CREN Politics

2024 Election Prediction

2024-11-03T17:32:00.007-05:00

The Keystone to the Election

1700s-1800s: William Penn’s Woods.

The land was the center of the 13 British colonies. Colonists wanted more rights and representation from the Crown. Philadelphia served as the backbone of trade, commerce, and meeting ground as an excellent halfway point by horseback between the southern states and fiery New England colonies to the north who were ready for a Revolution.

Pennsylvania is the Keystone to the forming of the United States, surviving the U.S. civil war, and building this great country via steel, coal, and rail. Now it serves as the Keystone to the Presidential election. Whoever wins the Commonwealth, has more than 90% odds to win the White House as it serves as a keystone to get to 270.

Flip-Flop Flippity Flop or Gone and Never Ever Getting Back Together?

In this polarized era of U.S. politics, there is always a state or two that bucks the trend and flirts with the other party, but eventually goes back to its traditional roots four years later. The same can be said for a state or two that flips overnight and never goes back.

In 2008: Indiana and North Carolina were won by Obama. They have stayed Republican since. In the same election: Colorado and Virginia went to Democrats overnight after being rather reliable Republican states in federal elections. They have stayed reliably Democrat at the federal level.

2016: Iowa is probably the best example of never going back after being the lynchpin of picking Obama over Clinton and voting for him twice. Meanwhile Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were once the bastion of the “Blue Firewall” to make it “impossible” for Republicans to get to 270. Suddenly that wall cracked and entered swing state territory.

Four Years Ago: Georgia and Arizona flipped and were once reliably Republican. Which way will they go along with the Rust Belt? So much of the future coalitions weigh on that answer in how they vote in 2024 in a rather 50/50 coin-toss election.

The states that could buck the trend this cycle are: Nevada, North Carolina, and dare I say Iowa?

In Nevada, the demographic changes are prime for a Republican victory here, but it's also fool's gold. It's probably the one and only state that overstates Republicans consistently in polls.

The only reason I bring up Iowa is J. Ann Selzer’s poll that was released Saturday evening. She is simply the Gold Standard for Iowa Polls. She was within a point or two in 2016 and 2020. She has Harris winning Iowa by 3. To directly quote Dan Pfeiffer on Twitter on Saturday, there are three options what this poll means:

1. Selzer is right and Harris wins in a massive landslide

2. This poll is just a bad poll (it happens, but it happens to Selzer less than others)

3. Harris isn’t really winning IA but the poll is capturing late stage momentum that bodes well for WI,MI,PA.

If it’s #3 and tied to abortion and Women moving further to the left, it’s over for Trump via the Rust Belt. It’s probably the most plausible of the three explanations. Her poll keeps Independents essentially the same as 2020, but has a massive shift in Republican women going Democrat and a noticeable shift in seniors going Democrat. See the Establishment Republican Factor (below) for why this concerns me.

Emerson (who has polled Iowa ok) has Trump +10. A +10 margin in Iowa would be indicative of a slightly favoring Trump in the Rust Belt. 7-9 points in Iowa means it’s too close to call on the national level.

The Great Lakes States

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Since 1992, all have vote the same way in every election. In 1988, George HW Bush won PA and Michigan, but lost Wisconsin. Ironically if they were to split today, it may be Wisconsin as the GOP’s best chance of the three.

Early Voting in Milwaukee and Dane County (Madison) appear to be less than 2020, while the rural areas are surging. That bodes well for Republicans. On the flip side, the WOW counties surrounding Milwaukee (Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington) were once the bastion of Republican votes are now becoming more Democratic, even if they are still GOP counties, just by a lower margin. Door County (northeast of Green Bay) is a classic bellwether. Brown County (Green Bay), Trump must win by at least 8 points (if not north of 10) to be the favorite in that state.

A similar trend is found in Pennsylvania. The collar counties (Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks) are trending more Democrat (so is Lancaster) while the rural areas trend more to the right. Of all the early vote states, PA looks best for the Democrats as they have done better with lower and higher propensity voters than the GOP but Pennsylvania is still one of the few states left that really only votes on Election Day.

Michigan is perhaps the most perplex. It’s certainly turned the most liberal since 2016 of the three and is perhaps the biggest uphill climb for Trump. Having said that, the demographics are challenging for Harris to connect with the working class in margins Biden got in 2020. The wild card is the Arab population.

CAIR has consistently polled Arabs and found Jill Stein ahead of Harris for how they intend to vote. In fact, sometimes in Michigan, CAIR had Harris in third behind Stein and Trump. That factor alone could sway Michigan back to Trump should those results hold. Regardless, it’s a slight advantage for Harris in the Rust Belt. The results are probably somewhere between 2016 and 2020 for these three states on already razor thin margins.

Sun Belt

Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia.

The early voting looks fantastic for Republicans. Cannibalization is really the only concern here. Clinton felt good about early voting numbers in 2016, but then no one showed up on Election Day as their base already voted early. Could that happen here for Republicans? To some extent. The data I’ve been shown is a significant portion of the early vote is low propensity voters for the GOP (meaning they voted in 0-2 of the last four presidential elections). The numbers are not as good for Democrats as higher propensity voters are more so voting early. These trends are also largely nationwide too. In the end, this essentially means that if high propensity voters show up on Election Day for the GOP, it’s advantage them. There’s only one concern there (see Establishment Republican factor below).

Of the four: Nevada looks the best for the GOP, but I need to see the final mail vote Monday night for Clark County to be sure. The demographic changes are prime for a Republican victory here. It’s a state that has about 85% votes complete before Election Day. Republicans have about a 40,000 vote advantage at the time this was posted and have made great gains in voter registration. Tonight’s and tomorrows voting updates will reveal that state’s advantage, but the culinary union is thinking Trump. They have not been wrong since the Harry Reid era. If Trump’s margin is under 75,000 in Clark County (which it likely is), the rest of the state can carry him over.

Arizona is doing well too. Arizona’s concern is what’s said below (Establishment Republican). Trump must keep Maricopa County close or win outright. North Carolina and Georgia: The GOP is doing their part. The only question is if the trends of the people moving into those states is enough to surpass the Republican base. It will be close. Regardless, the Sun Belt appears to be advantage Trump.

The Trend is Your (Eventual) Friend

2000 Swing States: What if I told you the closest state in the 2000 election was not Florida? It was actually New Mexico and it was by 366 votes.

Most of the swing states of 2000 (in both directions) are not really swing states anymore. The battle ground back then were: Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona.

Notice how only the last four (5 if Iowa is in play as noted earlier) are still competitive today? That’s because coalitions and voting demographics change over time. These occur about once every 30 years and we are entering a new coalition/realignment dynamic.

Seriously: If you said back in 2006 that in 18 years it would be Democrats who would celebrate the endorsements of the Bush’s and Cheney’s for their candidates, you would have been sent to the nearest mental institution. Between 1932-2016, the only way Republicans won a Presidential election was if Nixon or a Bush (41 or 43) was on the ballot.

So of the states listed below, I am not predicting they flip in 2024, however, I will be looking at their trends and see how they compare with the 2012, 2016, and the 2020 elections. In 4-12 years, these states could be more competitive as the coalitions change assuming the margins become narrower than in the past. The states are: Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York.

Of those states, Texas is the most I know about. I lived there for nearly ten years. In late 2011/early 2012 I wrote an in depth report on the Lone Star State. By looking at data such as the decline of white birth rate, growth of Hispanic population, people moving to Texas from the Northeast (like me) and from California, and the majority of kids in school having their primary language be Spanish and not English led me to the following conclusion 12 years ago: Texas will be close in 2024, but probably still be Republican..in 2028 it will be Purple. I still stand by that prediction.

My analysis was by no means perfect. Whites and Democrats moving from liberal states grew faster than I predicted. On the flip side, Hispanics finally started to change and vote Republican as the once very liberal Rio Grande Valley (near and at the Border) went from solid Democrat to toss-up/tilt Republican. If not for the Rio Grande Valley flip, a Democrat probably wins one of the statewide races in Texas sometime between 2018-Now. The last time that happened was in 1994. Trump needs to win by at least 8 to keep Texas solidly red. I doubt that happens. Four to seven points is my prediction for him while Cruz’s margin could be as narrow as 2 points. There is no near term path to the White House for Republicans without Texas. Whites are becoming more liberal while minorities are becoming more conservative. This is why places like the Sun Belt, Trump is polling better than the Rust Belt and why once solid Republican states are seeing narrower margins while once solidly liberal states are seeing tightening margins too.

Virginia could be within 5 points, which is shocking since it’s a solid 10-point state for Democrats. Youngkin has done a remarkable job as Governor and the commonwealth is showing his coalition is coming out to vote. Harris will win Virginia, but if it’s narrow, that should indicate good news for Trump in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but maybe just maybe states are starting to Balkanize and not identify with other states of similar demographics. COVID and inflation could be the key reasons why that’s happening.

Final Factors and Where to Look on Tuesday Night

U.S. Census

In 2022, the Census Bureau admitted it over counted in 8 states and undercounted in 6 (guess which way it mostly was too!). In Minnesota, had 26 fewer people not responded to the survey, it would have lost a House seat and thus an Electoral College vote (although that one would have gone to New York). The bigger ones are Rhode Island and Connecticut. If both lost theirs, they would have gone to Florida and Texas.

This means for the 2024 and 2028 elections (had the Census count been proper), Republicans could win the Presidency by 270 without taking a single Rust Belt swing state and instead only need the Sun Belt of NC, GA, and Arizona (assumes Maine and Nebraska evenly split as they did in 2016 and 2020).

The Establishment Republican Factor (Bush/Cheney/McCain/Haley)

To my surprise, I have not seen one poll that (internal or external) that tries to pinpoint and predict this type of voter. The evidence is there in 2020 in Arizona that they voted and voted Democrat. The state was R+8, however, Trump lost. This is because Independents went nearly 2 to 1 to Biden and a significant portion of McCain Republicans refused to back the MAGA candidates.

While Republicans made great gains in voter registration over the past 8 years, were those mostly blue collar Democrats finally updating their voter registration? Are Republicans now facing a similar issue where they have Republicans in their registration profile but flipped to Democrats and just haven’t updated their party affiliation?

In Virginia, Fairfax County has essentially a 75-25 split between Democrats and Republicans, yet in the 2024 primary, more people voted for Republicans (Haley and Trump) than in the Democrat primary. Virginia is an open primary state so it’s safe to assume a significant portion of Haley voters are Democrats who never vote Republican anyway.

In Pennsylvania, that’s not the case as the state is a closed primary system. In the PA Primary, 157,228 (or 16.50%) voted for Haley after she already withdrew. That’s not insignificant. Trump needs to gain at least 2/3s of those protest votes back to win the Keystone State.

Bellwether Counties to Watch

Vigo and Pike Counties in Indiana are classics.

The state closes first (with Kentucky) so go there first. For 68 years, Vigo County correctly predicted the winner of the Presidential election up until 2020. Maybe not as accurate as in the past, but demographics wise it’s now about the margins for white working class voters. Trump needs to win Vigo by at least 15.5 points to give a trend for the rest of the nation if he wants to win the Rust Belt compared to 2020.

Pike County, you want roughly a 53.5 point margin for Trump to see how the Rust Belt performs.

North Carolina

It should come in early as data is mostly released shortly after polls close. Nash County is the one to watch, just northeast of Raleigh and Research Triangle. It’s always been super close since 2004, but is perhaps going to left due to the jobs in the area. It’s demographically diverse as well and can show shifts in minorities and Anglos. In 2020, Biden won it by about 100 votes, but lost the state overall.

Cabarrus County just northeast of Charlotte is another to watch. Trump won it by 20 points in 2016 but only 9.5 in 2020 as people move near Charlotte for the growing economy there. If it halves again (Trump by 5 points or fewer) then Harris has a good chance to win the state.

Georgia's Baldwin County

Another state that should report nearly all of its vote shortly after polls close. It’s a more rural county but has colleges within it. Clinton and Biden barely won there. If Trump wants to win the state as Atlanta metro trends to the left, then he must win here. It’s probably the swing county for Georgia now.

