Author: Patrick

Short Bio: I started blogging about politics in 2006, as a populist, skeptical left of center type, with a blog called simply, "The Populist."I suspect, but cannot prove; that my blog might have been hacked by some evil neoconservatives. I cannot prove that at all and also too, around the same time. Hackers from China where attacking wordpress blogs. I believe either the Neocons or the Chinese got my site. I don't know honestly know which.Either way, by 2007, I began to see that I really did not fit within the Democrat Party and liberal circles and after my blog was hacked; I created a blog called "Political Byline" and I kept writing; first as a Centrist and then as a Conservative PopulistFor my long bio, see the "About Me" section on this blog.

A very good assessment of Detroit

I might not agree with this guy’s politics; but he is pretty much dead on with his assessment of Detroit and how it is exploited during elections.

You have to feel for the people of Detroit. The rest of the country mostly only pays attention to the city for the wrong reasons – say, when the Lions are setting records for competitive futility or some photographer starts jonesing for his own “ruins porn” project. Oh, and during election cycles, when Michigan becomes one of the battleground states that could decide the next leader of the free world. All of a sudden candidates from both parties descend on Detroit to shake their heads over its decline and promise to do something about it just as soon as its people vote for them. – Source: How Bernie Sanders & Ted Cruz are both misrepresenting Detroit – Salon.com

Go read that whole thing, it is pretty good. Again, I do not agree Salon.com’s politics, but this article is right on.

Video: My voting experience

As I wrote before, I went to vote. This is how things went:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgqjU6rgaQM

As you can, it was rather uneventful. I shot this to prove to those who enjoy watching these undercover videos; that not all places, especially in Democratic Party “strongholds”, that in itself is a myth; voter fraud takes place. Now, it was early, but, around there, nothing happens, at all.

 

Michael Bloomberg on Presidential run, “Nope, not me!”

A pretty smart move, as it is a little late in the game now.

Via Bloomberg report Michael Bloomberg writes:

My parents taught me about the importance of giving back, and public service has been an important part of my life. After 12 years as mayor of New York City, I know the personal sacrifices that campaigns and elected office require, and I would gladly make them again in order to help the country I love.

I’ve always been drawn to impossible challenges, and none today is greater or more important than ending the partisan war in Washington and making government work for the American people — not lobbyists and campaign donors. Bringing about this change will require electing leaders who are more focused on getting results than winning re-election, who have experience building small businesses and creating jobs, who know how to balance budgets and manage large organizations, who aren’t beholden to special interests — and who are honest with the public at every turn. I’m flattered that some think I could provide this kind of leadership.

But when I look at the data, it’s clear to me that if I entered the race, I could not win. I believe I could win a number of diverse states — but not enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the presidency.

In a three-way race, it’s unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress. The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party’s nominee. Party loyalists in Congress — not the American people or the Electoral College — would determine the next president.

A smart move on his part, it is a bit late in the race now to try to start a campaign. This is why Bloomberg is as wealthy as he is; because he is a smart cookie. Bloomberg might be a Democrat, but he is not an idiot. I would say that he might end up a Vice President; but Bloomberg does not strike me as the type to be a second banana. So, I am thinking he will bide his type, until the next election. Because, if Trump is elected, and his Presidency is a huge flop, Bloomberg can run as a Savior-type.

Just my 2 cents.

Related:

Others: CNBC, CANNONFIRE, FiveThirtyEight, Grist, Balloon Juice, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, EveryJoe, The Moderate Voice, Hit & Run, Guardian, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Washington Post, Towleroad, Politico, Advocate, Business Insider, Mediaite, The Gateway Pundit, Outside the Beltway, Gothamist, Yahoo Politics, The Right Scoop, The Atlantic, RedState, Talking Points Memo, Vox, Boing Boing, The Week, Independent Journal Review, NPR, New York Magazine, Washington Times, Mashable, Mother Jones, The Daily Caller and Deadline, more at Mediagazer », No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Post, Weasel Zippers, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Business Insider, The Atlantic and Political Wire, Business Insider, addictinginfo.org

 

 

Quote of the Day

But it raises anew the question: Can the establishment stop Trump?

Answer: It is possible, and we shall know by midnight, March 15. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, winner-take-all primaries, he would likely fall short of the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination on the first ballot.

How could the anti-Trump forces defeat him in Ohio, Florida and Illinois? With the same tactics used to shrink Trump’s victory margins in Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky to well below what polls had predicted.

In every primary upcoming, Trump is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads on radio, TV, cable and social media, paid for by super PACs with hoards of cash funneled in by oligarchs.

But Trump, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent next to nothing on ads answering these attacks, or promoting himself or his issues. He has relied almost exclusively on free media.

