The election of Donald Trump to the highest office in land (world?) surprised me as much as it did any liberal talking head on election night 2016. I gave him no hope to get the Republican nomination and less than no hope of beating Hillary Clinton in the race to the White House. I was wrong. I have spent the last few weeks digesting both that last statement and the consequences of Trump’s ascendency.

I don’t think I underestimated Donald Trump. He was (is?) a loud mouth boor. He is juvenile at times, crass, and does not think before he speaks. Those qualities alone, given the hostile attitude of the majority of American press towards him, should have killed any chance he had of advancing past a few early primary victories. But here he is less than 60 days from being sworn in. So where did I err?

I underestimated the American people, specifically the working class Democrats and unaffiliated. I don’t know how I did it. Look to the right of the blog and read these words I wrote 2-3 years ago in my blog description

“I think the Democrat Party has been taken over by America haters, career victims, and those who believe that the federal government should be your daddy.”

It has and a lot of people, many, many, more than I gave credit to, came to that same conclusion. Hillary Clinton did not represent them. They get up each morning, go to work (or look for work), and try to be the best American they can. They see Black Lives Matter all but call for the assassination of police, they see Hillary (& Obama) talk about actively shutting down the US Coal industry, they see college students demanding free tuition, safe spaces, and the right to shout down opposition thought, but scream for diversity at the same time.

They see the pre-ordained successor to Obama’s throne tell Congress “What difference does it make?” when Americans die overseas. The news is filled with Pay for Play scandals involving the Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Global Initiative. They see members of the IRS actively harassing Americans just because they have a different political philosophy.

They see all of that, and see the leaders of the Democratic Party nod their head in agreement. They ask themselves, deep down, “Is this what I believe?”
​

I like John Hickenlooper. I’ve heard many extended interviews with him on the Mike Rosen Show, dating back to when Hickenlooper was elected mayor of Denver. He seems like a nice guy and a person you would want to talk with and get to know. But, I don’t like him as governor of Colorado.

He has demonstrated on many occasions why you don’t vote for the person, you vote for your party. Why? Because a person who runs for office, picks a side. He looks at what each party stands for, decides which of them best represent what he stands for, and then signs up. So what does that mean with Mr. Hickenlooper?

It means he has problems with the Second Amendment; the Right to Bear Arms. Hickenlooper’s comrades in arms; the Democrats of the Colorado Senate and House, who controlled both chambers of the General Assembly, rammed through three new gun control bills. One was fairly benign; a background check law. The next was a slap in the face everyone; requiring Colorado citizens to pay for the privilege of exercising their constitutional rights, and the final one was laughable and unenforceable; the high capacity magazine bill.

Most anyone would have signed the background check bill. Someone towing the Democrat party line, would have signed the bill requiring you to also pay for it, but only a fool would have signed the high capacity bill. Not only did he sign it; he did so against the advise of all most all of the elected county sheriff’s, without a fair hearing from the opponents of the law, and when challenged later on this act of stupidity, he said he signed because a staffer had promised his Democrat friends in General Assembly, that he would. That’s leadership, huh?

What else does it mean? It means that he has a problem with the death penalty. Nathan Dunlap planned and the murdered four people at his old place of employment, Chuck E. Cheese. He took the days receipts and went home and had sex with his girlfriend. Why the robbery and killing? He was pissed off that he had been fired weeks earlier. That and he wanted the money.

He was convicted on all four counts of first degree murder, sentenced to death, and had his 20 years worth of appeals. He had three separate appeals that ended up in the Colorado Supreme Court. They upheld the conviction all three times. This is the liberal Colorado Supreme Court we are talking about. One of these appeals called “the evidence against him staggering”. After all of this, he was finally set to die during the summer of 2013. Then along came John.

Hi Readers. I am completely befuddled as to why Mark Udall, the Democrat candidate for US Senate, in Colorado (and the rest of the Democrats) have such a low opinion of the women in Colorado. Really. They act like the our female population stands in front of a radio each day waiting for the words “contraceptive” or “abortion” to pass through the speakers, so they can take up signs in protest. They act like half of Colorado’s population isn’t concerned about the economy, about jobs, about immigration, about the rising cost of health insurance (ObamaCare), or anything other than abortion of birth control.

The reference in my title to Mark Uterus is not original. I heard it from Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post, as she moderated a debate between Uter…I mean Udall and his challenger, Cory Gardner.

The genesis of the nickname is obvious. It seems like every ad that the Udall campaigns runs accuses Gardner of being in favor of turning our ladies into baby-making slaves. It’s a complete sham and it is not playing well in Colorado. The women of Colorado see right through his ploy and the polls show it. Gardner has now made up the original deficit and is leading in all major polls, and pulling through the margin of error in some.

