ARE BERNIE SANDERS AND DONALD TRUMP A SURPRISE OR ARE PUNDITS STUPID? THE SHAKE-UP OF USA POLITICS CONTINUES. ARE NEW PARTIES EMERGING?

Pundits everywhere expected Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States without much of a contest against a Republican Party challenger. No one expected Hillary to be in a fight for her political life for her own party's nomination.

Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic Party nominee is beginning to be taken seriously. Sanders now leads Clinton by 27 points in New Hampshire. Sanders is running in a dead heat with Clinton in Iowa.

Sanders is part of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Through eight years of Obama, the Socialist Democrats have emerged as the main force of the Democratic Party. This has been a long time in the making (think: Occupy Wall Street, #BlackLivesMatter).

Socialist Democrats have vied for control of the Democratic Party since the conservative coalition collapsed and much of the Deep South transformed into a Republican stronghold. That transformation began with Nixon's Southern Strategy and peaked with the Republican Revolution when the last of the conservative Democrats retired.

For a detailed description of the major party tenets, see below.

The trend in USA politics has been polarization. Obama is the leader of the leftist, Marxist-Socialist Democrats.  They are the mainstream Democratic party these days.  They wrested control of the party from New Democrats when Bill Clinton retired. There are few Blue Dog / New Democrats with any clout in the party. They are the conservative Democrats. They hardly exist within the party. The Blue Dog Coalition consists of 14 members.

Those of the myopic mainstream media assumed Hillary Clinton would follow Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is not the heir to Obama. Bernie Sanders is the proper candidate to replace Obama in this natural progression of polarization.

Hillary Clinton is running for the wrong party. Hillary belongs with all of the other ex-conservative Democrats, the neoconservatives in the Republican Party who have joined ranks with the long-established internationalist-interventionist Rockefeller Republicans.

While the Democratic Party has been pulling hard left, the GOPher Party has been moving center-left to the soft liberal internationalist position. Even guys like Rand Paul advocate open borders (see: RAND PAUL GOES FULL RETARD, SIDES WITH DEMOCRATS AND TURNS HIS BACK ON WORKING-CLASS GENERATIONAL AMERICANS). They all do — Cruz, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell.

True American Conservatism is a special kind of conservatism. It's a Bill of Rights nationalism that strives for the benefits of all citizenry by establishing a general welfare.

Trump represents a new dimension in USA politics — working-class, Bill of Rights nationalism. Trump is changing the game in a game that has been changing for awhile. Trump is the true right-wing, conservative candidate. Trump is trying to preserve the USA as it was before the ongoing international drift of NATO-UN-NAFTA-WTO-TPP.

Third party candidates generally offer the alternative to the political establishment. Trump is that candidate already.

Trump is the true American Conservative in this race, already. Also, Trump is the third-party style alternative-to-the-establishment candidate already.

Authentic Conservatism doesn't mean moral prudery. Only dimwits associate church-going religion and chastity with conservatism.

Progressivism promotes specific welfare, and specific subsidy. Progressivism promotes open-borders internationalism. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and even Ted Cruz — these guys are left-wing, internationalist republicans who push for the interests of major shareholders in oligopolist transnational corporations. They're all anti-nationalists.

Trump is the only candidate who can beat Hillary in a historic vote — a chance to put a woman in office. Trump is doing what no candidate of either party can do. Trump is bringing out the white, not-a-college-grad vote (see: WHY TRUMP IS WINNING. THE REST ARE INTERNATIONALIST SELLOUTS WHO STAND AGAINST WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS)

Likely, Trump will beat any candidate in this election. Considering that Sanders is the true heir to Obama, here is a good contrast between Obama idealism and Trump idealism.

Obama: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Trump: Close the borders. Build a wall. No more bad trade deals. I built a great company and you can to in a real America. I'm 100% for the Second Amendment. I'm an evangelical Christian. Let's make America great again.
Is there any wonder why Trump is winning?

————

Understanding the alignment in USA politics.

The Democratic Party is the left party, the party of socialism, the party of communitarianism (see: BEATING THE DRUMS FOR OBAMA TRIBALISM). The party still has vestiges of Blue Dog / conservative Democrats. The Democratic Party is an open-borders internationalist party but is against reciprocal free trade. Thus the party opposes NAFTA, CAFTA-DR and TPP. Yet, party favors supremacy of internationalist organizations with diminished sovereignty for the United States. This party appeals to welfare seekers and those of ethnicity, especially poorly-educated, low IQ ethnicity.

Main faces: Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama

The Democratic-Republican Party is an unofficial center-left party that one day likely will come into existence. Democratic-Republicans are a pro-big business internationalist party that favors heavily immigration as a means to suppress wages. This is a pro-Wall Street party. This is a pro-international interventionist party. They are major champions of the status quo. This party appeals to college-educated guilt-ridden, self-loathing liberals. This party appeals to lawyers, those who work in the medical establishment and mainstream government workers.