Pennsylvania's Erie, Northampton, and Luzerne Counties

Erie and Northampton probably go with the winner. Luzerne (Wilkes-Barre) would need better margins than 2020 of roughly 15 points to Trump in order to counteract the Democrat gains in “The Collar” counties where with them plus Philadelphia counts for about 60% of the statewide vote. Trump does not need to win Luzerne (Scranton) or Alleghany (Pittsburgh) but the margins need to be tighter than 8.5 and 20 point margins respectively four years ago to win the state.

Closing Remarks

In September 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin stated:

“I have often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting…”

…it was also the same month he told a citizen the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic, if you can keep it.

This election is tight. It’s not much of a swing from a comfortable Harris victory to Trump’s strongest showing in three elections. To quote U2: “The more you see the less you know, the less you find out as you go. I knew much more then, than I do now.” States with the lightest of shades I would not be surprised if they flipped the other way. The medium shades are states I am looking for trends in, even if they should easily go to the favored candidate.

In 2016: Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan had Republican governors while Pennsylvania was the only one with a Democrat governor. By 2024, all have Democrat governors with the exception of Georgia. Take that information and make of it what you will for why I wanted to mention that.

If Governor Shapiro was on the ticket, Democrats would win much more easily. If this was a DeSantis/Youngkin ticket for the GOP, you probably have a Republican victory over Harris/Shapiro. Those are all hypotheticals though. Are we back to a Grover Cleveland era or are we back to Democrats dominating federal elections as the GOP splits between Establishment, Conservative, and MAGA wings?

People moving since COVID may create a wasted voter issue for Republicans. Florida no longer being a toss-up due to conservatives moving from the Rust Belt may be the difference alone. It’s possible a reversal of 2016 happens where Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. It’s doubtful, but not irrational.

There are whacky scenarios of NC, AZ, Wisconsin, and Nevada going Democrat, but PA, Georgia, and Michigan must go Republican to get to 269-269 tie.

Outside of my map, the next most logical path to me for Democrats is: PA and Wisconsin to Trump, Michigan Arabs vote the way they normally do (Harris) meaning she wins that state. Arizona and Nevada to Trump, but Georgia and North Carolina to Harris with the changing trends and demographics of those states. That gives Harris a 272-266 victory. Oh, and the final campaign stops of the Harris campaign are Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina with none planned for PA and Wisconsin at the time of writing this article.

I say this with a broad stroke of the brush, but of these four categories, who is most likely to talk to a pollster in the final week before an election:

1. A MAGA Republican

2. Moderate/Undecided

3. Working Class

4. Progressives

Even the New York Times/Sienna final poll hints at this:

“Across these final polls, white Democrats were 16 percent likelier to respond than white Republicans. That’s a larger disparity than our earlier polls this year, and it’s not much better than our final polls in 2020 — even with the pandemic over. It raises the possibility that the polls could underestimate Mr. Trump yet again.”

Another narrow path is Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina to Harris, but Georgia, AZ, and PA to Trump (that’s 273-265 Harris). Those are in the less than 10% scenarios compared to the intro. Don’t sleep on New Hampshire either, but that one is a stretch when Trump’s best chance was in 2016 for it.

In 6 of the 7 Battleground states, Republicans are ahead or essentially tied in the early vote meaning whoever and gets out and votes more on Election Day, wins. Pennsylvania is the only one they are behind on by about 400,000 votes. That means it should be close. Historically, the GOP wins that head-to-head on Election Day except for Michigan. Independents likely decide the election.

What only matters is you go vote if you haven’t done so already.

4 November Update 8:45 PM EST

Pennsylvania Update November 4, 2024 (Election Eve Evening):

The final report of Pennsylvania mail ballots came out before the election. More mail votes can still be counted, but this is the final one we will have before Election Day votes are counted and revealed.

As of yesterday evening (November 3rd):

1,790,310 total votes by mail returned. The breakdown is as follows:

997,450 Democrat

587,546 Republican

205,323 Other

This means as of yesterday there was 409,804 more Democrat ballots than Republican ones.

As of 4 November's Update:

1,830,246 total votes by mail returned. The breakdown is as follows:

1,014,744 Democrat

602,601 Republican

212,901 Other

So just under 40,000 additional ballots were submitted today. Of that, the Democrats only netted 2,239 ballots over the Republicans. In other words: This is a disaster for Democrats with only a 412,143 advantage between the parties going into tomorrow. In 2020, it was over 1 million.

Granted, this is a different election. I do not expect voter turnout total overall to surpass 2020, but I do expect it to surpass 2016. Compared to 2016: Roughly 30% of the vote is already in. Compared to 2020: Roughly 26% of the vote is in. Split the difference and assume about 28% of the vote is in for 2020.

Others/Independents vote more liberal in the mail but vote more conservative in person on Election Day. Before the mail returns came back, the "general consensus" was the Democrat firewall in Pennsylvania needed to be roughly 500,000 for them to win the Keystone State.

48 hours ago there was a pathway to that. After the last two updates, it's an uphill climb (but not impossible).

Trump needs 54% of the remaining votes to win or ~R+10 on Election Day. In 2022, Election Day margin was +13; in 2020 it was R+19.

R+19 will not happen this cycle due to COVID. I suspect it will be slightly less than R+13 as well, but the window is absolutely there between R+10 and R+13.

With this information, make of it what you will.

Source for data above: Early Voting Tracker

Why the U.K. Voted for a "Brexit" From the E.U.

2016-06-24T14:38:00.000-04:00

The E.U. Referendum is a clear message on the current state of world affairs. There is insanity, inaction by world leaders, the West has failed with regards to security, and people are begging for the madness to stop. Euroscepticism was a taboo word on Wednesday June 22, 2016; as the sun rose on the old continent on June 24, it suddenly was mainstream.

There are many impacts this vote has on the current state of affairs such in the near future such as trade agreements, sovereignty, immigration, unification and could create a chain reaction across Europe. It can also bring about a new era of prosperity and gains in liberty, individual freedom, and improvement for the quality of life for many. But if tensions rise too high, it can also become as bloody as the French Revolution.

With regards to the politics of Great Britain, the Labour party has some significant soul searching to do. The party has gone far-left after Jeremy Corbyn took over following the 2015 UK Parliamentary election. Yet Corbyn himself was an early Eurosceptic and often critical of the EU despite his party’s politicians (and himself included) almost unanimously endorsed to stay in the European Union. The sole reason this referendum passed for leave the E.U. was the base of Labour party---blue collar workers---in the Labour heartland voted against their party’s wishes and policies.

While every region in Scotland reported healthy numbers for stay in the E.U., voter turnout was much lower than the Scottish Independence vote and immediately Labour blamed SNP over this loss. Labour is quite arrogant since it now only controls one parliamentary seat in Scotland and is the reason why the Conservatives have a sole majority. The Labour base is furious at the party for not helping their constituents.

This leads to the biggest miscalculation in economics and believers of the constructivism policy over realism. Yes, the overall net gains are beneficial to both sides in free trade agreements and a pact mentality, however, the miscalculation is in adaptability and whom it benefits and hurts. Simply put, a fisherman or manufacturer cannot simply leave their profession (after most likely years or decades in that field) to become the next computer expert or wind turbine engineer via job training or returning to school for a new degree. In the United States, a blue-collar worker cannot simply become the next Silicon Valley expert.

Despite amazing progress in connecting the world in seconds via e-mail and Skype. We can also be connected very quickly in-person via aviation. Yet, a vast majority of people’s future is largely determined by their birthplace in the world and the environment they grow up in. Most people in America---where Americans have a rather high rate of movability---will live approximately only 18 miles away from their mother largely because of economic opportunity.

The greatest political challenge going forward for the United Kingdom will be to remain united. Wales and England clearly voted to leave the E.U. while Scotland voted to remain and the SNP wants to remain in the E.U. while leaving the U.K. Low energy prices pretty much proves Scotland cannot be more prosperous as an independent nation. Oil will not go back to glory day prices that are needed to make Scotland prosperous because drilling in the North Sea is more expensive than many other places around the world. Yet, Scotland is probably the most likely candidate to leave the U.K. and the E.U. may just want that to get revenge and serve as the “punishment” for this vote.

Northern Ireland is a more complicated issue. The vote was 55/45 to remain, however, there appears to be another divide within the once very fragmented country. The DUP region of Northern Ireland (mostly protestant areas) voted to leave the E.U. while the more Catholic regions and border areas to the Republic of Ireland voted to remain. Most likely Northern Ireland will remain in the U.K. yet there are significant questions that need answers should this become an “E.U./non-E.U.” border.

There is another element the world forgot before this vote and perhaps this is why people are most surprised by the result. The land of the birthplace for liberalism pioneered by great philosophers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill voted to essentially say to the European Union: No taxation without representation. Lest we forget the real reason why the 13 colonies declared Independence from the Crown and Parliament was because the colonialists felt they did not have the proper rights as Englishmen as they were being taxed without a seat in Parliament. The U.K. voted on June 23 to tell the European Union it did not have a right to make laws over their sovereign land without proper representation.

How Each Presidential Candidate Can Win The Primaries

2016-01-31T11:29:00.000-05:00

The first caucus in the United States takes place on February 1 in Iowa followed by the New Hampshire primary on February 9. After that, the parties make the system a little more confusing as Democrats have their Nevada caucus while Republicans host their South Carolina Caucus on February 20 while a few days later the parties do the reverse as the Republican Nevada Caucasus and the Democratic South Carolina primary takes place on February 27. The candidates win delegates based of a proportional system in the early states and the candidate with a majority of the pledged delegates officially becomes the party’s nominee for president at the party convention in the late summer.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are the four states the system have allowed to go early in the primaries because of their geographical location, size in population (rather small compared to most states in an attempt to provide stronger voices than in highly populated states), and different demographics, values, and economies. Tuesday March 1 is regarded as “Super Tuesday” because it is the earliest day the Democrat and Republican parties allow other states to choose to host their primary/caucus and they do not have to proportionally align delegates meaning a candidate who wins a plurality of the vote within the state can take all of the delegates for the convention. Most of the time, the frontrunner of the party essentially secures the nomination on the evening of Super Tuesday by winning enough delegates. Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008 essentially secured the Republican nomination for President because of Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went until the end of the primaries in June 2008 before Obama secured enough delegates to win the party’s nomination.

15 primaries/caucuses occur on Super Tuesday—meaning 19 states/territories will vote in the primaries by the end of March 1—with 11 more contests taking place by March 8. Because there are so many states in such a short period of time occurring all across the country, only the best-financed and well-polled candidates can win the nomination.

Hence for Republicans, while there are still over ten candidates running for President, only three appear to have a realistic chance of winning: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio because of their fundraising and polling. While Jeb Bush has raised over $133 million for his campaign and via Super Pacs, he can stay in the race until the end of the primaries, but his poll numbers suggest he will not do well.

For Democrats, three candidates remain in the race, however, it will come down to two individuals: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Now we will analyze who has the best chance to win the party’s nomination and how each legitimate contender can win it.

Republicans

1) Donald Trump

Yes, the unthinkable one-year ago is most likely happening. Trump is dominating in the polls doing well in the early states of Iowa and South Carolina, while crushing in New Hampshire. He has virtually spent no many on advertisements electing to let his mouth garner media attention for free advertising. Republican voters feel betrayed by their party for not challenging Obama’s policies domestically (such as healthcare and the national debt) and abroad from Iran and ISIL. There are still two realistic paths for Trump to lose the nomination, however, he is the clear front-runner.

The first way Trump loses the nomination is if the Republican Party presidential candidate field drops from 12 to 2 candidates. A majority of the party still supports candidates not named Donald Trump and they would most likely unify to vote for the Trump alternative candidate. If Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush remain in the race past the first four states and run on Super Tuesday, Trump will most likely be the nominee as the “Establishment vote” is split between the opposition candidates.