This campaign is not solely about reproductive issues, and neither is this blog. Mark Udall is the incumbent, the man currently representing us in the United States Senate. He was elected six years ago, so this is the first time he has faced his constituents to show what he has done. This should give you a hint as to why half of his ads are trying to tap into the emotions of women.

There is nothing he proudly points to and says “This is what I have done for the people of Colorado in my six years” I looked at his GovTrack 2013 (latest available) scorecard and it confirmed what I was saying. In 2013 Udall managed to get ONE bill out of committee and to the floor. It is been sitting there since June. 

Hello Readers. Andrew Romanoff wants to represent the 6th Colorado District and he wants to really bad. You could even say, and I certainly am, that his candidacy is contrived out of thin air.  Contrived, by the Colorado Democrat Party and with an assist by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Romanoff was term limited from his job as State House Representative after the 2008 state session. In 2010, he tried to become one of Colorado’s US Senators by challenging vulnerable, Democrat incumbent, Michael Bennett in the state primary. He lost.

But, 2010 was a census year. Why does that matter? Because each US census carries with it a prescribed redistricting of each state’s congressional boundaries. (Stop yawning. This will get interesting in a minute.) What this means is that each state redraws the lines around the state to figure out which group of people will be represented by which district. Move a line a few miles and you add more Democrats to a district making it easier to elect a Democrat.

In 2010, that is exactly what they, the Democrats, did in the 6th Colorado Congressional District. The Democrats had their gerrymandering plan, which would make the 6th Congressional District more favorable to electing a Democrat, without harming any of their three incumbent representatives in the next election. The Republicans had their own plan, and the fight was on. It should have been an even fight, because after the 2010 elections the Republicans controlled the House, with Dems retaining control of the Senate. But with liberals in firm control of  Colorado’s Supreme Court, the outcome was preordained. The court rubberstamped the Democrat plan with almost no thought and definitely no consideration from the opposition. Just like that, Mike Coffman, the incumbent representative for the Colorado 6th was now in a fight for re-election.

Andrew Romanoff is sure he is just the man for the job. Only Andrew, until recently, didn’t meet the residency requirements for the job. He lived in Denver. The 6th Colorado does not include Denver. So in 2013, just in time to establish the minimum residency time requirement Andrew moved to Aurora.

Ta-dah. Candidate contrived.

Romanoff is an interloper with no ties to the 6th. He was born in Ohio, went to school at Harvard and Yale. He got his law degree in Colorado; in Denver. He represented Denver in the state house and likely only visited the land he now wants represent as he drove through it to the airport. 

Hello, readers. Last time I told you this blog would be about the race in Colorado 6th District; Coffman vs. Romanoff. Well, I changed my mind. I decided after three blogs of telling you to; “Pick your issue. Pick your side. Pick your party. Vote your party”, that I might want to “help” you pick your side.

To review there are two side; Republicans and Democrats. At this point in time, no other party matters. If you don’t get that, go back and read the first three blogs in this series. We’ll wait.

You have heard people exclaim that “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” They are right. There is not a dime’s worth. It is more like a trillion dollars worth of difference. Let’s look at a few issues to illustrate this

Federal Government Spending

This one is my favorite. Republicans believe that we are spending too much money and that we have to stop spending more than we take in. The answer has to include a reduction in the GROWTH of social programs. Republicans are OK with spending more on Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, each year because the population increases and inflation decreases purchasing power of the dollar. But, they are not OK with making it so easy to get on these programs that it causes a disincentive to work. They are not OK with able bodied persons collecting Welfare, Disablity, and unending Unemployment, at the expense of their neighbors.

Democrats believe that the amount of money we are spending is too low. They believe there are people in need and it is the Federal government’s job to provide for the needs (no matter how “need” is defined) of the American people. To finance this we must tax the hell out of the rich and corporations.

We already have the highest tax rate in the industrialized west. Do you think that it’s an accident that many companys, like Burger King have sought to become citizens of another country? Do you think increasing that tax rate will make the Whopper American again?

We also have already exceeded our tax capacity. In the entire history of the US Federal Income Tax the feds have never collected more than 20.9% of the Gross Domestic Product (GNP) of the country. The GNP is the worth of all the goods and services produced in the United States. It is how much we as a nation “make”. Raising the tax rate, i.e. saying someone making $1,000,000 must pay 30% instead of 25% does not mean that the federal government will collect that extra 5%. 

