Trump or Clinton, only the People can choose


 The People vs The Establishment

The upcoming presidential election will probably be the most controversial since Abraham Lincoln went up against Stephen Douglas in 1860, in some ways, for similar reasons.

The question of this election comes down to the “will of the people”, what the “people” want versus what the representative government wants. Today the issue of “Color” is not a real factor no matter how it is made out to be in the Media. All Americans, regardless of “race” or origin have a right to vote, and this is a very great difference which we must make clear at the outset. Yet, the questions are quite as monumental for they center around the Sovereignty of a nation, and the full expression of individual conscience in a democracy.

The influence of the United States on Democracy as a form of government is obvious, and any degeneration of commitment to Democratic norms in the United States will have dire consequences on the viability of Democracy around the world. For this reason, we are really looking at an earth shaking decision upcoming for the American people. As important as the Brexit considerations were by the British people, this particular election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will likely dwarf Brexit in importance. At least in the initial implied significance, until such time as the chosen candidate reveals their true intentions.

The choice for many is between an “insider”, servant of the political machine, and an “outsider”, a businessman who seems not too fond with the political machine. Whether it’s as simple as that is another question, but many people are thinking of the present election as being only between a consummate politician and her political party’s special interest commitments, and a rogue cowboy, removed from any obligations of his own nominal party. His win went as much against his own party as against the opposing party.

Whether all this turns out as imagined by the public is another question altogether, and this is really what we are here going to consider. Specifically, should the American people have to trust anyone at this time? Or should they be proactive and make their own intentions clear not only at election time, but afterwards as well?

Hillary Clinton the Establishment’s Chosen Candidate

Hillary Clinton is an ultimate insider. She has been privy to the highest level “secrets” of the government since the election of her husband Bill Clinton in 1992. She has for 24 years been on the inside of the processes that sustain the Central government of the United States. She is no innocent, though at times she seems inclined to play that part.

She followed up her very active first lady performance, a turbulent and confrontational battle with the right wing, with a successful bid to the Senate as a representative of the most powerful state in the nation, New York. After attempting to secure the democratic nomination, only to be nominally defeated by the young Senator Barack Obama(having won the popular primary vote, only to lose the state tallies) she followed up as secretary of state in Obama’s new administration. The point being, she is no innocent. She was fully apprised of all policy, both domestic and international. She was apprised not only of the Federal government’s policy, but also of the all powerful New York private interest policy. She is no innocent. She is the consummate political organization insider!

Her views on foreign policy can also be seen clearly. In general she favors American “exceptionalism” as being most conducive to world order. She has acted quite clearly as secretary of state to demonstrate that her views are not really much different than those of Republicans such as George W. Bush. Although we cannot technically hold her responsible for the actions of the Clinton administration on Iraq, it is clear that she favored the isolation of Iraq, and the slow destruction of the nation by her actions as secretary of state. The “No-Fly” zone strategy that was imposed on Iraq, was apparently proposed for Syria by Hillary Clinton. The “Color” revolutions, such as the “Arab Spring” and so called “Civil War” in both Libya and Syria took place under the auspices of the Hillary Clinton stewardship as Secretary of State, and her approval was, and is still quite clear(or so she insists.) That these have resulted in four torn nations-Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen(and even a possible fifth: Egypt is now represented by one percent of the population) all this has not in any way perturbed Clinton. In effect these were the results she seemed to be expecting, and now seems to approve.

She is quite comfortable with the notion of America as the exporter of a commercial empire(or again, so she says.) She feels quite at ease with the idea that America can be used as a world’s police officer – a global executive administrator of sorts- as long as there is enough military, capital, and political power to accomplish this. We should not here be fooled by her appearance. She has been quite clear on this policy for a very long time. This is the policy she and her husband espoused, this is the policy the special interest power brokers who are sponsoring her campaign espouse.

The only real question is whether this is a sound policy in the end.

On the domestic front she seems to favor strongly the general trend of globalism. She is inclined to promise very large expenditures which she promises will be paid by the corporations which are most likely to profit from these public expenditures. Admittedly this has been the Modus Operandi of the American economy for decades now. It has worked so to speak, if you accept that things are fine as they are. And indeed during her nomination acceptance speech, Hillary Clinton insisted that all is fine, and only a few malcontents are really complaining about the present economy and outlook. Her formula is the same as that of Obama, and Bush, and Clinton. Increase the population through immigration, and print as much money as possible. That makes the rich richer, and they will eventually pay more taxes to pay for all the expenditures on the rest of the population, and if not they, then the new immigrants-eventually.