The second one is a theory I have stated for months. A significant portion of Trump’s base is blue-collar and union affiliated Democrat registered voters. Yes, much of his support comes outside of the Republican Party. The New York Times has an excellent summary on his supporter base here. At least 27 states/territories have a closed primary meaning voters can only vote in the primary they are registered with. So many Democrats may be shocked when they go to vote than they cannot actually support Donald Trump in the primary. So while poll numbers may be accurate, this won’t necessarily reflect his actual support in primaries. Of the first 19 primaries/caucuses, 7 are closed primaries.

2) Ted Cruz

The Texas Senator is now leading in polls in Iowa and will probably win the first contest. Recent history shows the Republican winner in Iowa does not usually win the nomination. The anti-establishment Republican base that does not like Donald Trump is supporting Ted Cruz. His base is essentially the Evangelical and Tea Party vote the campaign has dubbed grassroots conservatism. As the establishment/more moderate wing of the party remains divided on Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or John Kasich, this has allowed Ted Cruz to be comfortable in second place and lead in Iowa.

His best path to victory is winning Iowa, skipping New Hampshire, and then using momentum/same campaign style to win South Carolina. Since 1980 (with the exception of 2012), the winner of the South Carolina Republican primary has won the nomination of the party for president. If Cruz wins South Carolina, he is in great position on Super Tuesday because seven of the fourteen states on Super Tuesday take place in the South and southern states historically tend to vote for the candidate that represents on of their states. It is possible for Ted Cruz to win 9 of the first 18 states, which would most likely help him secure the nomination, especially if there are at least three/four candidates still competing on Super Tuesday. The Cruz campaign is gaining momentum and is most likely the candidate that can win over a portion of Trump supporters that are not the most loyal to Trump because Cruz is also viewed as an outside to D.C. politics and is also anti-establishment. Should Dr. Ben Carson drop out of the race early, most likely much of his support will go over to Cruz.

3) Marco Rubio

Heavyweight donors, influential members of the Republican Party (the “establishment”) are shifting their support to Rubio. He is young, refreshing, and shares the story of the average American taking on student loans and coming from a middle class family. His background and support does show the stars aligning for a Rubio nomination, however, there are still significant obstacles in his way, mainly a plurality of candidates still in the race.

If the race were Rubio versus Trump or Rubio versus Cruz, Marco Rubio wins the nomination. The problem is his base of supporters is split amongst many candidates, including Jeb Bush who is also from Florida. Many Bush supporters and donors have Rubio has their second choice, however, they are loyal to the Bush family. They will most likely not switch their vote (which could provide Rubio a boost of 5 to 10 percent more in support, which would be critical in certain states) until Jeb Bush officially drops out. Thus the nomination could come down to how long Jeb Bush stays in the race even though Bush’s odds of winning are now slim to none.

Rubio’s other obstacle is performing well in early states. Nationally, he is considered in third or fourth place, but in the early states he is at least twenty points behind the frontrunner. Rubio must place at least third in Iowa and win New Hampshire or be in a close second in order to have a clear path for the nomination as that boost could help him do well in South Carolina and Nevada (where he does have family ties in that state) to place himself in a great position for Super Tuesday. Unless he pulls off a semi-miracle in New Hampshire or the field shirks to three or four candidates after Iowa, Rubio faces challenges for the nomination despite a well run and funded campaign with prominent supporters.

Jeb Bush

Not much should be said about Bush except that how poor his campaign has performed despite raising the most money. His last name is a liability, as voters do not want another political dynasty. His record in Florida qualifies him as a great candidate, but there is zero momentum behind Jeb! The two ways he can win are via a miracle in New Hampshire and then using his money for Super Tuesday or if there is a broken convention where delegates are split between Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush in a distant fourth where none have a majority. After the first ballot, delegates are no longer bound to their candidate and can vote for anyone. This would be the only slim chance Jeb has for the nomination. The last brokered convention for Republicans was in 1948 where it went three ballots before choosing the front-runner Governor Thomas Dewey who lost to FDR.

Democrats

1) Virtual Tie Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

While this may come as a surprise, Bernie Sanders path toward the nomination is becoming more realistic by the day. The polls are tightening in Iowa and he will most likely win New Hampshire. If he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the favored candidate to win the nomination.

Hillary’s national support is falling faster in 2016 than 2008 as shown in the graph.

The email scandal, her trustworthiness, plus the FBI criminal investigation into the emails is now turning into a public corruption investigation where it appears donations to her non-profit Clinton Foundation by authoritarian regimes were given preferential treatment by Secretary Clinton’s State Department. This investigation is now very serious and Michael Bay’s 13 Hours movie about the Benghazi incident that was just released will not help her. Clinton’s campaign of simply stating, “vote for me because I’m a woman” is not resonating with all the voters, as they want more substance on the issues that are affecting Americans. Her “Mi Abuela” campaign effort to attract Hispanic voters has backfired when a massive social media movement occurred under the hashtags #NotMiAbuela and #NotMyAbuela. Clinton has also failed to go on the offensive against Bernie Sanders such as his horrible “rape fantasies” essay he claimed women enjoy the thought/imagining they are being raped. Instead, she just chooses to adopt most of his positions after he states them in a debate. Meanwhile, Sanders is able to attack her with regards to Wall Street reform and speaking fees she has accepted from Goldman Sachs.

Bernie Sanders has run a clear message about his socialist policies and college students, the same base that gave Obama the nomination against Clinton in 2008, love his message. Millennials (including Women Millennials) support Sanders over Clinton. If other minority voters jump on to the #FeelTheBern bandwagon, 2008 may be déjà vu for Clinton in 2016. Clinton still has the lead for minority support though against Sanders. There are two main factors in the race that can still secure Clinton the nomination.

The first is Southern states are voting early and Clinton is much more likely to win those states on Super Tuesday because southerners do not like the appeal of socialism Bernie Sanders is campaigning on and the Clintons are from Arkansas. The second reason is the likelihood of Sanders winning the nomination. Many Democrat voters I’ve talked to (especially Millennials) like the message and are more politically aligned with Sanders, however, they do not think he can win against the Republican nominee. If Democrats are more concerned about winning in November versus voting for who they like the most, then Clinton will win. If Sanders can convince voters he is a movement similar to Obama, then Bernie will have the edge. If Sanders wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and either Nevada or South Carolina, it is most likely over for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The Energy Price War of 2015

2015-02-02T15:24:00.001-05:00

KAL Cartoon 2014. "Sheiks vs. Shale" Economist Cover

At the end of January just after Saudi King Abdullah died and power transitioned to King Salman, oil prices saw a slight uptick and closed just below $60 a barrel and natural gas closed at about $3 BTU. As noted in my previous article, Saudi Arabia and the United States are using this price war for their own reasons and are somewhat in conflict with each other. Saudi Arabia is trying to take out its competitors, both within OPEC and the U.S. shale industry. The United States is attempting to hurt the Russian economy and Vladimir Putin. Fortunately and unfortunately (depending on your perspective), both nations are achieving their goals in this price war.

Smaller U.S. energy companies did not hedge properly for these low prices and could face the consequences (even bankruptcy) before the summer. Permit requests in the Marcellus Shale are beginning to take a nosedive and North Dakota is not predicting billions in lost potential revenue for years to come. Larger U.S. energy companies will do just fine and either hedged properly or can absorb short term low levels. Newly elected Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, recently signed an executive order banning new fracking operations within the commonwealth. New York has a similar ban. Voters in Denton, Texas also banned fracking in a recent referendum. Lawsuits are guaranteed to occur in at least the Pennsylvania and Texas cases. Many regions within the U.S. fracking industry can barely break even at $60 a barrel of oil, however, the industry would be optimal in the $75-$90 range, which is still fairly below the break even budgets for many OPEC nations and Russia which is over $100 a barrel.

The "biggest losers" in the price war will be African OPEC countries, Venezuela, and Russia, with the potential of massive political instability as a ripple effect. At a World Affairs Council of San Antonio meeting, Ambassador Roger Noriega predicted President Nicolas Maduro will not last beyond this spring as grocery stores are empty and the people are ready to riot in the streets. Ambassador Noriega does not think the police or military will intervene compared to how they acted and arrested/intimidated hundreds, if not thousands of people following the election of Maduro. Venezuela cannot afford these low fuel prices and Maduro's global trip begging for money from countries such as China was a failure.

The Arab Spring countries could also face another wave of protests as these nations need oil to be well beyond $100 a barrel to even somewhat function/recover from the former regime collapses. Another nation that needs higher energy prices is Nigeria as it struggles to combat Boko Haram (the ISIS of Africa) and is due for an election in February for President where the Muslim candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, will most likely defeat the incumbent Christian President Goodluck Jonathan. These price wars will cause regimes to collapse or institute massive policy changes before the fall and most likely cause a political vacuum potentially spanning across at least three continents.

Experts in the energy sector who have consulted with me over the past few months predict prices could go as low as $35 a barrel for oil in the summer months (a time when reserves are at their highest because of multiple factors) and still reach around $90 a barrel by December 2015. The problem is even if the $90 is reached in eleven months, it will be too late for many regimes. Saudi Arabia will eliminate some of its OPEC rivals and the U.S. industry will take a black-eye. The three unknown factors will be just how well the U.S. fairs during this time frame (along with Canada) and whether it can collapse OPEC and Saudi Arabia once and for all. The second factor will be how Russia survives a massive recession (and most likely a depression) because of energy. Putin is still very popular in Russia, yet that could begin to change this year. The last factor and most frightening is what will exactly happen to Venezuela and the African OPEC countries. A second "Arab Spring" may occur this year, giving another chance for radical groups to take even more land.

Lower Energy Prices: How It Changes The World's Situation

2014-12-07T16:47:00.001-05:00

Photo purchased by myself for commercial use, 2014.

Earlier this week, the price for a gallon of gasoline fell below $2.00 a gallon in some locations around the San Antonio, TX region. The price of oil closed on Friday below $67 a barrel with Natural Gas NYMEX around $4 with forecasts still predicting a free fall in the price. In a world of chaos where Russia is annexing territory, Iraq and Syria is in shambles without effective governments, the Middle East is still suffering from the Arab Spring, Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon while promising the destruction of Israel, plus the growing energy demand in Asia and across the globe; the market should be freaking out and the price should conceivably be closer to $150 a barrel than $67.

Americans will certainly not complain as this will put extra money into their back pockets and may actually give a mini-stimulus to the economy for the Christmas shopping season. Yet, these latest developments in the energy sector will have massive implications worldwide, especially in the foreign policy arena.

The energy-dependent economies need the price of oil to be much higher. Business Week claims Russia made its 2015 budget on the forecast of oil being around $100 a barrel. With sanctions hurting their economy, the Ruble losing much of its power compared to the U.S. Dollar, along with the price of oil and natural gas well below their forecast, Russia will go into a depression. Putin is the man who is known for rebounding the Russian economy and nationalizing its energy industry in response from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now he may have to answer for the soon-to-be next depression in Russia. Yet, this also raises another interesting question, why is OPEC refusing to cut production if so many of the countries (as shown in the chart above) need oil to be much higher? Saudi Arabia needs it to be around $100 a barrel because it has been subsidizing its population to prevent the Arab Spring there to preserve the House of Saud, yet they are pushing for the same levels of production. There are two reasons for this, which the second is in response to the first reason.

1) The United States of America is now the number 1 energy superpower

2014 is a historical marker for U.S. energy. It officially surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer in oil and earlier surpassed Russia as the world's largest producer of natural gas. Because of laws that are around 40 years old banning exports (with certain and limited exceptions); the U.S. is still way behind in selling the commodities on the international market; much to the chagrin of Europe and parts of Asia. The fracking revolution from North Dakota to Pennsylvania to Texas now has America projected to be energy self-sufficient (with Canada as a partner) by 2020. America not even at its full production potential as federal lands still have bans on drilling (as almost all of this revolution is in the private sector and on private lands) yet has crashed the price in energy. On a recent trip in South Texas with some of the best and brightest minds in the sector to visit multiple fracking sites and all stages of the operation (to the pipelines to the refineries in Houston and Louisiana area), it was clear just how beneficial this is to our economy, in fact it's almost incomprehensible. Hotels and Motels charge by the hour (at rates you'd expect to be for a day), restaurants are packed, vehicles are brand new, repair shops are all over, the only industry hurting is fast-food employees. We met with Halliburton's number one team who are breaking fracking and drilling records right here in the United States. The U.S. can control its own destiny soon in energy.

