Right Wing Fighter

Category: American Politics

Anti-Trump Effort at Convention Fails

From the AP(scroll down to 8:10 PM):

A leader of conservatives making a last-ditch attempt to block Donald Trump’s nomination says she’s dropping her effort to force the Republican National Convention to vote on her plan to let delegates back any presidential candidate they want.

The convention rules committee has already rejected Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh’s proposal to “unbind” delegates from the candidates they were committed to by state primaries and caucuses.

Unruh had been saying that despite that defeat, she’d get enough support to force a full convention vote next week on her plan to let delegates vote their conscience.

So she wants them free to vote their conscience, eh?

What about the “consciences” that voted for Trump overwhelmingly in the primaries?

It aggravates me whenever I see these hollow nincompoops start preaching about “conscience” whenever they want to abuse the convention rules to get what they want. They could at least be honest about their cynical ploys. To hide them behind morality is disgusting.

It’s amazing the hollow, substanceless people politics attracts. It’s even more surprising, in a way, that we keep sending them back into power, as delegates and candidates. I imagine it’s more a matter of honest ignorance on the voter’s part than anything else.

The Psychology of Clinton’s “I’m With Her” Slogan

Have you shaken your head at Clinton’s “I’m With Her” slogan? You’re not alone.

Here’s what it’s all about:

Clinton’s campaign is little more than a feminist projection. Hillary has no qualifications to be president. She has no accomplishments. She also has no connection to an ethnic or economic group. For instance, Obama was the candidate of the non-white electorate. Romney, on the other hand, was the candidate of the wealthy.

But Hillary has no such group appeal. Instead, she’s trying to appeal to the female sex. The psychology of “I’m With Her” is this: it’s an invitation to women to imagine they are Hillary. She is inviting them to treat her as their avatar.

We’ve all seen those cardboard cutouts of muscle-men with the face missing so you can put your head in. That’s what Hillary is inviting women to do: imagine that, though Hillary is the body, the mind is theirs. “I’m With Her” would more accurately read “I Am Her.”

Sound bizarre? Consider this. We imagine ourselves to be heroes in books, movies, and music all the time. One of the main appeals of music to many people is that they can pretend they are the protagonist and thus escape their weaknesses. In their minds, they put on the character of a stronger person for a little while to ease their own thinking.

Many women in America are feminists. But since feminism is unnatural, it’s grinding them down over time. They are crossing into their later years, and losing hope in the Good News of feminism. The goal of the Clinton campaign is to connect with these women, make them treat Hillary as their avatar, and as such to give them a chosen one to justify and reinvigorate their faltering faith. The psychology is this: “if Hillary can do it, so can I. I can still succeed as a feminist if Hillary can”*.

To some extent it’s working. She’s doing pretty well with women at the moment. But it’s too narrow a strategy to win in the end. There simply aren’t enough women of that stripe to carry Hillary across the finish line. She’d need to pull in support from some other groups, and she’s not capable of doing that. Her only hope is that Trump destroys himself, which I highly, highly doubt.


*This is also going to give Clinton’s campaign a number of desperately devoted supporters. Since their whole world hinges on Clinton’s win, they are going to work hard to get her elected. Additionally, they are going to desperately hate anyone who opposes her.

Trump has indeed picked Pence

The rumors were true: Trump has picked Pence.

I’m not happy about it but I’m not bent out of shape by it either. Reagan made a similar move to win the moderates back in 1980 when he picked H.W. Bush as his running mate. Bush exerted little to no influence over Reagan’s direction. I think it will be the same with Trump.

The primary proved that nobody runs Trump but Trump. I highly doubt he’s the sort of man to be driven around by his VP.

If he were so easy to manipulate, what use would he be as president anyhow?

I don’t consider this pick to be a betrayal of reforming trade, immigration, or our foreign policy. Again, Bush Senior supported the populist, pro-growth policies of Reagan even though he disagreed with them. It’s certain that Trump extracted such a promise from Pence before picking him. Trump is far too good a businessman to have a divided ship before even sailing out of port.

As such, I believe Pence will be a disappointing but harmless bookend in Trump’s administration, should he win.

Trump’s VP Pick; Rumors Say it’s Mike Pence

Rumors are circulating that Trump is going to pick Mike Pence for VP.