The most likely economic plan she plans to follow as president is to increase infrastructure spending by having the government borrow from the banks. With the Federal Reserve poised to increase rates, this would wind up being a very large windfall for the financial sector since the government would now be paying hefty interest on any money borrowed. However, this will also greatly increase the tax burden on the ordinary person. True some jobs would be created, but some real inflation will also accompany such an expenditure, and as the economy is already quite subdued, it could result in a significant crash. Most especially if trade is stifled as will most likely happen with the rise in the dollar’s relative value. The assumption is that oil prices will remain subdued due to the dollar’s rise, but this may not happen. There are now pressures on production that may seen any rise in the dollar not have the intended effect of lowering oil prices. Especially since it will be more expensive for private industry to borrow money. Thus there are serious questions about the viability of this present system which Hillary Clinton wants to continue.

The question the American voter should ask is whether this system really can be sustained.

She is often touted as a “most qualified” candidate for the presidency, yet when we look carefully we see that in reality she really has no executive experience at all. Rather she seems most qualified to be an enabler of vast political and private organizations and agendas. This seems to have been the most salient aspect of her service in government at the two public positions she held as New York State Senator and Secretary of State. The private Clinton Foundation’s involvement in public policy is one of the key issues dogging her candidacy even now, and is testament to the intrinsic nature of her public service.

She often speaks on public issues like Women’s rights, or rights for Immigrants, or takes on various other social positions but in reality as president she would have little access to the legislative process that would influence these issues in reality. A president’s main job is to enforce the law, not to create it. Of course a president may choose the priority of enforcement, but in reality there is really very little that a president can do to directly influence social issues other than to plead with the Congress or state authorities, or to the public. But in reality Hillary Clinton may have experience at this particular kind of advocacy, and may in some ways be effective as president outside of the direct executive authority vested in the presidency. At least with a portion of the population.

The question with her is whether the rest of the population will tolerate her at all.

Donald Trump, the Rogue

It’s quite clear that a very large portion of the American citizenry is fed up with the actions of the federal government. This is made absolutely clear with the successful candidacy of Donald J. Trump. In any other setting it would be very unlikely that a man like Trump, with no experience whatever in politics would have been able to defeat the Republican party single handedly and with little in the way of real financial backing. Yet he did.

He marketed himself as the Anti-Establishment candidate, and clearly his appeal was vast. Though huge sums of money were ventured against him, his candidacy came away with a clear knock out. There was little that could be seen as technical. His assaults on both the Democratic and Republican hierarchy were nothing less than vicious and unrelenting. In essence he told some tough truths that neither party wanted to hear, or rather could barely tolerate hearing. The facade of both parties was lifted unceremoniously by the Trump campaign, and to no particular appeal to some social ideology(as was the case with Bernie Sanders who seemed to be a thorough going socialist.)

In essence Donald Trump told much truth, unpleasant though it may have sounded. And in this regard there is little in the way to contradict him. If anything the truth he told was incomplete, then again in any society there is a political premium for telling the truth, and it is clear he could not afford the full price to be paid. Still enough of the truth was told to possibly justify serious change in the public’s mind, and this then is the basis of his candidacy. That change must come sometime, before it’s too late no matter how unpleasant it may sound, or actually be in the short run.

As far as his “qualifications” go, it is absolutely true that he has no political experience. And there are grave questions about whether he would have a successful presidency not knowing the details of day to day governance at the very highest levels. There is a very real danger that he might just lose control as has often happened to other would be business people turned political adventurists. Arnold Swarzenegger a good example; he found that his popularity and business experience in no way prepared him for the wiles of the professional politicians running the State of California. This same destiny might well await Donald Trump, no matter how much merit his intentions may have.

But in so far as real executive experience, he actually has greater familiarity with executive administration than Clinton does. He was in charge of a very large public business that was also quite visible internationally. His dealings with various entities would have required very difficult decisions to be made on a daily basis. In other words, plain and simple, he must by now understand authority and the use of that authority to accomplish what is needed. On the other hand Hillary Clinton has no such executive experience at all. She was a great “servant” of other people’s power as both Senator and Secretary, but neither job really entails the use of executive authority or decision making to very large degree. She may be a great organizer, but only Trump has real experience making tough executive decisions for which he would be held directly responsible.