2) OPEC is freaking out and hopes to crash American energy production industry

The price of oil and natural gas right now leaves very little room for profits because in many shales, America has to drill thousands of feet in order in order to reach the resources. OPEC realizes if America stays in the energy game, it's power and control is doomed. Permit requests have been falling in the U.S. as a response to the now low prices. Saudi Arabia is hoping to take a short term loss for a long term goal of American companies pulling out of the U.S. and going elsewhere (largely back to them) for a long term gain of higher oil prices above $100 a barrel which OPEC and Russia need. It's a gamble, but this is their only move.

What Should We Do?

Believe it or not, this question is more complicated than what it may seem at first. The United States should look after its own needs and become energy sufficient. This is a massive opportunity to secure our needs and also revolutionize our own economy and perhaps be a piece to balancing the budget. The refining (we need much more LNG production, the first LNG train in the U.S. is still in production) and export opportunities to Europe and Asia can make the US a potential power player in the exporting of energy as well. Yet, we will also have to face the global consequences of our action.

1) Russia will align with China and perhaps India

For their own economic needs (particularly energy), Russia will be forced to take its energy resources and instead of mainly sending them to Europe, will make it travel east to China. This will only further the rift between the West and Russia and perhaps could bring about a global conflict along the lines of NATO vs. Russia & China. Putin will also have to escalate conflict around the globe because the only way to potentially raise fuel prices is with conflict. Ukraine now could look minor in comparison to future conflicts perhaps spanning from the Caucasus, Scandinavia, to Moldova.

2) The Middle East could collapse

If the United States no longer needs foreign fuel outside of North America, the economies of OPEC will not be able thrive causing a depression. Authoritarian regimes will collapse. Many may argue this would be a fantastic scenario, and the optimist could say democracies would take over. One should be cautious. Is Libya better off without Gadaffi? Is Iraq better off without Saddam Huessein? Both were brutal dictators that now share a special place in Hell. Yet in both scenarios, radical terrorism has taken over and created a nightmare situation. Imagine what will happen to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain where the U.S. has massive military interests if their regimes fall due to low energy prices. Radicals will takeover and bring a huge security threat to sovereign nations across the globe. The American homeland will thrive, yet this situation with leaders such as Putin and an expanding nationalism attitude in China could then cause a third global conflict. The powder keg was all ready in place for World War I; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The situation in the Mid East coupled with low energy prices could be the modern powder keg.

Is The Republican Party Becoming The Whigs?

2014-07-17T19:52:00.000-04:00

2012: Floor of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Photo taken by myself.

Since the emergence of the Tea Party in early 2009, the movement has largely been battling for political ideology within the Republican Party. Since then, it has been interesting to examine how the movement has transformed across the nation, especially within the Republican Party.

While the Establishment will never admit this, if not for the Tea Party movement and the historical wave election in 2010 (in both federal and local elections) the GOP would be in a much weaker position today.

The 2010 elections broke records for Republicans for state legislatures, local elections, and near record levels of holding 29 of the 50 state governors (expanded to 30 by 2012).

What this allowed is political "life" for the Republican party for at least ten years, until the year 2020. After the 2010 Census, all house seats must be redistricted. This process is largely held by the states and gerrymandering ran wild. Take Pennsylvania for example.

As of May, 2014, Democrats hold nearly 50% of all registered voters and outnumber Republicans by over a million voters in Pennsylvania. Yet, Pennsylvania holds safe majorities in the two tiers of the state legislator and in terms of Congressional Districts, the GOP holds a massive 13-5 advantage with only 3 or 4 seats that are competitive in a worst case scenario election year for Republicans along the lines of 2006 (Note: the GOP was actually able to gain a seat in 2012 thanks to redistricting when Democrats coat-tailed Obama statewide). This means Republicans will hold at least half of the congressional seats (9) until 2022 in a state where they are the clear minority.

This occurred across the nation after the 2010 elections. In 2012, Republicans lost by nearly 1.5 million votes in congressional district elections nationwide, yet easily and safely held the House of Representatives under the weak Speakership of John Boehner. Republicans will hold the House of Representatives until probably the year 2022.

Thus, if the GOP is not careful, the political infighting since 2010 could be catastrophic for them if it's not fixed by the 2020 elections. Recent primaries and elections show just how bad it has become. In 2013, the Republican National Committee refused to help the conservative nominee, Ken Cuccinelli, in the Virginia Gubernatorial election. If the RNC had helped, they could have won that election and given him at least a 2 point bump.

More recently this year in Mississippi, the Establishment had to recruit Democrats and launch racist campaign advertisements (that were false) against conservative candidate Chris McDaniel in order for Senator Thad Cochran to win the runoff. Essentially, the more liberal wing of the Republican party would rather have Democrats win elections than have members affiliated with the Tea Party win as a Republican. To be fair though, since 2010, it appears Tea Party candidates are only winning in more conservative states such as Texas where they crushed the Establishment in nearly all positions for the party in the 2014 primary, but the Tea Party appears to be failing in swing state elections.

The final example is what happened to Virginia in 2014 to the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Candidate Dave Brat ran such a cash-strapped campaign, Eric Cantor's campaign spent more money on STEAK DINNERS than the entire Brat campaign. Before this year, the "majority leader" position never lost in the primary. Brat may arguably even be the more liberal candidate over Cantor on certain issues, but party members have become so sick of the Establishment that they have the "throw the bums out" mentality. The closest poll had this primary with a 9 point advanatge for Cantor. Even Brat admitted the day before of the primary on the Glenn Beck Program that he needed a mini-miracle and that it appeared the race was finally within single digits (as only that one poll suggested). The Establishment panicked as it was rumored Cantor was going to become the next Speaker in 2015 yet failed to listen to the message. Now the fairly liberal California Representative, Kevin McCarthy, is the new Majority Leader.

The party will collapse if this infighting continues because numbers going into the future look bleak for the party. As the Hispanic population rapidly grows, if they continue to vote over 60% for the Democrat Party, it will become nearly impossible for Republicans to win another national election. George W. Bush was the best candidate in the GOP's history with Hispanics voting around 40% for him. In 2012, even if Mitt Romney somehow did way better than that number (when he actually did way worse) and captured over 50% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost the election.

A unified Republican party between the establishment and the more conservative wing is still going to have a hard time competing in Presidential, swing states, and border states in the years to come. A divided Republican Party can only mean one of two scenarios: The Democrats solely dominating government for the next thirty years or a legitimate third party emerging and collapsing the GOP; thus restoring the two-party system.

Both events occurred in our political history. Between 1815-1825 (although one could argue this continued until Andrew Jackson won in 1828) is known as the "Era of Good Feelings" (which is a terrible title) as it emphasizes the collapse of the Federalists, leaving only one party in charge while the eventual post-Federalist "Whigs" were just the minority.

In 1848, a small third-party was formed initially called the Free Soil Party. It was a single issue policy party that wanted the abolition of slavery. It mainly consisted of former Whig Party members but some Democrats joined as well. This new party was "so radical" and "so divisive" that one its members, Charles Sumner, was beaten within inches of his own life by the cane of another Senator on the Senate floor. Within just one decade, this "small" and "radical" party completely abolished the Whigs and the Free Soil Party renamed itself too...The Republican Party.

If the GOP is not careful, at the very least the Tea Party could form itself as a formal party and perhaps cause the collapse and relevancy of the GOP just like the party famously did to the Whigs, or it will collapse like the Federalists and become a permanent minority Whig-like party.

Republicans must do a better job at projecting their image and spread their message of empowering the individual and granting them more rights that can help everyone, not just helping the rich. They must campaign more heavily in the urban areas. They must convince and show urban voters that the historically Democratic run cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. is only falling behind compared to the rest of nation in terms of education levels, violence, and standard of living. In just a few short years, Mayor Giuliani was able to completely flip New York City.

Believe me when I say that I have never met someone my age, working their first legitimate paid job, be "happy" over how much of their paycheck goes to taxes. Yet, very few even know that money they lose from their paycheck will not be there for them when they eventually retire from the workforce. If Republicans cannot spread this message and remain unified, Democrats will dominate at least the national (and most likely the statewide) political landscape for the next 30 years.

The Mysterious Case of Bowe Bergdahl

2014-06-02T14:26:00.000-04:00

Source: AP/U.S. Army

This past week it was announced that the United States agreed to a Prisoner of War swap for America's only POW in either the Iraq or Afghanistan War, Sgt. Bower Bergdahl, in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders that were detained in Guantanamo Bay. It's great news that we were able to secure one of our captured soldiers who is actually coming to San Antonio (presumably Lackland Air Force Base in the southwestern part of the town) to begin recovering from being held captive by the enemies for approximately five years. One of our armed forces motto is "never leave a man behind" and it is clear we have never forgotten Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

With Bergdahl coming home, some serious questions must be answered about this entire case. The first question is what events caused Bergdahl to be captured? The first allegation is that he actually deserted his post to actually search/possibly join the Taliban. One of his last emails home was "I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” After that email, apparently all he took with him as he left his base was a knife, camera, a journal, and a compass. This could very possibly be a terrible case of PTSD, however, unconfirmed reports from other soldiers who served with Bergdahl indicate something much more nefarious.

The timeline of @CodyFNfootball on twitter (who served with Bergdahl) even if only partially true is very disturbing. He is convinced Bergdahl deserted because one of his comments was he was going to go into the mountains to get to the Chinese border and all of his military equipment went missing. Prior to deployment, Cody claims Bergdahl always wanted to train with an AK-47 instead of the US military issued M-16 (or civilian version AR-15). Once they noticed Bergdahl went missing, they immediately began a search and rescue operation and local kids reported "an American crawling in bushes" as they were looking for him. Once they got to the next town, people reported an American "wanted to meet with the Taliban" and later radio traffic indicates terrorists finally picked up Bergdahl. As the rescue mission lasted for weeks, many Americans died trying to find Bergdahl as ambushes and IED attacks skyrocketed.

In one of the videos after Bergdahl's capture, he claims he got lost from his patrol and hence became a POW once the terrorists found him. This story is quite the opposite of Cody's account. Another soldier, Nathan Bradley Bethea gave his account which is very similar to Cody's timeline. An investigation must happen in order to finally determine if Bergdahl did desert his post.

What is even more disturbing is the twitter timeline of Sgt. Bergdahl's father. Bob Bergdahl made this (and later deleted) tweet:

Other tweets are just as disturbing as well such as:

@daqeqa Agree! "Democracy" is a cult in the West. I think most of afgs see law in terms of sharia not secular democracy, man centric laws
— Robert Bergdahl (@bobbergdahl) March 29, 2014

Glancing at @daqeqa's timeline clearly shows he is not a friend of the west. Now, I cannot imagine what the past five years have been for the Bergdahl family, however, these trends are clearly disturbing.

The next few questions pertain to the release of Bergdahl. Why are five senior and notorious Taliban leaders being released from Guantanamo Bay and have all ready been sent to Qatar when it was the Haqqani Network who always held Sgt. Bergdahl? While the Haqqani Network may be similar to the Taliban or Al Qaida, these are different organizations and we have Haqqani members at Guantanamo Bay.

My next questions are why was the law broken in this swap and did President Obama's recent trip to Afghanistan finalize this swap? Congress must be notified at least thirty days in advance before any detainees leave Guantanamo Bay. Congress was never notified about the "Taliban Five" being transferred to Qatar in advance for the trade to receive Bergdahl. Once again, the Obama Administration selectively chooses which laws it will follow. Negotiations should be held in secrecy instead of being open to the public, yet the law is the law and the administration could have told Congress about this deal and waited thirty days before sending these terrorists to Qatar.

