Those Who Seek To Divide Us...

I have long believed that deep in her heart, America is not as divided as the media, career politicians, and other power seekers would like us to think. I believe that deep down, most Americans want a better life for their families, want to be left alone to pursue their dreams, and wish to simply live life as they see fit. I know that is all I want – to be left alone, to be allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, and to live life as I see fit according to my beliefs.

Naturally, while I do believe these are the things we all want in life here in America, I do recognize that we currently have differences in opinion about how we can obtain these dreams. I would argue, however, that the dividers like the media, politicians, and other power seekers, for their own benefit and to the detriment of the rest of us, have created these differences in opinion by continuing to divide us into pre-defined groups. The side effect of which, has been the distraction of far too many Americans from attaining their dreams, and instead, an unnecessary, continued concentration on the overly inflated differences between us.

Those who seek to divide us for their own prosperity and continued existence, seek to divide us according to things like gender, race, career choice, and net worth, when instead they should be using their voices to unite us as a nation. They should be using their voices to bridge the real gap between us – those who see America as the land of opportunity where anything can be achieved regardless of those very things the dividers use to divide us, and those who have been so pummeled with the divisive message that they have come to believe it, and wrongly, now live their very lives by it instead of fighting against it.

Here is an example of how these dividers quietly accomplish this goal, which also leads to the revelation that this divisiveness is what has put us into the two camps that, in turn, the dividers point to and say is the reason we are divided, instead of admitting that, in fact, they are the source of our divisiveness.

Each year, Time magazine selects a person of the year that they claim, for better or worse, has been the most influential person in the world. This time around, they naturally have chosen Donald Trump. In the video in which Time Editor-in-Chief, Nancy Gibbs, explains why they chose Trump, she states: 

“One of the things that was remarkable in going to see him to interview him is to be in that penthouse, which is the most ostentatious imaginable marble and mirrors and gold, and see him in the suit and the diamond cufflinks. There’s a kind of dissidence that we pressed him about of how is it that the billionaire is the tribune of the working man? He said he thought that it had to do with that he wasn’t a phony – that there have certainly been wealthy politicians before who in some cases would bend over backwards to make themselves appear like the common man, or do anything that they could, eating the corn dog at the Iowa state fair, and wearing a flannel shirt in New Hampshire. I think he had a very strong instinct that his wealth and the flamboyant display of his wealth was not a liability, that it was actually an asset.”

This statement got me thinking about one of the most staunch and apparent differences in what the Time magazine cover calls “The Divided States of America”, as well as the root cause of this difference. I agree that we are a nation divided – a nation divided in principles and a nation divided in hopes and aspirations. And while I agree there are racists and homophobes and all sorts of others –ists –isms and –phobes living out there on the fringe ends of the political spectrum in this country, I also believe that a large majority of Americans are actually none of these things that the dividers use to steer us to their desired end through fear.

I do, however, believe there is a very real chasm between two sides in this country, and it is one that we must address – one that is clearly pointed out in Nancy Gibbs’ statements about how a billionaire could possibly serve as the tribune of the hard working people of America, and we can explain this phenomenon in two words: aspiration and perspective.

Ask a conservative who they blame for their plight in America today and they will say the government. Ask that same conservative what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you business. Ask a liberal who they blame for their plight in America today, and they will say business. Ask that same liberal what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you government. Granted, reality is not as clearly defined as this example, but you can easily see the relevance of this take on the American political spectrum today.

If you do not believe that you can achieve anything in this country because there is an entire group of people – business people – holding you back, then you see a successful businessman like Trump as an embodiment of the evil that is conspiring against you. If you believe that you can achieve anything in this country because those business people build companies and provide jobs, then you see a successful businessman like Trump and the embodiment of hope and aspiration.

If you believe that the entire corporate structure in America has been stacked against you, then you look to the government for salvation. If you believe that the entire government superstructure in America has been created to steal the fruits of your labor, then you look to business for salvation.

And this is why you can pluck one working man off of the street – one who has bought into the liberal idea that the cards in America are stacked against him and that there is this mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes constantly working against him – and have that working man tell you that Trump is history’s greatest monster, yet can pluck another working man off the street – one who has bought into the conservative idea that America is the land of opportunity and anything can be achieved if he plays by the rules and works hard, and that there is no mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes, only a bloated government that needs his hard-earned money to survive and perpetuate itself – and have that working man tell you that Trump is an aspirational figure that represents that working man’s own potential for success in America today.

I hate to continue to narrow the differences caused by the divisiveness perpetuated by the media, politicians, and power seekers down to such a clearly defined line, but let me give you one more example. You take a young person in their early 20s who has just started their career and you show them a picture of what embodies success to them, and then ask if they too can achieve that success, and you will get one of two responses.

I believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in the greatest country in the world that provides people with the greatest opportunity to make something of their lives will tell you that they most definitely aspire to the success in the picture, and that their aspirations of success are achievable.

I also believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in an oppressive country that is filled with –ists, –isms, and -phobes that are constantly working against them will tell you that the type of success in the picture can only make someone miserable, that success of that type can only be achieved on the backs of others, and that not only is the scene in the picture not attainable for them, but in fact, is the last thing that they would want for their life, even though the image actually and truly embodies that person’s very definition of success.

And this is where the dividers have left us. They have successfully used their voice to classify us into every category under the sun and divide us into all these tiny little groups, which have led us to unite these groups into two camps – the so-called haves, and the so-called have-nots – even though each one of us has the same opportunities in life here in America. Yes, not entirely exactly the same, but still, the best opportunity of anyone else in any other time on this planet. Then, we all fight amongst each other while the dividers perpetuate their message of division, further solidifying their own existence in this world by point to us and blaming us for the divisions they have created.

I propose that the time has come for those of us that the dividers have divided to no longer allow them to divide us. We should hold journalists to what they call themselves – being journalists. We should also hold the elected representatives of the people to what they call themselves as well. And lastly, we, the divided, should come together to remove the division that is being imposed on us by no longer allowing the dividers to classify, categorize, and split us apart.

Photo by Ingo Joseph via Pexels

Remember That America Is Bigger Than Any One Person

When an election does not go your way, it can definitely create an aura of uneasiness and uncertainty. This can especially be the case with a presidential election, and more so when it is an election that will not only change the party of the sitting president, but place into power a new president with some pretty different views than the sitting president. As someone who tends to not be a fan of change, I can definitely understand how people on the losing side of this election are feeling right now.

What can be even scarier about the outcome of a presidential election is if the two-term president that is outgoing is the only president you have ever known or can remember. Such was the case for me when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s three-term Republican presidency changed hands to Willy Jeff Clinton. Yes, I know that seems nothing like what the youth of today in America are facing now, but at the same time, hind-sight definitely eases in your mind today about what may have been perceived at the time as the potential for uncertain, drastic change.

But what has made this country the greatest democracy in the history of this planet is its ability to be pulled in different directions across the political spectrum and still bounce back, only to pulled the other way again, back and forth, back and forth, for generations, and still remain the most solid democracy in the history of our species.

With the exception of the War Between the States, following every presidential election, the fabric of our society has endured, and the framework of our democracy and the peaceful transition of power have remained. We may be a nation divided in principle, but our similarities still outweigh our differences, and with the exception of the most extreme on both ends of the political spectrum, to paraphrase our sitting president, we are all still on the same team.

