Changes Ahead: Trump's Presidency and A Possible Obama Third Term

Well, it's been just over six months since the Presidential election, and despite the continual meltdown from the Left, it seems that "The Donald" is still their President whether or not they like it. Traditionally there's what is usually call the "100 Day Honeymoon" with Congress and the media. This is essentially a grace period to allow the new President to get his team together, organize his agenda, and become familiar with the Office of Presidency; all of which is quite important given the magnitude of a new president is undertaking. After all, the U.S. President is one of the most powerful individuals in the world and mistakes carry a steep price tag.

Since "The Donald's" election, and even before he took office to be completely truthful, the media has been all over him like a rash on a baby's butt. They have done everything in their power to belittle, discredit and delegitimize him while both sides of the aisle of Congress (in a rare example of bipartisanship, albeit backroom cooperation), has done everything they could to throw him off track and oppose him. So, while the media starts off with nearly every open broadcast or headline story badmouthing Trump, they also continue to praise Hillary Clinton (despite the fact that if she was like everyone else, she'd be under indictment right now) and harp on everything that Chelsea Clinton and/or the Obama's are up too. Personally, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see Barack come back and make a third run for President (can he do that?), except this time he would appoint the new Princess-in-Waiting, Chelsea to some highly visible office in order to set the stage for the coronation denied her mother.

I may be wrong, and frankly, I hope I am. However, former President Obama seems to be following or "shadowing" current President Trump and/or his representatives up to including meeting with some of the same ranking officials. Now why would he do that? Obama wasn't overly popular abroad with either the heads of governments, their liaisons, or with the general population in some cases. In fact, American prestige declined in some cases. Polls routinely showed Russia's Vladimir Putin as the world's most popular head of state, which was often followed by Germany's Angela Merkel (though given Germany's current severe crisis with the "migrants" and crime, I doubt that she would continue with her high standing). Obama usually came in around third or fourth place. At home, Obama was popular with the Left wing in general, and the corporate media in particular. However, among the political center and the Right, Barack Obama was loathed.

Nevertheless, Obama is still quite young relatively speaking (he was born in August 1961). His two daughters are off in school, and his wife, Michelle, seemed to enjoy her role as "First Lady". Given the ruling Oligarchy's efforts to undermine Trump at every turn--through the corporate media, orchestrated and covertly financed "grassroots movements", use of both corporately controlled political parties, and so forth, they might have a pretty good shot at destroying Trump's credibility. Adding the cold shoulder Trump is getting from foreign leaders (with special note to the recent G-20 where Trump was all but ignored), a Obama rerun is not just possible, but seems even probable. Certainly he would have the support of all the Left leaning "talking heads" from across the media spectrum from Oprah to Whoopie, Ellen, and the Hollywood limo-liberals.

The Left is also quite strong on the college and university campuses. Being a Babyboomer, I dare say that the Left hasn't had such a strong presence on campuses nationally since 1970. To this equation, we also need to point out that our recent Presidential election may be the last time Babyboomers have the national impact they did politically or economically. Babyboomers are retiring at an increasing rate, which means that their economic impact will continue to decline, as will their political influence since there will be fewer running for office, donating (limited incomes), and a growth in those dying. On the other hand, Millennials, who, by the way, have replaced the Babyboomers as the largest demographic, are flooding the job market, which naturally means their economic influence is also increasing. However, there are a couple of caveats to consider.

First on the list is that Millennials are marrying later, which means they will be delaying the purchase of homes and having children. They dislike the current political system, which they find as inept and corrupt beyond repair. This goes hand in glove with their dislike of political parties, which they see as one of the dysfunctional aspects of politics, along with real campaign finance reform (and overturning the "Citizens United" debacle, a lack of term limits (which just perpetuates the corruption), a failure to have district boundaries fairly drawn (gerrymandering), failure of referendums or initiatives, barriers to Independents and third parties, and finally, the corporate "ownership" of the two main political parties. On a related note, it needs to be pointed out that Millennials tend to distrust government, but recognized that there are some things that only government has the resources to do (also, Millennials tend to be team oriented and issue driven, which makes ad hoc committees, groups, and so forth their preferred war to resolve issues). Nevertheless, while some of these changes seem far-fetched right now, as their numbers grow, so will their economic and political clout. So, what now seems like "science fiction" now, will soon be "science fact" within the next ten years.

Much as be made of the claim that Millennials prefer "socialism" almost as much as capitalism, which is partially true. Due to misreporting, fear mongering, or simply a failure to understand terms, "socialism" in its truest sense has never been successfully implemented. What is equated to "socialism" most often (albeit erroneously) has been the democratic socialist forms of government that exist in varying degrees in places like Germany, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Iceland, and various countries in Eastern Europe. Others equate "socialism" with Stalinist Communism, which couldn't be further from reality.