My last question is as a nation, should we negotiate with terrorists? One popular misconception is America began fighting the War on Terror in the late 20th or 21st century when this statement is inaccurate. The first abroad conflict the United States was ever involved in was against Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s. The conflict helped build our navy and is referenced in the Marine hymn "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." The United States refused to negotiate with terrorists over American merchants and that has been our policy for the past 200+ years. The reason is simple. It gives terrorist more leverage in the future. Now American soldiers and civilians abroad are potentially in more danger as their capture can be used as bargaining chips to release even more terrorists. Bergdahl's swap undermines a once firm policy by western governments.

I am glad Sgt. Bergdahl is coming home. Serious questions remain though and they must be answered. This could be a terrible case of PTSD which caused him to leave his base (and Stockholm Syndrome for his father), but it could also be a case as to where he is sympathetic toward the enemy's side of this battle. Five years is a long time and if they kept him alive, he must have at least appeared to convince the Haqqani Network that he was sympathetic toward their viewpoints. And if that is true, the television show Homeland on Showtime just became a reality.

Healthcare Scandals: The problems are just the beginning

2014-05-27T17:17:00.000-04:00

Healthcare is the "capstone" of President Obama's Administration, although the legacy of his policies will be history's to judge. Without some massive reforms, it may become a doomed legacy. The recent news of the VA scandal is a tragedy, but not surprising. The VA's healthcare system has always lagged behind the private healthcare market, and our veterans should be getting the best healthcare available because they risked their lives to defend this country. Veterans "with serious heart conditions, gangrene, and even brain tumors waited months for care at the Albuquerque VA hospital" (Siegel, 2014). This is unacceptable, yet its government run healthcare within the United States.
While these issues are in the Department of Veterans Affairs, it does not mean the healthcare industry across this country is immune to the same problems.

Healthcare is an issue that is personal to me and I have taken an active role about it in the political sphere since the summer of 2007. In 1999, I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and experienced first hand the benefits and the flaws of the U.S. healthcare system. While there are problems, if not for us having the best healthcare in the world, I probably wouldn't be here writing this article today.

Reforms must occur in the healthcare sector, however, the Affordable Care Act is taking the country mostly down the wrong path. The "mandate" that everyone must have insurance may actually create more uninsured than before once businesses (over 50 employees) must pay the fine as well. It is much cheaper for an individual or business to simply pay the "fine" instead of the much more costly option of making sure everyone has insurance under the new guidelines. Millions of people last year received cancelation notices which violated President Obama's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" promise.

Young people are also not signing up in the numbers needed to make the Affordable Care Act work. Earlier this year, Health and Human Services reported that just 24% of all the people who signed up on a Healthcare.gov exchange (note, this does not mean each one has a policy, they just registered for an account on the website) are in the 18-34 demographic when that number needs to be closer to 40% in order for rates not to rise (Marte, 2014). The cost of premiums has also skyrocketed for young adults across the entire nation (with the exception of four states) as shown in the chart below.
If anything, it appears the ACA was written in a way to make it nearly impossible for the private health insurance companies to succeed, eventually forcing a single payer system. In fact, this week bureaucrats are starting to create a plan (under Sections 1341-1342 of the law) to bailout the insurance companies should they report a loss (Levey, 2014; NRO, 2014). This is "legal" as long as it's managed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That is perhaps the scariest part of the Affordable Care Act. So much of it can literally be created "out of thin air" by executive orders or by orders via the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is why mandates and parts of law have been changing constantly. These actions also bypass the legislative branch.

Throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. Last month, Oregon decided to completely shutdown its state's exchange website after being granted over $300 million for a website that never allowed residents to sign up for coverage in one sitting. The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest funded agencies in our government and its costs have tripled since the year 2000. While two wars surely factor (and justify) and rise in the VA's budget, the Health and Human Services budget is now nearly doubled the budget of the Department of Defense (Edwards, 2014).

Virtually all CBO projections about the Affordable Care Act are coming up well short of the needed numbers in order for the law to have a chance of succeeding. The problems this legislation is creating is unfortunately just the beginning. Problems in the VA system have existed for a long time and our veterans are not getting the proper care they need. Unless there are massive changes or a repeal to the Affordable Care Act (with other options used such as opening up insurance options across state lines), the care our Veterans are receiving will be coming to a hospital or specialist near you and me. Hopefully we will not wish for the days and coverage that existed before the Affordable Care Act.

Sources:
Levey, Noam N. Critics Call Obama Funding Plan for Health Insurer Losses a 'Bailout'. 21 May 2014. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1.

Edwards, Chris. "Veterans Affairs in the Federal Budget." CATO Institute. 27 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.cato.org/blog/veterans-affairs-federal-budget.

NRO. "Insurance-Company Bailouts." National Review Online. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368364/insurance-company-bailouts-editors.

Marte, Jonnelle. "Not Enough Young People Bought Obamacare." The Wall Street Journal. 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/not-enough-young-people-are-buying-obamacare-2014-01-14.

Siegel, Jacob. "Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital." The Daily Beast. 18 May 2014. Web. 27 May 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/exclusive-v-a-scandal-hits-new-hospital.html.

Vietnam: It's Time for the U.S. to Improve Relations

2014-05-15T19:23:00.000-04:00

This month, tensions between Vietnam and China are rising due to a territorial dispute in the resource rich South China Sea. Recently, China placed an oil rig within 120 nautical miles off the coast of Vietnam. To make matters worse, China rammed a Vietnamese vessel as it was patrolling near the newly placed rig and fired their water cannons at the vessel as well (see the video below). Protests have since sparked in cities across Vietnam over the incident. Over 15 foreign owned factories were sent ablaze in response to China's oil rig.

China and Vietnam are communist governments with both of their economies recently attempting to become more capitalistic. Yet, they are not allies. It is not always the case where communist governments are allied to each other. During the Cold War, Yugoslavia was not an ally of the Soviet of the Union.

For China, it unfortunately clear as to why it is picking on its weaker neighbor. With China's recent military buildup and expansion of their Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), they are now optimist about carrying a "big stick" and becoming the a regional superpower (and soon to be a world superpower) while attempting to gather resources within their realm. Other nations near the South China Sea such as the Philippines and Taiwan (along with Japan and South Korea further away) all have treaties with the United States with many regarding to defense of the nation's territory. Therefore, China can afford to become aggressive with Vietnam without any significant repercussions, and if it were to somehow go to the United Nation's Security Council, China could veto any action there.

It's been 39 years since the fall of Saigon and while the stigma remains for both countries over the Vietnam War, the United States and Vietnam can mutually benefit with an alliance. As the United States shifts focus toward Asia, Vietnam owns Cam Ranh Bay, a deep-water bay and perhaps the most strategically important port in Southeast Asia. The last major navy to use the port was Russia, which was over a decade ago. It's been nearly 20 years since the United States and Vietnam began normalizing relations since the war and then Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Vietnam in 2010 with Leon Panetta visiting Cam Ranh Bay in the summer of 2012.

Cam Ranh Bay is the optimal place for the United States to have military forces particularly the navy, in the hopes of containing China's aggressive expansion. While Vietnamese-U.S. relations have been slowly improving, it is time to speed up the process. Each country needs to realize they can help the other both economically and militarily. If Vietnam leased Cam Ranh Bay, both sides can finally move on from the Vietnam War and in return, the United States can protect Vietnamese sovereignty.

What the 2012 Election Results Mean

2012-12-11T20:40:00.003-05:00

First off, I want to say I was wrong about the election. I thought it would be closer than it actually was. By mid afternoon on election I knew it looked dim for Republicans. I miscalculated the impact of the last four years on voters. Having said that, the 2012 election does provide some very interesting into future elections.

With a poor economy, record, and skyrocketing deficits under President Obama the last four years, Republicans had an excellent formula to pick up the Senate and the White House. They got neither. The 2012 results may well indicate the United States received a political realignment in 2008.

Political Scientists like to categorize elections into four categories.

1) Maintaining election. Partisan ideology and loyalty remains the same and rewards the “in-party” or stronger political party. This is the most common election and it maintains the status quo.

2) Deviating Election. This is a temporary shift where political ideology and loyalty generally remains the same, however some people defect to punish a bad performance/appeal to the weaker party. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton are examples of a temporary deviation. There has never been a three-term deviation in American history.

3) Realigning election. The stronger party takes back control from the deviation. Political ideology, partisanship, and loyalty return to the norm. John F. Kennedy in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000 are examples of a reinstatement.

4) Realigning election. Partisan loyalty and ideology changes, they long lasting impact, and happen about once a generation, usually triggered around a national crisis. The two main realignments are FDR’s “Progressive Era” in 1932 and Reagan’s “Conservative Era” in 1980.

2008 appears to have been a realignment election, perhaps triggered the economic crisis. According to Walter Burnham, realignments are almost predictable. They tend to occur at 38-year intervals. 1818, 1856, 1894, 1932 were all realignments with 1970 being another one (but hurt because of a plurality of issues in the early 70s, not fully integrated until Reagan in 1980). 38 years after 1970, is 2008.

There are also 5 characteristics indicating a realignment election.

1) Change in Regional Base of Party Support.

Whigs were in both in the North and South before the civil war. After the war, the GOP was nonexistent in south. In the New Deal Era, the GOP lost a ton of support in North. Under the Reagan Era, Democrats lost the South.

2) Change in Social Groups Base Support.

People will go opposite directions. Pro Slavery Whigs became democrats/Anti-secession Democrats became Republican. Under Reagan, conservative Democrats became Republican.

3) Mobilization of New Voters.

4) New Issues Divide Electorate.

The economy generally is the reason for this one.

5) Voters Change Patterns and Thoughts About Parties.

Party ID change is an example.

In 2008/2012 we do appear to see a regional change in support. Once conservative states such as Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, (and to a lesser extent: Indiana) are now considered toss-ups. The toss-up states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, have easily gone blue in the last two elections. The once “hopeful” turn red states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, appear to not even be in play at least at the Presidential level. The once dominant conservative states of Arizona and Texas will be in play for Democrats around 2020 (more on that year later). Texas voter ID is nearly tied between Republicans and Democrats.

We also appear to see a change in the social groups. Hispanics generally have always gone liberal, but Bush nearly earned half of their support in 2004. Now they have gone heavily to the Democrats. Even Cuban-Americans in Florida, known to go about 70/30 Republican, went to Obama on election night in 2012. African Americans, single women, and young Americans all heavily went blue as well.

Speaking of mobilization of new voters. Obama captured the young Americans solidly in 2008 and 2012. According to V.O. Key, who is one of the most respected political science experts, claimed if you get voters to vote the same way in consecutive elections, you will most likely have them for life. 2016 will indicate several things, including if Republicans lost a whole generation of voters.

New issue dividing the electorate: Even the least politically involved people could name a few today that vastly divide this country.

The fifth part, Obama may not have yet, especially because of 2010, but it does appear he has the other four.

So based on this evidence, 2008 was either a deviation or a realigning election. No deviation has ever gone three terms, so 2016 will determine 2008’s fate. The other reason why 2008 was a realigning election is because of the 2012 Senate elections. If Republicans cannot win in Montana, North Dakota, (lesser extent: Missouri and Indiana), they are in trouble. The political conditions and seats up for election should have given both houses to the Republicans.

In 2012, Republicans did weaker in some categories despite the last terrible four years. More Mormons went to Bush in 2004 than Romney in 2012. Mitt barely squeaked by the popular vote of John McCain, yet both came nowhere close to Bush’s number in 2004, which still would have lost to Obama in both elections. In Colorado, more Democrats voted on election night than Republicans, an accomplishment that didn’t even occur in 2008.

The saving grace to the GOP may have been 2010. If not were the massive victories across the country, they may have lost the House of Representatives in 2012. With redistricting, the House of Representatives is mainly secure until the 2020 Census. Republicans now have eight years to get their act in order before they truly become the “weaker” party in realignment. The party, however, is in disarray. ORCA was a massive failure, Speaker John Boehner cannot even keep his own party in-line, and he is kicking prominent people, such as Representatives Tim Huelskamp (Kansas-1), Justin Amash (Michigan-3), Walter Jones (North Carolina-3) and David Schweikert (Arizona-5 but the district will be relabeled the 6^th in 2013) off of key committee assignments. Amash claims leadership did not even contact him before the news became public about him losing his committee position. Some Republican lawmakers even faced establishment favored candidates in the 2012 primary.