I certainly hope not. Pence is an amnesty man and a go-along-get-along type of Republican. He backed and worked hard to get amnesty passed back during George W. Bush’s administration. Additionally, he’s a free-trade, business-first Republican.

Picking Pence would be a huge mistake.

I hope instead that Trump will pick Jeff Sessions. Sessions is a nationalist and a workers-first man. He’s one of the best men in politics on the issue of immigration. Additionally, he’s got the right temperament for VP.

What I’d like to see is Trump pick Sessions for his first term. Sessions is 69, and as such he’s too old to take over for Trump after eight years. The best thing would be for Trump to pick him for the first four years of his administration, and then pick a younger man for the second four years. The immigration fight will be hottest in Trump’s first term, and it will be important to have an experienced, old hand at the issue. Additionally, Trump will need a man he can trust.

With Trump, immigration will be the central issue. This will pull a lot of legitimate, America-first immigration patriots out of the woodwork. Thus I expect there would be plenty of choices for VP after the battle is over. There aren’t that many to choose from right now. But after four years of battle, the line will have been drawn and sides will have been chosen. It will be pretty easy to find a good man for the job then.

But for right now, Sessions is the best man.

Joni Ernst Essentially Turns Down VP

From, ahem, Politico:

“I made that very clear to him that I’m focused on Iowa. I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate. And Iowa is where my heart is,” Ernst said Wednesday. “I’m just getting started here. I have a great partner with Chuck Grassley, we’ve been able to accomplish a lot. And I think that President Trump will need some great assistance in the United States Senate and I can provide that.”


Ernst, contrary some silly people, is not a good person for VP. She’s essentially an establishmentarian. Anyone that has a great partnership with Chuch Grassley isn’t good for the country as VP.

Besides, I’m tired of her “mamma grizzly” nonsense. It started with Palin and Ernst has sort of adopted it. Surprisingly, many men have too. They have this bizarre liking for “strong” women, which just comes out to pushy women. Ernst is neither intelligent nor a good leader. Women generally aren’t good leaders. They aren’t made that way. As such, a “strong” woman is just a woman who shoves herself into the conversation.

I’m glad to see Ernst has taken herself out of consideration.

To explain my thinking a bit:

A leader is someone that can see what should be done. He is someone that knows how the world turns.

Imagine the world as a merry-go-round. We have to jump onto it or jump off of it as circumstances dictate. Now, a man that knows when and how to jump onto it can lead. But someone that doesn’t know and yet still wants to lead is just pushy.

Life, to many people, is chaos. It’s a swirling mass of thing going by too fast and with too little detail to be understood. As such, they follow leaders. Leaders are men who can see how the world is, and who have the strength to act on it.

Now, there are some people that want to be leaders, but who lack that critical ability to see. As such, they are just ignoramuses that are trying to push themselves to the top. We call them blowhards, egotists, and more impolite things. The reason is because we all know and feel the need for someone that can see. As such, we hate counterfeiters. We hate people that shove themselves into the conversation without anything to give. They’re just there because they like the laurels that leaders get.

History is full of men that didn’t see but wanted to be leaders anyhow. The earth is full of the graves of their followers.

There are also many men who did see. Take for instance George Washington, Bismarck, Churchill, Reagan. These men are rightly celebrated. One because they deserve it. But two because, by holding the real thing in front of our eyes constantly, we have a strong sense of what isn’t the real thing. People like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell: these are all pretenders. They all want to lead, because they like the rewards. But they don’t have the critical vision necessary to lead. They are blind leading the blind.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being blind. But a blind man shouldn’t try to lead. That’s why our politics is so frustrating in America: the few people who aren’t simply bought and paid for have no idea what they’re doing. They aren’t in politics because they know what to do and they’re there to do it. No. They’re there for the laurels. They usually end up complete, frustrating failures.

So that is why I don’t like Ernst. She’s a pushy, headstrong woman that wants to lead, but hasn’t the critical ability to see. As such, she’s no use to America as a politician.


A 2016 Election Poem

I’m sick of Obama, that terrible man,
Who’s hurt America all that he can.
But do not fret, for soon we will dump,
That terrible man, and replace him with Trump!

