Hillary's VP: Who is Tim Kaine

Senator Tim Kaine was chosen as Hillary Clinton's running mate.  The man is a Harvard law graduate, attorney and a Senator since 2012.  Additionally he served as Mayor of Richmond Virginia, and lieutenant governor and then Governor of Virginia as well.  So who is he?

For one he is an environmentalist and a believer in climate change even going so far as preserving over 400,000 acres of land.  He signed legislation banning smoking on government property and in restaurants in Virginia.  He also expanded mental health care access in Virginia after the Virginia tech shootings and has it so that anyone involuntarily committed cannot get a firearm.  As Virginia's governor he made tough decisions on cutting spending to meet that State's requirements on balancing the budgets.  He also proposed a $4 billion in tax increases but none of these passed.  He also served as Democratic national committee chair from 2009 to 2011.  He served as a member on the armed services committee, committee on budget, and committee on foreign relations while serving in Congress.  While in the Senate he serves on numerous other committees and sub committees relating to national security and power projection including "Emerging threats and Capabilities", "Sea power" and also served on committees relating to counter terrorism in Parts of Asia and trade.  Basically this guy has experience in areas that Hillary Clinton may be lacking in and more.

Final Thought:  Senator Kaine is actually somewhat conservative.  He is personally against abortion, but supports Roe vs Wade.  So he basically does not want the Federal government to be making reproductive decisions but does support some restrictions like parental involvement for minors.  Also, he is in favor of LGBT community rights such as gay marriage (something I am not opposed to either).  Overall he is more middle of the road than Hillary Clinton and more likely to compromise on issues.  So a great choice by her to attract people who have not decided who they are voting for or are middle ground politically which normally would be turned off by Hillary's far left Progressiveness. 

Trump's VP: Who is Mike Pence

So Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana to be his running mate.  Before that he represented Indiana's 2nd and 6th congressional districts from 2001 to 2013, before being elected Governor in 2013, a position he has held since.  But what does he stand for?

He is a supporter of the TEA Party and their support for limiting the size of government, taxes, and government spending.  He has served on multiple committees in congress including the judiciary committee, small business committee, agriculture committee, international affairs committee and foreign affairs committee.  Basically he has a well-rounded background with respect to government experience and knows his way around Washington, hence this is the reason why Trump chose him.  Trump needed someone who could help him know how to work the mess that is Washington D.C.'s politics and it turns out that it is Governor Pence.  Likewise Pence is a TEA party guy just like Ted Cruz, and just like Cruz is against abortion, something that will appeal to the more conservative crowd of the Republican Party and the conservative groups in between.  He also opposed the Wall Street bailouts, opposed "card check" (something that would have eliminated the secret ballot for union votes) and called for a flat tax that would allow for people to keep more of their income.  Pence even voted for Earmark reform, for partial privatization of Social Security, and is in favor of free trade agreements.  Overall a very staunch conservative and his policies reflect that.

Final Thought:  To me he is a white Ted Cruz!  They share similar views and ideas on reform, and both support the TEA party and reform in Washington D.C.  Even their views on homosexuality and abortion are similar.  This man, Governor Pence was a great choice in making Trump more palatable to the Republican base and staunch conservatives.  

Trumps Acceptance Speech

Ok, so some of the wording in Trump's speech had me and other libertarians worried, those libertarians being John Stossel and Glenn Beck.  Basically something did not sit right and sounded very fascistic.

In the speech the words "I am the Law and Order candidate", “I am your voice", "I will fix the problems", "I will end the violence" were all used.  It felt very top down.  As if a President Trump would be akin to an emperor and order all our problems away.  That the people had nothing to do but do as they were told.  For libertarians like myself this is antithetical to our thinking.  A president to many of my ilk want a President to hold back the corruption and say "yes you the people will" and "I will empower you and protect your freedom".  But instead we got chants from the crowd saying "yes you will" with Trump being the "YOU" as the person to take care of everything.  Essentially we are chaining ourselves to someone as metaphorical slaves.

On top of the aforementioned, Trump said that he will not allow businesses to move overseas, a statement reiterated by Ryan Priebus (current head of the GOP) and some of Trump's children.  Basically a fascist policy of punishing businesses from going overseas (a sentiment shared with the Democratic Party to my knowledge).  Problem is, no law and no government is allowed to infringe upon a business's right to leave the country or to do any sort of business overseas.  This is based on the principle of tacit consent where if you do not like the laws in your home country you can move with the expectation of obeying the laws of the place you move too.  Basically you can choose which laws to follow by moving somewhere else.  But the way it sounds from Trump and the current RNC is that freedom will be taken away.

Final Thought:  These are the key points that made libertarians wonder if Trump is the lesser of two evils and if such a concept can be accepted in American politics anymore.  At the rate it is going, Hillary and Trump are both potentially equally as bad as each other (Hillary being as bad with respect to government takeovers of businesses, the economy and health care).  Hopefully me, Beck and Stossel are wrong and that those words are merely for the impact and not the policy, but words tend to have deeper meanings behind them.  I hope I am wrong.

RNC reaction

We have come a long way from the old school politics of backroom deals, or have we?  The Republican National Convention and this week's Democratic National Convention both give the illusion of choice with respect to which candidates are chosen to possibly lead.  However, like all Presidential picks, it is the party uplifting select members of the party and then having the core of the party choose who will represent them.  In this case it is Donald Trump.  Which basically means he was chosen because he can bring in more votes than the other potential candidates and thus a win for the Republican Party this November.