In terms of the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans cannot win and will blink first. If they make no deal, they will get the blame. If there is a compromise and taxes do go up (even by a small percentage), they will lose the base. If they let Obama get everything he wants and it fails or by some miracle works, they will get the blame if it goes bad and certainly will not get the credit if the situation improves. If not careful, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs, but that may be a stretch at this point.

The 2016 field looks promising for Republicans such as Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Remember though, the GOP establishment vehemently opposed these candidates in the primary of 2010. With maybe the exceptions of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, which GOP “establishment” candidate looks promising for the election? The bench is made up of non-established candidates. Which may be good for the GOP because the establishment choice has been 1-5 since 1976. The only year they won was in 1988, which was probably because of the Reagan Realignment. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016, I do not see how Republicans can win.

If 2008 was a realigning election, 2016 will go to the Democrats. If it was a deviation, the GOP will win the White House. Republicans need to get their act together and move quickly to attract new voters, but stay on principle. If the GOP cannot, they will be weak after 2020. They will not have the chance to be as strong as they were on the national level in the 1980s, mid 1990s thru early 2000s, until 2046.

2012 Electoral Map Prediction: Who will win?

2012-11-05T19:18:00.000-05:00

Since two weeks ago, there have been slight changes, most helping Mitt Romney, but is it enough to make him the 45th President of the United States?

There are three states that I cannot comfortably project. Flipping a coin in determining these states is probably just as good of a way to determine them. One of them by itself will determine the election, so the other two do not really matter. New Hampshire went from "lean Romney" to toss up although there probably is a slight Romney edge. Same for Obama in Iowa, although this has become toss up because of the four major newspaper endorsements in the state all went to Romney.

Ohio: Almost everything indicates a slight Obama advantage, although there has been significant progress by the GOP to counter the Early Voting/Absentee Ballot advantage Democrats had back in 2008. The "260,000" vote margin Obama won by back in '08 has now gone down to within 3,000 vote swing either way. Republicans generally cast more votes on Election Day than Democrats so this would indicate an Romney advantage. Obama's ground game is better though (as we witnessed its juggernaut status in 2008) so this could still allow him to squeak out a victory. Ohio will be the closest it has been compared to the last three elections. It will be tight and whoever wins Ohio wins the White House.

The other advantage that has helped Romney is some blue states. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota are all within two points based on some polling. Give the slight advantage to Obama in these four states because of the historical advantage Democrats have. It is possible that Romney could win one to four of these states (and Ohio wouldn't matter, although that would probably go to Romney then as well). Ideology in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has changed since the last presidential election and the GOP have an excellent ground game in Wisconsin as scene in 2012 Recall Election of Governor Scott Walker et al.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are most likely going to Romney. I have them as pink because they are considered toss-up, but it is relatively safe to place them in the Romney camp. Nevada is the same for Obama.

In Colorado, more Republicans voted early and the state now has more registered Republicans than Democrats. Both were the opposite back in 2008. While Colorado is considered a toss-up, this data strongly suggests a Romney victory in three of the four corner states.

Essentially what I am concluding is after spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours analyzing this election, the only prediction I can make is that it will not be an Obama landslide. Do not be surprised if Romney has a landslide tomorrow and do not be surprised if Obama or Romney squeak by. Obama either barely holds on or Romney is the 45th President of the United States.

-Christian N.

State of the Presidential Election, Two weeks to go.

2012-10-23T18:43:00.001-04:00

Before the first debate, President Obama had enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency, even if he lost all the toss up states. Since the first debate, the Mitt Romney portrayed by the media has not been scene and voters now see him in a new light. Mitt Romney now has stronger favorability ratings than President Obama. Countless polls show people stating Mitt Romney can handle the economy better than President Obama. People watching the debates saw caring individual, who was looking presidential, and on top of his game. Not some rich guy out of touch with Americans looking to help his buddies save money by shipping jobs overseas.

If the election were held today, Obama would narrowly win:

The "Toss Up" states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida will go Mitt Romney on election night. New Hampshire and Colorado are seeing movement toward Mitt Romney and I would place these states on his side as well.

Iowa and Nevada are showing strong early voting/absentee ballots toward Obama and while there is time for Mitt Romney to make up ground (Rasmussen has Iowa at 48-48) President Obama has the advantage in these two states.

President Obama now has one firewall left in order to win a second term, Ohio. Almost all polls now have this state within the margin of error, so it's hard to say which way it will go, but as of right now, President Obama has a razor thin advantage only because he was leading there for awhile.

While no Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio, ironically Romney doesn't need it (but it would be his easiest way to win).

This firewall can be breeched three ways.

1) Win in Iowa and Nevada. As I've stated earlier here, this appears to be a slight uphill battle.

2) Win Ohio. Self-explanitory.

3) Steal Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan.

In terms of option 3, Mitt Romney is the best candidate for Republicans to win Pennsylvania since 1988. Pennsylvanians like a big government, moderate republican. Tom Ridge, Tom Corbett, and Arlen Specter are the type of people that can win in a state where 50% of the people are registered Democrats.

Pennsylvania now also has other factors making it in play. Many blue-collar families from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Northeast (Scranton region) are registered democrats, but are furious at this administration. One factor is because of the new resource of natural gas being drilled from the Marcellus Shale. Some polls show Mitt Romney winning in Pennsylvania and another moderate, Tom Smith (maybe Pennsylvania's like politicians named Tom) could be an upset choice for the GOP to win a Senate seat (over Senator Bob Casey, Jr.).

What determines this state is whether the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Chester, Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery), Pittsburgh , and in the Northeast show up to vote. If they do, this counters the the urban vote, and will be a victory for Romney. If they stay home (which would be a half vote for Romney compared to 2008) Obama still wins the state.

Wisconsin. Since Governor Scott Walker survived the recall and Paul Ryan is the Vice Presidential nominee, this state is in play. It hasn't gone to the GOP since 1984 so Obama still has the advantage here, but it will be close.

Minnesota and Michigan. They are the least likely to go to Romney, but if this is a landslide statement election, they will. I have scene internal polling where Obama is leading in Minnesota by two points, with still enough undecided voters to sway it to Romney.

Even the liberal states of Connecticut and Oregon (which will go to Obama) don't even have a double digit lead for the President.

So if the election were held on October 23, President Obama would barely win. There are still two weeks to go and the momentum is clearly with Governor Romney. This will be a tight election.

So tight as a matter of fact, a region in Maine or Omaha could decide this. Nebraska and Maine do not award all of their Electoral Votes to the statewide winner. They award them via congressional district winners with two votes going to the statewide winner. [Note: Electoral votes are given to states via amount of Congressional Districts + the two Senators they have].

Before 2008 in Nebraska and Maine, the statewide winner won all congressional districts. In 2008, Barack Obama won Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (Omaha) awarding him one electoral vote from the state. Since 2010, the district has been gerrymandered so it's unlikely Obama carries the district again.

Maine's 2nd congressional district (mostly the northern region of the state) is very tight. In fact, Romney may win it. So if it is a 269-269 type scenario (where Ohio and NH go to Obama and Iowa and Nevada go to Romney or the map shown in my previous post), BUT Obama takes Omaha or Romney wins part of Maine, this election could be determined by one congressional district.

-Christian N.

A Tie In The Electoral College: 269 Obama - 269 Romney

2012-07-16T00:41:00.000-04:00

In a time of great divide in the United States, could we afford another 2000 Florida-like situation? Could it be possible that 2012 will be more controversial than 2000? While it is only July and we are 110+ days outside of the election (practically an eternity for America) there is the possibility that the next President of the United States will be chosen by the House of Representatives as neither President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will earn the magic number of 270 delegates to secure the election.

The 2012 election will most likely be chosen by 12 "swing" states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Outside of those states, President Obama currently has the advantage meaning Mitt Romney will need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates if he is to win it all. So if Ohio or Florida is called early for Obama on election night, he is virtually guaranteed a second term.

Looking further, some of these 12 states are close in the polls, but have not been "swinging" in recent Presidential Elections. Pennsylvania has not gone to a Republican since 1988. While Mitt Romney is the type of Republican who could win the Keystone State and the GOP may have the best chance since 1988, a semi-popular Democrat (Sen. Bob Casey) is up for reelection against an unknown candidate Tom Smith. So if Obama can't ride the coattails of Senator Casey and win in my home state, I'm popping open the champagne bottle before the Mountain Time Zone is finished voting.

Wisconsin falls into the same category. While it was close in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic nominee has claimed the state in the past six Presidential elections. In order for the 269/269 scenario to work, this state needs to flip to Romney. If Governor Scott Walker can survive the recall and a recent poll shows Romney ahead 47% - 44%, the Badger State can turn red.

Obama appears to be semi-comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and is slightly ahead in Michigan according to most polls collected by Real Clear Politics. Iowa, the state that literally was the launchpad for Obama against Hillary Clinton in the primary (and supported him over McCain in November) will be tight on election night. Rasmussen Reports gives Romney the slight edge in Iowa.

Nevada went to Bush twice, but to Obama in 2008. The Nevada Republican Party is literally in a civil war between Ron Paul supporters and the state establishment. Because of this turmoil, I see Obama taking this state again. New Mexico and Colorado have become more liberal this past decade (although Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) needs to be the blueprint for the Republican Party to attract more Hispanic voters). Since Sen. Bennett (D-CO) survived the Tea Party wave of 2010, Obama should be able to claim two of the four corner states.

North Carolina, the state hosting the Democratic National Convention. The host site can be kind a few months after the streamers and balloons leave, but I expect this state to be a disaster for the DNC. People are skipping the convention and the recent divide between the national party/local voters on some key issues will make the Tar Heels wear a Wolfpack Red in November.

Virginia. With the exception of Wisconsin, this could be the most controversial call in the map especially if North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida go to Romney because Virginia would be ignoring the regional/demographic trend [Note: If Wisconsin and Virginia are wrong on the map above, Mitt Romney earns 272 delegates].

Before Obama won the state in 2008, the last time Virginia danced with the left in a Presidential Election was all the way back in 1964 with President Johnson. The Real Clear Politics Average has Obama with a 3 point advantage over Romney (Rasmussen has the state tied, poll within the RCP link) and Virginia likes playing "bi-polar" politics. In other words: Virginia likes to vote for a Governor and President from a different party.

In 2000, Virginia voted for President Bush, yet voted Mark Warner (D) as Governor in 2002. 2004 went to Bush again, but felt blue shortly thereafter as it voted for Tim Kaine (D) in 2006. Two years later, the state voted for President Obama and in 2010, (if you're following the trend) they overwhelmingly voted for the the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell [Note: Virginia Governors are limited to one term]. So expect this bi-polar trend to continue giving this state to Obama in November.

If all that plays out, the Congressional races just became way more important because neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney acquire the needed 270 delegates. If that happens, the House Chamber votes (not individually, but by state) and whichever candidate gets 26 states, gets the Presidency. This could be extremely controversial because Obama could easily win Pennsylvania on election day, yet lose that state on the House vote because there are more Republicans than Democrats representing Pennsylvania. A similar event happened in the 1824 Presidential Election. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, but it is a possibility.

-Christian N.

Map was created at: http://270towin.com

Wildlife Hypocrisy In The Obama Administration

2012-05-14T16:57:00.000-04:00

The Obama Administration are hypocrites when it comes to wildlife. Readers of my website will recently recall my article about the future of the Scimitar Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle. These animals total over 60,000 in Texas, yet are extinct in the wild in Africa. Since the order took effect for these three species, ranchers have told me stories about how animals that are injured (such as a broken leg) CANNOT BE TOUCHED by anyone since no federal permits have been issued and the animals are suffering. These three beautiful animals may not exist beyond this decade should the United States Fish and Wildlife Order remain in effect.

