Thursday, April 28, 2016

What did the German soldiers of WWII think of British, US, Canadian, and Soviet soldiers? James Hinton

James Hinton, U.S. Army 1998-2007, E-6, SFOR 12, OEF IV, OEF VII.
James is a Most Viewed Writer in World Wars.

I read the autobiography of Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud. He was a tank ace (150+ kills) who served on both the East and West fronts, ending the war as a company commander.

He viewed the Soviets as extremely dangerous opponents. According to him they were equal parts competent, hard working, and brutal.

He really didn't have much to say about the Brits, as he wound up facing mostly Americans on the Western Front.

His perspective of Americans was that they were extremely sloppy, incompetent, and cocky. He had no respect for them as soldiers. He was extremely angry at Western Front German troops for being afraid of the Americans, as they utterly failed to compare to the Russians in any way.

Overall, he was incredulous about the Western allies. As far as he was concerned the British, French, and American armies needed to accept German terms as quickly as possible and then join the Germans in fighting the U.S.S.R. He viewed Russia as a singularly dangerous and unstable entity, and could not understand why the Western nations would continue to aid them when it was clear that Germany was being over-run by Ivan.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Ted Cruz and John Kasich Criminal Conspiracy?

by Martin Armstrong

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have actually conspired to commit a federal crime by denying the American people the right to vote. They announced that they will each step aside in one or more states to try to block Trump from achieving the nomination. Kasich is trying to defeat the democratic process because the establishment hates Cruz intensely and Trump to a lesser degree. Cruz and Kasich are now conspiring to steal delegates after a first ballot; nullifying the entire right to vote in the primaries, which is a federal crime. They are effectively saying that the Democratic process is unfair because the people are electing someone who the establishment does not approve of, or in other words — not them. Neither one of these politicians has a legitimate delegate base to seek the nomination. Their solution is to nullify the people’s choice and cheat them at the convention, committing voter fraud.
Let’s make this clear. They will justify themselves by writing a rule and claiming their actions are legal. There is a small problem they do not address — the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that under the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. No rule passed by the delegates for the convention can supersede the constitution. Relying on any rule to circumvent the right to vote is a federal crime. They can write a rule and behead the loser as in some Mayan sports game, but that does not make it constitutional.
The Supreme Court has long ago recognized that the “right to vote” for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, which is protected by Title 18 Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). This statute was enacted following the Civil War and was intended to address efforts to deprive the newly emancipated slaves of the basic rights of citizenship, such as the right to vote. Therefore, we cannot find any other law whose purpose is to further criminalize exactly what Cruz and Kasich plan to do.
The civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 241, has been interpreted to include any effort to derogate any right that flows from the Constitution or from federal law. Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It was used to break up the South’s intent to deprive blacks of their civil rights. Initially, this statute only applied to schemes intended to corrupt elections for federal office, which is exactly on point with the statements of Cruz and Kasich.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. 
18 U.S.C. § 241

This statue 18 U.S.C. § 241 has recently been applied successfully to non-federal elections as well when that state action was a necessary feature of the fraud. This state action requirement can be met not only by the participation of poll officials and notaries public, but by activities of persons who clothe themselves with the appearance of state authority, e.g., with uniforms, credentials, and badges. Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951).
Cruz and Kasich have openly stated that they are conspiring together to rig the election and defraud the majority of the people out of their right to vote for Trump. The Republicans can make rules that the delegates are not bound after the first ballot, but that has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Once you create a “right to vote” in the primary, to nullify that “right to vote” would logically violate 18 U.S.C. § 241.
On one side, we have Hillary who clearly should be criminally prosecuted, but won’t because the Democrats control the prosecution process. On the other side, we have the two remaining Republican candidates, who stand no chance whatsoever of winning, conspiring together to deprive the people of the “right to vote”, which is also a felony. You have to admit, this is the craziest election since Andrew Jackson.

The Bankers Will Back Hillary Against Trump

The bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited money. If Trump becomes the nominee, you will see a major effort to put Hillary in the White House. If the bankers do not own the White House, they will be at serious risk between 2017-2020. Right now, they have been hit with big fines for clipping people in just about every market from metals to currencies. There is no possible way Hillary will release the transcripts of those speeches because they would reveal how much she is in their corner. Hillary’s response is simply that she does not believe the people are interested in those transcripts. Like her illegal server, she is the most secretive person in Washington circles in many years.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

How were German tanks different from U.S. tanks during WWII?