But this may not happen, if some on the right,
Keep pushing for Hillary, with all of their might.
They would prefer Clinton, though she they dread,
Rather than have Donald Trump as their head!

This is because, a globalist she,
Is less objectionable than Donald T;
For money is what makes their world go ’round,
And it may yet throw Populism to the ground.

This is the battle, this is the score,
The globalists with the People have started a war;
To control the government that has made them rich,
They’ll take no prisoners: this is politics.

Written by Yours Truly.

Gingrich Shouldn’t be Trump’s VP

Gingrich’s name is floating around as a possible VP for Trump.

Gingrich would be bad for Trump’s candidacy. He is a silly, half-baked intellectual without principle or substance. He goes where the winds blow. He also studiously avoids saying anything of any real weight. I’ve heard him in numerous interviews, particularly on Sean Hannity’s radio show: he always shields his statements in vagueness.

He has the substance of a jellyfish. A hard-hitting man like Trump doesn’t need a jellyfish backing him up.

Besides, Gingrich is an amnesty guy.

Trump would be better served picking a man like Sessions.

The Good of American Workers

The good of American workers needs to be the central theme in politics.

The left’s love of perverse individualism must be stopped. The right’s love of business must be stopped too. There needs to be a worker’s party in American politics.

Because, firstly, the workers are America. Second, without their livelihoods being safe, their whole position in the country isn’t stable. At the present rate of outsourcing, immigration, and bad trade deals, American workers will be driven to poverty within the next half century. This will destroy him in American society. It will reduce him to the level of a medieval peasant. He will end up a dependent of the government.

This must not happen. The left’s anti-society individualism must be stopped. And the right’s addiction to business must be stopped too. We need a worker’s party in America.

Where the workers go, the nation goes.

A Little More About Money in Politics

I was just thinking about Theodore Roosevelt’s administration and his trust busting. Much of his administration was spent attacking money in politics and big business’s control of the government.

Roosevelt’s tenure stretched from 1901 to 1909. In this era, the Republican party was supreme. And in the Republican party business was supreme. Most of the party bosses, the men that controlled the day-to-day affairs of the party, were rich businessmen. The chairman of the GOP, Mark A. Hanna, was an iron magnate. The boss of Republican politics in New York, Thomas Collier Platt, was also a rich businessman.

In addition to this, men like J. P. Morgan, who were wealthy beyond anything they could ever spend, were courted endlessly both for money and advice. Chiefly the advice was sought in order to get the money. But it was still sought.

Back then money in politics was obvious, because there weren’t the same finance laws like we have now. Now they have to funnel their money through Super PACs and “advocacy groups.” This does a lot to hide them from the public. As such, political issues appear to be more intellectual than they really are. This gives a layer of authenticity to our present day politics that it doesn’t deserve.

Why are the Political Parties in America so Balanced?

I’ve been wondering for a long time why our political parties are so balanced power-wise. I kept wondering, “why don’t these guys go for the knockout blow?” Issues like immigration reform, for instance, are very popular. So why didn’t they reach for them?

I believe the answer is this: big money keeps them balanced. Just like Julius Caesar kept the tribes of Gaul fighting each other, so to big money keeps the parties more or less equal in strength. Being equal, big money can easily tip the one against the other, should one get too strong.

So for instance, let’s say big money keeps the Republicans from going after immigration reform and also from America First foreign policy. The GOP of course know nothing of this as a plan, and thinks this is merely what big money wants as a matter of philosophy. Thus the Republicans are kept in a weak position with the voters. And if they get out of line with big money, say they want to reform banking laws, then big money can throw more money into the Democratic camp to push them back.

Basically, big money keeps the armies roughly the same size. And when it wants to tip the scales, it gives one of them more ammunition. A lot more.

Mitt Romney must have appeared to them the perfect candidate. Being the definition of corporate businessman, he also inclined to let others do his thinking for him. As such, he was both on the side of business from the start and easy to manipulate.

That explains why he was able to raise the staggering sum of 1.1 billion dollars for his campaign. For contrast, Bush and Kerry combined raised 880 million dollars in 2004.

When you maintain the balance of power, you control events. If forces are equal, it only takes a slight push one way or the other to tip events. This, I believe, is what big money is doing.