Yet no amount of free media can match the shellfire falling on him every hour of every day in every primary state.

Our Principles PAC, backed by Nebraska’s billionaire Ricketts family, has poured millions into trashing Trump. American Future Fund is dumping $1.75 million in Florida this week; Club for Growth $1.5 million.

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer is backing the Conservative Solutions PAC, which has dumped millions into anti-Trump ads and plans to spend more than $7 million between March 1 and 15, with $4 million of that going into Florida. The super PAC pile-on is unprecedented.

How well Trump fares in Michigan and Mississippi, measured against how well he was doing in polls last week, will reveal just how successful super PAC savagery has been in changing hearts and minds.

Can millionaires and billionaires who back open borders, mass immigration, globalization and the disappearance of nation states into transnational collectives overwhelm with their millions spent in ads the patriotic movements that arose this year to the wonderment of America and the world?

Has that proud 18th century boast of Americans, “Here, sir, the people rule!” given way to the rule of the oligarchs?

Quote of the Day

Reacting to the rise of Donald Trump, National Review’s Rich Lowry recently called on the Republican Party to get over its inordinate attachment to Ronald Reagan and his legacy. He suggests Reagan’s heirs must devise new policies to broaden the GOP’s appeal, and (implicitly) take down Trump. 
 
Meanwhile, such conventional Republican candidates for president as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio still lovingly invoke Reagan’s name nearly a quarter of a century since he left office. In Rubio’s words, it is “time for the children of the Reagan Revolution to assume the mantle of leadership.” 
 
By this he means, of course, people like himself, and not his nemesis Donald Trump who has a history of supporting Democrats, and can therefore be assumed not to be a “movement conservative,” and therefore, not a Reaganite.
 
Moreover, the “children of the Reagan Revolution” revile Trump for his opposition to the things they love the most—open borders, fast track trade deals, and military intervention overseas, which they habitually imply Reagan would have supported.

Well, I worked for Ronald Reagan, and Reagan stood for none of those things.

[…]

The establishment is in a dither over Trump lest the rebellion he is leading presage the end of everything it holds most dear—open borders (paving the way for the disappearance of the old United States and its replacement by “the world’s first global society,” in the words of the late publicist Ben Wattenberg), our endless series of optional, illegal wars that bear scant relation to any discernible US interests, the subversion and overthrow of foreign governments, including secular ones in Moslem countries that protect Christian minorities, and wretched trade deals that enrich the oligarchy while leaving the rest of the nation in the lurch. 
 
Meanwhile, sovereign debt is $20 trillion and we have $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
 
Memo to Rich Lowry: the GOP’s problem is not Reagan and his legacy—it is the noxious brew of policies it is wedded to.
 
Still less is the party’s problem Trump—our only political leader who understands that we cannot go on like this.  

In focusing like a laser on establishment policies millions of Americans find intolerable—open borders, fast track and endless wars—he has become their tribune. That is why he is winning. And that is why I suspect that if my old boss Ronald Reagan were with us now, he would not be averse to the prospect of a Trump victory in November.

Is the Republican Party going to lose in 2016?

Please note: this posting was written last night at about 3 o’clock in the morning and I would have uploaded it then, but my blog was down so here’s the post in a few hours late.

——

This is one of those late night postings, that I am dictating from my phone, using voice to text. So, if it comes out not looking like what I normally type, this is why.

Earlier tonight, I had a conversation with my mother about the Democratic Party debates and the Republican Party debates. During this conversation with my mother, my mother made a very astute observation about the debates of both parties.

Basically she told me this, that the Republican Party debates looked like a bunch of kids fighting and arguing up on stage. She also told me that the Democratic Party debates were much more civilized and much more adult like.

Continue reading “Is the Republican Party going to lose in 2016?” →

Guest Voice: No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers

With all the turmoil and uncertainty coming from this election cycle, one constant is already known. U.S. Foreign Policy is well under the control of the international interventionists. The career globalists on the American payroll continue to push for more and greater engagements. Step back and consider the premise. Seldom is there an international involvement that is not eagerly embraced, funded and expanded. Based upon this premise, the record of continued failures is better understood. The systemic decline of a once great nation has developed into a pathetic deterioration of an imperial empire.

Continue reading “Guest Voice: No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers” →

For those wondering about the new header images

I have made it known on this blog in the past and in the bio section of this blog, that I am a very pro-America type of a guy. I also have made it known my admiration of those who choose or were drafted into the United States Military, especially those who served during World War II. I decided that I would add these images, taken for World War II posters, that I found on the net; as a bit of a tribute to those who served.

I hope you like them. 🙂