Keep in mind that had this election gone the other way, the supporters on the opposite side of the fence from you would be feeling the same uncertainty that you are, which is also the same uncertainty that the losing side of the presidential elections in America have been feeling for 240 years. Yet, here we are, still the greatest democracy in the world. There will be another presidential election in four years, and then again, four years after that, and so on.

While you may not have experienced it personally, these presidential elections have occurred 60 times. 59 of those times, people on the losing side have been faced with uneasiness and uncertainty, yet the nation and society have prevailed, democracy has won out, and four years later, another election was held. Sometimes, the sitting president who caused all that uncertainty and uneasiness remained in power, and other times, that president was voted out of office.

The extreme fringes of society have been there over the course of those 240 years, and they will always be there, but remember all you have been taught about this country, its framework, its checks and balances, and its rule of law. This will mark the 27th two-year period since 1901 that the presidency and both houses of congress have been controlled by one party, yet, we’re still here. We got through two world wars, the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Cold War, and yet, we’re still here.

As Donald Trump takes office, just like every single president in the history of this country, he will be subject to a system of checks and balances that will keep him from unilaterally imposing his will on the people of this country. Now, I understand that a lot of you worry about things like gay marriage, legalized marijuana use, and immigration, but keep in mind that one thing the President of the United States cannot do, despite being the single most powerful person on the planet, is circumvent the law. He cannot wake up one morning and decide that a particular group of people, or activity is illegal. He must work within the legal system and our government’s framework to change the law if he wants to accomplish any single act on his agenda.

And that is exactly how it should be – as the constitution was designed – is it not?

Now, I know you are saying to yourself, what about all of those presidential orders that Obama signed that Trump can overturn? Well, that is the problem with a president acting unilaterally, isn’t it? That is the problem with a president deciding that something should be and then acting outside of the congress and the will of the people and just making something so. Because they are not laws passed by congress, they can be overturned. This is why you should have opposed presidential orders, even when the guy issuing them was someone you agreed with, because as we have now seen, maybe one day the guy issuing the presidential orders will NOT be someone you agree with.

But, as scary as this power Trump has to overturn Obama’s presidential orders might be, this is exactly how it should be. This is why laws need to be passed instead of presidential orders being signed. This is why Obama should not have taken the easy route and ruled by decree, but in fact, sought to work with members of congress from both parties to pass laws instead. This is also why we should, as a nation, come together to ban the presidential order. Maybe now that Trump’s the one issuing them, all of you more liberal leaning folks will join me in that feeling.

And while Trump can walk into office on that very first day and rip up each one of those presidential orders issued by presidents past, what he cannot do is walk into office and start ripping up laws that have been passed by congress.

With all of that being said, there is also another check and balance in place that you might not be thinking about, the career politician. Despite the presidency and both houses of congress being controlled by one party, as you saw in the Republican primary process, not everyone within the Republican Party is 100% in agreement with Trump on everything. Embedded, entrenched career politicians like McConnell are going to fight Trump on things like term limits because they want to remain career politicians. This will give them leverage to work against our incoming president and to keep him in check. People like Paul Ryan and John McCain, just to name a couple, will fight Trump when they know it is the right thing to do. I, for one, will do the same. And I know there are millions of conservatives out there who will also do the same.

Just because there are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, you will not see all of the members of both those houses of congress throw their hands up and not stick to the political process. This has never happened before, and it will not happen this time, either.

Everyone in office, every Republican, every Democrat, every Independent, is bound by the constitution, and that has not changed. Trump does not have the power to change that, either.

Also, Trump is going to be surrounded by cabinet members that, despite being chosen by him, still have a duty and an obligation to uphold the constitution. Trump will appoint people that will be the best suited to serve in these positions, and they will also serve as another check and balance.

And finally, while yes, there are some crazy extremists nut-jobs out there who voted for Trump because of their own agendas, most of the people who voted for Trump are extremely reasonable people, and while they were very supportive of Trump against Hillary Clinton, they will also be just as critical of President Trump. I count myself among those people.

And, I imagine that a lot of you who are die hard Hillary and Obama supporters, or are perhaps even further to the left than that, were raised by some really amazing people who are Trump supporters. Do you think that those people would allow things to get so far out of hand that the very fabric of our democracy and society would be threatened?

All I am saying is that while we are most definitely faced with uncertainty and uneasiness about our next president, it is no different than the uncertainty and uneasiness that the country faced 44 other times in our history. Stay aware, stay vigilant, and stick to your principles, but also, have faith in the 240 year history of the greatest democracy on the face of this planet which has proven time and time again that our system of government is far stronger than the person sitting at that big desk in the Oval Office.

Photo via Pixabay

My Guide To Taxifornia's 17 Propositions

I’m giving you a choice, loyal reader. You can just follow the quick, one-line Proposition Guide I have provided just below this paragraph and take my word for it, or, you can read my over 5,000-word explanation of how I reached my conclusions below.

Yes on 53, 54 and 56 - No On All the Rest!

17 state propositions, Taxifornia?! In one election cycle? Are you kidding me?! Group that with all of the local measures and then all of the national, state and local candidates, and you are all but guaranteeing that no one is going to do all of the homework necessary just to be informed enough to make intelligent decisions on every one of these propositions by Election Day.

But, Taxifornia, isn’t that your point? Isn’t that what you are trying to accomplish in the first place with your cancer-like, virus-like, perpetual, self-interested growth? It’s as if your job has changed from serving the people in their time of need to so overwhelming them with your laws and regulations, and your 17 propositions on one ballot, that they just blindly either throw their hands up in the air and don’t vote, or rely on those horribly misguiding television commercials to make up their mind. It’s as if you want us to just cover our eyes and blindly guess while voting either yes or no, probably without fully understanding what a yes or no vote means.

Well, Taxifornia, I, for one, am not going to take it. I am going to read your 223-page General Election Voter Guide because I am certain there is probably some really costly, horrible stuff in there that you and the lifetime politicians that coarse through your black veins are trying to sneak by us.

Oh, I don’t know, say something like a bond issue where you get $9 billion in income so that you finally put some money into our schools despite the fact that our property taxes are supposed to pay for that very same thing. What are you doing with our property tax money that you need more money for the schools? What exactly are you wasting, I mean spending, that property tax money on, Taxifornia?

And naturally, in government’s typical fiscally ridiculous modus operandi, getting that $9 billion in income today is going to result in return payments over the course of the next 35 years that total $17.6 billion. So, say you and I are at lunch and your lunch costs $9, but you forgot your wallet, and I told you that I would loan you the $9, but that when you paid me back, I wanted $8.60 in interest for a total of $17.60. What would you say? Well, probably right after calling me a credit card company, because those are definitely take-it-from-behind credit card company interest rates, I’d hope that you’d tell me where to go. But, this is the fantastic interest rate our beloved state of Taxifornia is willing to pay to get its hands on that $9 billion. And for that reason, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 51. Our government needs to learn to be much more fiscally responsible with our money through not wasting it so horribly as they do, and not paying almost twice as much as the principle in interest on bond issues. Make better use of our property tax money, Taxifornia, before you strap us with even more debt.

