Sunday, October 16, 2016

A USA Future With President Hillary

What America would be like in 3 years if she wins the White House in 2016


President Obama stated that he wanted to Fundamentally Transform America - and he has. It more of a Socialist / Decree driven style of government that what the Constitution stated that the Republic is or what is allowed - since no one in any position of power was willing to call him out in public - or private - that what he was doing was illegal or just plain wrong - since if they did they were called by Democrats and all the newspapers as being racist to deflect the real issue. Ms. Hillary will follow the same path - people will not challenge her policy or Presidential directives at the risk of being called sexist and racist at the same time, and the newspapers will not report at all that what she tells her appointees to perform is actually against the rules of the Constitution. Of course, like President Obama, she will "interpret" the constitution the way SHE wants it to be - not the plain words that it is. She ascribes to the "evolving" and changeable nature of the Constitution based on whomever is in charge as to what the Constitution means - and then implements it.


The EPA will be directed to wipe out the coal industry by the simple expedient of publishing more rules. People fail to realize that for ANY rule to be "law" any Executive branch department (which is everything) just has to follow a few simple rules: hold public "show" meetings around the nation; take public comments (which can be ignored, law does state you have to answer them or address the issues, just take them); publish in the Federal Register the new rules; wait 90 days  and now it is "The Law." Congress grants TO departments the rights to make rules (laws) by design to implement the high level law Congress passes. In prior administrations the people in charge looked at the original intent of the law and followed it. President Obama, and certainly Hillary Clinton, don't care about intent. They have, and will, state that the law grants them the right to do anything they want and if you don't like it tough - sue the Government. And of course most people don't know you have to have "standing" in order to sue: i.e. be directly affected by the law.  The Government makes that determination if you have standing and you have to have at least 3 to 5 million dollars and 3 to 10 years to get a final decision. Now since President Obama appointed like-minded judges who make these decision, they believe that the Government knows best, getting the first hurdle to being allowed to even sue is hard. Now since in the last 8 years most of the appellate and the Supreme Courts are also filled with people who have been taught the Government knows best, everything will be "legally" blocked. Congress told the EPA to regulate and control or prevent contamination of the environment  - Hillary will just tell direct any agency that regulates anything to take what is a contaminate to the extreme limit so that the rules cannot be met and thus put any company they don't like out of business - impact be damned. There is NOTHING to stop them at all. There is NO appeal to a Federal Register rule. Congress HAS to pass a specific bill to overturn it - and of course even if it got past both houses, she would Veto it.


1st and 2nd Amendment

The "Bill of Rights" was passed as a set to limit what the GOVERNMENT can do - not the people. Under a Clinton Presidency that will change. She has stated that both the freedom of speech and gun rights decisions make in the last 6 years were wrong - so she will tell the agencies to write new rules restricting both - and then ensure that any lawsuits are steered to specific courts, like mentioned above, whose judges feel like she does and they will "uphold" those rules. Getting to the Supreme Court will take years and by then 2 to 4 new judges, appointed by her, will also side with her policy and philosophy - since they will only be appointed to the bench if she knows they secretly thinks the way she does.

This means that politically incorrect speech will be regulated, by pretending to prevent social injustice and description, by using fees and publication barriers, all "legal", being erected to stop any speech that goes against what she (Democrat) party wants to hear. They can force all cities  to have a new policy that any march must pay all the costs of police to "protect" them during the march. Then by having 100 to 4,000 assigned as police security and making them pay up front the  costs to, and assign more people to "controversial" marches,  they can make them so costly so as to prevent them (with 4,000 police on OT pay that would be $800,000 dollars; 4,000 for 4 hours at $50 hour). Marches they like they can assign 10 people and the cost is so low they can be held - for causes they like. They can create "non-subjective" rules that ensure the costs are up for causes they do not like easily  - we have already seen this in various parts of the USA.