Hello again, reader. This blog is my third installment in the “Who Should I Vote for” series. In the first two parts I explained why the party of a person is much, much, more important than the person himself. If you just gasped, please go read the first two parts of this series.

When we left off, I hinted that 3rd party candidates were not a good option.

“But, I don’t like Democrats or Republicans. There ain’t a dimes worth of difference between them. I’m going with fill-in-the-blank”

Yeah, well “Fill-in-the-blank” is not going to win. Not it the real world. Yes, he will tell you he has a shot. The movies will tell you he has a shot. But, when the ballots are counted, in a statewide or national election, he will not have come close. The more local the election, the bigger percentage of the vote he will get, but it will almost never be enough to elect someone to a state or federal house or senate office.

“What about Ron Paul, the US Representative from Texas, or Rand Paul, the US Senator from Kentucky?” They are both Libertarians.”

Sorry, while they are certainly libertarians in their heart, they are both registered Republicans, which is how they ran and won their office. If they had run as Libertarians, they would have been soundly defeated. We are a two party system. Those who play in the third party sandbox, play with the children.

Once again. I’m sorry if that hurt. But, this is the way it works. Third party candidates don’t win; they just take votes away from one collation (Republicans) or the other (Democrats), and maybe get “the wrong side” in.

If you don’t believe me, just ask Al Gore. You remember him, right? Flashback to 2000. He is the Democratic candidate for president. On the other side is George W. Bush. The election came down to which way Florida went. Florida went to Bush.

Last blog, I started a multi part tirade in which I intend to “help” you decide who to vote for in November. My last blog was the first half of my explanation of why who the candidate you vote for is much, much less important, than what party he if from. I would encourage you to read Part 1 to get the full impact.

I left you with a cliffhanger. I said that

“Voting for a candidate that is not of your party can effect even IF a bill, important to you, comes up for a vote.”

 Yes, that is true. It happens in two ways, both of which are dictated by who controls that particular chamber of Congress.

First thing you should know is that at the end of an election, both the House and the Senate count noses to see who rules the roost. If there are more Democrats than Republicans, then each committee will be controlled by the party with the most noses. Why does that matter? Because all bills start in a committee, to see if they are “worthy” of being voted on by the whole chamber.

In the Senate, which currently has more Democrats than Republicans, every single committee has more Democrats than Republicans. In the House, which has more Republicans than Democrats, every single committee is dominated by the Republicans. It is very easy to just let a bill “die in committee”. If a bill is not voted on before a session of Congress ends, that bill dies. It does not just wait until the next session. So, if the chairman of a committee doesn’t like it, maybe it gets put on the bottom of the pile and time runs out. Or the committee votes on it, and majority kills it then and there.

The second way is on the floor of each chamber. Once a bill gets through committee, the elected representatives vote on it, right? Maybe. Sometimes. Usually. Not Always.

Hello readers. It’s been many months since I have last written a blog. But, with Election Day approaching, I felt compelled to put pen to paper, in this electronic way, to try to make a difference. I likely won’t, but I’ll at least feel I tried.

Before I go on, let me say that this particular blog will be as non-partisan as is humanly possible. Not because I don’t want to influence your vote away from the dark side, but because the arguments and case I am about to state genuinely applies to both sides of any issue. So with out further preamble here we go.

The party of a candidate is much more important than the candidate him self.

“What?” you say. “How can that possibly be? I vote for the candidate who most thinks the way I do. I vote for the person, not the party!”

I have heard this many times. This is political naïveté wrapped up in pseudo intellectualism. I’m sorry, if that hurt. But, party affiliation is the most reliable way to tell which way a politician will vote. Here is why.

Democrats and Republicans alike form their collations in advance. That means that as a group they have already determine which side of an issue they fall on. Those who follow on one side of an issue or another will join either the Republicans or the Democrats. They will then, generally speaking (and I will pick apart the “generally” shortly) vote reliably one way or the other on any given issue.

“Huh?” you say “You lost me”

Abortion. Death Penalty. ObamaCare. Gun Control. Fiscal Policy. Immigration. Labor Unions. Welfare. Taxes. Bigger Government. Personal Responsibility. Environment. Minimum Wage. Border Control. Solar & Wind Energy. Oil. Nuclear. On and on and on.

You pick the issue. The Democrats are on one side. The Republicans are on the other. Then each party will vote to keep happy those who side, and vote for with them. So, as a voter it is your responsibility to determine which of these issues you fall on and which are the most important to you.

