the ceremony, the reporters that were following her were prevented from leaving the media area for a period of time.

This has got to be the end of Hillary’s campaign. I cannot see how she can continue to run with any semblance of credibility. Clinton herself denied any concerns people may have about her health, saying that they were a part of a “wacky strategy” cooked up by rival Donald Trump as he embraced an “alternative reality.” The video of her going on Jimmy Kimmel’s show and opening an already opened pickle jar is sure to go down in infamy. All of the people in the media who participated in attacking those who questioned her health or played any part in covering it up are finished. This latest episode has exposed how partisan and corrupt the media is. This bias towards Hillary’s campaign has existed for years, with CNN morning anchor Chris Cuomo saying in 2014, “We’ll see. We couldn’t help her any more than we have. She’s got just a free ride, so far, from the media. We’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign. So, it better happen.” This was regards to the media urging her to announce her bid for the presidency. They were already set to support her even before she started her campaign. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC also said that “this whole fever dream has percolated up through so much of the right-wing media and onto Fox News.” Both of them, along with everyone else who tried to dismiss Clinton’s health issues as a conspiracy theory have egg on their faces.

The ramifications of this new information are truly astounding.

This election is perhaps the most high stakes election in American history. After this election, only one of the two parties in this country will remain standing. Should Hillary Clinton win, she will continue to allow illegal immigration to continue and perhaps even pass amnesty for them. The demographics of the nation will continue to shift to allow more reliable democrat voters to come in from Mexico and the Third World. This will sink the chances of Republicans ever winning a national election ever again. Should Donald Trump win, he will most likely build the wall and change the demographics in the other direction with deportations and a tightening of immigration, removing millions from the Democratic base. He is also breaking up the traditional Democratic coalition. His support amongst gay Americans has been bolstered due to his libertarian stance on the issue and his support for the gay community after the Orlando shooting. His recent speeches to the black community have also increased his support amongst black Americans. If he does win, he could destroy the Democratic base and sink their party’s election chances forever. Furthermore, he could appoint originalist Supreme Court justices and block any chance of liberal legislation from being upheld.

Hillary’s supporters in the media understand all of the implications of a Trump or Hillary victory. This is why they went all in for Clinton. This is why they told lies about her health and smeared Donald Trump with as many ridiculous allegations as they could muster. From this point, I think there are three possibilities of what will happen going forward: the Democrats look for a replacement for Clinton, Donald Trump is assassinated, or Clinton continues her campaign.

If there is a replacement for Hillary, I think it will be Joe Biden. If Trump was beating Hillary badly earlier in the race, Biden would have entered. Biden may very well have had a chance of beating Trump if he ran. He would come off as much more personable and kind to the American people than Trump would, even though Trump may have better policy prescriptions. However, it is too late to replace Clinton at this point. There are less than two months to go and adding a new candidate two weeks before the first presidential debate would be chaotic. I do not think the Democrats will take this course of action, but this crazy election cycle has proven that anything is possible.

With regards to Donald Trump, I would increase his security and maintain tight surveillance on him if I were a member of his campaign. With this news, I think the only way the Democrats may win the election is if Trump is assassinated. I am not insinuating that the Democrat party itself will organize the attempt. I believe that there will be an enormous amount of vitriol put out by the Democrats and their lackeys in the media to anger someone with a mental illness or a propensity for violence enough to assassinate Trump. The media has tried to agitate people to harm Trump as well as start riots as Trump rallies. We have already seen one case in which a British man tried to steal an police officer’s gun at a Trump rally in an attempt to assassinate the Republican candidate. He plead not guilty to the charges. I also fear that the people who are invested in the current system continuing, like lobbyists and special interests, may try to organize an assassination attempt themselves. I think that calls for Trump’s assassination will probably increase in the future. If there is a successful assassination attempt, it will most certainly lead to Hillary being elected president.

If Clinton continues her moribund campaign, she will have to face the wrath of Donald Trump during the debates as well as contend with questions about her health. Clinton and her supporters in the media have already been discredited on this issue. Since the “wacky theory” about her health has been proven true, I think the American people will question everything that comes out of her mouth. Clinton herself may not have the physical strength to continue the campaign. This will become obvious over the next two months. If she continues, Clinton will not only lose the election, but also take the Democrat party and the mainstream media down with her. Such a collapse will profoundly change the political landscape in America, and perhaps allow for the formation of a more honest and less corrupt system.

As things stand now, Trump clearly has the upper hand going into November. However, this election cycle has been anything but predictable. One thing is for certain, the Democratic party has acted with clear disregard for the welfare of the country by nominating someone they did not vet properly. Vetting is not just to assess someone’s character, but also to assess their physical health. It is not an act of compassion for the country to continue to allow someone with significant health issues to run for such a high-stress position. Could you imagine her passing out or needing long naps when negotiating with hostile foreign leaders? What if she does not have the physical stamina to handle domestic affairs? These are questions that all Americans should ask themselves before they go out to vote. I believe the answers are already apparent.