The 2nd Amendment was created to ensure that people would always have a means to prevent a Government like the one that ran America before 1783. If you have no means of fighting back you don't - you can see that in any country that bans the ownership of weapons. Mexico has one of the most restrictive set of laws to owning weapons in the world - and many more people die of gun violence in Mexico than in the USA and they have only 1/3 the population. Mexico has 127 million people and they die at 7.64 people per 100,000 by purposeful gunfire. USA has 318 million and they die due to guns at a homicide rate 3.43 per 100,000 people. (2014 figures). 70% of those murdered in the USA are done by GANGS. Remember, the Democrats have been "helping" solve gang violence and poverty for over 60 years - see how well they have done. Now they want us to be like Mexico and restrict gun ownership and make it so unaffordable - except for the gang members. Remember they instituted, funded, ran and enabled "Fast and Furious" so they could get guns smuggled into Mexico in order  have them used to kill people in there, be "discovered" as the source to be from the USA so as to get more laws passed to stop ownership, and as a bonus come back across the border to kill Americans here - By Design - so they could then complain even more about gun violence. They ORDERED firearm dealers to sell guns to people to whom the gun dealers normally WOULD NOT SELL TO.

I can see Hillary using new regulations to make the cost of ownership of any firearm so prohibitive, and the purchase of ammunition (they already instituted some of this 4 years ago this by forcing an excise tax on manufacturers which in turn passed the cost along to end users), that most people will be economically blocked by buying them at all. President Obama did an executive order blocking the return of USA OWNED firearms given to foreign countries decades ago from being returned by those countries under the original loan agreement to the USA - since he does not like firearms - except when they are protecting him and his family - then it is allowed. All others - forget it. I can also see her creating new rules that would force states to set up gun registration - a state can set up a database whereas the Federal cannot - in order to bypass Federal law.

The Federal government cannot maintain a database, but it could force the states to set them up by creating ATF rules requiring a state to have a system in place in order to get Federal money - like as in a research project. Then the Federal Government would just look at each state's database effectively bypassing the existing restriction of maintaining database of all weapons and owners.  They actually have this now, in paper and some electronic form, by requiring all dealers to maintain a permanent record of EVERY transactions ever done FOREVER. This means right now the ATF can go to a manufacturer to get the original SN, what dealer (government) it was sent to, going there and getting the record who the end user was, and track from there. And if a dealer goes out of business all the records go to the ATF. And if a dealer does not have the record - they are fined, thrown in jail and put out of business. The goal, by design of the current President and certainly Hillary, would ensure that any small honest book-keeping mistake is punished so harshly to put people out of business and stop people from getting into the firearms business. Then, over time, there will be no way to purchase a firearm, then they can say there is no reason for people to have them, nor a reason to make ammo and then stop it completely, then take them away since there is no "use" for them.

With the ATF for an rule broken there really is no fair way to appeal or be judged - you appeal to the same people who are regulating you. This is like the FAA, you go in front of an FAA judge who judges you against the FAA rules, and he works for the FAA, to determine if the FAA rules he gets to interpret and enforce are enforced in the FAA favor or yours. 1 in 400 cases in front of an FAA judge is ever found in favor of the pilot. The ATF judges are no different.

This will be the standard that any Federal agency will soon have under the long term goals of a President Hillary -- internal judges to judge the rules of their own agency to avoid those pesky outside judge panels who are not "familiar" with the specific rules of that Agency from interfering and making "wrong" decision. She certainly wants the goal of the Federal Government to be controlling and providing what the people really need as envisioned by her (Democrats).

A President Hillary would certainly be for eliminating border controls and immigration restrictions - she has stated that every person has a "right" to be in the USA for any reason - and existing Americans must pay for those people coming here to live without requirement on the immigrate to pay or provide for themselves. They also do not have to assimilate and embrace our culture - they can maintain their own and we should certainly adjust our laws to conform to their culture and traditions so as not to isolate them from our culture - which is what those laws certainly would do by not having them embrace our American culture.