As for his detailed knowledge of the various states of the state, i.e. Military, International and Domestic policies admittedly he would be vastly inferior to Clinton in these. But is that a negative? It would seem the American people are tired of exactly these intelligentsia prescribed policies which seem not to benefit them in any real way while costing a fortune in taxes. Yet it remains to be seen just how steep the cost would be for an inexperienced businessman to assume the reins of power at the highest level. This is indeed the “risk” with Trump: therefore does he really understand the authority he is assuming? Can he manage it? Especially given his volatile public image which will bring with it a great deal of public reaction.

In general Donald Trump would like to renegotiate all contracts, feeling that there is only the potential for loss if the contracts remain as they are. This is great idea by itself, but it is akin to a climb up the steep slope of Mount Everest. The kind of changes being promised by Trump are monumental, Earth shaking. If only a few of these changes were to be actualized, much turmoil would naturally ensue. The Establishment’s power would be vastly diminished, and this alone would mean very large tectonic shifts in the power structure of the American “Empire” as it is now.

Either Way…the Way is Hard

There are very serious questions concerning both candidates…they are the “best ever” shall we say. Their candidacies by themselves point to an inherent instability in both the nation, and the world. Obviously things are not going well in general for these two candidates to be our only real choices for the presidency. This is clear and should not be dismissed.

But there is also great doubt as to whether these two candidates will be able to do what they say, or even if they really intend to do what they say. There is some serious question as to whether they should do what they claim they will do, and just how much of what they really intend are we not being told?

That Hillary espouses Neo-Colonialism of sorts is clear in her rhetoric. It is also quite clear in the actions of her major Big Money Establishment sponsors. That Donald Trump is mad about many of these policies is also quite clear. His emotional outbursts do not lie. Moreover, Hillary is a consummate lawyer, she knows the politesse it takes to get things done under the table. She knew this way back when Iraq was being prepped for invasion under her husband’s tenure. She voted for the Iraq war, she claimed she “didn’t know” but of course she knew everything, and knows everything now.

Donald by contrast is an “innocent”. He could have an opinion all these years, but he did not pull the trigger. He did not organize on behalf of those who wished all these events to transpire. Trump was not an actor, but merely a loud spectator, an influential fan at best. His main concern for much of the time was the ugly looking house of a Scottish country boy giving his new Golf Course an eye sore, while Hillary Clinton was plotting the destruction of entire nations. (The Scottish Villager’s house is still there, and I believe is still quite ugly, possibly even uglier. He has taken to putting Anti-Trump signs all over it these days. The Golf course however, has been completed. )

Either way…the way is uncertain

In reality neither of these candidates can easily be predicted. Hillary Clinton says many things, but she seems only to do what she feels like doing for whatever motives she has as private person. It is much the same with Trump, he says much but always seems to do what he feels like doing, or what he sees as his view accomplished. For this reason we cannot be sure that either of these candidates will do what they say.

For example Clinton says she thinks Putin a gangster, yet what is increasingly clear to anyone following the bouncing ball is that no matter who is elected, he or she will have to sit down and talk to Putin, and be amiable in the process. So that one candidate favors Putin, and the other says she doesn’t means little in reality, either one will have to talk to Putin if anything sustainable is to be achieved. Failure to do so, might well subject the entire human species to an extinction level event.

It is the same with Immigration. One says she favors it, the other says he opposes most of it. Yet when we look carefully, both of these candidates are going to have to deal with this problem or face dire consequences of quite possibly the worst order. There are strict natural limits to what we can do economically. Though too many think all the economy comes down to monetary or fiscal policies, I can assure you this is mostly nonsense. There are very strict natural limits, always. And sooner or later, they will show up. Either Trump or Clinton will have to deal with that reality, and more likely sooner rather than later.

The same is true on an assortment of other issues from Banking, to Health Care to our dealings with our allies. We are quickly reaching natural limits, and both of these candidates are smart enough to see them. No matter what they say, they will have to deal with these issues pragmatically, and that means that at least some of what they say can easily be ignored.

Hillary Clinton knows the international strategic order is degenerating, she will be forced to deal with that no matter what she claims. Trump knows I’m sure that it will take much more than a “wall” to deal with the very complex issue of immigration.

What is clear here, is that nothing at all is clear here.