Proposition 51 is a no-brainer for me. For 52, there is more of a fence to sit on. Basically, with Proposition 52, a yes vote means that a fee the government charges to private hospitals just for existing, which is set to expire on January 1, 2018, would instead continue indefinitely. There is also language in the proposition that calls for ensuring the fees go to help provide medical services for low-income families. If only Taxifornia were not famous for passing propositions that mandated funds go to one area, only to turn around and still divert those funds to other things later, oh say, like the lottery money that was supposed to go to the schools. Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely for providing medical assistance to those with low incomes, but at the same time, I always have a problem when our state taxes someone or something just for existing. Let me share the “CON” argument from the Taxifornia Voter Guide. “Removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars.” No, that’s not the case, pro-fee people. This does not remove oversight, but, in fact, removes the money completely from the government’s hands and leaves it in the hands of the people who made it – the folks who own and operate the hospitals. The CON argument goes on to state, “Gives $3 billion to hospital CEOs with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care.” Once again, the CON folks are trying to mislead us. This is not government money that is going to the hospitals instead. It is the hospitals’ money that the hospitals are keeping instead of sending it in to be wasted by Taxifornia. See the slight of hand they are trying here? If it’s the hospitals’ money, they should be able to spend it on whatever the hell they want to, just like me and how I should be able to spend my money on whatever the hell I want to. And, let me provide one more argument here to show you why I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 52. The “NO” narrative under “WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS” in the Taxifornia Voter Guide states “An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals would end on January 1, 2018 unless additional action by the Legislature extended it.” So, what that means, boys and girls, is that even if you vote no on this proposition, like I am going to, at some point between Election Day, which is November 8, 2016, and January 1, 2018, over a full year later, if your money-hungry Taxifornia Legislature votes to extend the fee anyway, guess what happens? That’s right, even if we all vote no and tell the bureaucrats we don’t want it, they can still say “F U voters!”

So, what the hell, Old Man Savastano, are you going to vote no on everything? Actually, no. I’ll tell you something I am voting yes on, and that is 53. I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 53 because it will require a statewide vote on any state revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion. Right now, there is no limit on the amount of a bond issue and there is no voter oversight. I personally think it is a great idea for the voters to at least be made aware, as well as have a say, when our Taxifornia bureaucrats are going to borrow over $2 billion dollars that we taxpayers are going to have to pay back, especially when those geniuses have shown time and time again that they have absolutely no problem paying close to $4 billion for every $2 billion they borrow. We need to end this ridiculous cycle of borrowing and paying horrible interest rates. The CON argument, which wants a no vote on 53, is saying that this oversight by the taxpayers on what gets borrowed will have an impact when money is needed for local infrastructure repairs, but I have two arguments back against that. The first, if it’s a local infrastructure project, shouldn’t the local taxpayers be the ones taking care of that? Should a taxpayer in Southern California be paying for a bridge retrofit in San Francisco, or should the people who drive on that bridge every day be taking care of that? And the second, I am sure that local infrastructure people, when faced with this $2 billion bond cap, will simply push their projects through in smaller amounts split amongst more projects. Government gets its money no matter what, boys and girls, but let’s at least make it a little more difficult for the Fat Cats in Taxramento to waste our money.

And why don’t we go ahead and keep the pattern going! I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 54, too. This one is actually a great idea! It’s one that I know has every Spendocrat in Taxramento tossing and turning in their big luxury beds every night. Passing Proposition 54 “Prohibits [the] Legislature from passing any bill unless [it is] published on [the] Internet for 72 hours before [the] vote. Requires [the] Legislature to record its proceedings and post [them] on [the] Internet. Authorizes [the] use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.” Now, you know I normally oppose government spending, but paying a few million dollars to put this little cap on the voting actions of our Taxocrats is a fantastic idea. Now, you and I might not have the time to check that website for each bill these horrible spenders pass, but rest assured, it is going to make the digging tax advocate organizations do much easier. Plus, if you’ve ever been in charge of a child, even though they might not see you, as long as they know you are there and could pop your head into that room any minute, what happens? Definitely a lot fewer bad things than if that child knew you weren’t in the house. Let’s all keep a better eye on the whiny babies who waste too much of our money in Taxramento by passing Proposition 54.

So, do we keep the yes momentum going for Proposition 55? No. Much like the classic politician, I will flip-flop back and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 55. Proposition 55 extends for another 12 years a special income tax that the state of Taxifornia imposed on the evil bastards who make more than $250,000 a year with that money going to schools. So what gives, Old Man Savastano? You hate schools, or something? Well, let me ask you this. There are property taxes that are supposed to cover the schools, and if you remember, Proposition 51 is asking for $9 billion for the schools. So, that $9 billion is on top of the $4 to $9 billion that the tax Proposition 55 wants to extend for another 12 years. How many times over are we expected to pay for schools? Oh, and by the way, there is language in the tax that Proposition 55 will kill that says if the schools have enough money, then instead of the money going back to the taxpayers, it goes to healthcare for low-income families.

So, let’s look at this for a second. Property taxes and local taxes go to fund the schools. Then, on top of that, this tax on the evil bastards who don’t deserve to keep their money is designed to cover the costs that go beyond those taxes. But, in certain years, there is enough money for the schools and the money from the evil bastards tax then goes to pay for healthcare for low-income folks instead. Well, if there is left over school money after the property and local taxes and after the evil bastards tax, then what the hell is the money from the bond issue under Proposition 51 for? Do you see the pattern here? Taxocrats do all they can to get all the money they can out of us, and boy, do they love disguising it as something for the children. To quote Helen Lovejoy, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” Sorry, Helen, I am not buying it. The more taxes that pass, the more idiots like me end up having to pay them, so no, Taxocrats, I’m voting against Proposition 55, just like I will with Proposition 51.

Well, folks, we’re plugging right along through these 17 propositions, and let me warn you – get ready to pick yourself up off the floor because fiscally conservative Old Man Savastano is about to throw you for a loop and vote for a tax increase. That’s right – Proposition 56 raises the tax on a certain product an entire $2 every time someone in the state purchases it. And honestly, I have absolutely no problem with that. If you’re a smoker, you will, but hey, I believe at the end of the day, or in the morning perhaps, we all make our own bed.

Communism sucks. I oppose it vehemently, however, thanks to the nanny state, I am forced to participate in a particularly horrible form of it – health insurance. I am now required by the United States of America to have health insurance no matter what, regardless of whether or not I think I need it, or whether or not I want it. Such is the case for every single person in America. That means that we are all now communally responsible for each other’s health. Believe me, I sure don’t want to be responsible for anyone else’s health, nor do I want to be paying for their medical needs. Yet, thanks to the Communists in Taxington, D.C., here we are, so, sorry folks. You and I both know that paying $2 more a pack is not going to help you quit smoking, but the Taxocrats think fines and taxes deter behavior, just like all those speeding tickets they give us, so that’s why this one’s on the ballot. And for you e-cig folks out there, my apology as well, but this one is going to cost you more money, too. But, you know who its not going to cost more money? That’s right, those of us who do not smoke, but are still paying into the same healthcare system that you are going to use once all that tobacco and “harmless” vaping starts to kill you. I just think that if anybody should be paying for that, it should be you, and not us, so that is why I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 56, even though it is a tax increase.

Now, you might see some ads for the folks that are opposed to Proposition 56 in which they are crying fowl because not all of the money from the additional $2 per pack tax is going into the state coffers, but is also going to the Fat Cats at the health insurance companies, but you know what? I’d much rather have it come out of your pocket now and go into the health insurance system than out of mine later, or worse, just go to be wasted by the state of Taxifornia, solely because you should be the one responsible for your actions, not me. It’s all about personal responsibility and accountability with this fiscal conservative.

