Trump Spawned Psychosis

 

President elect Donald Trump has spawned a psychosis that even the greatest Freudian psychologist would be completely unable to treat no matter their former experiences. This disease has not been witnessed since Ronald Reagan was President elect and throughout his eight years in office. Even then the disease may not have been anywhere near as wide spread or have so completely disabled and discombobulated so many and so severely. Perhaps the lack of social media such as Twitter and Facebook are the reason that these afflicted have become so noticeable while likely more ignored and easily cast aside during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. The reality is that the presence of these malcontents who believe that simply because over 60% of California voters, mostly from the main urban environments, cast for Hillary Clinton that the remainder of the nation must be forced to place her into the White House as California and its leftist voters have never made a mess of anything. California is a model in how to manage finances and water conservation and distribution. They have such a deficit that it is only rivaled by the debt run up by President Obama, or by all the administrations before him, and their lawns in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose and Sacramento and the flowers decorating the mall before the capital building are watered and pressed to bloom as often as they are able never lacking for moisture while on the other side of the mountain ridge where the farmer used to produce the finest fruits and vegetables and other produce as well as many of the finest vineyards of the great California wineries, the other main economic powers beyond Silicon Valley, are all turned a rustic brown for lack of irrigation water. That is the economic wisdom that these people believe would best serve the United States, everything to the urban jungles and let the rest rust and rot without moisture or life-giving funding as long as the urban megalopolises remain funded and beautified. What could possible go wrong under their leadership?

 

These are the people now screaming that since the election of Donald Trump that hate crimes have erupted on campuses across the nation. These supposed hate crimes have one after another been revealed to have been hoaxes often perpetrated by those who first filed the complaint with the police. Further proof of the fascism on the way has been the charging of these hoaxers with filing false police reports for, wait for it, filing false police reports when making their report of their false crimes. These miscreants were to be celebrated for their bravery and great efforts to expose the reality of the hate that we can expect from a Trump Presidency and should be heralded as heroes of the people and not charged as common criminals. Perhaps they have a point as these are not common criminals, they are psychotic people with delusions and an inability to handle reality so they must invent their own and then fulfill their wildest vision of what must be a society of evil and by committing the exact evils they claim are rampant, they are proving the truth of the rampant criminality of Trump supporters who, by the way, are not committing any of these perceived crime waves of hatred.

 

Reality can often be difficult to accept and deal with when you lose an election. Yes, we already discussed the popular vote and how it came about. But what about the fact, fact we emphasize, that the Democrat Senatorial winners received more votes than the Republican Senatorial candidates. Well, let’s see if there might be a rational reason such as both California and New York elected Senators and Texas had none, but why would the most populous solid Republican state not electing any Senator and the two largest solid democrat states both did couldn’t have influenced that statistic, no possibility there at all. But all the protests and false crime reports are all benign compared to the feared possibility that some of the anti-Trump fanatics might turn violent, and that is exactly what has happened in Chicago.

 

Four self-identified Chicago #BlackLivesMatter supporters have been arrested in connection of the kidnapping, holding for twenty-four to possibly forty-eight hours and extensive torture of a white mentally disabled man while screaming obscenities interspersed with President elect Trump’s name all while streaming it live on Facebook. Read the particulars as reported by FOX 32 NEWS Chicago. This was similar to what was predicted would be the result of a Trump loss and his supporters taking out their frustrations. Some predicted this would be a daily activity should the worst of all things happen, a Trump victory. It was the expectation of such hateful acts by Trump supporters in celebration of such as they dreamed of revenge by Trump. The lack of such actual attacks or even a hint of racism run rampant that many of the false crime reports and faked crime perpetrators claimed had infuriated them and drove them to prove that such crimes existed by making their reports and actual fake crimes. This Chicago horror was no such fake crime as reported the police found the victim walking traumatized and had to take him to the hospital for treatment. Let us all pray that this will be the last of such behavior, both the horror show from Chicago and the fake crimes from numerous locations. There has been one remarkable similarity in the majority of the fake crimes; they occurred on or near major college campuses.