Main faces: Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz

The True American Party / The USA Party is an unofficial right party. It is the true conservative party for Americans. They are trying to restore Bill of Rights Individualism and the Protestant work ethic that shaped the USA from the founding of the USA until 1965. This party is pro-nationalist and anti-interventionist but with a strong military. This is a walk softly but carry a big stick party. This party appeals to mainstream, Main Street working-class Americans, no-college white Americans with at least Ellis Island ancestry if not earlier.

Main Faces: Donald Trump

Read more ...

HATERS OF TEAM ELEPHANTS FOOLISHLY BLAME THE RICH FOR THE LOSS BY TEAM DONKEYS. OTHERS BLAME OBAMA. NONE HAVE IT RIGHT. HERE IS WHY.

This past Tuesday, November 4, 2014, Team Elephants (Republicans) slaughtered Team Donkeys (Democrats) in the election to seat the 2015-2017 Congress.





Countless pundits aired their opinions through TV and blogs. Those for the Donkeys or at least against the Elephants idiotically blamed big dollar spending on why Team Donkeys lost (See Google search results).  Such fools spouting such foolery have done little more than fuel confirmation bias in those against Team Elephants.

The outcomes of American politics have nothing to do with campaign funding.

Americans are so oblivious to what has happened to them and to their forebears. Americans don't understand why the Founders wrote the Constitution as they did to achieve the design they knew was needed to protect each individual.

Today, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe the Census gets tallied to satisfy curiosity as to how many blacks, whites, and Latinos live in America. However, that is not why the Founders mandated the decennial census in  Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is what they wrote:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons... 
The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made...

Did you catch that? The Founders decreed a census to be undertaken every 10 years to ensure popular representation and democracy.

The seers who they were, the Founders could see into the future. They knew that for the republic to survive and  thrive, Americans needed popular representation, or that which is called, democracy. The Founders saw that at most, for every voting-age 30,000 Americans, there should be at least representative in the House.



Representative Democracy (left). Oligarchy Illusory Democracy (right).

In 1790, for every 9,008 Americans, there was one House member. Today, for every 563,231 Americans, there is one House member! Wake up! That's not representative democracy.

The political establishment crossed the Rubicon by 1860, when there were 33,760 Americans for every House member. In the 150 years since, House members have chipped away at popular representation, at the yearly rate of representing 1.9% fewer voting-age Americans.

So how did the elite hijack America right from under Americans' eyes? Americans suffered an overthrow in what I call the Quite Revolution of 1913. During the Quiet Revolution, Congress destroyed the Founders design in 1913.

Back in 1913, wily Congressional scum froze House membership to a permanent 435. Later, in 1929, Congressional skunks passed the Reapportionment Act, which established the method of shuffling about these same 435 jokers.

Also by 1913, the 17th Amendment amendment conjured up by wicked ones with nefarious purpose, the 17th stripped states' legislatures from choosing their senators. This change along with freezing the house membership, effectively ending the design of the Constitution.

No longer would senators act as ambassadors of their respective states. No longer would citizens have popular representation. Overnight, Americans went from living in a confederation of sovereign states in union to a national government, with states becoming little more than giant-sized counties.

Though Congress has a House and a Senate, effectively since 1913, Congress has become one senate with 87.5% of the membership standing for election every two years. To buy the legislation one desires, all anyone needs to do is pay for campaigns of a mere 239 House and Senate members.

The net effect of having a Congress consisting of a House of 435 members (and three non-voting members) and a popular-vote Senate has created a super-senate with 87.5% of whose membership stands for re-election every two years. Under the system in place since 1913, it has become quite easy to buy 51 senators and 224 house members.

Today, sadly, for every 563,231 voting-age Americans, there is but one House member. That isn't popular representation.

Black males who gained suffrage in 1870 and women who gained suffrage in 1920 had more representation in those respective years than they do today. Think about it.




To have popular representation that Americans had at the start of the USA, we would need a whopping 27,199 House members! To have popular representation Americans had on the eve of the Civil War, we would need a 7,257 House members! To have popular representation Americans had before Congress forever wrecked the design of the Founders, we would need a 3,686 House members!

You can be sure that with such a high head count, no one could gain capture of the House. Likely, there would be many political parties. Legislation would be hard to come by. It would be hard to get anything done without significant compromise.

Americans would have their interests represented rather than big, well-organized political factions, like labor unions and global-scale corporations.



If Americans yearn to fix themselves and all future Americans on the right path, they ought to call for authentic popular representation by increasing the numbers of Congressional districts substantially and thus upping the number of House members to at least 1870-1920 ratio of 3,729 House members.

Even better would be for Americans to have representation closer to what they for the two decades between 1860 through 1870. So Americans should call for a House with 7,328 members. With a House of that size, you can be sure, Team Elephants and Team Donkeys would wield almost no power.

The Founders blew it when they trusted the U.S. Congress to establish the number of members of the House. That decision should have arisen automatically or by by consensus of states' legislatures. Any change in the ratio of voting-age population to House members should have come through an amendment process that excluded Congress itself.

Fixing the design of Congress would force only the most important legislation to the top, with the greatest effect for the most people, if not all. Lobbying and bribing by business would fall away. It would cost too much. Instead, execs of firms and labor unions would strive to produce better products as that would be their only way to compete.

