Sunday, January 01, 2017

Support for this Web Site

I write the commentary on this Web site in order to "tell it like it is". Each essay represents a substantial investment of my time and money.

If you enjoy reading my commentary on this Web site, then please support my effort by buying the following products via the Web links on this Web page. These products are substantially designed or assembled by workers in the West.

book
Donald Trump: The Man Who Would Be King (Blood Moon's Babylon Series)
computer
Panasonic Toughbook CF-C2CSAZXCM 12.5-Inch Laptop (Black)
Panasonic Toughbook CF-C2CCAZXCM 12.5-Inch Laptop (Black)
Panasonic Toughbook CF-C2CCAZFCM 12.5-Inch Laptop (Black)
walking shoe
New Balance Men's MW577 Walking Shoe
New Balance Women's WW577 Walking Shoe

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Callous Indifference is Lethal

According to a report by ABC News, the Accountability Review Board concluded that staff at the Department of State under the leadership of Hillary Clinton had acted negligently. This negligence resulted in the death of Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya.

To understand Clinton's role in his death, we must go back to 2008. After losing the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton decided that she would try again in 2012 (if Obama did not win the election of 2008) and in 2016.

After Obama won the election of 2008, he fulfilled his promise (in return for her support during the election) to give her a prominent position in his government. She became the Secretary of State. Her goal at the Department of State was to avoid making any change in the department in order to ensure that such change could never be used against her in the election of 2016. She maintained the status quo and used her job at the Department of State to only burnish her resume.

What she did not anticipate was the dangerous situation which arose in Libya due to her (and Obama's) support for the successful British and French military operation that dismantled the government of Libya. The ensuing power vacuum there was filled by violent chaos, which would eventually kill Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Consequently, Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president.

How can you be sure that she is not qualified for the presidency? Read a recent blog, written by "The Economist" and presenting the facts surrounding Benghazi. Then, ask yourself, "If Chelsea Clinton (the daughter of Hillary Clinton) instead of Christopher Stevens had been the ambassador to Libya, would Hillary Clinton have acted differently and would she have run the Department of State differently in order to ensure that the ambassador is safe from harm?"

If your answer to this question is "Yes", then Clinton is morally disqualified from being president. Vote against Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.

Clinton's callous indifference to "unimportant" people resulted in the death of Christopher Stevens.

George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are globalists. Bush ruined Iraq. Clinton (and Obama) ruined Libya. Libya is Clinton's Iraq.

The soul of Christopher Stevens cries in agony from the grave.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Asking the Right Questions

According to a blog and another blog by "The Economist", Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have become the presidential nominees of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, respectively.

Between now and November 8, operatives from both parties will be bombarded you with political propaganda. The operatives play you for a fool. They correctly believe that imagery and messaging can change a negative vote into an affirmative vote for their presidential candidate.

Do not be a chump. Judge every candidate by only his political positions on the issues before he announced his candidacy for the presidency. If a candidate changes his position after announcing his candidacy, then he is lying. His true position is the pre-announcement position, not the post-announcement position.

If operatives for the campaign of Hillary Clinton accost you in the shopping center, the grocery store, etc., then ask them 2 questions.

  1. What are the negative aspects of Hillary Clinton?
  2. If Chelsea Clinton (the daughter of Hillary Clinton) instead of Christopher Stevens had been the ambassador to Libya, would Hillary Clinton have acted differently and would she have run the Department of State differently in order to ensure that the ambassador is safe from harm? (Read a recent blog at http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/bitter-end , written by "The Economist" and presenting the facts surrounding Benghazi.)

Refusing to answer both questions means that the operative is a slick liar and an aggressive fraud. Vote against Hillary Clinton.

Answering "yes" to the second question means that Hillary Clinton does not care about "unimportant" people like Christoper Stevens. In other words, Clinton is disqualified from being president. Vote against Hillary Clinton.

Question 2 is particularly important. It forces the operative and you to look at the whole picture of Clinton's actions. Clinton did not violate any law: callous indifference to "unimportant" people is not a crime. Yet, could she have run the Department of State differently so that Stevens would be alive today? For many people (including Democrats, Republicans, and the Greens), the answer is "Yes". Answering "Yes" means that Clinton is morally disqualified from the being president.

If the operative says, "No", to question 2, then ask yourself the same question. If you answer, "Yes", then your "Yes" is the only answer that counts. You must vote against Hillary Clinton.

