|I just call 'em as I see 'em, Dude.|
I'm prepared to make a bold prophecy regarding the presidential election next month: I predict Donald Trump will win.
I realize this fatidic pronouncement goes against all the conventional wisdom, but I believe Trump will triumph. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't want to see Donald Trump become president of the united states.
I don't want Hillary Clinton to be president either, in case you're wondering. (For my reasons, see these earlier posts: How Mormons Should Think About The Presidential Election. and Our Long National Nightmare Continues.)
So why am I issuing this prophecy? Frankly, I had every intention of addressing a more substantial issue this month, but I'm putting that one on the back burner for now because I want to get this prediction on the record in order to confound my enemies.
You see, it has come to my attention that some members of the Church have been warned not to follow me because "Rock Waterman is a false prophet."
That's ridiculous on two fronts: First, anyone dumb enough to "follow" me or look to me as some kind of guru is a dang fool to begin with. As those familiar with this blog can confirm, the history of my life has been one mistaken assumption after another. I expect to goof up many more times in the few years I have left on this planet, so if you're inclined to grab onto me as I trip and fall, be my guest. Company is always welcome here in the ditch.
Secondly, I never claimed to be a prophet. I have never so much as entertained the idea of issuing a prophecy of any kind.
If my prophecy turns out to be correct and Trump wins, my accusers will verily be confounded, because as of today all the pundits expect Hillary Clinton to win handily. If my prophecy turns out to be false? Well, then I guess I'll have to go off and start my own church, because that's what's expected of us false prophet types.
But I don't think I'm wrong. And here's why.
Hillary Clinton's Support Is Mostly Wind
Now I want to make one thing clear: I don't have a dog in this fight. So whether you favor Trump or Clinton in this race, don't climb all over me because I'm critical of your candidate. I think both candidates are unfit for the presidency, and I've already given my reasons for saying so. But allow me to recap.
My politics are filtered through my religion, and my religion dictates that I seek for good and honest candidates who honor the constitution. To uphold any candidate with less than these simple qualifications, according to my religion, would constitute upholding evil. (D&C 98:10)
The problem with the leading contenders in this race is that neither one is good, and neither one is particularly honest (Especially that one with the maniacal laugh.)
Hillary Clinton has become famous for lack of integrity, and she has no respect whatsoever for the constitution. Trump is head and shoulders above Clinton in the honesty department, but only because Hillary placed the bar so low. Trump still has his share of moral failings. But his are nowhere near the failings of Hillary Clinton, who is a flaming sociopath without a trace of conscience. So take your pick: the criminal or the half-wit.
Trump's Achilles heel where the constitution is concerned is that he seems never to have read it. He has no blinking idea what's contained in that document. So this is a race between the egregiously corrupt and the woefully uninformed. I don't have a lot of integrity myself, but what little I have I save up every four years to spend on election day. As a matter of principle I can't vote for either one of them.
But none of that has anything to do with my assertion that Hillary will lose this thing. I'm convinced she will lose because she can't get a sufficient number of people to support her. Ignore the constant poll numbers that show her ahead; they don't reflect the reality on the ground. While Donald Trump is filling stadiums with cheering supporters, Hillary Clinton's people have had trouble getting a few hundred people to show up sometimes. Her rallies are held in small auditoriums precisely because if Hillary's people had booked larger venues the vast numbers of empty seats would be an embarrassment. In some cases Mrs. Clinton had to resort to subterfuge to fake the turnout. In Cleveland she crashed a party already in progress so it would look like the crowd had come to see her.
Various Clinton campaign headquarters have had trouble getting volunteers to show up to help "get out the vote" even when events are highly publicized. It's very quiet in some of those campaign offices. All this leads me to believe that the conventional wisdom that says Hillary has this thing in the bag is just so much noise. There doesn't seem to be any substance behind it. If all the Hillary supporters show up to the voting booth and all the Trump supporters show up as well, I think the Trump supporters will trounce in numbers alone. Trump could win, provided the race isn't tight in the swing states. (Because don't forget: voters don't elect the president, delegates do.)
So Who Is Rock Waterman Voting For?
Seeing as I am the leader of millions of devoted followers awaiting my instructions come November 8th, the question naturally arises, "What would Rock Waterman have me do?"*
*In case you're new here, I'm kidding. Those familiar with this blog know I have a healthy aversion to so-called "leaders" and very little respect for those who follow them. Teachers are good; leaders not so much. God did not put you on this earth to have someone else tell you what to do.
If you're asking who I'm voting for this time out, well, the options don't look very good. My first presidential election was in 1972, when Nixon ran against McGovern. (Back then you had to be 21 to vote.) I was a conservative, so I couldn't vote for Nixon. I voted instead for Mary Kay LeTourneau's dad.