Voting doesn't establish representative democracy. Representation does.

Without true popular representation, American politics has been reduced to the rich vs the rich. Law has become little more than pet theories on how to organize people, pet theories of a handful of meddlers.

Former mayor of NYC, billionaire Mike Bloomberg yields prime example of such meddlers.

For those who have gumption, read about the Connecticut Plan, the Virginia Plan, and the Great Compromise of 1787 to learn how the Founders came to their design, the design stolen from us so long ago.

Read more ...

REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

"Imagine, if you will, a country in which government ... embraces things such as gay marriage, drug legalization, and immigration." ~ Nick Gillespie, Leader of Reason.com Reasonoid "Libertarians"

The marketers behind Reason.com and Reason TV, promote Reason.com as "the libertarian magazine of Free Minds and Free Markets." Well known for his 1970s retro TV Fonzie look, as the editor-in-chief of both, Gillespie stands as the living embodiment of all things Reason.




Gillespie advocates for more laws — for more rights and duties — when he champions legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens. Gillespie advocates the stance of progressive liberals and not authentic libertarians. Thus, Gillespie advocates for less liberty. In short, Gillespie cannot be libertarian by definition nor can his followers.

Someone should tell the Reasonoids of Reason.com truth. They are Liberal Progressives falling somewhere between antiquated Rockefeller Republicans and the more recent Clinton New Democrats.

They are not Libertarians. They have yet to awaken to this truth about themselves.

Reasonoids suffer from the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome and thus they defend their cult leader Gillespie. Gillespie has conned his many followers into a cult of crypto Republican progressivism.

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.

Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means!

Libertarianism is not anarchism, however. The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty, not anarchy. Anarchy means no government at all. It means without (a) an overlord (archy). In anarchy, anything goes.

Regardless of the cause, any authentic libertarian opposes reduction of liberty and the expansion of rights and duties as the means to fix so-called societal ills. As the authentic libertarian position is liberty over law, the authentic libertarian stance is to rid marriage licensing as a legal determinant for anything, including welfare and taxation. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize drugs. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize illegal immigration. The authentic libertarian stance is to end welfare and subsidy.

More rights and duties means less liberty. If you are for more rights and duties, you cannot  be a libertarian. By supporting more rights and duties, you advocate for bigger government. Most likely, you are free-markets liberal who doesn't like the Democratic Party.

Being an anti-war, pothead, pro-gay champion fails to make anyone libertarian. All the so-called libertarians who chat up on Reason in favor of legalized gay marriage, and legalized drugs are little more than libertines championing the expansion of the size and scope of government. They do so precisely because they are clueless about jurisprudence and all of the attendant concepts of rights, duty, power, liabilities and disabilities.

Giving X authority to decide duties and rights stands opposed to the non-aggression principle (NAP) and thus libertarianism. Granting rights and imposing duties is the anti-thesis of liberty and thus libertarianism. Expanding duties and rights is the polar opposite of liberty and libertarianism.

Anyone who can reason straight can see the bizarro absurdity of these:

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." ~ unnamed U.S. officer on Ben Tre, Vietnam War

"I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." ~ George W. Bush

and

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through X in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Clueless American

where X is Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Permanent Residency to Illegal Aliens, and many other pet causes.

Thus, the straight-reasoner should see the equal absurdity of this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through Obamacare in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Liberal

and this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

Legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens is the stance of meddlers who believe in forcing individuals to behave according to their Utopoian visions. In America, those meddlers go by the moniker of progressive liberals.

Federalized gay marriage decreases liberty. Federalized gay marriage increases duty and rights. Federalized gay marriage increases to whom authority is granted and to whom capacity is granted.

Gays now have authority to order people to associate with them in commerce. Gays now have capacity to marry in order to secure welfare from politicians.

Authentic libertarians know better. Every victory against liberty no matter how big or small nonetheless is a victory against liberty. Every authentic libertarian opposes marriage licensing as a determinant in legal relationship. From a taxpayer perspective, this one is a huge victory against liberty.

No one should misconstrue the foregoing as an attack on gays, on drug users or on illegal aliens. It's not.

Facts remain. Marriage licenses, passports and prohibition are legal fictions created politicians who impose duties and rights.

Politician-sanctioning of behavior fails to increase freedom. Politician-sanctioning of behavior increases officialdom and their power.

Rather than walking into Utopia, incessant meddling keeps everyone in perpetual Dystopia. We're living in the 21st Century. The goal should be to have the least governance as needed rather than the relentless pursuit of the most governance tolerable.

Reason.com boosts a progressive Republican agenda. In short, Reasonoids stand with the feel-good progressive liberalism of the Democrats — legal gay marriage, legalized illegal immigrants, legalized drugs — as well as with the pro big business, anti-welfare side of the Republicans.

Gillispe and the Reasonoids ought to join Democrats or Republicans since the latter are all about rights and duties. They love telling people what to do and they love granting privileges masquerading as rights in furthering their efforts to gain a permanent lock-hold on power.

Reason.com has nothing to do with authentic libertarianism, except masquerading with the word libertarianism.

Jurisprudence. Learn it.

Read more ...