The soul of Christopher Stevens cries in agony from the grave.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Donald Trump

According to a blog by "The Economist", Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. She hails from and is supported by the Democratic establishment.

In other words, Sanders has been a liar and a fraud. During his entire presidential campaign, he criticized the elites in and the policies of the establishment. Yet, he now supports a champion of the Democratic establishment.

What should the supporters of Sanders do? In general, what should the voters do? They should carefully consider the remaining prominent candidates who are qualified to be president. They include Gary Johnson (of the Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (of the Green Party), and Donald Trump (of the Republican Party).

Hillary Clinton is not among those 3 people because she disqualified herself from the presidency when her callous indifference to the situation in Libya resulted in the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens. According to a blog by "The Economist", the officials at the Department of State wasted precious time in arguing with the officials at the Department of Defense before the impending deployment of soldiers to Benghazi to protect Stevens. The argument involved the type of uniform that the soldiers should wear. If Chelsea Clinton (the daughter of Hillary Clinton) instead of Stevens had been the ambassador to Libya, would Hillary Clinton have acted differently and would she have run the Department of State differently in order to ensure that Chelsea Clinton is safe from harm? Answering "yes" to this question means that Hillary Clinton should not be president.

Among the candidates who are qualified to be president, select the candidate whose policies (which he supported before becoming a presidential candidate) most closely align with your views. Stein and Trump have the same position on numerous policies. They support the single-payer system of national health care, oppose free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and support a significant increase in the minimum wage. Their political positions differ sharply from the positions of Johnson.

There is an additional factor that you must consider when you decide between Trump and Stein (or Johnson). The additional factor is personal character.

Whereas the litmus test for Sanders is whether he will endorse Clinton, the litmus test for Trump is whether he will select a woman for vice president (VP). Trump has been constantly making insensitive remarks which have created grave doubts about his character in the minds of the voters. For example, his mocking the imprisonment of Senator John McCain in Vietnam was extremely inappropriate.

To fix this political damage, Trump must pick a female VP. A tough, smart, and compassionate VP from the feminine gender will show that Trump is, in his heart of hearts, a decent person. In this case, picking a woman for VP is not about pandering to women but, rather, is about showing that Trump is not a bigoted misogynist.

Picking a VP is his first, significant test of good judgment. Picking a male VP means that he fails this test. If he fails this test, then voting for Jill Stein (or Gary Johnson) is a reasonable option.

Friday, July 08, 2016

A Vice President for Donald Trump

In the above photo is Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. She is one of 4 women whom Donald Trump has been considering for his running mate. The other women are Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, and Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma.

Though the choice of the vice president does not typically alter the votes in favor of a typical candidate, Trump is not a typical candidate. Since he began his campaign for the presidency, he has continuously made insensitive remarks about various people. Consequently, a significant portion of the electorate considers him to be a bully and a misogynist.

A tough, smart, and compassionate vice president from the feminine gender will convince voters that Trump is, in his heart of hearts, a decent person. Is Trump sufficiently, politically smart to realize that he must select a female vice president?

Monday, May 16, 2016

Callous Indifference of the Chinese

According to a report by "The Economist", the Cultural Revolution in China began on 1966 May 16. There was extreme violence by Chinese against Chinese. In Wuhan, a teenager bragged that he killed 5 children in rival factions of the Red Guards. In Daxing, a group of such guards buried an old woman and her granddaughter alive. In Guangxi, the Chinese ate their victims.

Why did the Chinese commit such atrocities?

The answer lies in Chinese culture, which has an ugly, savage dimension. Consider a Chinese who is living well. He has relatively much wealth, good health, and good prospects for the future. If his neighbor is brutalized and ultimately killed, then the Chinese thinks, "His suffering is none of my business. I am doing fine. My status is the only thing that matters."

This barbaric indifference in Chinese culture explains the Cultural Revolution and, moreover, is the reason that human rights and democracy do not gain traction in China.

Furthermore, according to another report by "The Economist", Harry Wu (also known as Wu Hongda) suffered brutally during the Cultural Revolution. Beijing imprisoned him in the gulag for about 19 years. He became so malnourished that, one day, "he found a tangle of hibernating snakes, pulled them out, bit off their heads, skinned them and boiled them up for that wonderful, near-forgotten taste of meat." After his release from prison, he waged a campaign of highlighting human-rights abuses in China. Most Chinese (including Chinese living in the West) ignored him.