 

Victim in Chicago Torture Case

 

When a win by Hillary Clinton was assured of victory, the day before Election Day, the left was lecturing Trump supporters to learn to live with disappointment. Then, as soon as the election results were finalized, there were the screams of vote tampering, Russian hacking and all sorts of conspiracy theories. The turnaround was so fast and furious it could have been a Hollywood plot line except nobody would have accepted it as it was too ridiculous even for a movie. Life has a way of outdoing fantasy at times and this election cycle was filled with just such surprises. Everything predicted before the election turned out to be absolutely valid except one would need to exchange Trump for Clinton and Hillary supporters for Donald supporters. What is interesting is the lack of media hyperventilating and throwing fits over the false crime reports and the horrific tragedy from the four self-professed #BlackLivesMatter supporters in Chicago and their unforgivable torture of a mentally challenged man simply because they saw him as a Trump supporter. Had any such travesties been performed by Trump supporters after a Clinton victory the media would never have allowed the public to hear the end of it. Instead, we have near silence about the crimes from the left side of the political spectrum. At the very least the media could try and do even the smallest piece of honest reporting to try and dispel the obvious bias in the media. How can the United States remain a vibrant, free and open democratic Constitutional republic if the public is denied honest media reporting? The reason for the First Amendment was to support all sides being heard in the public forum and instead the United States has a nearly universally left leaning media and political correctness to silence conservatives on college campuses and wherever else such censoring is applied. Such threatens the very fabric which made the United States the great United States Republic that it presumably still is. Perhaps some time healing and introspection will help return honesty, though it may already be too late.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Vitriol Explodes Across America

 

The reaction to the “total surprise” win by Donald Trump in the United States Presidential election came hard and swift across many of the major cities as well as many college and university campuses. None of this should come as a surprise as whenever there is an expressing of views counter to the leftist progressive agenda turning their perceived perfect world upside-down, the leftist scream foul and some even demanding a redo as if they just know those who voted against their issue, referendum or choice for elected office, especially for President, will realize the error of their ways and vote correctly just given the opportunity. What would happen if there were a do-over and they lost again? Demands for more do-overs until they get their desired result is what one would see. We will not attempt to claim that there are people just as misguided and ignorant on the right, there just appear to be more sour grapes protesters on the left. When major universities cancel classes after the left losses an election so the students can mourn simply proves where their sympathies lie. We honestly cannot recall any universities cancelling classes so students could mourn the losses by John McCain or Mitt Romney but would love for evidence proving such did occur. What is truly frightening is hearing from some leftists demonstrating against the election of Donald Trump calling for violence and claiming there will need to be deaths on both sides to set thing right and produce change (see video below). Produce change? Wasn’t that exactly what the election did was produce change? We understand, the only need for change is when the leftists lose and as long as they are in power and making all the decisions then all is correct in the world but as soon as they lose an election the demands for change start. Of course many of those demanding violence to remove Trump and place their chosen candidate where they belong in place of the elected President, that would be proper and is the only fair thing that can be done. With such views being violently backed or at least calling for violence to impose their views and placing solely leftist candidates in office begs why we even bother with elections. We are fairly sure they would gladly agree to simply appointing left leaning candidates in office and ignoring the electorate choosing otherwise because obviously the electorate is too dumb and ignorant to be trusted to elect the better candidate, just look at the results. So the electorate which elected President Obama twice are erudite and wise but became unhinged and ignorant all of a sudden and had some kind of mental breakdown electing Trump; brilliant, simply brilliant analysis.

 

 

The vote is what it was and the results will be acted upon and Donald Trump will be the next President. These people walking around with “Kill Trump” placards and screaming similar hopes into bullhorns need remember that threatening the life of elected officials, especially Presidents, is a felony with a very steep penalty. Thus far the authorities have been overly understanding. We are fairly sure that such might have been tolerated after the last two elections for a measurable amount of time but measured strictly in milliseconds. Actually, had as many people been advocating assassination of President Obama after he won in 2008, and especially in 2012 as he was then the sitting President, they would have been scooped up for questioning at the very minimum. Perhaps that is why we saw almost none if not exactly none of such actions as we are witnessing after this election. We are unable to recall firearms being discharged at any protests after President Obama was elected. Do we remember tears after the two Republican challengers lost? Well, yes, but we do not remember ten and fifteen minutes of each newscast picturing people wallowing in their broken hopes and dashed dreams; we remember the time spent on the joyous celebrations and declarations of the great milestone of electing and then reelecting the first black President. Why are we not celebrating the first non-politician other than a military officer elected to the Presidency and instead centering upon the trail of tears at the loss of the first woman on the ballot. Perhaps because the media was so sure Hillary Clinton was going to prevail that all their reporters and camera units were at her headquarters and at the Donald Trump headquarters all his troglodytic luddites do not even own cellphones so there is no video record of the celebrations. OK; maybe that was going too far but there are probably leftists who would give such credence.