One reason there has been pogroms, discrimination, and genocide in the world is that people who WANT to maintain complete separate identities from the rest of the population that live around them are always looked upon as un-trustworthy since they do not embrace the culture they living in. Like people congregate alike, but if you are SO far different from the rest, and purposefully maintain distance from the dominate culture around you, then you have no commonality and are immediately suspect when it comes to any national cultural survival event. If you have to choose between us and them - people always choose "us". This is why there is no longer a Yugoslavia - but instead 5 different nations. None of the people there thought themselves as Yugoslavians - but as Serbs, Croats, Albanian, Bosnia & Macedonian  - none assimilated each kept their own unique culture and traditions - and once a strong willed leader was gone they started separating back into their own identities and land - and a few hundred thousand dead people later they are back to where they were in the basic land layout of the 1500s - thanks to the help of President Bill Clinton and "Sniper" Hillary.

Hillary Clinton says her years as being Secretary of State will help - but not necessarily the USA. The "reset" she executed under President Obama went well - Crimea is back under Russian control, Donets basin is nominally under Russian control (will likely be allied back into Russia as a separate nation in a few years), the Russian Naval base in Syria still is there, people allying with Russia knows that Russia will back them; Yemen is a success story of Hillary's foreign policy - not sure for whom thou - the "Arab Spring" encouraged by President Obama and SOS Hillary - has created at least three new north African states (only 1 as being recognized by the UN); the Foreign Policy / Military decisions lauded by Hillary that the smartest man in the room (President Obama) did gave us ISIL (ISIS, Islamic State depending on whom you are talking to) in Syria/ Iraq. The open hard line that Hillary gave to President Assad went well - for him.

The creation of islands from shallow coral reefs in the South China Sea by China was applauded by her and President for creating new islands that would have otherwise disappeared under global climate change that they state is occurring. China of course does is not bound to any climate treaty or was sanctioned for creating these military islands. The Pivot to China worked well - for China. Hilary will just pirouette around claiming success. And just early in October the President Durarte of the Philippines stated that what good is a military treaty with the US since the USA will not be there to help when needed based on what has happened with China and those islands - that are 500 miles from the nearest Chinese coast.

The US Military will be sharply cut back under a President Hillary. She has long sought to shift the money used to ensure the defense of the USA, and our allies, and be used instead for social programs. The goal of social programs may be nice, but after 70+ years of social programs we are much worse off than in the middle of the 1930s depression in terms of people actually living without government help. I would see the military cut way back in any overseas training funds so that training only occurs in the USA. Units from one coast would not be sent to the other coast for any training in order to save money. It would be back like in the 1930s where we fell behind everyone else in the world on military ability - it took us 3 years and full scale war to get even in technology of the Germans, British, USSR and Japan. She fought hard to ensure that no military aid was sent to the Ukrainian government when a Russian staged / created civil war started in the Donets basin. She is a real pacifist and just acts like she likes the military. She treats it like she treats the Secret Service - wish it did not have to be there. (Course with the Secret Service I suspect she does not like the possibility of her being heard about deals she is making with people she is talking to, they have to be close to her to protect her so they hear a lot - even with their NDAs they have to sign - they still know about it.) The military would have to be cut back to two carrier groups at sea and 1 refitting under her plans to shift money around, and of course the number of actual troops would be cut back - Korea will likely be left on its own with but a token Regiment there and a squadron of aircraft. There would be no rapid reaction force capable of getting there - no sealift and no way would it be safe to airlift in a combat zone with no air supremacy - Korea would be gone of the North invaded - and with nukes on their side - and they are willing to use it - and the USA obligated never to fire unless fired upon, thus a conventional military invasion of the south would succeed. After all, her (and President Obama) got Iran and Korea to sign pieces of paper - just like PM Chamberlain got Adolf Hitler to sign a paper guaranteeing that Czechoslovakia was not going to be invaded.



Post a Comment

<< Home