You can verify this callous indifference (in Chinese culture) by merely attending a meeting of your local chapter of Amnesty International (AI) at a nearby university. Although the percentage of ethnic Chinese in the college of engineering exceeds 50%, the percentage in the meeting of AI is close to 0%.

Meetings of AI typically have attendees with a variety of ethnicities, but ethnic Chinese are rare.

Chinese morality savagely assaults Western notions of human decency.

Thursday, April 07, 2016

The Way Forward for Donald Trump and His Supporters

According to a blog post and a report by "The Economist", Ted Cruz defeated Donald Trump in the primary in Wisconsin. Cruz received 48% of the votes, and Trump received 35%. His loss in Wisconsin means that Trump will likely not obtain the 1237 delegates that he needs to clinch the Republican nomination for president.

Nonetheless, he still has a high probability of becoming the president via a 3rd-party candidacy in November -- if Bernie Sanders does not run as a 4th-party candidate. Many Americans want Trump to be their president. According to an op-ed in "USA Today", he is popular among even highly educated Americans.

Going forward, what should Trump do? He should continue the campaign. After he is denied the nomination in the Republican convention, he leaves the Republican party and takes his supporters (at least, 45% of the Republican party) to the exits. He promptly files the paperwork to become the write-in candidate in all 50 states.

What should we -- the regular folks -- do? We write "Donald Trump" on the ballot for president. Furthermore, we write "Donald Trump" on the ballot for all the congressional races having Republican candidates who tried to derail the campaign of Trump. Such Republican candidates include John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Also, we write "Donald Trump" on the ballot for the gubernatorial races having Republican candidates who tried to derail the campaign of Trump. Such Republican candidates include Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

On the other hand, if Trump actually supports the Republican nominee and refuses to become a 3rd-party candidate, then he would be admitting that he has been a liar and a fraud. In that case, we vote for Bernie Sanders.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

United States: a Market or a Nation?

According to a report by "The Economist", trade agreements between the United States and other countries affect jobs. According to a report by the "Chicago Tribune", Mondelez International announced, in July, that it would lay off half of the 1200 workers at a Chicago bakery that produces the Oreo, a chocolate cookie that most Americans have enjoyed eating since their childhood. In an essay published by the same newspaper, Richard Trumka (president of the AFL-CIO) and David B. Durkee (international president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union) attributed the job loss to trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, which President Bill Clinton signed.

Another angle of this trade issue is whether you view the United States as (1) a market or (2) a nation. The Republican establishment views the country as a market. A market has these characteristics.

  1. There is unrestricted trade between the United States and other countries.
  2. There is unrestricted immigration between the United States and other countries.
  3. Programs that re-distribute wealth are banned. In particular, national health care is banned.

A market maximizes total wealth. Within a market, some people will suffer and die, and no one will care.

Supporters of Donald Trump view the country as a nation. A nation has these characteristics.

  1. Trade between the United States and other countries is restricted.
  2. Immigration between the United States and other countries is restricted.
  3. Programs that re-distribute wealth are established. In particular, national health care is established.

A nation is a group of people who share similar views (and culture) and who help each other. "Helping each other" can mean increasing wealth by allowing trade with other countries, but allowing trade is subservient to the primary goal of not harming other citizens even while some citizens benefit from the trade.

In other words, some citizens in a nation -- not a market -- willingly sacrifice some of their wealth so that other citizens can have more stable lives. National sacrifice is an important characteristic of a nation and is absent from a market, where the only rule is survival of the fittest.

At this point in time, the Republicans who favor viewing the United States as a market will likely prevail. Trump will lose the primary in Wisconsin, and this loss will end any hope for his campaign.

If you are an American serving in the military, you should immediately quit military service. The United States is a market -- not a nation. Many Americans (including many Republicans) insist that you sacrifice your life on the battlefield, but these same Americans refuse to sacrifice any financial gain for the sake of treating the United States as a nation instead of a market. These Americans are playing you for a fool. You put down your weapon and come home: do not sacrifice your life for such people. You must survive in order to ensure the survival of your family in this market called the "United States". If you know any impending terrorist act against Americans, negotiate with the terrorists to save your family and friends but allow the terrorists to kill other Americans. The death of pro-market Americans will free up their resources, which your family, your friends, and you can use to survive and prosper.

Advocates of viewing the United States as a market instead of a nation should live and die by what they believe.

Donald Trump: " I am 'America First.'"