Now there is more troubling news as it effects our national symbol, the Bald Eagle. Some may recall, the Obama Administration recently allowed two Bald Eagles to be hunted by a Native American tribe in Wyoming. Now it appears the United States Wish and Wildlife Service has declared war on the Bald Eagles. In a new statement, the Wish and Wildlife Service will now allow the killing of Bald Eagles in the name of "green energy" for the country.

So President Barack Obama and his Administration wants to "defend" three animals in Texas as they order these species cannot be harmed or touched without a federal permit, yet total over 60,000. Then the same people will allow the killing of our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, which totals less than 10,000 nesting pairs and tries to loosen hunting restrictions on this animal. The Obama Administration are hypocrites when it comes to wildlife and will do anything to support their agenda and punish the groups who are against it.

-Christian

Sources:

Pennsylvania Primary 4/24/12

2012-04-24T22:10:00.000-04:00

All Percents have not reported yet, but so far:

Former Democrat, Tom Smith is chosen as the GOP contender to challenge Senator Bob Casey.

Congressman Tim Holden (D-17) is getting crushed right now in the primary. He voted against ObamaCare.

Union backed Congressman Mark Critz has defeated Congressman Altimire who voted against ObamaCare. The two districts were combined following Pennsylvania losing one Congressional Seat from the 2010 Census.

Senator and GOP Majority Leader, Dominic Pileggi, was losing early in the primary, but has since retaken the lead.

State Representative in the 167th District, Duane Milne, appears to have defeated his challenger in the primary.

Other statewide races: John Maher appears to have defeated Frank A. Pinto for Auditor General.

Kathleen Kane narrowly leads Patrick Murphy in the Democrat Party for Attorney General.

Looking ahead into November, The Congressional Districts 3-7 are looking good for the GOP (based on voter turnout) as they are leading against the amount of votes their challengers received on the Democrat Ballot.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-8) should be concerned as his competitor has received more votes than he has.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-11) is leading in primary votes compared to the other party.

In other interesting news: There are less votes for President Obama in the primary than for the candidates for Attorney General in the Democrat Party. Also the GOP leading in presidential primary votes compared to the Obama.

Ted Talks, Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun

2012-02-07T16:10:00.003-05:00

Four Star General, Peter van Uhm, the highest ranking member of the Royal Netherlands Army, shares why sometimes you need to have a gun at Ted Talks, Amsterdam. Van Uhm said, “Sometimes only the gun can stand between good and evil,” He goes on further, “And that is why I took up the gun. Not to shoot, not to kill, not to destroy. But to stop those who would do evil. To protect the vulnerable. To defend democratic values.”

The future of the Scimitar Horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax

2012-01-30T00:04:00.005-05:00

One of the 60 Minutes segments this week talked about a situation that I am very familiar with. It reported on how the Scimitar Horned Oryx, the Dama Gazelle, and the Addax were saved from extinction in Africa by sending them to ranches mainly located in Texas.

Over 30 years ago, the few remaining animals of each species were sent to ranches located in Texas and zoos even sent their remaining animals of each breed to the same ranches in the hopes of preventing them from becoming extinct. Today, there are now of total of over 50,000 Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax frolicking around Texas. In fact, should someone want to see these animals, their only realistically going to find them in Texas and not so much of their native lands in Northern Africa. What helps keep these species alive are hunters who pay the ranches thousands of dollars for one of these animals. Sacrificing one can save over 10 others. The ranches then use the money to buy feed and help maintain a suitable habitat for them. It has turned into a $1 billion dollar industry.

Now the three animals are facing the greatest threat of extinction from an animal rights group called, Friends of Animals, and Priscilla Feral, who leads the organization. They recently won fighting in the courts and pressuring the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to where the Scimitar Horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and the Addax now need Federal Permits in order to hunt them. Essentially all the funding that helped save the animals, is now cut, and if the ranches cannot fund their survival, they will become extinct. Feral essentially claimed to 60 Minutes that these animals should not be in Texas and should be back in Africa. She fails to realize that Texas in the place that saved them. Friends of Animals don't realize that they will be the downfall of the animals they are "trying" to save. The 60 Minutes segment (which is fair to both sides) can be viewed here:

The United States Fish and Wildlife order can be read here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-05/pdf/2012-23.pdf

More information about the topic can be also found here:

http://thecentershot.wordpress.com/tag/scimitar-horned-oryx/

http://www.texashunting411.com/scimitar-horned-oryx-addax-dama-gazelle-esa-permits-needed-now/

I love these animals (I have scene all of them), and I want them to succeed and thrive. The only way that can happen for the next 100 years (and most likely more) is in Texas and the ranches need the money from hunting in order to save them. Friends of Animals and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife will be responsible for the extinction of these animals within my lifetime should this order remain in effect.

-Christian

Update: Here is a Twitter conversation I had with Pricilla Feral:

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal You are about to destroy three species of animals. They cannot survive in Africa under current regimes. Texas is their only hope.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Wrong. We reintroduced oryxes to Senegal in 1999. Thriving in protected Reserves over thousands of acres.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal The ranches in Texas are thousands of acres and more importantly, are safe from poachers. 50,000 in Texas, several hundred in Africa.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal B/c of you, who will provide the money to care for the 50,000 in Texas or do you just want them to die???

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Let the oryxes live out their lives on ranches or decent sanctuaries because on April 5, 2012 it's illegal to harm them.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal I have been 2 Senegal, other African nations, and ranches in Texas. The safest place 4 the Oryx, Addax, and DG to survive is in Texas.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Ridiculous and I was in Senegal 3 wks ago along with your obscene hunting ranches.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal but they are not going to gain in population on Texas ranches because no one will care for them anymore meaning nearly all will die.

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics Earth to you: Hunting ranches are not safe for animals hunted. In Senegal, numbers are increasing on protected lands.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal why did their populations drop in Africa??? One reason is Qaddafi used them as missile practice. Still going to be harmed over there

@pferal Priscilla Feral: @CRENpolitics No. Oryxes were hunted to extinction by French trophy hunters. That's over.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal how many in Senegal are there???? And by protected, how well guarded? Poachers still can "harm" them very easily in Senegal.

@CRENpolitics Christian N: @pferal first of all, I never said I was a hunter, that was wrong of you to assume. Again, how many live in Africa?

---She never states how many of the three animals remain in Africa. Also notice how she only mentions the Oryx and not the Addax or Dama Gazelle which are also affected? By Feral's logic, every American whether they are of European, African, Asian or any descent should be sent back to their "native" lands even though these species (like many Americans) have been here for generations.

Images:

oryx.jpg

The Consequences of Pulling Out of Iraq in 2011

2011-12-22T11:39:00.001-05:00

Less than one week ago, the last remaining United States troops in Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait. I am neutral in whether it was the right time to pull out our troops mainly because I do not know what else we could have accomplished while remaining there (without seriously changing our role), however, Iraq is not ready to govern itself.

As we left, Iraq has no standing Air Force meaning anyone can cross over their skies such as Iran or even Israel. In fact, one of the top Iraqi military leaders, Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari, said Iraq would not be ready to defend its own borders and air space until 2020. Eight years is more than enough time for Iran to turn Iraq into another Lebanon or Syria, essentially another puppet state for the radical regime. I believe the main reason we entered Iraq was to contain Iran (Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east) just like Iran is doing to Israel with Syria, Lebanon, Gaza Strip, and now maybe even in Egypt.

To make matters worse, the day after the United States military presence was non existent, the Iraqi government started making moves to possibly reignite sectarian violence. Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, issued an arrest warrant for Vice President, Tariq al-Hasemi, who is Sunni. The Vice President is now in hiding from Iraqi officials in the northern semiautonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and al-Maliki is now ordering Kurdistan officials to turn over the Vice President. Surely the coalition government is bound to collapse over this incident and who knows whats in store for the government. All we can do is hope this does not turn into another dictatorship.

Lastly, as reported today, deadly bombings are now starting to happen as over 50 people have been killed in the most recent attack. No matter what day, month, or year we pulled out, this was bound to happen. While it is not a coincidence, all we can do is hope the Iraqis can find the strength to pull through these terrorist attacks and not revert to another civil war. If that happens, it will not stop until a dictator is once again in power or the nation is divided up into three regions which I don't see happening.

The United States did remove an extremely evil man from power, Saddam Hussein, and did an amazing job with the "troop surge" ordered in 2007. Pulling out of Iraq in 2011 was premature if we wanted the Iraq experiment to succeed so they could have liberty and be able to defend it. While the 2020 mark was way too long into the future, it was not ideal to pull out now, especially because their defense forces are not ready. If Iraq goes back to its historical ways, history could blame President Obama because of his failure to secure a proper deal for the United States military to remain in Iraq for a couple more years. President Bush was constantly in contact with the Iraqi government to secure deals, but, Obama did not show the same due diligence. All we can do now, is hope Iraq can get the proper resources to secure itself quickly and not have the coalition government based on religious factions, collapse.

-Christian N.

Sources:

Why isn't the Mainstream Media covering Egypt now?

2011-12-21T10:05:00.001-05:00

Almost a year ago, I wrote an article about the dangers of the Arab Spring. Mubarak, the former leader of Egypt, was an evil dictator, but did bring relative stability to the region. What I feared, as well as others, plus some Egyptians I know now living in the United States was more radical people would take over in the region making it less stable and giving less freedom to their citizens. As the riots in the streets happened, the Mainstream Media praised them and talked about how the Muslim Brotherhood were "moderate" and a democratically elected Egypt would be great with them in charge.

Flash forward 11 months later and things are way worse now than one year ago and are way worse the geniuses in the Mainstream Media predicted for the "new" Mid East. As the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom reported, the Egyptian military (the same military which the Mainstream Media wanted to throw out Mubarak) is now beating people at will and destroying their property.

Warning, images and video after the break may be disturbing and not appropriate for some to view:

Tahir Square, Egypt

Bahrain

Video of Egyptian Military attacking people in Egypt

More photos can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075683/Egypt-violence-Female-protesters-brutally-beaten-metal-poles-vicious-soldiers.html

These photos/video are not from the beginning of Arab Spring. They happened this month after the elections in Egypt. Have you scene any coverage (or non stop like it was in the Spring) about this recent news? Of course not, as it would not fit their agenda to help "paint" a nice image of the Muslim Brotherhood and the "new" and "better" Egypt and Mid East.

All I will say is, the world is lucky if the new boss is the same as the old boss because the Muslim Brotherhood looks a lot worse than Mubarak right now.

-Christian

Sources:

Now Taking Bets on the Next Dictator to go

2011-12-18T23:54:00.002-05:00

Tonight it is reported the North Korea Dictator, Kim Jong-IL died at the age of 69. 2011 can be remembered for many things, one of them being for the amount of dictators who died. From the death of Osama Bin Laden to Muammar Gaddafi, 2011 has been a transition of power, but not necessarily for the better. I'll be writing shortly about the latest news in Egypt proving the Arab Spring to be a disaster like some predicted 9 months ago.

Kim Jong-un, the son of the Team American star dictator, will probably not make the region more "stable" than it currently is. In fact, since he is under 30, military leaders may not accept him as the next leader of North Korea which could start a whole new controversy in a nation that has 4th largest military in the world and has nuclear weapons. No one, not even China, knows what will happen within the most isolationist nation on Earth. Certainly, the United States, Japan, and South Korea are on heightened alert status and will be monitoring the situation closely. As the world changes, Asia could be next. China is certainly rising as scene with its military buildup, scaring neighboring nations such as Vietnam and Taiwan. Kim Jong-Il's death may bring less stability in a world struggling for power, yet it is great news the dictator is gone.

Over 3 evil leaders have been killed this year, as well as other controversial leaders killed/removed from power. Who will be next before 2012? 1-5 odds I'll take Fidel Castro, 3-5 odds is Hugo Chavez both because of their health. Wouldn't it be nice for two more "pals" to leave earth? 5-1 odds says Raul Castro, the brother of Fidel. 9-1 is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. 20-1 odds has Bashar al-Assad of Syria, but his stock could rise quickly should NATO/US be allowed to intervene or if the opposition gains more ground. Finally at 100-1 is Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan.