US tanks were considerably cheaper compared to German tanks!! To understand this, we would need to understand the manufacturing process.
The US entered World War II as an industrial giant with many developed automotive factories and skillful workers. The US also had the most money and resources, that's why it could mass-produced huge number of tanks using fully established assembly lines - the same way they had been producing cars for years.
Let's take a look at some US tank factories:
Massive assembly lines, huge cranes overhead to move tanks along ....
... this room is simply huge, tanks lining up as far back as the eyes can see.
Isn't this how everybody produced tanks? Err ... No. The Germans didn't produce tank this way. Let's look at a German tank factory:
No great assembly line. And notice the ladder on the side of the Tiger tank? The ladder's there because the tank would stay in the exact same spot for a really long time, workers would have to climb up and down the tank again and again ...
See those the little white numbers? German workers had to scribble all over the tank to remind themselves of the manufacturing process: what had been done already, what still needed to be done, how big this hole was, what the distance between the holes ....  You would never see things like theses in a automotive style mass-manufacturing factory.
Again, much work had to be done by hand:
While the Shermans were being mass-produced using automotive assembly lines, the Tiger tanks were *literally* hand-made. No wonder they were so darn expensive and there were so few of them!

Thursday, April 14, 2016

The House Next Door (on the other side.)

The other day I wrote about the house next door. Today I will mention about the house next door, on the other side.
Last Sat. night - Sun. morning, we had a snow storm, high winds etc. About 3 a.m. my wife heard a loud boom. I told her it was probably thunder. It snowed most of the morning, wet snow, and we got about 6 inches. It was supposed to get warmer, so I didn't bother shoveling the driveway. Figured it would be all disappear, which it did.
About 3 in the afternoon we went out to settle the garbage around. My wife went around the corner, let out a "Oh My God" and called me.
The house on this side is a duplex, rented out. It has four large columns in front. On the ground was one of the columns. . It had fallen off and lay about a foot away from my neighbors SUV. I went to talk to my neighbor about it and he didn't even know. He was glad it didn't fall on the SUV. The first thing he did was call the landlord. No problem. Someone would be there the next morning. Then he went out and moved the column. Said it was quite heavy. I would have left it there for the landlord to see. He does have three more columns.
Next morning, at 8 a.m. two trucks showed up to do repairs - at least that was what I thought. They worked all day and built a new step on the front of the house. Huh! What!
This is three days later and the column still lays on the ground. Went to the neighbor. Told me he asked for a column and got a mini patio. He also mentioned that the column was held at the top by six 3 inch nails. Maybe the landlord should also be looking at the other columns.

Monday, April 11, 2016

U.S. Flag on the Moon

Tony Reichhardt in 2008 Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine wrote: The flag is probably gone. Buzz Aldrin saw it knocked over by the rocket blast as he and Neil Armstrong left the moon 39 summers ago. Lying there in the lunar dust, unprotected from the sun’s harsh ultraviolet rays, the flag’s red and blue would have bleached white in no time. Over the years, the nylon would have turned brittle and disintegrated. (see Finding Apollo).   He also wrote:  Dennis Lacarrubba, whose New Jersey-based company, Annin, made the flag and sold it to NASA for $5.50 in 1969, considers what might happen to an ordinary nylon flag left outside for 39 years on Earth, let alone on the moon. He thinks for a few seconds. “I can’t believe there would be anything left,” he concludes. “I gotta be honest with you. It’s gonna be ashes.”

The House Next Door

     Well, we have some action on the building lot next door. Time to build a house. Right off the bat, that didn't work out too well. First they had to test the soil for pollution. And no wonder, as soon as they dug into the soil, you could smell the oil. Pollution from the oil tank. I remember when they were tearing down the house, they just batted that oil tank around. When there is pollution like that, they have to remove the soil for cleaning.
     That's when they got another surprise. They never removed the foundation from the old house. They just knocked it into the hole. So they had to dig that out and haul it away. Then they had to take out the polluted soil. They took truck loads away. It was going on for days. They told me they don't bring the soil back. Probably sell it. When they finished, there was a hole at least 20 ft. deep. After that they filled part of the hole with crushed rock. Truck loads and truck loads.
Today, they are getting ready to lay the foundation. The guys told me it would take 6 months to build the house. Get used to the noise.
     They told me the new owner wasn't too happy when he heard about the pollution. I think he went after the seller.
     I met the new owner last fall. If he was the guy that bought the house. The first thing he said to me, "I don't like your fence. I'm going to build my own." We're off to a good start. Then I looked at the bright side, I only have to paint my side of the fence. +-

Friday, April 8, 2016

Every time I buy salmon, the cans seem smaller.