Maggie Haberman and David E. Sanger of the "New York Times" recently interviewed Donald Trump in order to determine his foreign policy for the United States. The newspaper published both a transcript and a summary of the interview. During the 100-minute conversation, Trump unveiled a significant part of his approach to foreign policy. It can be summarized in the following way: any agreement between the United States and another country must offer the United States, at least, the same value that is offered to the other party.

One of the interviewers called this approach "America First".

The current approach (advocated by the establishments of both major political parties) is that even if the United States surrenders more blood and treasure in an international agreement than the other party, Washington should still commit to the agreement because it provides some benefits to Americans.

As a consequence, Washington shoulders a disproportionate share of the cost of running NATO.

As a consequence, Washington looks the other way when Taiwanese companies enjoy preferential treatment (from Beijing in the form of lower taxes and accelerated approval for new businesses) that are denied to American companies in China. In other words, the Taiwanese sacrifice neither blood nor treasure for the "defense" of Taiwan against China. The Americans sacrifice their business opportunities there.

As president, Trump will correct these injustices that the American people have endured. If the Democratic elites or the Republican elites dislike the "America First" method of foreign policy, they are free to emigrate permanently to Taiwan.

Of course, the Republican establishment will not simply disappear quietly. The elites are aggressively using various tactics to derail the political campaign of Trump. The Republican elites may succeed.

Suppose that they succeed at denying Trump the nomination. Then we -- the regular folks -- must teach the elites a lesson that they will never forget. The elites calculate that the people who support Trump will be "forced" to support the establishment candidate. What Trump's supporters should do is to write his name on the ballot in November. This action will split the vote of the Republicans and give the White House to the Democrats. Most importantly, this action will send a powerful message to the Republican elites: if another populist candidate resembling Donald Trump arrives on the scene in a future presidential race, then refusal by the establishment to support him will ruin any Republican bid for the presidency.

Having learned a stern lesson, the establishment will then bend to the will of the regular folks, and their populist candidate will become president.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

An Open Letter to the German Defense Minister

Dear Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen:

During your recent speech in the United States, a representative of theclearsky.blogspot.com asked 3 members of your security detail to pass the following message to you.

Germany has the highest quality of life in the Western world. To preserve the quality of that life, the Germans must carefully handle the immigration into their country.

With regards to the refugees who are fleeing to Germany, you stated (during your speech) that the crux of the problem is (1) that without stability (and security), there is no economic opportunities (and prosperity) and (2) that without economic opportunities (and prosperity), there is no stability (and security). So, how can this problem be solved?

The solution is not to open the German borders to anti-Western refugees or, in general, anti-Western immigrants. The solution is to impose Westernization (also known as modernization) on those territories producing millions of people who want to flee to the West.

How can Berlin westernize those territories?

In 1895, the Japanese military seized Taiwan and modernized it. After Japanese society, Taiwanese society achieved the second highest standard of living in Asia at the time. Many Taiwanese express admiration for the stunning Japanese achievements on their island.

The German military can do the same for its "near abroad". Consider the case of the refugees from Syria. The German military carves out a piece of land (in Syria) that is sufficiently small for the army to adequately control. Berlin diverts all refugees (and, in general, most immigrants) to this land and establishes a colonial government on it. The colonial government implements Western laws that define the political and economic system on the colony. Germany businesses which need additional labor sets up shop there. After 20 years of colonial rule, Berlin can transfer political power to a new government that is democratically elected by the residents of the colony.

This solution minimizes the problems for both the German people and the refugees. This solution addresses the refugee crisis at the source (i.e., Syria) instead of the destination (i.e., Germany). This solution is a permanent solution because it eliminates the conditions that cause millions of people to flee to the West.

The current solution is to open the German borders to the refugees and, hence, addresses the refugee crisis at the destination. This solution is not a permanent solution because it does not eliminate the conditions that cause millions of people to flee to the West. With the existing solution, desperate anti-Western people will continue to flee to the West in perpetuity. This non-permanent solution will flood Germany with anti-Western immigrants and will ruin German society -- as the criminal rampage (in which about 1000 male migrants molested and raped hundreds of German women) in Cologne on the eve of 2016 January 1 suggests. (reference: "Sexual assaults in Cologne: New year, new fear" by "The Economist")

Will you do what is right for Germany? Will you advocate using the German military to implement the aforementioned permanent solution to the immigration problem?

Warmest regards,

theclearsky.blogspot.com