 

The number of demonstrations and the volume of the threats against the President elect and those who voted for Donald Trump are sickening and disgusting. That is actually rather un-American and distressing. When the left wins, the mantra is heal and accept you losers lost but now when the left lost the mantra is this has to be wrong and must be corrected as we cannot lose and those losers must not be permitted to win. Really, then why bother with elections after the primaries and simply declare the leftist the winner and the conservative or more moderate the loser. Of course by such logic the Green Party should automatically win. Oh, wait, we understand, not the most left, just the right left, the Democrat. So the United States must always choose the right leftist and never be left with the rightist. Almost has symmetry except it disowns half of the American people.

 

Actually this election fit the same mold of a previous election, the 1948 election. In that election the Republican was winning handily when the Chicago Tribune set their front page assured that voting on Tuesday, November 2, 1948, has selected Thomas E. Dewey as the next President but in the early morning the farm and rural votes came in solidly for the eventual winner, Harry S. Truman. Thus was the famous picture of Harry S. Truman holding up the Chicago Tribune with the headline of “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” (see below). We kind of wish there would have been a similar picture for this election. Perhaps we can fix that.

 

Dewey Defeats Truman and
Clinton Defeats Trump
Headlines Then and Now

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Finally It is Your Turn to Speak, So Speak Loud and Clear

 

After over a year of he said, she said, they said, the time is here for the only opinion that matters. It is the time that you the voters will say and then it should be settled and the world will hear your answer; or will they? There are those Liberals who in their holier than thou selective memories claim that Donald Trump is the only candidate to claim that the election system can be gamed. Apparently the cries of “Selected, not elected,” over the 2000 election of George W. Bush and the Florida hanging chads recounts where there were so many challenges and recounts that all the holes ended up pushed through on some ballots making them void. The same cries were heard four years later over Ohio and Barack Obama claimed before Election Day that should he not win it could only be through voter fraud, so that should be all for claiming that Donald Trump is entering new areas of calling into question the validity of the system. Hillary Clinton has claimed that the Russians are going to steal the election for Trump because Putin is convinced that Trump would be the easier pushover and more willing to work with Russia than Hillary would be. Actually the only commentary attributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin which has any shred of validity was his fears that Hillary Clinton being elected threatened starting next world war. It matters little tomorrow on this important but relatively ignored subject as the first order of business is to get past the initial casting of ballots and their initial counting.

 

Hillary Clinton – Vladimir Putin – Donald Trump

 

That reported initial registration of election results may actually decide the victor and do so completely overwhelmingly that there would be no viable means of challenging the results. Either way, this would be a result which would best serve the American people and ultimately the world. A smooth, court free, uncontested election will always bring the smoothest of transitions. That would be the most preferable means to transfer power especially in this election whose process and integrity has proven so acrimonious and has produced challenges to the system even before the Election Day voting has begun. There has been complaints of an uneven playing field in the media from both camps while there have been claims of Russian interference favoring one side, the election of Trump; while raising claims the entire Wikileaks e-mail stories have been a Russian ruse and those claimed e-mails were never sent nor crossed that server nor had Ms. Clinton broken any law or committed any questionable actions which might have compromised the national security. This claim has gone well beyond the claim that Hillary Clinton was cleared from suspicions to the entire e-mail investigation was chasing after a Russian fabricated ploy to assist electing their pawn, their Manchurian Candidate who would do Putin’s bidding, Donald Trump. One can only wonder what comes next.

 

Then there are the polling numbers. This election has witnessed swings in the polling which often appeared to precede certain critical events and news stories throughout the campaign. The most recent came the last week of the election where the Clinton lead all but disappeared bringing Trump within striking distance and this slide arrived a full four days before FBI Director Comey reporting his reopening the e-mail investigation as New York investigators looking into child sexual misconduct revealed the existence of thousands of backed-up copies for the communications coming in and out of the office of close Clinton aide and confidant (if anyone can be considered to be that close and intimate with Hillary) Huma Abedin. These records were found on Huma Abedin’s estranged (and downright strange) husband, disgraced former Representative Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer which was seized as part of the New York police investigation of his sexting an underage girl. This will get very messy.