Snow! Really?

A low pressure system is forecast to develop off the US coast and pass south of Nova Scotia overnight Saturday into Sunday.

Snow and strong winds giving reduced visibilities in blowing snow are expected to develop over much of mainland Nova Scotia overnight Saturday. As much as 10 to 15 cm of snow are forecast for Saturday night with additional snowfall expected for parts of the province on Sunday.
Rapidly accumulating snow could make travel difficult over some locations. Visibility may be suddenly reduced at times in heavy snow.

Winter storm watches are issued when multiple types of severe winter weather are expected to occur together.

Cologne, Germany

The Independent has reported that the police in Cologne, Germany, who were investigating the New Year’s Eve Muslim refugee attack were told to remove the word “rape” from all reports. The initial reported stated that incidents of “rape, sexual harassment, thefts, committed by a large group of foreign people” occurred on the night of the attack. However, responding officers were told to either retract their report or remove the word “rape” as it was “the wish of the state interior ministry.” One really has to wonder who the government is trying to protect — themselves or the people?

1992 Aetna Game Show Magazine Ad $64,000. question | Old Magazine Ads

1992 Aetna Game Show Magazine Ad $64,000. question | Old Magazine Ads

Cruz Defeats Trump in Wisconsin — Is This 1828-1832 All Over Again?

Posted Apr 7, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

From the outset, inside sources have relayed that Cruz is very disliked behind the curtain. His entire strategy from the beginning has been to be the last man standing against Trump. Cruz assumes the party will install him despite the fact that most really dislike him.
All the exit polls show that more than half of the voters in this Republican primary are merely “dissatisfied” with government, compared to one-third who are outright “angry.” The voters in Wisconsin seem to be in Never-never Land, and, for the most part, they want someone with experience. That is how the USA will implode for nobody in the establishment gives a shit about the people; this is all about them. So that experienced candidate will be a vote for more of the same.
Nevertheless, we have to understand that we have two major risks in politics. First, the establishment may not select Trump or Cruz. If they can simply defeat Trump on the first ballot then all bets are off and they can nominate someone who did not bother to run like Romney.
If Trump does not get the Republican nomination, then if he is smart, he could get on the ballot as a Libertarian since they have already done the heavy lifting. Alternatively, Trump could get on the ballot in a few states and win those but not the general election. This could prevent either the Republicans or Democrats from winning enough votes for the Electoral College whom really votes for president.
If no one wins enough Electoral College votes, it will be the ultimate demonstration that we do not live in a democracy by any measure. A failure for any candidate to win the required votes at the Electoral College means the current establishment on Capitol Hill gets to select the next president.
The election of 1824 is an example of how the establishment can do as they like. Andrew Jackson won 153,544 popular votes to John Quincy Adams won 108,8740 popular votes. Neither won the Electoral College so Congress picked the president and Jackson lost. When Jackson finally became president in the 1828 election. Jackson did two major things that were against the establishment. First, he actually paid down the national debt. President Andrew Jackson reported that the United States would be debt-free as of January 1, 1835. This marked the first and only time that the United States, or any other major nation in history, had ever been free from debt.
Jackson declared: “Let us commemorate the payment of the public debt as an event that gives us increased power as a nation and reflects luster on our Federal Union.”
In the course of this objective, Jackson generally opposed bills that allocated taxpayer money for “internal improvements” or what we call “pork barrel spending” today. In the 1863 popular story The Children of the Public,” Edward Everett Hale used the term “pork barrel” as a homely metaphor for any form of public spending to the citizenry. However, after the American Civil War, the term’s usage turned derogatory.

Andrew Jackson despised the Second Bank of the United States, not because it held too much power over the economy, but because his political enemies controlled it. Jackson set out to destroy the bank for it had provided loans to his political rivals. The bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle (1786-1844), routinely used lending practices for political gain, including using bank funds to publish newspaper attacks on opponents as some money-center trading banks in NY engage in to this day. Biddle openly favored the National Republicans (later to become the Whig Party), many of whom benefited financially from Biddle’s favor. Prominent National Republicans were Congressmen Daniel Webster (who was on the bank’s payroll as a legal counsel) and of course Jackson’s archenemy, Henry Clay, who was his opponent in the 1832 presidential election.
It is ironic that New York bankers today own Cruz and Hillary. Both engage in methods to fund their elections that are not much different from the actions of Biddle. Those who want to see the Federal Reserve eliminated, citing what Jackson had done, fail to understand what really took place. The destruction of the Second Bank of the United States resulted in the Panic of 1837, the sovereign debt defaults of states in the 1840s, and a severe economic decline that set the stage for the Civil War. The parallel to today is not the Federal Reserve with political power, but the New York bankers.
Our models are starting to highlight Panic Cycles hitting in August. This will start just after the Republican Convention. If we go to the extreme in this collapse of confidence in government, then we may see a repeat of the 1828 election. However, we are also in a battle against the establishment and Trump is closer to Andrew Jackson than anyone else running for office. So the future looks like a political war ahead that is going to turn everything upside down. The establishment is focused on defeating Trump; they think everyone will go back to watching soap operas and sports and they can rob us and our children blind as always.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