There you have folks, another evil dictator gone in 2011, but now more uncertainty for the future of the world.

-Christian

Sources:

1) http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-7/kim-jong-il-team-america.jpg

Cut, Cap, and Balance the Budget Pledge

2011-06-16T22:01:00.003-04:00

Let Freedom Ring and 30+ other organizations have recently sponsored a new pledge to cut, cap, and balance the budget. Back in 2009, I worked for Let Freedom Ring and helped launch Pledge to Read where over 100 members of Congress agreed to read the health care bill before voting in favor for it.*

Once again, we will find out which politicians are truly on the people's side to bring back sanity to Washington.

(Blog Postings of mine about Pledge to Read can be found here and here)

Late this evening (6/16/11), radio host Mark Levin interviewed Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who mentioned the pledge and is working hard to get fellow members of Congress to sign it as well. At the time of this posting, Let Freedom Ring's Pledge website indicated only Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) had signed the pledge, but, based on the interview, it appears Senator DeMint has signed it as well.

Shortly after Mark Levin signed off his radio show, over 1,000 citizens signed the pledge (only roughly 100 signed it before the interview) with Levin stating a personal goal of 10,000 people signing it before he began his radio show friday radio show at 6:00 pm. The pledge was also posted on Mark Levin's facebook page.

As the national debt soars over $14 trillion, America will shortly reach its limit on the debt ceiling before it begins defaulting on its debt, and budget shortfalls in huge government programs such as Medicare, it will be interesting to see where elected members of Congress stand on the pledge and the future of our nation.

If you would like to sign the pledge, learn more about it, and/or would like to send it to your Senators and Representative, please visit: http://www.cutcapbalancepledge.com/

* note: I stopped working for Let Freedom Ring and the end of the summer of 2009 to pursue academics.

-Christian N.

Memorial Day

2011-05-30T00:17:00.002-04:00

Today we may be relaxing at the beach, grilling food with the family, and/or just enjoying the day off from school, but, we should all take a moment and be grateful for the people who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation that allows us to enjoy the freedoms we choose to exercise on this Memorial Day.

God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and God Bless the greatest nation the Earth has ever scene.

Image: http://memorialday2011.com/MemorialDay.jpg

Donald Trump for President???

2011-04-08T23:51:00.008-04:00

Over the past few months, Donald Trump has been saying in multiple interviews and TV Shows he has been thinking about running for President in 2012 because he loves his country. He's even used his own TV shows such as Apprentice and Donald Trump's Fabulous World of Golf to talk about his possible campaign.

What puzzles me about this multi-billionaire entrepreneur, who has his name on businesses from casinos to golf courses to water bottles, is the "two headed" approach about his "possible" Presidential Bid. One side, it does it seem he loves this country and wants to save it from the huge issues we face that could easily collapse us. The other side makes it seem his "bid" is just a stint to keep his name (and more importantly his brand) in our minds and to raise the ratings of his TV shows in a magnificent advertising/PR stint. I will approach this issue three ways from the good, the bad, and the mysterious (you thought I was going to say ugly instead of mysterious didn't you????).

First, The Good

Donald Trump is a capitalist and it has been awhile since we have had a true capitalist in the White House. He understands the economy just as well as anyone else on Earth and knows how to rescue a business after it has gone bankrupt multiple times. Maybe he could do the same for our country. With him having little to no political experience, this will also help him when Americans feel it's being in politics long enough that corrupts people and gets them "out of touch" with the average person.

On The Issues

He also gets it on some issues when no one else in Washington does. When it comes to our image in the World, he claims "We're no longer respected." Looking at the new superpower, China, he's not afraid to share his opinion saying "They are not our friend...[Chinese people have] told me very, very distinctly that they cannot believe how stupid our representatives are in the United States. They cannot believe that they can continue to take all our jobs...through the manipulation of the currency, of their currency, they make it almost impossible for our great companies to compete." He explains further, "China should have a currency which is a much higher value relative to the dollar and other things. What they’re doing is keeping it low, artificially low. And I mean seriously artificial. I don’t just mean a little bit low. I mean major low...The fact is that the Chinese are taking advantage of our country."

He gets it. China is making it impossible for America to compete with Chinese prices even though our quality is much better than Chinese manufacturing. His solution?

Trump said, "I would tell China that if you don’t straighten out your manipulation of the currency — and I mean fast; I mean really fast — we are going to tax your products 25%. Now, what that will do is two things. Number one: Immediately will start doing our own manufacturing. We don’t have to make toys that are coated with lead paint in China. We can make good toys in Alabama and North Carolina."

He also has a very interesting and unique opinion on America having troops in developed countries such as South Korea, "Now, two months ago when bombs started getting lobbed [into South Korea] by North Korea and we send this incredible aircraft carrier, the George Washington and 17 destroyers heading right to North Korea, all of a sudden [South Korea] announce that they are friends of our country. It’s a lot of crap. They make billions of dollars of, let’s call it profit, off the United States...billions of dollars. Why aren’t they paying for protection? We protect South Korea [and they should pay for that]."

The last issue Donald Trump has strong opinions about is OPEC, which sets the standards of the amount of oil production and the cost of the oil per barrel. On Opec, Trump says, "OPEC has got a monopoly... they have 12 men, in this case all men, they sit around the table, any time there’s a minor incident in the world they raise the price of oil because, you know, they figure, well, nobody’s gonna call. When oil goes over $[1]40 a barrel it’s almost impossible for our country to do well. That’s what it is. You look at oil, we’re up to a hundred now, we’re heading up, they keep raising it, when oil goes over $[1]40, watch what happens. And the stock market is gonna end up being a big Ponzi scheme because the only thing that’s doing well in this country is the stock market"

On these issues, he gets it. It is also why in a recent poll he is tied for second place with 17% of Republican primary voters in a field of GOP candidates.

The Bad

Memo to anyone planning on running for President. It may not be a good idea to have a Roast on national television, such as on Comedy Central, as comedians totally rip you apart and there is nothing more unprofessional than Mike "The Situation" from MTV's Jersey Shore trying to poke fun at a possible President of the United States. The roast has some quotes that could easily rival Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my House" moment on SNL. The roast screams he is doing the "Presidential Bid" purely for PR purposes for his show and his brand.

Trump has to stop claiming he is a republican. He is however, a capitalist, which he should use to his advantage. The reason why he is not a republican is because anyone "right of center" would never donate $50,000 to a campaign for political office to someone like Rahm Emmanuel, the former chief of staff of President Obama and now the Mayor of Chicago.

A republican would never claim in 2007 that Nancy Pelosi, when she was Speaker of the House, as "The Best" and also claim, "I get along with everybody. I'm very proud of that," Trump also said, "I get along with all of these people." George W. Bush thought he got along with "both sides" as Governor of Texas and thought he could do the same in Washington, look how well that worked for him.

Is this a Democrat whose heart has changed? After all, the "gold standard" person of Conservatism was a flaming liberal before he switched parties. Maybe Trump did the same as Ronald Reagan, but continue to read on which makes me think otherwise.

The Issues
Besides the issues I labeled above, does anyone know his opinion on Abortion, Gay Marriage, The 2nd Amendment, or other issues that probably won't be changed during a Presidency, but, is the sole issue for a sizable amount of people when they vote? He is also going to have to share his opinion on many other issues that he may not care too much about, but, they have to be addressed.

His image could hurt him. As Americans struggle, can people who see a wealthy boss who's most known for "firing people" on his show and has the intro of "Money, Money, Money.........Money" showing greed and giving him the appearance of being a jerk going to help him? He may have to try and change his image before primary season.

The Mysterious

Two issues make this whole bid mysterious. One is his recent status of now being the most famous "Birther." They are people who doubt/don't think President Obama was born in Hawaii because he has not shown his Birth Certificate (Obama did show a Certificate of Live Birth, which is different) and since he has no proof of being born in the United States (or should solid proof arise he was born in a different country) he cannot be President of the United States.

Trump has recently claimed that he has investigators in Hawaii, and they cannot believe the evidence they have so far that indicate Obama may have been born in Kenya or Indonesia. Before this claim, Trump thought Obama may have been scared to show his Birth Certificate because it may have had something on it he didn't want the American People to know, such as him being a Muslim. Now he has gone one step further and is almost claiming he has enough evidence that would make the Watergate Scandal look like a slow news day.

The other mysterious issue is how long has he been planning the Presidential Bid??? It has just been reported by RadarOnline that Trump2012.com was registered by Donald Trump back in 2004. How could someone who "recently" (as in the past 3 years) is "deeply concerned" about his country and have a Presidential campaign website registered over two presidential election cycles ago? Meanwhile since he registered that site, he has been campaigning for liberal democrats and now claims to always have been a republican?

Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump is, he will certainly (albeit probably briefly) change the political landscape should he decide to be ambitious and run for President of the United States. Trump claims he will announce his decision before or during the month of June.

-Christian N.

Sources

Libya, Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the Mid East is on fire.

2011-03-20T12:55:00.001-04:00

Two months ago (last blog posting), I created a map of what I thought the Middle East could become under the power of one ruler. I dubbed it the "New Persian Empire". Maybe I should have called it a different name, however, the possibility of the entire region (and even further, possibly including Morocco and other nations I didn't put "within" the boarders) being ruled by one person, a Caliphate is now more real than ever.

MARCH 19, 2011

OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... MARCH 19, 2003 BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

I'm torn on us being involved in Libya. I do think Colonel "nutjob" Gaddafi should be killed or brought to justice because of previous crimes he committed such as the Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie and the bombing of the German nightclub that killed many Americans. If President Obama launched a Tomahawk or ordered a B-2 Bombing raid over his palace, I'd say "bravo" and we would all move on. I do not think we should be meddling with a nation's civil war, especially because we do not have a defined mission. Must Gaddafi go or just stop killing his own citizens or do we want an East Libya and a West Libya?

If the Obama Administration, NATO, and the United Nations were serious about removing Gaddafi, the no fly zone would have happened weeks ago. Also, a No Fly Zone alone will not accomplish a goal of removing Gaddafi, or even him stopping a civil war. As we saw in Kosovo in the 90s, you need troops on the ground, and we all know we can't afford a 3rd front. This leads to the third main issue, how long will we be involved? There is a difference between launching a couple hundred missiles and a few B-2 bombing raids (as CNN is reporting) taking out military targets and us being involved for months or years.

The whole Mid East is on fire, which is why I don't like how we are picking and choosing our fights. What's next, we have to protect the citizens in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Bahrain who are being killed by their governments while citizens are unarmed? Again, I want Gaddafi killed, but I do not want a 3rd (or more) war, especially in the Mid East.

Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the New Persian Empire

2011-01-31T15:29:00.000-05:00

With the recent riots in Tunisia, Egypt, and now appears to be heading to Jordan and possibly Saudi Arabia I can only come to one conclusion.

Iran wants a new empire, to control the Suez Canal and almost all the World's Oil to crush The United States economically (since it can't defeat us militarily) and completely surround Israel to destroy them as they have stated numerous times.

Of the Countries within the bold boarder, only Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq are mostly/completely sovereign from Iran. The other nations now have radicals within them attempting to take over (Egypt, Pakistan, Tunisia, Yemen) and the rest are puppet governments funded by Iran and/or are strong allies of them.

In the case of Egypt, yes Mubarak is a dictator, however, he is an ally of the United States. Yes, Egypt should have free and open elections, but the group leading the riots, the Muslim Brotherhood, has publicly stated that Israel should prepare for war against the "new" Egypt. This will be a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" only that the new boss will suppress more rights of the people of Egypt, become an enemy of the United States and Israel, and most likely be a puppet of Iran.

This is why holding Egypt as an ally is key. If we lose it, all of Northern Africa goes into chaos because the superpower in the region fell, as well as the Middle East, with Iran ready to take over the region.

This is why we need to get off of foreign oil, drill our own (plus with other solutions), because if we don't, we could be next in the category of chaos.