1.1 million of us voted for John Schmitz that year, a phenomenal number for a third party candidate. Yet we were rebuked by our fellow conservatives for throwing away our votes. We didn't see it that way. After all, Nixon did win. But the man turned out to be completely unprincipled, so the way I saw it, those who voted for him were the ones actually throwing away their votes. They gave their votes to a candidate whose values were inimical to theirs. They had bought into the lies of a politician, as voters have been doing since the dawn of time.
This year I was planning to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. But he turns out to be not much of a libertarian after all. So what to do?
Mormonism is a decidedly libertarian religion -at least it was in the beginning. And I don't mean libertarian as in the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism was a political philosophy two centuries before it was a party. It was just called something else back then.
Joseph Smith and the early Saints would have been thought of as liberals, but that was long before the definition of "liberal" was stood on its head. In modern times we have to qualify the liberalism of the 19th century by calling it "classical liberalism" to distinguish it from the aberration that goes by that label today. Classical liberalism places the freedom of the individual as its central feature. We often think of Thomas Jefferson as the pre-eminent classical liberal, as that brand of liberalism was the political philosophy that guided the founders of this nation, as well as the founder of our church. Sadly, there is no classical liberal running for president this time around.
At this stage I'd settle for a conservative, but there are no conservatives running for president either.
What About Evan McMullin?
Evan McMullin is a Mormon third party candidate who has culled a lot of support in Utah. But I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. McMullin strikes me as a modern-day Gadianton Robber, the kind of sneak-thief the Book of Mormon warned would infiltrate our institutions. His background raises all kinds of red flags: former CIA, Former Republican Foreign Policy Director, and former Investment Banker at Goldman Sachs.
Justin Raimondo shines some light on the Evan McMullin most Mormons don't know:
"McMullin’s role at Goldman Sachs was in the investment banking division, where the underwriting of foreign government bonds and some pretty dicey financial shenanigans occur mostly in the dark...He is the archetypal neoconservative: a full-bore interventionist, who is clearly making foreign policy the centerpiece of his campaign...In a speech he declared that the US role is to police the world in order to stop “genocide.”
"As a key player in the neocon wing of the CIA, which ginned up phony “intelligence” to drag us into the Iraq war, McMullin wants us to re-invade Iraq, overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and longs for a US confrontation with Russia in eastern Europe."In short", Raimondo adds, Evan McMullin "is the archetypal neoconservative."
|Evan McMullin's Supporters might want to read this book.|
At least Romney wasn't seeking to infiltrate and destroy the Republican party; I think Mitt sincerely believed he could do some good. Had he become president, Romney would have operated contrary to the principles of the gospel, but I don't think he would have been as scorched-earth as McMullin promises to be. Mitt Romney was an unwitting pawn of the Neocons. Evan McMullin is the real deal.
The gutting of constitutional conservatism was initiated by the neocon puppet George Bush the younger. If McMullin were to attain the presidency, he and his friends would surely attempt to wipe out the remaining traces of traditional conservatism:
“Rule or ruin” has always been the operative strategic principle of the neoconservatives. If you go back into their history, their long rightward hegira didn’t begin in the Democratic party, but on the far left fringes of American politics – in the Trotskyist movement. (I wrote about this at length in my book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.) Their strategic vision has always been organized around the tactic of “entryism” – an old Trotskyist trick, in which they enter a larger body, infiltrate the leadership, and then either seize the reins of power or else destroy their unwilling host. (Justin Raimondo, "How The Neoconservatives Fight Dirty-Now Comes Evan McMullin to Trash Trump.")If you reject Hillary Clinton, why turn around and support Evan McMullin? If you want warmongering presidential candidates, one is as good as the other. As Marc Faber recently wrote, at least Donald Trump recognizes U.S. power is waning and it can't fight the whole world. Hillary Clinton and Evan McMullin are oblivious to that reality. They would commit America to multiple wars on multiple fronts, further weakening our nation and ripening us for destruction.
I will confess to one thing: although I will neither support nor vote for Donald Trump, I'm privately rooting for him to win. No, I don't want Donald Trump to be president. But I really, really REALLY don't want a proven liar and criminal like Hillary Clinton to hold that much power. While it's true she'll likely be impeached during her first term, she could still do untold damage in the liminal weeks leading up to it. Donald Trump, in contrast, is not likely to do much harm. The president is not a king; he can be reined in by the legislature simply by the legislature refusing to provide the revenue for the president's plans. Hillary, on the other hand, is slippery. She knows how to get what she wants, and she'll stop at nothing to get it.
I'll tell you another reason I hope Hillary loses (not counting the obvious corruption involved in her phony foundation): Those on Clinton's side are currently involved in "dirty tricks" campaigning. I'm not talking about the type of dirty trick that occurs when you slip a whoopee cushion under Grandma's bottom. I'm talking about real, black ops dirty tricks that have already sent people to the hospital and are likely to get someone killed. Over five and a half million people have seen video of these dark operatives bragging about the underhanded things they're doing to help Hillary Clinton win, yet I still haven't seen any mention of it in the mainstream press:
Warning: some naughty language.
I realize I'm stepping on the sacred cows of some of my readers who may be Hillary Clinton fans. To them I say the same thing I would say to overly enthusiastic Trump supporters: take a step back, and don't be so emotionally involved. Your candidate is not Our Lord and Savior. Your Candidate will not be our new king or queen. Your candidate cannot and will not engender any meaningful change.
"Change" is the one constant promised by every presidential candidate every election cycle, yet change never comes. Except change for the worse. No matter who your preferred candidate is, your crazy devotion toward that candidate is costing you your friends. Choose your battles. This one is not worth fighting.
Everyone knows Donald Trump's flaws. They are many, and they are constantly before our eyes. But I'm surprised at how unaware many Clinton supporters are of her palpable high crimes and misdemeanors. If you are a loyal Clintonite, please open your eyes to the possibility that she may not be who you think she is. Hate to break it to you, but the lady doesn't care about you, even if you are a woman. She is in love with her own ambition. The evidence of her perfidy is available everywhere for viewing and it is conclusive. Hillary Clinton is a nasty, wicked, psychopathic termagant who has no business holding a position of power. If you wouldn't trust her to hold office in your ward primary presidency, why would you want her presiding over the executive branch of the federal government?
You Do Not Have A Duty To Vote
I always vote every election year. But I also recognize I don't have to make a choice between every candidate on the ballot. Sometimes I will only vote for candidates for a local office, or for the legislature, or maybe against a corrupt sheriff. More often than not I will vote on issues and propositions. But I don't vote for or against anyone in any office if I don't know enough about them. Why? Because I could be canceling out the vote of someone more informed, who may have placed a vote for someone who deserves to be elected.
This time I likely won't vote for president. And you know what? It won't matter! As I explained back in April, the presidency is not decided by popular vote. My vote here in Idaho will not decide the presidency, and neither will yours if you live in Utah. So please don't get all het up because I've gored your sacred cow. The founders intended the presidency to be the least influential branch of the government. We ought to try to put it back in it's cage.
I have long cringed at the counsel so often heard every election cycle, "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just as long as you vote."
That stupid aphorism is aimed at the least informed people in our society, because those who cater to the least informed hope the stupid people will vote for them. I don't want to see my vote for congress canceled out by someone whose entire knowledge of the candidate comes from a yard sign.
One of Mike Rowe's fans recently wrote and asked, "can you please encourage your huge following to go out and vote this election? I would never impose on you by asking you to advocate one politician over another, but I do feel this election could really use your help."
Mister Rowe sent back this reply:
“I share your concern for our country, and agree wholeheartedly that every vote counts. However, I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms.”
“I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens?”
“Casting a ballot is not so different. It’s an important right that we all share, and one that impacts our society in dramatic fashion. But it’s one thing to respect and acknowledge our collective rights, and quite another thing to affirmatively encourage people I’ve never met to exercise them. And yet, my friends in Hollywood do that very thing, and they’re at it again.”
“Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to ‘get out and vote.’ They tell us it’s our ‘most important civic duty,’ and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the ‘masses’ to vote, if they believed the ‘masses’ would elect Donald Trump?”
“Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our ‘civic duty’ to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but let’s face it — the bar is not set very high.”
“If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.”
“So, when a celebrity reminds the country that ‘everybody’s vote counts,’ they are absolutely correct. But when they tell us that ‘everybody in the country should get out there and vote,’ regardless of what they think or believe, I gotta wonder what they’re smoking.”
“Remember — there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor — ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.”
“So no, Jeremy — I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn’t do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn’t need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process.”It's Too Late Anyway
You'll excuse my cynicism, but there never was a political election that resulted in improvement for mankind. This one, more than any other, is destined to usher in harder times no matter who gets ushered into the white house. Let's not fool ourselves; politics will not save us. Only Jesus Saves.
I have been entertained by the shenanigans of both sides of the race during this past election cycle. But the entertainment has been bittersweet. This country has taken too steep a dive to safely pull up. All any of us can do is hope to find a safe place to land before the inevitable crash.
When will that crash occur? A year from now? Five years? Fifty years?
Somehow I doubt it will wait fifty years. But come it will. When salvation finally arrives it will not come by way of an earthly president, but through our Great King.
Brace yourselves, though. Things could get a bit bumpy in the meantime.