Stalinism (which led to Maoism and other common forms of Communism) was state ownership of everything; there was no private ownership of property of wealth. Essentially, everyone worked for the State. True "socialism" is essentially a community owned and operated form of business, housing, and government, while democratic socialism is the public ownership of key industries, co-ops, associations, unions, ESOPS, and so forth, while at the same time allowing private ownership of various businesses, free market capitalism (albeit tightly regulated). It is also anti-authoritarian and anti-collective unlike Stalinism.

This form of government has proven to be quite successful in Europe despite misinformation by some on the political Right, and is more in line with the "socialism" the Millennials approve of. As an added note, the countries with democratic socialist governments have been struggling of late. While some on the Right cite that as proof of its failure, it should be pointed out that these countries have ranked higher socially and economically than the US. In terms of education, children in these countries have scored far higher than the US just as they have when it comes to longevity and overall happiness. They also have a lower crime rate. Where cracks in the system have developed, it is usually the result of "migrants" from mostly third world African nations immigrating to these countries and who expect the government to take care of them. They do not share the same work ethic or social values. They lack a common history, and even differ in terms of religion. Native Europeans, on the other hand, share a unique social bond and understand that they must work together and contribute to the system in order to derive any benefit. The migrants sit back and demand the State...and ultimately the taxpayers...pay their way with free housing, medical care, food, utilities, and even cable! They are also the prime reason for the sudden rise in crime. Therefore, if you factor out the migrants, you will find the democratic socialism has proven to be quite successful which is why Millennials are so interested in it.

While a strong minority of Millennials favor socialism, or to be more specific, they favor democratic socialism by just over 1/3 (36%). Capitalism still reigns supreme with about 39% favoring some form of capitalism (support for capitalism increases with the age) , though the form of capitalism isn't defined. In another survey from 2015, Millennials preferred socialism 49% to 43% who had an unfavorable opinion of it. So it seems that capitalism, especially the free market libertarian variety will survive the transition from a Babyboomer dominated social, economic, and political system to one with Millennials taking the lead, which, I suspect, will include a larger national government and more social programs. It will also likely result in the rise and eventual dominance of a third party (or parties), along with more Indies running for office, combined with a steady decline in the two corporate political parties.

Having discussed Babyboomer and Millennials, I would be amiss if I didn't mention Generation X, which falls between the two (Boomers range between 1945/46 -- 1964, Gen X is between 1965 -- 1982, while Millennials are 1983 -- 2001). Like middle children everywhere, Gen Xers are sandwiched between two larger and more vocal demographics, have found that their way to success has been the old fashion way---by their own bootstraps. As for Babyboomers, they are defined in two waves. The first, from 1945 to 1955 tend to be liberal while the second wave, starting round 1955 are much more conservative. Therefore, Gen Xers tend to lean conservative, but, like their younger Millennials siblings, are tech driven and much more open to change, be it technology or societal. In fact, in almost every category, Gen Xers fall in the middle, which is why they are often seen as the transitional generation. Current examples of Gen Xers include Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal.

So with that, Trump, who was born in 1946, is likely to be one of the last Babyboomer presidents unless Barack Obama decides to take another shot at it, which I suspect he'll do. In the interim, we will increasingly see Millennials and Generation X come to the forefront as Babyboomers leave the scene. If present trends hold true, the country will continue with its Right leaning tilt for the next few decades until Gen Xers closest to their conservative second wave Boomer parents begin to age out of the social arena. At that point, we'll likely see a shift back to the Left. However, much can and will happen within those years which could change everything. A third term by Obama might force a return to the Left sooner than expected, which could result in a blowback from conservative Gen Xers and the Boomers., which in turn could delay or even derail a possible Chelsea Clinton inauguration just as further migration from Hispanics and Asians (legal and illegal) could change the demographic face of America as much as continued immigration of Muslims or the implosion of Europe and Asia could. One thing for certain, there is great change ahead that will be profound and completely alter the course of this country. Ancient Rome faced similar changes in its time and ultimately failed to adapt. I wonder how we will fare?


One third of millennials view socialism favorable



Do Millennials Support Socialism Over Capitalism?