Trump’s Allure

I personally strongly favor Donald Trump. My main concern is the power of the “Establishment”. I believe these people have attained far too much power, and their influence has become destructive. They must be reigned in, given some boundaries, some rules. Hillary Clinton will not do that. In fact she is far closer to George W. Bush in this regard than she is to for example Elizabeth Warren, Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders.  Everything she says points to a full advocacy of the established policies and ideologies from which those policies derive. I strongly feel it is time for real change, though I know that it will be very, very painful. Trump seems intent on some kind of change. Even a glancing punch in the nose of the establishment might make things a little better in the long run. And in reality we cannot really expect that a Trump presidency would amount to much more than just a punch to the nose of the Establishment at best. But at least some respect might be the outcome. Some more care might be taken by the Establishment.

But whatever Trump may do, I know it will not be painless. This then is a valid consideration for the American people, and I fully acknowledge it.  Its their responsibility in the end, their pain, their gain. That’s just the way it is.  Only they can choose! All of us will have to go along for the ride. But that’s the way it is. No one person knows everything.

Still only the People can Choose

But what I feel personally, or what any one of us thinks or feels personally is not enough. We are here dealing with the destiny of a people. And only those people can really decide. That’s what Democracy is really about. To let those people make the decision. To give them enough real, true information so as to allow them to choose conscientiously, honestly the destiny of the nation- and of the world given the importance of the United States to the rest of the world. Giving the American people the truth, will let them choose between two difficult paths. Only they can do that, only they can have that authority. And only the People can  shoulder the responsibility.

The Will of the People must be enacted, they are the ultimate jury. Yet they cannot do that if all they are given is complete nonsense. If they are told that the accusations of a porn star should weigh as much on their judgment as the possible start of World War 3. That there is almost no mention for example in the Media concerning the extreme danger the world is now in, while we hear absurd accusations twenty four hours a day is indicative of Mass Corruption in the Mass Media. Absurd accusations no less, where a former porn star accuses a presidential candidate of having kissed her a little too hard some ten years ago.

The American people therefore are not being given honest information, and because of this they will not likely make the right decision. For decades they have been misled by an absurdly lurid media that is for all intent and purpose “Crooked” and in a conscious act of collusion. Under these circumstance the People can never be free, can never fully express their conscience which was the prime directive of the founding fathers of the American nation.

The Media simply cannot be allowed to collude. Though there are anti-trust laws regarding all other corporate entities, there seems to be no such application to the Media, nor any regulation concerning Hedge Funds which have controlling interests on multiple corporate entities, including those pertaining to the mass media.  In effect Anti-Trust laws have been abandoned and this has resulted in easy collusion and “co-operation” between financial interests on a scale never before seen, at least in the United States.

But in the process, ordinary people have become virtually voiceless, meaningless though our Democracy purports to give them a voice and a choice in their own destiny as a people. This then is where the popular anger stems from.

If Election is “Rigged”…Revolution?

If the general state  is not corrected soon, there is the very real possibility of a revolution. A carbon copy of the Constitution could well be virtually created, a nation within a nation may be formed.

In Ayn Rand’s fictional tale of national malcontent, “Atlas Shrugged” , the most prolific producers, and intellectuals of the world went on strike. In real life they may choose to form their own nation. But at a great cost. As it turns out, they are many more than in Ayn Rands tale.

For this reason we can come back to the original theme of this post having to do with the Will of the People. In the end no matter who wins here, the American people will have to exercise their will if they intend this nation to continue as a free nation. To expect that anyone other than the people can empower a nation is false. No matter who wins, the only real solution will be for the people to act and let their conscience be known.

If the American people expect either of these candidates to solve their problems for them, then they can rest assured that little will go right for the nation in the next four years. The problems this nation faces can only be solved through strenuous popular activism. This must direct itself towards the politicians, towards the administrators, towards the corrupt oligarchies, and most especially towards the Mass Media, the most powerful tool of those oligarchies. If the American people will allow themselves to be cajoled by a few commercials, or the propaganda ever present in the daily news broadcasts then they will eventually pay the ultimate price. They will lose their freedom, they will become a colony of the Multi-National special interests, even as it is clear that this is happening now with terrible rapidity. The American people must stand ready to accost both President and Congress, both Private Interest and Mass Media and make their presence known, personally. Without such action, there can be no Will of the People. The people shall have no will, they shall have no say, they shall be little more than well groomed slaves living in the “Mastas’ Fields” picking modern high tech cotton as Malcolm X might say if he were alive today. Soon we may find that the check we receive every week is taxed by two thirds, and we give up half what is left to our landlord each month for the privilege of living in a single “smallish”  room.  We may find that making complex gadgets in some factory somewhere in no way removes us far from the cotton fields of old. That the “career” we’ve chosen is little more than a slick form of modern “high tech” slavery, as countless Chinese workers have over the past decade. There is no cheaper way to acquire slaves than to conquer a nation. From that point on all those conquered are indeed slaves. And if the American people do not at this juncture exercise their full will soon, their destiny will be set in stone. We will be conquered by virtue of our inability to rule ourselves. Conquered, de facto, by Multi-National Neo-Colonialism which seeks to emasculate each nation and put in its stead a subservient, confused, amorphous mass of people without the will or identity to fight back, to represent itself.