Well, loyal reader, you may not have agreed with me entirely up to this point, but chances are, if we are going to disagree on one of these 17 propositions, Proposition 57 might be it. 57 “Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides [that a] juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as an adult.” This one was not too hard to reach a decision on. I do think that adding an extra set of eyes to cases where juveniles are going to be tried as adults is a good idea, but I must admit I am opposed enough to early parole for felons that it outweighs my agreement on the juvenile court judge oversight, therefore, it is my duty to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 57.

I definitely want to see every single prisoner truly reform and rehabilitate. I want to see them come out of prison and never commit a single crime again. But, I would argue, they have the capability and the means to do so right now, without the passing of this proposition. I believe we all make choices in life, and while some might be right and some might be wrong, when it comes time to dole out the consequences of those decisions, it should be up to us to pay for own actions. It should not be up to the voters to provide a blanket easing of sentencing like this. Each case should be judged on a case-by-case basis based upon the laws currently in place. The saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” was coined for a reason.

And this leads us to Proposition 58, the first one of the 17 that I really had to dig into to make a decision. This was because both sides’ descriptions were purposely cryptic, and both claim to have the best interest of students in mind. Even the state-written summary in the Taxifornia Voter Guide was misleading, but here’s the crux of it. Voting no on 58 means that children who enter the California public school system who do not know English will still be placed in classrooms where they are “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.” This means they first go into an immersion program where they may be with children not necessarily their own age, but of similar English-speaking ability, and are then taught primarily in English until they learn the language. Once proficient, the students are placed in the regular class for their age.

A yes vote on 58 means that the language, “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible” will be removed from California law, thus removing the restriction that new English language learners be placed in these immersion programs. Instead, local school districts will be allowed to design their own programs based on what local authorities deem to be the most successful. I truly believe this is something that should be standardized across the entire state, and I also believe that immersion is the best way to learn a new language. Therefore, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 58.

Now, we get to Proposition 59, which literally does absolutely nothing other than give a quantifiable percentage of the people who either vote yes or no for it to be used as a public opinion poll to tell the Taxifornia Taxislature whether or not Taxifornians believe that corporations and labor unions should be able to spend all the money they want on influencing political campaigns. This measure DOES NOT change campaign finance laws, DOES NOT change the fact that corporations and labor unions cannot donate directly to candidates, NOR DOES IT CHANGE the amount of money anyone can spend to say anything they want to about any ballot measure or any candidate on the ballot.

To be honest, I don’t care which way anyone votes on this one. If you think corporations and unions should be able to spend whatever they want influencing political campaigns, then join me and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 59. If you think there should be caps on what entities can spend on influencing political campaigns then vote yes. Either way, THIS PROPOSITION DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. It is the same as any wasteful, costly resolution that any local government passes declaring it Bozo The Clown Day within a city. And yes, I am also voting against Proposition 59 because I think putting do-nothing measures like this on the ballot is a complete waste of resources and everyone’s time.

So, if 59 wasn’t a big enough waste of resources and time, here we go with Proposition 60, everyone’s chance to weigh in on whether or not the actors in porn should be forced to use condoms. It also requires porn producers to pay for vaccinations, testing and medical examinations to ensure that all the folks screwing, I mean acting, in porn are as clean as they possibly can be. Taxifornia estimates it will cost about $1 million a year to send regulators to make sure porn folks are using condoms. Now, there’s a government job! This is another one of those measures that I could honestly take or leave, but I will say that being as how I am opposed to the nanny state, wasteful and unnecessary regulation, and the further tossing of my tax dollars out the window, even though all those STDs floating around the porn set are going to raise my healthcare costs, I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 60. Plus, all this is going to do is put money in lawyer’s pockets and increase regulatory and court costs.

And speaking of government waste, Proposition 61 is also a complete and total waste of taxpayer money and resources. 61 aims to fix a problem, the high cost of prescription drugs that are provided to citizens by government entities, but goes about it the wrong way. The Taxifornia Voter Guide provides a great way to look at Proposition 61. It says to equate government entities buying prescription drugs to a consumer purchasing a car. The car has a published MSRP, but a lot of times consumers can haggle with the dealer to get extras included in that price, or pay a reduced price. When government entities buy prescription drugs, the same exact thing happens. And while nowadays, consumers can usually find online what other people are paying for the car they are wanting to purchase, the drug companies don’t provide their customers with this luxury. Due to non-disclosure agreements, no one really knows what the government entity is paying for the prescription drug other than the person at the government entity actually making the purchase. This means that the VA can be buying a drug at a much higher rate than other state or federal entities. It also means that when government entities are negotiating prices, they have no idea what others are paying so it puts them at a real disadvantage. Proposition 61 proposes using a VA database in which the highest price ever paid by the VA is listed to cross-check the top price government entities in Taxifornia pay for the prescriptions listed in the database, and make it illegal for Taxifornia entities to pay more for the drug than the top price the VA ever paid. This is going to cost money to enforce, and cost money to monitor and prosecute. Instead of wasting money on this, Taxifornia really should concentrate on collective buying and negotiating. Why are seven different government entities buying the same drug in seven different transactions at seven varying prices instead of using the collective purchasing power of all government entities in negotiations with the drug companies? Because government is inherently stupid, asinine, and horrendously inadequate when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Proposition 61 has its heart in the right place, but it’s just going to be a waste. Instead of voting for it, we should all VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 61 and demand our Taxifornia government entities pool their resources to get better prices on prescription drugs.

Proposition 62 is one of those that you fortunately don’t really need to read too much into because you should already know the particulars, especially if you’ve lived in Taxifornia and watched the news for any length of time. When Charlie Manson was out there being Charlie Manson, we had no death penalty in the fine state of Taxifornia, and that is why we are blessed with his presence to this day. We clothe, house, feed, and put up with marvel after marvel during his regularly scheduled parole hearings. We do not endure this with Richard Ramirez because he’s dead. If you think that folks like Charlie Manson should be allowed to grace us with their presence for their entire natural life, then you’re for yes on 62. If you’re like me and you think we should still be using the chair, you’ll want to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 62.

Now, there are some ancillaries to this one. They want the murder that lives out his or her natural life to work in the prison system to earn money by making license plates (and other fare) so they can pay restitution to the families of the dead. If you’re like me, you’d probably much rather have the bastard dead than earning $1.25 an hour to try to make up for the loved one they murdered. Yes, the death penalty is mostly symbolic at this point here in Taxifornia. Only 930 people have been sentenced to death since 1978, but I’d say some of them really had it coming. Plus, let’s not forget that staving off the death penalty in exchange for life is a great bargaining tool for prosecutors to use when building cases against criminal entities and leaders. If we do away with the death sentence, prosecutors will lose that bargaining chip. I hope you’ll join me in keeping it in place.

Now, on to Proposition 63. Let’s start with a history lesson. Back in 1988, I wrote an essay for my High School Freshman English class on gun control. And thanks to the ineptness of government in targeting legal gun owners instead of targeting criminals and criminal activity, oh, let’s say like illegal immigrants who get released back out in sanctuary cities and go on to kill people instead of being deported, I was able to turn that same essay in again in 1989, 1990, and 1991, then again in college in 1993 and 1995, and also sold versions of it for others to turn in well into the late 1990s. Now, in its infinite wisdom, while we are seriously talking about not deporting criminals, there is a measure on the ballot, Proposition 63, which would require background checks to buy gun ammunition. The libs, of course, say this will keep ammunition out of the hands of the bad guys. Yeah, just like all those gun control and immigration laws are keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal immigrant criminals from committing crimes. Proposition 63 is not going to do anything other than cost the taxpayers and law-abiding gun-owners money. It will not stop crime. It will not prevent crime. It will just create an even bigger black market for ammunition like prohibition did for alcohol. Yes, we need to do something about gun violence and crazy people getting guns, but this proposition is not it. I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 63.