Generation X: America's neglected 'middle child'

In Defense of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms. Self-perseveration, whether that means hunting or protection of one's self, others, and property, few issues have caused such division or passion. The division seems to have come down along political lines with the Left, mainly the far Left, believing that guns, especially certain types of rifles and most pistols, have no business belonging in society while the Right, particularly the far Right, believing that guns are as much a part of our natural rights as clean air and water. Those in the middle, however, believe that certain guns, such as military style firearms, military grade weapons including machine guns, full automatics, and armor piercing ammunition should not be in the hands of civilians. Both the Right and middle agree that self-preservation, especially self-protection of self, others, and property are our rights as citizens. In addition, they are a absolute right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government, while the Left believes that right either doesn't exist or should fall to officially sanctioned state militias, aka the National Guard, and the police.

America has always been attracted by the allure of the gun. With it, we hunted, fed, clothed, and protected our families in a hostile new land. We explored with it in one hand and a compass in the other, if even that. With the Colt and Winchester in hand, we "tamed the West", and caused much butchery in the process. We defended friend and defeated foe wherever we went. It made the Roaring Twenties roar. It propelled the likes of Jesse James, the Daltons, Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger into American folklore, alongside Buffalo Bill Cody, Sitting Bull, Cochise, Daniel Boone, and Davy Crockett. We had largely been denied ownership of guns in the Old World out of fear we would rise up and revolt against an feudalistic monarchies. We did anyway, with pitchforks, shovels, and knives. Like it or not, the gun is as part of Americana as hotdogs and ice cream. Guns are more than just a means to survive and protect, they are tangible representations of freedom. They are our guarantee against a government which seeks to turn against the people it is suppose to represent.

Of course, there is a downside with guns, as there is with all things. America is often viewed as a violent country because of guns. Some people imagine America as having a showdown on nearly every corner every day as if "Anytown America" was somehow a recreation of late 19th century Tombstone Arizona or Dodge City Kansas. Yes, guns are used to commit crimes, but if not the gun, they would likely use something else. It's used by the weak to feel strong; the powerless to feel powerful. This is especially true among the young. They mistakenly think possessing a gun "earns them respect". They wrongly equate imposing fear with power. In reality, it earns them nothing except possibly an early trip to the morgue. But that isn't the fault of the gun. It's the fault of the one holding the gun; who never understood what respect really was all about. They say that guns don't kill, people do, and they're right. A gun, be it a rifle or pistol, is just a tool. No more and no less. How and why it's used is based on the intent of the possessor. Nothing more.

Now, comes along the politicians. Some favor the 2nd Amendment and some don't. That's ok. That's part of the American debate as guaranteed by another amendment, the 1st Amendment which is all about freedom of speech and expression. Those who support the 2nd Amendment tend to see the government as having certain restrictions; certain guidelines or parameters in which it can operate. A few even view government as a necessary evil; something to be watched. Then there are those who see the 2nd Amendment as the evil, and certainly not a necessary one. They view guns as something which belongs to our past; as something which holds us back as a nation and as a civilization. Few of us hunt with them anymore. The military it there for national protection, and the police provide civilian protection, so what's the point? If, somehow magically, all guns would be removed from the hands of ordinary individuals, violent crimes would decrease or even all but disappear (seriously, they believe that). Of course, human nature being what it is, and criminals being who they are, will always find a way to obtain guns just like they found ways to obtain liquor during the Prohibition Era; you know, the "Roaring Twenties". What we would have in reality are armed criminals facing an unarmed public with a understaffed and underequipped police department that's usually fifteen minutes too late. Fish in a barrel.

But, that's not even the half of it. If we surrender our guns, either voluntarily or by force, we also lose our means to defend ourselves from a government overstepping its boundaries. Now, there are those who believe the government would never ever do anything to harm us, yet they overlook all the corruption of government down through history (which may also be why history isn't taught in depth any more). They overlook the allure of power and wealth. They forget that we've already lost the democrat republic that our Founding Father's left to us. We are now a defacto Oligarchy. We---our economic and political system---is controlled by a small clique of corporate elite; the nefarious 1% we've so often heard of. When they collapsed Wallstreet out of the their greed and incompetence, the American People demanded they not be bailed out, yet they were. Why? Why not? They are hand-in-glove with the government. They took care of their own at our expense as they've always done. If we are denied a means to protect ourselves and to fight back, what do you imagine these individuals will do? Will the reel themselves in or will they seek to maximize their control over our lives?

