Perhaps without meaning to, the Wall Street Journal has explained the rise of Donald Trump to the position of presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States:
Notable & Quotable: No Boaty McBoatface
The UK's new polar research ship is to be named RRS Sir David Attenborough, despite the title "Boaty McBoatface" previously topping a public vote.
A website inviting name suggestions had attracted huge interest, with Boaty McBoatface the runaway favourite.
But Science Minister Jo Johnson said there were "more suitable" names.
On Friday, days before Sir David turns 90, it was announced that the £200m vessel will be named after the world-renowned naturalist and broadcaster.
Sir David said he was "truly honoured" by the decision.
While the polar ship itself will not be named Boaty McBoatface, one of its remotely operated sub-sea vehicles will be named Boaty in recognition of the vote.
This, in a nutshell, describes the reason for the disgust of voters, both American and foreign, with their respective Establishments. In America, this is being expressed by the throngs adulating Mr. Trump - the Establishment cavalierly ignores their strongly-expressed views, and The Donald is the only guy they've seen in their lifetimes who they think has a prayer of forcing the elites to say Uncle.
Consider the lesson of this apparently trivial news story. Despite "huge interest" by Britons, and their clearly-expressed desire for a specific name for a research vessel which had been paid for by vast sums of their own hard-earned and forcibly-extracted tax money, their votes were ignored because a member of the Establishment preferred something "more suitable."
What's worse, the Establishment rubbed salt in the wound by naming one of their tiny underwater research probes, not even "Boaty McBoatface" which voters desired, but simply a derisory "Boaty." The arrogant Establishment not only ignored the will of the people, they mocked it.
It would be hard to find a better example of the Establishment's utter "in your face" contempt for we ignorant peasant voters whose labors pay their salaries, padded expenses, and gilt-edged pensions. It could be argued that "Boaty McBoatface" is a ridiculously inappropriate name for anything that costs £200m, but perhaps the voters wouldn't have felt so strongly about it if they didn't already feel totally ignored about every other issue that actually matters.
Consider how the American Establishment has created two existential threats to America over the long-running vehement objections of the voters who are supposed to actually control the government.
It is an objective, demonstrable fact that our half-century policy of allowing millions of illegals to come in freely, is destroying the nation we know and love. As we've documented previously, these socialist "free lunch" hordes have no intention of adapting themselves to American ways. They don't even want to learn English, even though everybody knows it's the difference between a poverty wage and some hope of a decent living!
|Another million votes for Donald Trump.|
Unlike earlier immigrants who worked hard to take on American ways, illegals want to adapt America to themselves. The Democrat establishment wants to sign illegals up to collect welfare and to vote for more spending; the Republican establishment wants cheap workers to keep wages down. Neither establishment cares a whit what actual US citizen voters want on this vital matter.
Our current immigration policy has continued for decades despite huge voter discontent. In one of her more transparently delusional lies, Hillary has said that the Mexican border is secure; Sen. Rubio was working on a plan to grant amnesty to all the illegals who're already here despite running on a platform loudly proclaiming the opposite. Only Mr. Trump, and to a lesser extent Sen. Cruz, has spoken about stopping this threat to our way of life.
The Time magazine cover of April 25, 2016 said:
You owe $42,998.12. That's what every American man, woman, and child would need to pay to erase the $13.9 trillion US debt.
As with most issues, Time got it wrong by understating the problem. Their vaunted calculations and journalistic research did not bother to address unfunded and unbudgeted but longstanding liabilities such as the Social Security deficit, Medicare spending, and government employee pensions.
Several years ago when our well-documented national debt was many trillions lower than it is today, USA Today added up those liabilities along with the debt and concluded that every American household actually owed a bit more than a half-million dollars. There's no way such massive debt can ever be repaid.
Government spending is totally out of control and has been for longer than almost any of us have been alive. To keep the party rolling, the establishment is covering obligations by printing new money out of thin air, but as even the legendary Alan Greenspan admits, this isn't working anymore. Our feckless leaders from President Obama on down keep telling us not to worry that all these new greenbacks will cause inflation and they cite statistics that they claim show that there is no significant inflation.
We voters who buy groceries beg to differ. My wife says that the cost of a basket of groceries has at least doubled since Mr. Obama took office. By a strange coincidence, the cost of food is massaged out of the official inflation figures!
My wife discussed this with some welfare recipients we know. At first, they were pleased that their payments had gone up under Mr. Obama, but when my wife pointed out that costs had gone up more, they had to agree that they were worse off than when Hope and Change arrived in Washington.
Scragged has shown that our society will collapse if spending isn't cut, and we will lose the America we know if illegals keep pouring in.
Unlike all the other candidates, Mr. Trump has loudly and proudly addressed both issues. Sen. Sanders has rightly identified some serious economic problems, and even proposed some helpful policies, but overall his prescription of confiscatory socialism is merely pouring oil on troubled flames. Whereas once he understood that illegal immigration destroys the American working class, now that he's a serious presidential contender he's as open-borders as the rest of the elite.
Unlike many conservative pundits, we believe that both party Establishments actually do understand the voter anger. The problem is that their response is merely to worry that they might lose their comfortable positions feeding at the public trough, and thus to attempt whatever lying, cheating, and stealing they think is required to keep those ignorant rubes in their proper place.
Sure enough, what does the Wall Street Journal say about Mr. Trump and the "unwashed peasant" and "racist" masses who support him?
David French wrote in National Review, a kind of conservative Bible: "The party of Lincoln is in ruins. A minority of its primary voters have torched its founders' legacy by voting for a man who combines old-school Democratic ideology, a bizarre form of hyper-violent isolationism, fringe conspiracy theories, and serial lies with an enthusiastic flock of online racists to create perhaps the most toxic electoral coalition since George Wallace."
They didn't bother to point out that Mr. Sanders' "Free Lunch" coalition would be far more dangerous because it would accelerate our overall collapse. No, they simply echoed the left with the usual mantra of racist-sexist-bigot slanders.
Like the British, our elites have total contempt for the voters' legitimate concerns. Unlike the British, we fought a revolution to get rid of divinely-anointed kings, and there's still a strong streak of American desire to flip the bird to The Man whenever possible.
Will it be possible this time, or have things gone so far that what the voters want truly doesn't matter anymore? It's unclear, but this election will send a powerful signal one way or the other.
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.