Some people are single issue candidates. That means that one thing; Abortion, Gun Rights, Lower Taxes is the one thing that drives them. If your “thing” is Second amendment rights and you vote for a Democrat; you are either an idiot or a low information voter. Either way, just stay home on Election Day and play a video game. In the interest of my non-partisanship, if your thing is Labor Unions, you don’t want to vote for a Republican. They will not be voting your way. Again, pick the issue. Pick your side. Pick your party. That guy is your guy. The other guy is not.

“Objection! Your Honor, the blogger is full of hot air and bluster! I know many politicians whose vote has crossed the party and that is why I vote for the person and not the party! Hummph!”

Currently up for debate in the Senate, and likely to pass,  is what is loftily being called, duh-tu-duh-duh, COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.  Merriam Webster defines “comprehensive” as “covering completely or broadly”. The Democrats in Congress define it “whatever will give us the most Democrat voters” And unfortunately they have several either well intentioned or just plain stupid Republicans (Rubio, McCain, Flake, & Graham come to mind) as co-conspirators.

 The current bill even with the Corker-Hoeven amendment (which adds a lot of umph to border security) is nothing more than amnesty wrapped in Linus’ blanket to make Republicans think that they are winning the hearts and minds of Latinos. Ronald Reagan already tried this. He granted outright amnesty in 1986

How did that work out for Republicans? Two years before the 1986 law 62% of Hispanics voted for the Democrat running for president. In 1988, because they were so appreciative, 69% voted Democrat. Last year it was about 70%.

The answer of winning Hispanics to vote Republican obviously isn’t in granting amnesty for more people who will be net tax receivers. A person who receivers more in free schooling, Medicaid, food stamps, and all the other “entitlement” programs, than he pays for in payroll and income taxes is going to vote for the party that keeps promising to write those checks. The problem is America is broke. We can’t pay for a high standard of living for every person in Mexico, Latin America, and every other third world nation on earth. We can’t pay for what we have promised to the people who live here now. The flow of people, who are a drain to the system, has to stop.

 To that end; here is my Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan

#1) Make E-Verify mandatory. E-Verify is an internet based verification system that checks, via Homeland Security and Social Security to see if a person is eligible to work in the United States. Said eligible person would either be a citizen or would have a work visa issued by the federal government. Someone not eligible, (read illegal immigrant), would not be able to get a job. The J-O-B is what is driving the flood of illegal immigrants. Without that incentive those in this country illegally will self-deport and those not yet here won’t come.

#2) Secure the f-ing border! How stupid do you have to be to not understand this? If a pipe bursts in your basement, what do you do? Do you debate with your wife about what to do with the water in the basement? Do you stick your finger in the hole and try to slow the flood? NO, you shut the damn water off. Then you deal with the water that is already there, operating on the perfectly reasonable assumption that it now won’t get worse. Do you lock your door at night? Do you regulate who comes into your house and how long they stay? Of course, because you are concerned about your safety and your ability to feed anyone that would show up and stay. Not only has an unprotected border allowed millions of people in who are and will be a net drain on society, but those who want to do harm to this country have an easy path in as well.

Let’s take a short quiz. This little query is designed specifically to determine if the taker of this test is a Brain Dead Liberal. First, let’s define “brain dead liberal”, which will hence be referred to as BDL. A BDL is a person who is so committed to the liberal ideology that he/she justifies or excuses any transgression by any Democrat. A BDL believes that no matter what a Democrat does it is

A)    No worse that what a Republican would do

B)    OK, because the alternative is to have a Republican in that office

C)    Exaggerated, made up, or taken out of context by the Republicans

Okay, here we go. Question #1:

Were you embarrassed that you voted for Barack Obama after you learned that his administration misdirected money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to GM and Chrysler to bail them out of bankruptcy, while ignoring bankruptcy laws to insure that the unions were protected and the secured creditors got screwed?

 

Question #2

Were you embarrassed that you voted for Barak Obama (WYETUVFO) after his Attorney General failed to prosecute Samir Shabazz , who was video taped in military style garb, with a club, in front of a Philadelphia polling place, harassing white voters, for voter intimidation?

 

Question #3

WYETUVFO after he announced that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, because he did not believe it to be constitutional, in effect making himself the Supreme Court?

 

Question #4

WYETUVFO after he announce that his administration would stop deporting illegal aliens who would have been allowed to stay in the United States  HAD the Dream Act been passed, in effect making himself Congress?

 

Question #5

WYETUVFO after his National Labor Relations Board filed suit against Boeing Aircraft for the unpardonable sin of trying to manufacture the new 757 Dreamliner in the non-union state of South Carolina, instead of the unionized plant in Seattle?

 

Question #6

WYETUVFO after it was learned that Obama gave a government backed load of half a billion dollar to Solyndra, a troubled solar energy company, which was headed by