And as we move on to Proposition 64, here we go with legalizing pot again. People are still dying in drunk driving accidents, so let’s just hope and pray that they will not get high and then drive, right? You know, just how we hope and pray they don’t drink and drive. Government wants this proposition to pass so it can tax and regulate pot and earn more revenue that it can just waste like it wastes so much of the revenue it gets now. All you stoners out there can keep growing your shit in your closet and smoking it in your own home or buying it from your Cousin Larry, so you don’t need us to legalize it so you can get high. We all know you’re going to anyway. What this is going to do is make getting high more socially acceptable and that is going to lead to more people thinking it is perfectly all right to get high then do things that are going to endanger the rest of us. This alone would give me grounds to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 64, but wait, there’s more!

Let me quote once again from the Taxifornia Voter Guide, even though I am hesitant to do so because it illustrates that Dianne Feinstein and I actually agree on something, which honestly makes me a little sad, and nauseous. “Proposition 64 purposely omits [a] DUI standard to keep marijuana-drivers off our highways.” This means there IS NOT a DUI clause in this proposition that addresses the penalty and enforcement of those who are high on marijuana while driving once it is illegal. I have a YUGE problem with that. “[Tax]ifornia Association of Highway Patrolmen and Senator Dianne Feinstein strenuously oppose. Legalizes ads promoting smoking marijuana, Gummy candy and brownies on shows watched by millions of children and teens. Shows reckless disregard for child health and safety. Opposed by California Hospital Association.” Need I say more?

Onward now from life to death in Taxifornia to the greatest evil ever devised by man…the plastic bag. Yes, that’s me laughing at you, Taxifornia. Not only because you are so worried about plastic bags while we’re going to hell in a handbasket, but because Proposition 65 stipulates one of the things that is going to happen if Proposition 67 passes. Only in backward-ass Taxifornia would 67 come before 65.

So, you’ll excuse me if I go out of order here slightly so I can attempt to alleviate some of the confusion that government has absolutely no problem burdening voters with. Proposition 67 seeks to make it illegal for grocery stores to provide customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags. I totally get why you’re trying this, but Taxifornia, local governments throughout Orange County already tried it and, frankly, it didn’t do shit. It didn’t keep plastic bags off the ground, out of the ocean, or out of the waterways. All it did was take our money when we had to pay for bags and inconvenience the hell out of us when we were shopping. Huntington Beach tried this for two years and ended up repealing it because of all the headaches it provided. And, it didn’t cut down on plastic pollution in the environment one bit. Proposition 67 also has a flaw, too, and it is that none of the money collected from penalizing customers for not using reusable bags actually goes to the environment. Either way, plastic bag bans don’t work and have already failed all over the state, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 67.

Going back to Proposition 65, now. If Proposition 67 passes, and Proposition 65 passes as well, then Proposition 65 will require that proceeds from the penalization of customers who don’t use reusable bags will then go to environmental causes. I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 65. While I do think we need to be conscious of the environment, I just feel that plastic bag bans which lead to consumers having to pay for bags to carry home the things they buy because it is mandated by the gub’ment is just wrong on so many levels.

Sixteen down, only one left to go! Are you still with me or have you done what Taxifornia wants and given up? Proposition 66 seeks to make changes to the death penalty and how it is implemented. It wants to put time limits on challenges to death sentences and revise rules so that attorneys who refuse to accept death penalty appeal cases would be forced to do so. Also, most notably, it would allow condemned inmates to be housed at any state prison, instead of at specially appointed prisons designed to do so as is that case now. You’ll forgive my laziness in quoting the Taxifornia Voter Guide again, but the CON position states, “Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don’t know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayers money, and increases [Tax]ifornia’s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.” Basically, a no vote on Proposition 66 means that nothing will change with the current death penalty process, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 66.

And there you have it folks, my completely biased, self-centered take on the ridiculously overwhelming 17 Taxifornia Propositions on the ballot. Sorry I’ve only given you less than a week to read up on them, but hey, I was busy earning money to pay my taxes so I didn’t have time to read up on all the ways that the libs in Taxifornia want to tax me even more.

So, good luck out there. Read and learn as much as you can about the propositions and the politicians running for office before you vote. And for God’s sake, please vote…oh, unless you’re a lib, then I’d say don’t worry about it. These aren’t the droids you are looking for. 

Photo by William L. Savastano

It's Time For A New Choice!

So, I was thinking today…now that I feel I have diverged pretty significantly from the Grand Ol’ Party and many of its high-ranking officials who refuse to join the fight to keep “that woman” Hillar-ious Rodham out of the White House, should I consider myself to be an Independent? If I decided to seek office, would there be an (I) next to my name now instead of an (R)? I know that despite how muddled the party lines are right now, if I ran for office today, I’d have to choose either a (D), an (I), or an (R), right? And yes, I know there are a host of third-party designations out there to choose from, too, but we all know how their runs for office turn out. I’d truly love to call third-party candidates more than a novelty at this point, but here we are.

There is definitely one thing I can tell you for sure, and it’s that there won’t be a (D) after my name any time soon, if ever. I believe in small government, personal responsibility, personal accountability, immigration laws, tightly controlled borders, and not only no new taxes, but repealing existing ones. I don’t believe in wasteful government spending, the minimum wage, socialism, mandated insurance, and Ponzi schemes like Social Security. I believe in completely eliminating fraud from government spending. I believe in work for welfare, right to work laws, capitalism, free markets, restrictions on abortions, and the right of religious organizations to choose which forms of birth control they offer, or none at all, if they so choose. I believe in saluting the flag, that most police officers are good folks trying to do their best with the difficult circumstances our lax society has created, the right to protect your family with firearms, and above all, that it should be the responsibility of each one of us who is capable of working to go to work and handle our own shit instead of relying on the government and taxpayers to keep us sheltered, clothed and fed. I am entirely against affirmative action and other reparations for things that happened in the past that had absolutely nothing to do with me. I do not believe in the notion of “privilege”, but actually believe that every single human being of sound mind and body on this planet has the same exact abilities as every other human being, and should be treated exactly the same, regardless of skin color, birthplace, views on religion, etc. And no, I am sorry if you think so, but that is not what (D)s believe. I don’t believe anything is, nor should it be free of cost. And I believe that we should all have to pay the same percentage of taxes, regardless if we make one dollar or one billion dollars a year. So, yeah, no question there about the party to which I DON’T belong!

For the most part, all of my beliefs and disbeliefs would automatically qualify me for that (R) after my name, but here are some of the things with which I have a problem; an (R)-controlled congress that passed a budget with MORE spending in it than the previous (D)-controlled congress, (R) politicians that pass special interest- and personally-driven pork projects like they were a (D), a political party that cannot produce a decent presidential candidate any longer and whose leadership refuses to support the nominee its members have chosen to run for President, a party that is so mired in socially conservative issues that it is continually losing ground at any chance of appealing to anyone other than the most staunch social conservatives. Contrary to many (R)s, I do believe we are having a negative impact on our environment, especially our oceans and the planet’s water system. I believe the government should play a role in protecting the environment, but I also believe our government, especially when in the hands of (D)s, goes about it in a completely inefficient and misguided manner.