 

Here are some rumors which have surfaced as a result of this investigation and how it will affect the e-mail scandal investigation. These back-ups will definitively prove that Hillary Clinton, along with top aide Huma Abedin, acted loose and careless with Top Secret and other highly classified and sensitive information, e-mails, documents, files and reports. There will be overwhelming evidence that such compromised information had been shared or allowed access by people without the proper clearances, Anthony Weiner for one and Clinton Philippine housekeeper Marina Santos for another who was indicated to have printed out such intelligence and information while working at Clinton’s house in Washington, D.C. Then there appear to be references to actions and fetishes in which others outside the Clinton camp, though they may not be spared once the onion has been completely unraveled, who may have committed and continue such acts which would warrant ethics investigations at the very least and criminal investigations in the worst case scenarios. The full extent will not be known nor revealed for quite some time though some people may fall well before the investigation reaches its final conclusion. Some of this information has been verified by trusted people.

 

The one item in all of this we would love to see brought into the light is the uranium deal where it resulted in Russia gaining the mineral rights to one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. One of the crucial signings of approval came from the State Department which was under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at that time. Russia gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013 and each step of the way there did result in a flow of cash to the Clinton Foundation. Further, a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. This was the bank which was promoting Uranium One stock and stood to make sizeable profits in the process. It was Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, who orchestrated his first big uranium deal which initiated these transactions and which was completed with Mr. Clinton at his side. The two men had traveled to the meeting in Almaty, Kazakhstan in Mr. Giustra’s private jet. This deal was a major victory for UrAsia, Mr. Giustra’s then company which soon saw its future brighten significantly when it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia. Uranium One was controlled by UrAsia investors which included Ian Telfer, a Canadian who later became chairman and Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million. Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in or around the months following the Kazakhstan mining deal. It also turns out that Ian Telfer made a $2.35 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation. More detailed information can be read showing deep involvement of both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the entire train of events and includes State Department approvals and one could say accommodations all in a New York Times article. A full disclosure of how twenty percent of United States mined uranium is sold to Russia by a Canadian friend of the Clintons receiving every necessary accommodation and authorization while Hillary was Secretary of State and known to be able to pressure other Cabinet Secretaries to follow her lead in providing permissions and licenses all while the involved Canadians are contributing millions upon millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Something here just does not figure and we would bet there are even higher and bigger fish to catch in this little pond, really big fish.

 

Meanwhile, tomorrow the American people will speak. We can expect, if this is at all even close, for the losing campaign to kick off the challenges followed soon behind by the winning party just to assure they are not excluded from the efforts to gain electoral votes. There may even be a challenge to the integrity and manner in which the Electoral College is arranged such that it can oppose the winner of the popular vote. We could hear that tired complaint about how Wyoming voters are way over-represented when compared to California or New York thus making those residing in such populous states being denied equal representation. This complaint has been answered ad-nausea pointing out that this was the actual design and is functioning such that, at least for the Presidency the smaller states get privileged representation as a barrier against pure democracy mob rule. This is a result of the equality the states enjoy in the Senate, so live with it. Of course if the losing side did not carry lonely and most sparsely populated Wyoming, then this argument makes perfect sense to those on that end of the Electoral College. Further claims will be filed in every state where the margin of the loss was under 5%, even 10% with both contesting as many as possible in order to topple the initially announced winner or to retain said position. Who knows what court challenges and other lawsuits will be filed but the process for validation will likely take the United States well into Thursday before the candidate at the wrong end of the vote starts to run out of options, but they have lawyers to address this until the Supreme Court ends the misery, which with a four-four split with one open position left by the passing of Justice Anthony Scalia this past February, the court may not be of much assistance.

 

We will see what the American people desire and the level of their interest by the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote. This is something we have always been troubled about. The President who should represent all the people is often only receiving one-third of the potential votes which could have voted and less when including potential to be registered voters. The math is sickeningly easy to do but a touch more difficult to explain. First we need to start with the adult population over eighteen which numbers at approximately 236,000,000 out of the approximately 309,000,000; or around two-thirds. This is the entirety of Americans legally eligible to vote give or take a million. Of these only 70% on average are registered to vote and a mere 60% actually vote. These results in only 42% of eligible voters actually vote in an election. We can safely claim that no more than 45% of voters actually do vote and it is considered that taking 55% of the vote represents winning in a landslide thus a big winner receives a mere 24¾% of the total number of people who meet the requirements for voting (representative graph by age group below). It is true, candidates need only persuade one-fourth of people eligible to vote in order to win, providing it is the right one-fourth.

 

Graph by Age Representing
Voter Registration and
Activity and Apathy

 

Beyond the Cusp