UPDATE: October 25th, 2016
In response to a number of commenters below who took issue with me for this post, I offered a clarification. Since many readers do not read the comments, I'm repeating it here:
Those of you arguing for the importance of voting for Trump in order to prevent a Clinton victory may be surprised to learn I enthusiastically agree with you. My piece certainly wasn't an attempt to counsel others to follow my example. I was offering my personal reason for abstaining in this matter, not attempting to persuade others to do the same. I hope most of my readers will cast a vote for Donald Trump, and not just because I want my prediction vindicated.
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton must be defeated, not only for the reasons many commenters gave above, but most importantly because the president will be key in nominating Supreme Court justices, justices that will certainly have an important role in deciding if Americans are more free or less free in the very near future. For a concise analysis of why this one issue alone is so important, I recommend Denver Snuffer's analysis posted the same day I posted mine. There are very real and very important issues making their way to the Supreme Court at this very time, and they are issues that directly affect the freedom of individuals. Denver's analysis is available here.
I am firmly in the "Never Hillary" camp in this election for many reasons, but that one in particular is salient because it involves the important issues of freedom for the individual. You will recall the reasoning behind my decision to abstain included the qualifier that "my vote will not decide this election, and if you live in Utah, neither will yours." Here's why I think so:
Even if a substantial number of us here in Idaho were to sit this one out, this state will still have plenty of delegates to ensure Hillary Clinton does not win Idaho. I'm pretty sure the same holds true in Utah. I don't even think the sizable number of spoiler votes going to McMullin will change that. (I could be wrong; the neocon strategy is for McMullin to get so many votes that it would throw the election into the House of Representatives to decide, and they would decide for McMullin. But that seems to me highly unlikely at this stage in the game.)
People tend to forget that the president is not elected by the people, but by the states. The founders designed it this way precisely to prevent the majority from putting a demagogue like Hillary Clinton in power, because demagogues are adept at persuading the majority to deprive the minority of their freedoms.
So WHO you vote for in this race, and WHETHER your vote is needed to elect the least dangerous candidate, really depends upon which state you live in, and more precisely which county. Because I live in Bonner County, Idaho, MY individual vote won't matter because the vast majority of citizens in this county are wise enough to elect enough delegates to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning this state.
If I still lived in California, my vote for Trump still would not matter, because Sacramento, where I would have cast my vote, is a government town in a government county. There simply aren't a sufficient number of true patriots in that county to influence the process.
If, however, I lived in one of the 25 battleground counties in the country, I would, as a matter of conscience, HAVE to cast my vote for Trump, as my vote would indeed matter in electing a delegate who would in turn cast his vote to defeat Hillary Clinton, a defeat which I consider essential if we have any hope of slowing, even temporarily, America's sure descent into tyranny.
This Month's Announcements:
Speaking of safe places to land, Connie and I could not have resettled here in Idaho had it not been for the generous assistance of a handful of families who got here ahead of us. Their generous tithes and offerings provided the funds necessary to effect our move, and they have our continuing gratitude.
When I was expelled from the Church last year, one of the things I was accused of was "teaching people not to pay their tithing to the Church."
That charge was patently false, of course. In the piece alluded to, I very specifically stated that tithing was an obligation members owed to the Church, and I firmly believed it at the time.
Others have since persuaded me that given the Church's inappropriate investments in malls, office buildings, hotels, and condominiums; and its failure of compassion to the poorest among us, the leaders have broken their covenant with the people, and members are now justified in contributing their tithes directly where the Lord guides them to.
Last month some friends alerted other friends to the fact that Connie and I were in need of temporary assistance, and a number of people came to our rescue with their generous tithes. We want to express our sublime gratitude for that support. The earnings I had expected to receive when we arrived here have not materialized as quickly as we had expected, but thankfully our basic needs were met through the kindness of these several friends we have never met. I have contacted most of these good people personally, but there were a couple of donations mailed anonymously, and I wanted to publicly tell those kind people how grateful we are for giving of their substance.
Since I have been asked if we could use a bit more, I will go ahead and admit that yes, we could. Although we have a bit of breathing room now, we are not yet out of the woods. It looks like it will be at least another month before I begin receiving an income, and we do have some unexpected expenses to cover as well as basic living needs. Therefore if some of you readers are so prompted, and if you have first completely provided for the needs of your families and loved ones and if you have looked after those near you who are in greater need than we are, then Connie and I are most willing and grateful to accept any small portion of your surplus you might be willing to contribute toward our use.
I firmly believe our first obligation is to tithe to those closest to us. So when you look for a place to disburse your sacred tithes, please look to the needs of those nearest you first, both familial and geographical. After that, if you have remaining surplus, you can spread your tithes out further. But again, act on what you are prompted to do.
A Million Thanks to all our new friends!
Don't worry, I haven't gone soft. Next month I'll be back with another sardonic harangue against unrighteous dominion. Meanwhile, don't be like me. Go out and vote for Donald Trump. My credibility as a true prophet depends on you.