The Battle to Keep the Establishment in Power

by Martin Armstrong 

The last time a Republican Presidential Convention opened without a decided nominee in the primaries was 1976, during the fight between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. There were past efforts by the establishment to stop two people they regarded as outsiders — Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1976. It looks as if it will be much more difficult for Trump to nail down enough delegates to beat the Republicans at their own corrupt rules. We are likely heading toward a rigged convention and this is playing into the hands of the precise thing the Republicans better not do. They are sacrificing the nation for personal perks. It is not that Trump is the savior, hardly, but at least he would be a check against these people.
     It seems more likely than not that they will rig the game one way or another to stop Trump and ignore why people are even voting for him, because it is really a vote against the establishment. This appears likely to explode in total chaos for 2018, and as we look into the 2017-2020 time period, it appears that they will destroy the public confidence in government on a wholesale basis.
As it now stands, they will most likely hand the nomination to Cruz one way or another. Trump’s only chance would be to run to the Libertarian Party since there would be no time left to get on all the ballots as an independent. Cruz would lose against Hillary and Hillary will destroy the economy with massive tax increases while protecting the banks. It appears we are indeed sowing the seed of our own destruction. The Republicans know Social Security goes negative in 2017, so they want to blame Hillary. Meanwhile, Trump shoots himself in the foot all the time and the media is in a full-blown assault against him. This is likely to undermine the entire confidence in government especially since Cruz came out and said he would not support Trump, only himself.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Jefferson and Muslims

A different type of president then.

When Jefferson saw there was no negotiating with Muslims, he formed what
is the now the Marines (sea going soldiers). These Marines were attached
to U. S. Merchant vessels.

When the Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels they were repulsed by
armed soldiers, but there is more. The Marines followed the Muslims back
to their villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village.
It didn't take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone.
English and French merchant vessels started running up our flag when
entering the Mediterranean to secure safe travel.

Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "To the Shores of Tripoli"

This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history. It points
out where we may be heading.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the
United States had declared war on Islam and Thomas Jefferson led the

At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the "Barbary Pirates")
were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North

They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant
ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and
wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family
members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.

These extortionists of high seas represented the North African Islamic
nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers - collectively referred to
as the Barbary Coast - and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to
the new American Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the
protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and
entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France.
However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he
would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America's Minister to
France. That same year, U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim
adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid
bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of
Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and
simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to
any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a
coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states
into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to
Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and
enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards
America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman
Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet,
that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not
acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty
to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of
all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who
should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim
nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders,
including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and
would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the
American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe
passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments
in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States
government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third
President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a
note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for
every year forthcoming. That changed everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with
his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the
American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco,
and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been
against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense,
but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long
enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the
Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never
forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all
vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to "cause to be done all
other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify".

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and
acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will
and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to
Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up
again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to
the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn, and they would
forever be known as "leathernecks" for the leather collars of their
uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim
scimitars when boarding enemy ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their
prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply.

America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson,
himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but
fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A
religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but
mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His
greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose
an even greater threat to the United States.

This should concern every American. That Muslims have brought about
women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and
public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from
serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks
and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because
they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at
certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks
similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork
from their menus; on and on and on and on..

It's death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and
most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day
across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what
is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our own
culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically
correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda.

Sadly, it appears that today America's STUPID leaders would rather be
politically correct than victorious!

If you have any doubts about the above information, Google "Thomas
Jefferson vs. the Muslim World

Monday, February 29, 2016

Donald Trump

A good read, probably a correct analysis…….we could use a pragmatist in Ottawa

Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He’s A Pragmatist
by Mychal Massie
We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics. At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff – appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a Republican problem – it isn’t a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect. Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: 1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; 2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own them vis-a`-vis donations; 3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and 4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now. And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives and who have always played it safe not willing to risk failure.