So, what letter do you choose to describe yourself if you’re not a particularly religious person, but believe people definitely have a right to be one, yet at the same time, do not have a right to force their religious views on others? What letter do you choose if you don’t care what consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own homes, think there should be a separation between a religious marriage and a legal marriage, that legal marriages should be between whoever anyone wants, yet have no problem with a football team praying before a game or newly arrived students being taught English before anything else? What letter do you choose if you understand that most people in the world who practice religion are good people, but that there are some who commit horrible acts in the name of their religion? What letter do you choose if you think it is a horrible mistake to not factor those people’s religious beliefs into understanding why they are committing those horrible acts? What letter do you choose if you believe we are fighting a large number of radical Islamist terrorists, yet understand that not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all the terrorists we are fighting Muslim? What letter do you choose if you understand that sometimes the government needs to listen in on people’s conversations to try to find the bad guys and have no problem with them listening to yours, yet still will be upset because they are wasting tax money in doing so?

Then, while dealing with all of these questions, I also have to keep in mind something that is a huge flaw with our existing primary system, in particular the Taxifornia (R) primary. If I don’t register as an (R), I lose the chance to vote in the (R) primaries here in the grand state of Taxifornia, and will only have the option to vote in the (D) primary. Me voting in the (D) primary is about as stupid an idea as me having to choose between Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez to be my new Senator. Then again, since I live in such a (D) state, our primary seems to always land so late in the cycle that our (R) primary votes are mostly symbolic anyway. By the time the damned (R) primary rolled around this time, Taco Bowls was the only person still running. I waited two years to vote for Ben Carson, and I never got the chance.

So, with no chance of considering myself a (D) because of where that party stands on just about everything, and a growing number of issues that I seem to be parting ways with the (R)s on, is it time for me to consider myself an (I)? I took a little time to research exactly what the common perception and understanding of an (I) voter is these days, and it didn’t necessarily provide me with a cut and dry answer.

Wikipedia describes an (I) as “a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.”

Well, while I don’t always align completely with the (R), I definitely am more closely aligned to that letter than either of the other two. But, at the same time, I vote more on my conscience and my fiscally conservative views than anything else, regardless of what political party seems to be blowing that way at the time. Then, again, I definitely have more of a long-standing loyalty to the (R) than the other two. Over time, I have identified far more often with the (R). When I look back, I do usually vote for the same political party in election after election, though when there has been a better (I) choice, I have gone that way – case in point, Ross Perot.

Yet, as for that last point, I am definitely having a harder time self-describing as an (R) these days, but realistically, I wonder if that is because the party’s presidential primary and general election strategy was so lacking this time around. I think, too, that a good deal of the problem I have with blatantly slapping that (R) at the end of my name is due to the fantastically-successful campaign the (D)s have conducted in this country since 2006 to create a social stigma around that (R).

Meanwhile, I feel that the (I) means you vote with the (D)s about as often as you vote with the (R)s, but other than a few propositions here and there for which I might align more with the (D)s based on fiscal principle, I hardly ever vote with the (D)s, especially when it comes to any politician with that (D) after their name. The only time I EVER voted for a person with a (D) after their name was for Willy Jeff in 1992, and have I regretted the shit out of that ever since, especially now, since that vote helped play a role in enabling the crooked monster to rear her head today!

And thus, after contemplating and researching, I find myself in the same quandary now as I was in the beginning of this letter-based party alignment self-analysis. If you divide the political spectrum into just a (D) and an (R), then I would have to choose (R). But, if you provide the third option of an (I), I fit a little less into that (R), especially on some key social issues. And when I weigh all of this, no matter how I look at choosing a letter for myself, I really feel like I need a new choice.

And wanting a new choice brings me back around to what I like to call my core beliefs and wanting my new choice to be based upon those beliefs. My core beliefs are in fiscal conservatism. That means I believe in small government, less spending, lower taxes, strong capitalism, personal responsibility, work for welfare, controlled immigration, and the bottom line as the top priority, including government staying out of social issues to help reduce the cost to taxpayers. If I look at the person running, or the measure being decided, each and every time, I vote for the person or measure that is going to make the most financial sense, first for me, then, for the country. And this tells me that even though the (I) was created to give us an alternative to the (D) and the (R), I still am not comfortable slapping any one of the three at the end of my name right now.

So, in conclusion, the rules and politics can all be damned! It’s time for a new choice! To misquote Uncle Moe, “I was born a fiscal conservative (anyone who knows my grandfather can attest to that), and I will die a fiscal conservative”, regardless of what party or non-party seems to most closely align with those views at the time. So, for now, I will refuse to adhere to one of those pre-existing letters and go with my own choice, (FC) for Fiscal Conservative.

William L. Savastano (FC-TA). Done, and done.

Oh, and yes, the TA stands for Taxifornia, the state in which I was born and pay through the nose for the privilege of living.

Image created by William L. Savastano

Why The GOP Is Destined To Lose Yet Another Presidential Election

Hey, Old Man Savastano, where have your long-winded political rants been this presidential election cycle?! I know, I know, but to be honest with you, dear reader, after seeing the presidency go to The Messiah again back in 2012, I was exhausted with the whole process. I must admit, however, while I may have been more quiet than usual this time around, the volume of political press I consume on a daily basis has not subsided, nor have my opinions on what I have been reading.

I must also readily admit, my friends, that while I happily sent in my annual donation to the Grand Ol’ Party as recently as 2011, in the years since, I have become more disillusioned than anything else with party politics, overly-entitled American non-taxpayers, paying a butt load in taxes, and the general direction of the country as a whole as we move from praising and rewarding hard work to condoning then glorifying sloth. I feel that, as a nation, we are moving from hard-working, proud superpower to sitting on our asses with our hand out, whining, and making sure nothing we say ever offends a single solitary soul somewhere else in the world, including our enemies who would like to kill us.

So, why am I so disillusioned? What is the source of my silence? I think it should be obvious to anyone even remotely following American politics today. I am just so exhausted by the divisiveness, the unintelligible rhetoric, and above all, the lack of integrity, reasonability, and personal responsibility. While I may be looking back through vintage 1984 Reagan-colored glasses, I think folks on both sides of the aisle would agree, there was a time when there seemed to be a lot more reaching across that aisle going on. I know all you libs say we conservatives always remember things as more positive than they actually were and that, in fact, everyone has always triple-bolted their front doors, has always had alarms on their homes, and slept with a shotgun under their bed, but I find it hard to believe that American society has always been this divisive, especially since I seem to remember it differently firsthand.

But, beyond just an increased divide, we are living in a strange time where each side has grown so accustomed to combating the other that even when there is a chance for common ground, our politicians find a way to disagree. They seem to disagree, no matter what, even when it seems to go against their core principles. It’s like that friend you have that likes to argue so much that even when you agree with them, they flip and take the other side, just so they can argue with you. Granted, that argumentative friend is usually a screaming liberal, but in today’s political scene, this is happening on both sides.

Want proof? How about the fact that we have a Republican-controlled congress that has increased spending by passing a budget that is larger than the last Democrat-controlled congress. Come again? Yes, that is the Twilight Zone theme song you hear.

Or how about the fact that all of you anti-war, peace-loving, negotiate at any cost instead of dropping bombs, man, liberals out there sure seem to tolerate HisHighness Barack Obama using drones to kill U.S. citizens and a whole mess of civilians in other countries without uttering a peep. While I am sure you still cling tightly to your angst for that warmonger Bush, I really hope you aren’t still blaming him for the collateral damage that happens during the airstrikes authorized by your Messiah. I’m just saying that if you were out there protesting Bush and the killing of innocent civilians, you should still be out there right now, protesting against your Nobel Peace Prize-winning love-of-your-life that has a kill now ask questions later list of people who get vaporized the second they come into the crosshairs.

So, when you have a Republican-controlled congress increasing spending and a liberal Democrat President with a Nobel Peace Prize that has a standing order to rain death from above, even on U.S. citizens, I think it may be time for all of us to pause and to take a look at just what politics in America has become today; divisive, and quite frankly, insane.

When The Messiah does something I disagree with, all I hear is that I am a racist for not agreeing with him. Once Hillar-ious is in office and I disagree with something she does, I will immediately be labeled as a sexist. When I complain about having too much of my money stolen in taxes, I am labeled as an elitist and a racist. When I believe that we should enforce the laws of the land, including our immigration laws, I am labeled as a xenophobe and a racist. And when I try to explain to all of you liberals out there that the word “free” always comes with a cost somewhere down the line, whether the “free” is referring to healthcare, childcare, college, food, or cell phones, I am labeled as a classicist who hates the poor. Oh, and a racist.

So, maybe, I’ve been quieter this time around because I am tired of every single time I oppose any little thing that any liberal does, I am immediately labeled with some form of –ism and told that my deplorable beliefs do not have a right to exist.

Or, perhaps, my silence has to do with the fact that while Trump is still getting my vote, it now has much more to do with voting against Hillar-ious and the perpetual liberal spending machine than voting for him. It’s not like you are going to see me spewing out article after article in which I proclaim Taco Bowls is the greatest thing to happen to America. About the best I could muster would be to say that he is still a better choice than Crooked Hillary and the rest of the liberal political machine that has us spending towards oblivion. Either way, it is still very much a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich election.

Nonetheless, I will say I am still desperately wanting to see if an actual businessman can get us out of this $20 trillion mess, or at worst, try a little something different in Washington for once other than politics as usual. I’d have preferred a Romney or Forbes, but at this point, I’ll take what I can get.

Then again, maybe I am sitting silent, not wanting to rock the boat too much as I dare to dream that we have a chance of electing a president whose tax plan will reduce my income tax bill by about $7,000 a year, as opposed to a president whose tax plan is going to add insult to injury by adding $189 a year to the already 27 cents of every dollar I earn that I don’t get to take home.

Then again, maybe my silence stems from the fact that it’s now been about five years or so since I began referring to myself as a fiscal conservative instead of a Republican. Either way, nothing has made me feel more like an independent or third party sympathizer than this damned election. And to quote Lieutenant Commander Cole, Virgil Cole, “Frankly, sir, I think we’re going to lose this one.”

And it’s not that I am sore loser. It’s more so that I simply cannot see how, given well over two years time, the Republican party could not come up with viable enough candidate to give Hillar-ious a run for her money.

The GOP, and its members, knew exactly what needed to happen to win the 2016 election the second the 2012 election was officially declared over and lost. The party needed to produce an experienced candidate with just the right combination of political insider-ship and anti-establishment credentials that appealed not only to conservatives, but also to independents and the soon-to-not-be-a-minority-anymore voter. It needed someone who could provide the necessary experience and fortitude to address the concerns of those who believe social safety nets are direly necessary as well as those who are sick and tired of paying vast amounts of their hard-earned money to pay for social safety nets they themselves seem to never use despite suffering their own financial hardships from time to time. It needed to offer up a candidate that made the right people feel secure in their government programs and the right people feel secure in their optimism about capitalism and entrepreneurship.

Above all, the GOP needed to produce someone that a majority of America felt was a reasonable person who could compromise when needed, but could also be stern when it was time to stand up for what was right. It needed to run someone who we all felt would do better on transparency and hypocrisy and misleading or misjudging on the facts than the current Oval Office occupant. The Party needed to produce someone who was more willing to work with those on the other side of the political spectrum, and more willing to listen to the needs and wants of the America people.

For a party that seems to not go thirty seconds without praising Ronald Reagan and his electability during the 1980 race, the GOP sure seems to not have much of an understanding of just what made Uncle Ronnie electable to vast amounts of Americans that year, and again in 1984. Because when I look at the establishment candidates that were ultimately produced this election cycle, I sure don’t see that Reagan-style mass appeal. Little Marco was probably the closest, but it is obvious the GOP could not produce a single person who appealed to its base as well as the boarder American audience.

And because the party could not produce a viable candidate for the base, the base went out and found its own candidate. And while the party is quick to stand up and point fingers at the actual voters, and not the party itself for the reason conservatives ended up with such an unpopular nominee in the end, I would argue that it is, in fact, the party’s inability to produce a single stellar presidential candidate that is the reason Republican primary voters revolted against every single establishment candidate.

But, at the same time, primary voters themselves still bear some responsibility. When voting in a party primary, you should not only be considering a vote for someone you like, but should also be considering a vote for someone who stands an actual chance of winning the general election. It is quite clear that far too many Republican primary voters were not taking this into consideration during this election.

Every conservative, especially those who consider themselves Republicans, should know at this point that one of the most important influences on American politics and elections moving forward will be the Hispanic vote. Yet, primary voters really could not have picked a person more reviled by that group of people than Taco Bowls. Some of these folks may ultimately still vote against Hillar-ious because of their more conservative or religious views, but a nominee calling their family members still in Mexico murderers and rapists in blanket statements sure isn’t going to sway those voters to vote against Hillar-ious.

And while religious rhetoric might play well throughout the heartland and in select homes, it sure does not have mass appeal any longer to the independent voters that sway elections. As a party, the GOP really needs to learn this. Everyone has a right to his or her religious views and I’d never fault someone for sharing them, but candidates must understand that a shift in religious values has occurred, and their religious beliefs must be soft enough to appeal to the growing population of non-religious people in this country.

All of these reasons combined, regardless of how Taco Bowls ends up fairing, or regardless of whatever other skeletons jump out of his closet between now and the election, are why the GOP is destined to lose yet another presidential election. And unless the party makes some serious changes in the candidates it produces, it’s going to lose in 2020, too.

Now, before you paint me as a bleeding heart liberal turning his back on his values, I am more conservative than most on a lot of things, but I also know that you can’t win an election without appealing to a broad swath of the American public on a broad array of issues. Sadly, it seems that neither the GOP nor Republican primary voters, however, were able to wrap their heads around that. And that lack of foresight in electing a nominee that could actually win the general election, was the last puzzle piece needed in Hillar-ious finally realizing her goal of becoming the most powerful person on the planet.

All of that being said, there are very few things I have seen in life that make me roll my eyes and shake my head in disbelief more than the fact that our next U.S. President is going to be that woman, Ms. Rodham. Not because she is a Democrat, but because she is a liar, schemer, conspirator, opportunist, hypocrite, and even worse, probably cannot legitimately understand why half of the country can’t stand her. There is nothing worse than a horrible person who thinks everyone hates them because of everything else besides their own actions.

If you had asked me back in the 1990s why Hillar-ious stuck with Willy Jeff through all his womanizing and sexual assault allegations, I would have told you it was because it was her road to the Presidency. Mark my words; I have no problem whatsoever with a woman being the President of the United States of America. I just wish it wasn’t going to be that woman.