To make the decision as to who might be better equipped to make the changes desired, the Media must be the first concern of the American people. Allowing the powerful interests to broadcast their own intentions as the events of the day is not going to lead to the right decision for the American people. There must be accountability and the media must be told in no uncertain terms that the whole truth is desired and not the selected parts. It should be the task of the American people to ask the right questions, deep questions, meaningful question, to make constant inquiries into both Public and Private interests, and events that affect them and the people must do so relentlessly. Only in this way can any proper decision ever be accomplished. Whether public or private any service that purports to aid the American people should be accountable to them. We spend more time asking absurd questions about football and baseball, and the lives of famous idiots than we do the about the life of our nation, and our world. Sooner or later, this will have dire consequences. We might well lose the capacity, the aptitude required to remain a free people!

The changes that need to be made are many, but in general these are the primary:
No matter who the next president may be the Federal Reserve must become a primary issue. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply of the nation. It must be brought under the control of the American people and not just a few elitists who have been left to control the entire nation going on to the entire world. The money printed by the Fed is the American people’s money and it is the American people who are responsible for it. The Fed cannot simply be a quasi private institution. It must be overhauled and handed over to the American people as a whole. The American people must have some direct input into who is in control of their money supply. They must in effect vote at some level  in order to have some control over that money supply. From then on the burden will be the people, no matter their decisions. (Though the Free-Marketeers might complain about this, the alternative has not worked.)

Our Foreign Policy needs to be re-examined. Nowhere is there any indication that meddling in the affairs of the entire world, by force, has any benefit to the American people. We have spent trillions of dollars on the Mid East wars, have fought absurd wars in Vietnam, and Korea. What have these really achieved for us? The time has come to redevelop our foreign policy strategies. Our business is to export Democracy. But we can only do so if the product we are exporting is consummately crafted. If our own example is proved to be worthy of exportation only then will others “buy it”. We should try to engage other democracies with reasonable, just propositions, not threaten or coerce them into submission. This strategy is not working, it is failing in the worst of ways and some redress needs to be initiated. These belligerent policies abroad have begun to derange our own public here at home.

Our domestic policy needs also to be addressed. The nation is overpopulated. It is clear that we are not the efficient promising state of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s. We are running grotesque deficits every year, and are funding these by simply pressing a button at the Federal Reserve, and importing as many immigrants as we can find. This is not a viable system. We are not increasing efficiency with any of this. Each year we run a 1.1 Trillion dollar deficit if you combine budget deficits with trade deficits. How long can this go on? The time has come for a very serious re-consideration of our domestic policies of both governance and economy.

If these three problems are in some positive way addressed by the American people, and either of the two presidential candidates then some good will come of it. There might be some pain to be had, but this would have to be endured for the sake of sustaining a nation and a people. If nothing is done, we can pretty much make our collective beds in the” Masta’s” outhouse, for sooner or later we will be too poor to fight back(if this is not already the case.)
Democracy is about the Will of the People, all people, the entire Tribe can voice its conscience as individuals acting together, free to decide the destiny of their people, and their nation. Democracy can never survive if this individual conscience is in any way corrupted by a few, no matter how they attained their power. If we were to allow the few, no matter how powerful, educated or privileged they might be their own discretion over the mass of human beings, then we have Tyranny, and have made  no true spiritual progress since ancient days when Tyrants ruled absolutely over all human kind.

Only the People can rightly choose their destiny. Only the People can choose their next president, be it Trump, or Clinton. Let them do so! Give them what they need to make the decision in good conscience!

If not, a lot worse than anything Trump may do might come to life.