Podcast 537-Bob Davis Podcasts Radio Show-39

Podcast 537-Bob Davis Podcasts Radio Show-39. This week’s radio show contains 3 segments of new content for radio listeners and podcast subscribers. While the mission of the radio show is to bring content from the podcasts back to the radio, the political situation this week requires some additional thinking and reworking some of the ideas in Podcast 536. Podcast 537-Bob Davis Podcasts Radio Show-39 takes a look at what’s wrong with our political party system and makes some policy suggestions on the economy as thought starters for listeners and subscribers. These aren’t so much policy advocacy as a method to provoke thought and conversation around the idea that we have to do better. We have to hold our politicians and the political system to a higher standard, because we deserve better. As we progress to the final stages of the worst presidential election cycle in one hundred years the realization comes that no matter who takes the oath of office in January of 2017 the chances anything will change are remote. In fact, our national situation will either muddle along the same lines, or chaos will ensue. Your guess is as good as anyone else’s when it comes to which mainline candidate will produce muddle, or chaos. I’m not even sure which of both negative outcomes I would prefer, if such a thing is something you contemplate. Later in the show, questions about our national political themes. What happened to the America that was strong, not afraid to compete in the world, not afraid of the world, and ready to take risks to achieve. How did we become a nation of depressed, conspiracy theory mavens and people demanding someone ‘help’, ready to attack anyone for their view if it is contrary to their own? What happened to our money? What happened to our leadership? I believe what happened was too much government, expected to do too much, with mediocre ‘leaders’ who go along to get along, so they can keep their cushy jobs. We have to take it back. Taking it back means creating a new political movement in this country that pushes past the crust of the political party and primary systems, designed to keep the establishment in control. They tax us, divide us, scare us and control us, all to the purpose of making sure we’re good boys and girls. Remember, the people are the sovereign in this country, not Washington. Sponsored by X Government Cars and Ryan Plumbing and Heating of Saint Paul.

Podcast 521

Stormy Weather. In a surprise only to ‘conservatives’ who listen only to ‘conservative’ talk show hosts, watch ‘conservative’ TV shows and go to conservative websites, the FBI decided not to recommend criminal prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal email server while she was in the Obama Administration. Why? The short answer is, intent is a key consideration in cases like these. The long answer is, Mrs. Clinton played her ‘Benghazi Card’ better known as ‘If I go down, you go down’ and she got action from the administration. At least that’s one possible explanation. In the past few days President Obama suddenly closed ranks with the Clintons (despite all the rumors of the rancor between the Obamas and the Clintons). Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a now famous ‘tarmac meeting’ with former president Bill Clinton and President Obama allowed Hillary Clinton to ride Air Force One with him to a campaign event, where they walked, hand in hand, down the steps. “If I go down, YOU go down”. Now it’s a matter of politics. He said, she said. He said she’s a crook. She said he’s an anti semite. Congress releases a damning report on the administration’s conduct regarding ‘Benghazi’…Democrats say it is a partisan document. Republicans say it’s the ‘truth’ about Mrs Clinton and her boss, President Obama. “If I go down, YOU go down.” More fodder for the campaign trail. They were asleep and the switch, says one side. They’re partisan dividers, says the other side. Meanwhile the world’s leading economies are drowning in a sea of paper money and deficit spending, and economies are faltering. Do you really think this election is going to fix anything? We live in interesting times, with the great potential of a new technical industrial revolution and all that portends, and a personal challenge to change the way we think and how we work, and what we demand of our political institutions. Too bad our sclerotic politics delivers a statist who wants to spend and tax more, and a statist who wants to wall the country off from the rest of the world. We could have this technology revolution now, or we can languish for another thirty years while these idiots we call presidential candidates stumble around in economic darkness. Yeah sure, go ahead and talk until you’re blue in the face about Hillary’s email server, or about the Star of David on Trump’s twitter account, while the printing presses debase the currency, governments spend themselves into the poor house, the media puts on cartoons and calls them news, and we hurtle toward our destiny, whatever that may be. The US is now a country that’s happy about revised economic growth from .5 percent to 1.1 percent, with 95 million people out of the work force, a media that writes gossip and calls it news, and a population that believes Russian Propaganda and You Tube conspiracy theories because…what’s the difference? The Earth is hollow, you know and there’s a whole civilization down there, right? And you wonder about moral hazard? Sponsored by Karow Contracting and Brush Studio in the West End, Saint Louis Park. (Editor’s Note: In this podcast I refer to former CIA Director David Petraeus’ offenses regarding passing classified information with intent, and engaging in a coverup after as occurring while Petraeus was on active military duty. I wondered whether he would be under the Military Code of Justice in this case. This is incorrect. Petraeus was director of the CIA when the offenses occurred and not on active duty. For comparison to the Clinton question, one should refer to the FBI director’s congressional testimony regarding the differences between the Clinton question and the Petraeus case.)