Where do I begin when it comes to Hillar-ious and what is wrong with her being the President? Well, for starters, unlike our next Commander-in-Chief, I do think Benghazi was a big deal – for many reasons. The clandestine nature of the covert arms mission in Libya, which was funneling Libyan weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi to anti-Assad Syrian rebels without the knowledge or consent of the American people, is one. The fact that our government left its citizens who were either knowingly or unknowingly supporting that arms mission to their own devices when their lives were in danger, despite the fact that we have this unbelievably huge and costly military, is another. The fact that for hours upon hours, our people over there sought help from their government and without a doubt, all of the phones in Washington, D.C. went unanswered “at three in the morning” that night is yet another. And of course, the fact that our Secretary of State not only lied to the American people about the nature of the deaths in Benghazi, but turned around and told that same lie directly to the faces of the family members of the Americans who died on her watch, is one of the biggest ones. But perhaps my biggest issue with Benghazi is the fact that despite us all knowing what happened, and who is at fault, it is not a big enough deal to the American people to keep the person in charge of the entire fiasco from becoming President.

Spend a little time reading about the actual facts surrounding the email scandal, and what is more troubling than a private email server in the basement of a home being used to handle national security information, classified or not, or the deleting of tens of thousands of government emails, are the tenets of what the FBI jokingly called an investigation. Who else in America besides a Clinton gets investigated by the FBI then has every key member of the investigation granted immunity, and to top it off, gets to dictate to the FBI what evidence can be reviewed, when it can be reviewed, as well as the point at which that evidence is to be destroyed so it can no longer be used when new facts come to light at a later time. Also, there is no doubt that Crooked Hillary lied to save her skin on this one. Even that weasel Comey admitted that. And it’s already coming out that key members of the investigation were shocked when no charges were filed. 

Anyone else who had perpetrated the same actions as Ms. Rodham did throughout the use of the server and the ensuing cover-up would have landed in jail. There are members of our military who sit in jail right now for far less. So, when Taco Bowls says that Hillar-ious oughtta be in jail, he’s not being a misogynist, he’s basically stating that if any one of us commoners had committed the same acts, we’d be behind bars. He is also referencing the fact that if he were President, unlike HisHighness did with Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious fiasco, people who committed crimes would go to jail, not end up running for higher office instead. I must say that I agree with that stance.

And if this all was not enough to keep that woman, Ms. Rodham, out of the Oval Office, take into consideration the fact that while serving as Secretary of State, even though she promised otherwise, Crooked Hillary had people on-staff at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation at the same time. You definitely don’t get interests more conflicted than that! Now, take into consideration that it is apparently clear that donations to the Clinton Foundation got donors access to the State Department, as well as favors from that State Department. Also, take into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from nations that condone the stoning of women for adultery, don’t consider rape to be rape, and will happily toss gays, lesbians, and everyone in-between off the roofs of buildings, all the while, with the Clintons barking about how they are the ones who care about these people, not their deplorable opponent and his supporters. 

Finally, take into consideration that the Saudi government has been providing support to ISIS, as the latest round of WikiLeaks emails suggest, and that the Clinton and Obama camps knew this full well, but obviously, kept it from us. All things mentioned here considered, it really makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with the American people that they would allow this type of behavior from someone they are about to elect as President. Especially, while criticizing every move the other candidate has ever made, ever.

Then, to top this all off, you have the entities and professionals in this country who still somehow manage to call themselves news agencies and journalists while so blatantly favoring one party and one candidate, even during the debates. It seems that while every single past incident in Taco Bowls’ life has come under close scrutiny by the media, that same media seems to pretend that the entire Willy Jeff presidency, of which Hillar-ious was heavily involved, never even happened. Well, at least any of the negative aspects of it, that is.

The Clinton presidency was filled with things like the Clinton Healthcare Plan of 1993, also known as Hillarycare, which led to litigation surrounding secret backroom meetings and cost taxpayers untold millions, but luckily never came to fruition; as well as TravelGate, the scandal in which Hillar-ious wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson, which resulted in her reporting members of the White House Travel Office to the FBI and getting them fired when they refused to comply with her wishes. As Wikipedia states, “Hillary Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it.”

And we cannot forget about FileGate during which close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, who was long accused of not being qualified for his position as Director of White House security, was accused of improperly accessing the FBI files of folks who were obviously political enemies of the Clintons. Naturally, everyone involved was acquitted and it was brushed under the rug.

And, of course, let’s not forget about the granddaddy of Clinton scandals, Whitewater. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was appointed because Hillar-ious was refusing to release documents surrounding Whitewater, a real estate venture during which Willy Jeff supposedly forced an illegal loan to be made to his business partners while he was governor of Arkansas. It was this investigation, at a cost of $80 million, that led to the discovery of the Oval Office intern blow jobs, that infamous blue dress, and a sitting President, who was also a lawyer, lying under oath in a deposition and, even worse, directly to the American people. Hillar-ious avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

And yet, here we are, ready to put these people back in the White House for presumably another eight years.

Consider, also, the fact that from 1988 to 2024, a span of 36 years, for 28 of those years, or over 77%, one member of two families will have occupied the Oval Office if Hillar-ious gets her way and serves for eight years. While we can debate all day long the intentions of the Founding Fathers on things like guns and religion, it is obvious that our entire system of government was designed to prevent the likes of this two-sided oligarchy from happening, yet here we are.

So, while this election is a contest between what the American people have obviously deemed to be the lesser of two evils, it is also still very much a contest between the two party establishments that seek to give us yet another eight years of oligarchy. On the Democratic side, the oligarchy is firmly in place, but on the Republican side, you at least have a candidate that has definitely proven that he does not answer to the establishment.

But, ultimately, in the end, I would argue that all of these things I have presented so far do not matter one bit when we boil the situation down to the true reason why people actually vote for a candidate. And that is…what’s in it for them. If I vote for Taco Bowls and he wins, over the next four years, I get to keep $28,000 of my money that will otherwise be sucked up into the wasteful, fraud-ridden welfare machine that our country has become. If I vote for Taco Bowls and he loses, not only do I not get to keep that $28,000, Hillar-ious is going to want me to pay an additional $756 over that same four-year period. Given that scenario, whom would you vote for? If you didn’t say Taco Bowls, then I admire your convictions, though I think you’re nuts!

And this, my friends, is what we can boil all of politics in America down to today. What’s in it for me? If your parents came here illegally, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you or your family relies on those checks from the government, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you’re making less than $15 an hour, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you can’t afford health insurance, and I don’t mean you’ve just been raked over the coals with increased premiums by Obamacare, but genuinely are deciding between health insurance and food, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you can’t afford, or simply don’t want to pay for college, you’re voting for Hillar-ious. If you feel it is the government’s job to take care of those who do not want to take care of themselves, you are voting for Hillar-ious. And, if none of these things apply to you, you are voting for Taco Bowls because more likely than not, you’re one of the dumbasses going to work everyday so you can pay for all of these free things for other people while still having to pay for them yourself, or you are one of the crazy bastards who would rather be working instead of living off the government.

So, like so many other Americans, I am going to vote for the candidate that is going make the most sense for me financially. I believe that is what most of us are going to do anyway. For me, that’s Taco Bowls because I am a producer and a taxpayer, and sadly, no matter what comes out about him between now and the election, it still couldn’t possibly be any worse than the things Ms. Hillar-ious Rodham has done while already in office.

Photo by Maret Hosemann via Pixabay