Just recently, Chelsea Clinton, speaking on behalf of her mother, Hillary Clinton, told a group of supporters that her mother would do everything in her power to take guns out of the hands of ordinary men and women. She went on to say that her mother, who knows how to "use" the Supreme Court to impose laws, would take advantage of the death of conservative Judge Scalia, to place a liberal anti 2nd Amendment judge to the High Court. Perhaps in the same way the High Court was used to illegally rewrite a bill which was unconstitutional in order to impose it on the American People as a tax, or in fit of judicial insanity, declare corporations to be "human beings" with not just the same rights as ordinary mortals, but greater rights. How? By ruling that money was "free speech" and while you and I are restricted in the amount of "free speech" we can donate to candidates or issues of our choice. These "Frankensteins" bare no such restriction; in effect, openly allowing them to buy candidates and elections. I don't necessarily support Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, but I don't hear them openly called for the removal of guns from the hands of ordinary Americans like the Clinton camp is.

America is in big trouble. It has been for decades now. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that we are on a downward trajectory. It's more than just an artificially inflated economy thanks to our perpetual "war of terror" and imperialistic wars for fun and profit. We battle enemies mostly of our own government's creation, which has awoken a religious fever bent on the total destruction of all who fail to submit. Instead of taking the threat seriously, we've invited them into our nation on the promise that won't murder anyone. All one has to do is look at Europe to see how good their word is, and yet individuals like Hillary Clinton would have us defenseless? We are witnessing the greatest economic divide perhaps in our nation's history with little hope of ever being bridged. Racial tensions are at the highest since the 1960's, and yet, it seems the fans of hate are being artificially fanned. Most of us thought racial hatred was consigned to the past, but there appears those who see profit from it, economic and political. Illegal immigrations remains a serious economic and security threat, yet nothing is being done (actually, nothing is being allowed to be done). Why? What advantage is there in having over 11 million illegal residents? Perhaps to drive down wages and increase compensation for minimal wage or entry level jobs? Increased compensation of this type not only drive down wages but benefits as those on the bottom rung of the economic try to undercut each other just to have a job.

True, some unions support amnesty for illegals in order to recruit them. But then again, unions are starving for the dues and will accept money whatever its source or long term human cost. Meanwhile, we have a healthcare system which is overburden and failing. Illegals are collapsing a taxpayer based safety net that was never designed for this much usage without being replenished. The US Attorney General's office commits a felony by illegally selling weapons to drug cartels. The result is deal federal agents and civilians; killed with the same guns. The same Attorney General attempts to sue the State of Arizona for enforcing existing federal laws, and then takes the unprecedented step of allowing a foreign nation, Mexico, to join in the lawsuit, and then prohibits federal agents from enforcing the law. Arizona and other border states now have "no go" counties; effectively areas ceded to drug cartels and illegal immigrants. Lastly, we see moves the government to prevent veterans---those who've been trained to use guns---from owning them because they are seen as "potentially dangerous" due to the "stresses of war or military service". Seriously? They are the ones best trained in their usage and safety.

We face an uncertain future with a strong potential of social unrest. Traditionally, we've had the security of knowing we could protect ourselves, our property, and others. If necessary, we had the means to put at least some food on the table. If those like Hillary Clinton are successful, we will lose all that. We will be nearly totally dependent on the government for everything---protection, food, shelter, and who knows what else. we already know the extent Hillary Clinton will go to secure power, even to point of committing treason against this country. Perhaps I'm being a little bit paranoid, but I don't think so. Our Founding Fathers, who faced an out of control government, certainly didn't think so, and history would tend to back us up.

So, what can we do? Well, the first thing is to make sure those who call for surrendering our guns stay out of office, be it elected or appointed, and that means vigilance. Standing up and speaking out even then they try to shout you down. Secondly, we can quietly buy up guns, ammo, cleaning supplies, and replacement parts and securely store it. We can take gun safety classes to learn how to properly use and take care of our guns. We can target practice (with permission of the property owner of course). We can downplay what we have and where we keep it. The fewer who know, the better. Essential people only is your best bet. There's no doubt that we are headed down the road to a police state. We are being monitored at every turn; almost to the point where we don't even notice anymore. We freely surrender our personal information for "free data" or "no signup fees" or some discount on this or that. Is that what our privacy or freedom is worth? Just remember that chains don't have to be made of iron. They can be made of bits of electronic circuitry too, and if we lose the means to defend ourselves, we have lost the key to our own freedom, and once gone, it will not be willingly returned.


Chelsea Clinton: With Scalia Gone, Gun Control An Opportunity On Supreme Court
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/21/chelsea-clinton-gun-control-opportunity-supreme-court-scalia-gone/


Chelsea Clinton: Elect My Mom So The Supreme Court Can Enact Gun Control
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/04/22/chelsea-clinton-elect-my-mom-so-the-supreme-court-can-enact-gun-control-n2152516

A factual look at: Guns In America
http://americangunfacts.com/

Gun Violence in America, in 17 maps and charts
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics