And so, the crud hits the fan. Elections only work with a consensus of trust. A distrusted election result can’t work; the masses won’t allow it, even if the inaugural ceremonies continue. Neither Trump nor Biden can persist as president past January except in name only. This is how nations split every few centuries. We live to see historic times.
Eighteen states, including Texas, sued the four swing states for illegally changing election rules mid season. If we count the undisputed votes and Republican legislatures of those four states which heard the evidence, that would be twenty-two states for Trump. Twenty-two Democratic states filed to object. If results favor Republicans, the nation is split right down the middle. Each side is convinced it is in the right—Democrats because they saw it on the news—Republicans because they saw it at government hearings which were specifically not on the news. That’s all the reason either side has ever needed to believe anything they believe.
Neither side even tried to persuade the other in a way that could be heard. The news-Democrat side simply asserted a result, marginalizing questions as “atypical”, ignoring the fact that eighteen states can’t be atypical by definition and cannot become atypical by mere assertion. Conservatives and Republican voters argued “evidence” and “rules” after sewing distrust of rules through a century of refusing justice to Democratic voter needs.
Neither side was ever going to concede. The Supreme Court stayed out of it, arguing “lack of standing”. Democratic-run states answered with blanket denial one would expect from China—and it seemed to work on the Supreme Court, though it never works when China does it. With the Senate sending a blistering 83 votes against Trump’s veto promise on a military bill, Republican voters feel betrayed. Surely, the gun-owning Republicans are mulling over multiple militarized responses. Democrats would riot before conceding. If Trump ever does concede, it would indicate he has plans to eventually win by means more formidable than a militarized option. Concession from either side would be fake, indicating hidden danger to come.
Those eighteen states may boycott the electoral college, denying the two-thirds quorum; if they don’t then their lawsuit was only for show. If the Electoral College names Biden, he can rightly be called the “President-Elect” for the first time, even if in question. And, if he gets that title while in question, America will see Conservative rage—and Liberal riots in response—like never before. Liberals aren’t fond of following rules when they lose because the rules are unfair against them all too often. Lawless Liberals are somewhat common; lawless Conservatives are a bigger league altogether. God forbid that Liberals break enough rules to convince Conservatives to stop following their own rules. That is a wrath none could prepare for. There is no peaceful resolution, but at least Americans all agree on the depth of our long-neglected problems.
The conclusion of the current media analysis of Trump is clear: the Democrats and media sing in unison. Their song is one of contradiction—that Obama’s routine use of executive authority and the Clinton’s scandals should have been ignored—but not Trump, who uses executive authority to obey the Constitution to defend the nation’s borders when Congress will not. His dedication to obey the Constitution is his crime, the lesser-than Obama-Clinton scandals are just the means of punishing him for doing what is right.
At a time when America’s enemies make threats, the people have a president who won’t play the “surrender” role expected by the “great surrenderers” of society. The Russianewsgategate fiasco is about to hit the fan and spray mud all over the Left. Media criticism of the president’s speech at CPAC makes no sense. He celebrates heroes, explains the inside baseball of trade, listens to the wisdom of our military’s generals, and gave the microphone to a young man who was punched in the face for his beliefs. The news media is being seen more and more for the villain it is—and the people know all about it.
If the border wall dispute goes to a point of emergency, there would be implications. How deeply the administration and Congress will want to pursue those implications is a question to itself, with a likely answer of, “Not far.” But, the implications will remain.
Declaring a national emergency at the border is basically a declaration of being invaded by a civilian army. Like any army, this army also has a purpose and a moral cause they think to be right and fair. What invading army doesn’t? But, it would be an invading army of some kind or another because that’s what Constitutional powers the president would need to use to declare the emergency: repel against invasion.
The Constitutional language here compels Congress to act. If Trump were to declare an emergency to deal with the border situation—then a Federal judge stopped him—that judge would be just as implicated as Congress.
The implication?—Conspiracy with the enemy.
If an invasion can be stopped, but won’t be stopped by Congress or a judge, then they are conspirators with that invasion. This is because they are Constitutionally required to stop any force from invading, not only a deputized army sanctioned by a recognized state.
Trump might not be able to do much. Presidents can’t impeach anyone and members of Congress don’t answer for anything they do as elected officials to anyone except the electorate. He might be able to fire the Federal judge, but that won’t achieve anything because another treacherous scoundrel is sure to pop up elsewhere.
But, the implication will be there. What to do about it will be left up to the voters.
As talks between Kim and Trump march forward, China is resigned to the new situation at its eastern border and is focusing on other areas, specifically trade. In truth, China’s main trade opponent is not the US, but Vietnam.
Vietnam’s main edge in trade will be that it is less expensive. Vietnam is, in many ways, less developed, yet more free to be expressive. Hanoi doesn’t sanction the same censorship as Beijing does. Many hard-working Vietnamese are hungry, even desperate for income. A hard-working, uncensored, hungry, less-expensive people will be difficult for China to compete with on many fronts. This is entirely beside any point about political tension between China and Vietnam.
The meeting between Kim and Trump is less-than-satisfactorily explained. Suddenly they want to talk? Some “teamwork” consultant trying to sell a book will likely attribute it all to diplomacy, along with the preemptive speculation that Kim would give up the nukes because he got them. More is going on behind the scenes and if the true story is ever told it may not be told for ten or twenty years.
As for the Western spin about China’s constitutional changes, it is all about the party, not about Xi. The humble pig farm worker, Xi Jinping, did not rise to power by publicly trying to serve himself. He has followed Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power to a tee and will continue to do so—that means putting the party first in his public agenda.
It’s hitting the fan. China is homing-up and the US is “posseing” up. CFIUS is expanding its scope and China just required Apple to send its iCloud encryption keys to servers on the mainland. Both moves are more about caution than provocation. The US is stepping up patrols to enforce the trade block on North Korea. China just started the process of amending its Constitution to remove terms limits on its President.
The change to China’s Constitution is often mis-portrayed. It affects both the President and Vice President. It does not install a President for life, but simply allows it. More importantly, the Constitution is being updated to include the “Xi Thought”, mainly that all ethic groups of China are equal and that helping the entire world is part of China’s responsibility.
Many in the West will jump to presume Xi is making a grab for power. While it does increase his power, the more accurate interpretation is that Xi’s plans go for the long term, specifically after Trump’s term. Without this change, Xi would leave office by 2023. China is thinking in terms of long-term, global strategy. That’s hardly a “grab”, but more of a “waltz”.
This is a significant change. Both the US and China clearly mean business. With a shift toward the long-term, and with China publishing its view that the whole world is part of its responsibility, we are in a different political atmosphere than in years past.
The hashtag #Calexit would be #Texit if the election had gone the other way. California and Texas already did secede once. Of course Washington would do something to stop it, we wouldn’t be dealing with Obama anymore. Secession is now on the table for real, thank you Californians. It’s only a matter of time. These are bad days for globalism.
Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon will be great in the White House. Trump is the man who led and starred one of NBC’s most profitable shows, The Apprentice. He knows who to hire. This man, accused of being a woman-hating, homophobic racist has already hired KellyAnne Connway, Peter Thiel, and Dr. Ben Carson. The Anti-Trumpist retort is that they are examples of Trump operating in “rare form”.
Are the protesters in as much danger of Trump as they protest to being? Will Trump retaliate against NBC and other venomous enemies with an onslaught of IRS audits and the like? Historically, no because Trump is not a Democrat.
“Experts” in other countries, disparaged Democrat voters, members from the four corners of Congress, and media talking heads from the four corners of the moon—even Fox News Sunday and debate host extraordinaire Christopher Wallace—did not predict the 2016 US election outcome; Pacific Daily Times Editor in Chief and writer-narrator of this editorial, Jesse Steele, did in early February. The most widely-known prediction of Trump’s victory before Jesse Steele’s was from Richard Nixon’s wife, though Mrs. Nixon didn’t make a map.
A few polls got it right. Khali at Trafalgar polling found a way to get the truth from “shy” Trumpist Conservatives who think they can’t tell the truth to pollsters: “Who is your neighbor voting for?” It’s interesting how we tend to think that our neighbors think how we think.
In their ever-shifting opinions and speculations about Trump, so-called “experts” of 20/20 hindsight who park their pedestals among aftermath should cite their more accurate election maps published before February. As usual, if you read it here, you read it here first, at Pacific Daily Times.
The divide in America is between the archetypal city mice and country mice. The country mice need land to make things in factories and grow food on farms; the city mice manage the market’s business on less and more costly land, all the while consuming the fat of the land they rarely visit. Like a saddle and a horse, a saddle helps, but bareback is an option while a saddle ridden on the fence goes nowhere.
The two are naturally polarized and out of touch with each other; they have formed political right and left extremes. The country mice want production and renaissance while the city mice want fashion and manners. Being a “moderate” in the city-country conflict surmounts to mixing coffee with orange juice at breakfast—both are great, but they need different cups.
As for the controversy of the electoral college, it resurfaces in every presidential election as if it has just surfaced for the first time: It’s a newbie voter’s topic. The basic purpose is, in the event of a very close margin of city mice v country mice, the country mice will win because the country can’t function without the rural backbone. This is why a State gets just two extra votes just for being a State, and all that comes with it. This is why Alaska contributed 3 Republican votes, not just 1, and Hawaii and New Hampshire contributed each 4 Democrat votes, not just 2. That said, there have been no certified reports on how much of Clinton’s 260k vote lead came from illegal voting. We do know that Democrats openly object to measures that prevent illegal voting while moderate Republicans claim to oppose illegal voting, with little or no action to back up that claim. The policies, both actual and claimed, of both Democrats and Republicans brought the vote to what it was.
Pro-Lifers should be glad abortion will likely end. That was the biggest and most lasting direct result of this election, which many people have not realized, yet if ever. Perhaps Religious Right Conservative Christian Anti-Trumpist lamenters could learn a thing or two about gratitude from Liberal Democratic Anti-Trumpist protesters. Trump has managed to inspire shared hashtags for these Conservatives and Liberals. They might actually talk to each other now. That could be a longer-lasting, less direct result of this election. The way has been paved for The People’s Party.
The massive protests against Trump are the result of the country’s public education policies since the 1990’s. Students are given a trophy for showing up and recognition of winners and losers in sports is outright persecuted. Nannying and sissifying young people left the generation of first-time voters ill-prepared to deal with loss. While neither Conservative nor Liberal youth have had much experience training them to deal with the emotions of “losing” something, Conservative parents were more likely to prepare them at home for the things that school neglected. If nothing else, Conservative first-time voters had their first eight years of voting to learn to deal with loss; the Democrats did not.
There would have been protests of some kind either way. These protests are more of a “nasty” nature, involving destruction of private property with little legislative result. Had the election gone the other way, riots would have been replaced with larger, more peaceful, and yet more effective protests. Secession petitions would have been legitimate enough to provoke Congress, involve the Supreme Court, and surely military action, citing Clinton corruption and excess executive orders that Trump promised to undo. This election was somewhat of a “deal”: Get back inside the Constitutional boundaries or rip it up; the electors chose to get back inside the lines, for now. California and Texas will secede eventually, but that will require the “don’t get mad, get busy” action of sobriety and will happen only after elections and wars yet to come.
Contrary to some opinions floating around the “media-osphere”, there actually is a Constitutional basis for secession, though not stated directly. The Federal government is obligated to repel invasion, according to original Article IV. If the US is ever invaded, State secession will be as Constitutional as it is inevitable. The topic California brought up implies a warning to US enemies: Invading the United States at home would not be an act of war against one country, but against fifty. While secession is coming, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. The president elect still has not taken office, the electoral college has not voted, and the results of many States have not yet been certified by their election authorities. While some things are foreseeable from the vantage point of history, history informs foresight while the two remain separate.
The earthquakes had the final and poetic word after “US election week”: Both sides of the Pacific were shocked and shaken, and, more poetically, the shock in Christchurch started a tsunami.