Like most conventions, the family of the candidate is used like a chess piece.  You need to humanize the candidate so that people know that despite being well off that they are family men and women and thus can emphasize with the little people.  Also, if you notice that the media made sure to place emphasis on the fact that Trump and his children did not use Teleprompters.  This in part is a dig at President Obama and at the same time to show that these kids and this potential President are special (not many people can memorize a 50 to 120 minute speech and then say it as well as they did).  

There were some well-deserved critics of some of the speakers though.  Governor Christie among others mocked Hillary, but this was neither the time nor the place to do so according to analysts at Fox news.  The analysts said that this is supposed to be a time to prop the candidate up and show support, not a time to attack.   Needless to say when President Bush and his family, along with Senator Cruz said they will not be supporting Donald Trump it caused a stir in the crowd, especially Cruz's speech which was all about being principled.  Cruz of course was mocked, but he is standing up to his principles and there should not be anything wrong with that.

Final Thought:  In my opinion, the RNC did what it normally does.  There was nothing unexpected that occurred at all during the event save Cruz's speech.  However Trumps acceptance speech for the nomination had some disturbing elements which I will be focusing on tomorrow.  Overall rating of the convention by me is a 5 out of 10.  It appealed to the base and people who are patriotic and that is it.

News overshadows News

It was an eventful and saddening weekend to say the least.  Thursday was a terror attack in France, then Friday was the coup in Turkey and then Sunday the Police being murdered in Baton Rouge.  With each incident the stories got overshadowed by one another in the media, even Trumps Vice presidential pick.  A cycle of attention flipping that seems to be never ending. Once Turkey's coup occurred the American media went silent on France, and then on Sunday they went silent on Turkey for the shooting of the police.  It goes to show you that when a news event occurs they are more concerned about ratings rather than the story that needs to be told.  All the events are important and should not overshadow one another in my opinion.  

This overshadowing I think plays into corporate greed and our attention spans.  The Media jumps from one event to another to keep people watching their ads. and entice more companies to buy ad space so that they make money.  Basically, the more attention grabbing stories will get all the focus because it is new and fresh. Thus  yesterday’s story becomes just that, yesterdays.  I find the lack of analysis annoying.  I want more details and knowledge of potential impacts on my way of life and the world at large, but the media just wants you and your money.

Final Thought:  Reporters are supposed to be historians as the first recorders of history.  They have an obligation to wrench out every little detail and then confirm all the facts so that history does not get it wrong and that we can learn lessons from these incidents.  But news just flips from one subject to another to accommodate our short attention spans while filling the news media's pockets with cash.  It is upsetting to me because the victims and those sacrificed in these incidents, including potential future victims, deserve more from our media.  They deserve more from us so that we learn how to prevent evil from occurring again.

Louisiana Police Shooting

On Sunday, Louisiana had a different kind of terrorist incident.  In this case it was domestic terrorists who sought to murder police in reaction (as far as we know) to police/black American conflicts.  

Police (according to CNN) responded to a call that a man was walking while carrying a rifle along the highway in Baton Rouge.  Once the police arrived the suspect and potentially two other suspects opened fire killing three officers and wounding another three.  The firefight apparently took place in a known drug trafficking area at a spot where police regularly go to for coffee.  Police were even concerned about potential bombs and the area had to be cleared and secured.  

It seems people are forgetting that our Justice system is supposed to judge criminals, not vigilantes, but in this case the murderers are terrorists through and through.  They did not act for the sake of justice in my mind, but instead targeted cops who had nothing to do with any of the past cop vs black American shootings.  While real vigilantes fight for justice, this was cold blooded murder.

Final thought:  Baton Rouge is now being described as a powder keg ready to explode.  It seems some people want a race war and more police on black American incidents.  Our nation is burning and crying out for peace and true justice, not cold blooded murder.  Pray for the families who have lost their loved ones.  Pray that this situation gets resolved before it is too late. 

Turkey's Coup.

On Friday last week the Turkish military attempted a Coup to take control from its current President Erdogan.  The military sees itself as a protector of secularism and democracy in Turkey and this coup was a direct reaction to Erdogan's Islamist policies and his crackdown on democratic freedoms such as freedom of the press.  However the coup failed.

This coup was the fourth in Turkey's history and this one failed.  The military failed to gain public support or even support from the rest of the Turkish security and military forces.  As such Erdogan escaped and is now using the security forces he has to rout out all the members of the military and government that plotted the attempt.  According to the BBC over 6,000 have been arrested so far and more are expected to be as military and governmental facilities are taken back one by one.  Interestingly, the Turkish people see Erdogan as tyrannical and yet they did not back the militaries attempted takeover.  This could mean two things.  One, the Turkish people favor democracy and its ideals and thus trust their system and or two, there is enough refugees from Syria and other places that believe in Erdogan's version of Islamic politics that the Turkish citizens are intimidated into supporting Erdogan and his dictatorial policies.  That, or they are more fearful of Erdogan and what he can do to them if they support the other side.

Final Thought:  The situation obviously ended in failure for Turkey's military.  But the question is, did the United States and other countries back the wrong horse? (Yea America backed Erdogan).  Should we have supported Turkey's military coup as a means to save their democracy and the gateway to Europe rather than let the country fall into Islamic Fascism and become a terrorist haven?  In this only time will tell.