Monthly Archives: February 2016

Rubio: Sizzle, but No Steak

Standard

Debates present a dilemma for spectators. They showcase showmanship, the candidates’ ability to show up their opponents in an artificial environment. The showmanship, or form, can overshadow the substance, however, and leave spectators and partisans with a sense that the debater who may have won superficially possessed the substance when he or she did not.

That held true last night, when Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, professional debaters both, brought their debate “A” games to CNN’s telecast Thursday night and ganged up on Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in hope of chipping away at his sizable leads in voter polls.

What’s delightfully ironic is that both men prior to the debate had criticized the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, as a “showman” and the “P. T. Barnum” of the primary campaign. Yet they banked on just such showmanship to spark their lagging campaigns and to make Trump look bad.

Spectators will have to decide how meaty their claims against Trump and for themselves were, but we are going to examine one or two of them to make this point: Trump stands out as a more substantial candidate than Cruz or Rubio in spite of the superficial successes of form the pair won last night.

Rubio attempted to show that Trump promoted illegal immigration by hiring a “thousand” or “thousands” of illegal Polish workers to build the Trump Tower in 1980 and another set recently to work at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. Rubio claimed Trump was fined $1,000,000 after a lawsuit was filed against him in 1983.

The chief reference for this Polish workers accusation appears to be a 1998 article in the New York Times. The article does not fill in all the blanks, but I will use it as best I can to illustrate the point.

Did a thousand or thousands of Polish workers file suit or obtain representation in a class action suit against Trump? No. The Times articles says the number of Polish workers was 200.

Was Donald Trump fined $1,000,000? No. His company settled the case (this from a source other than this NY Times article).

Were the Polish workers used to build the Trump Tower? No. They were used only to demolish the building that Trump Tower replaced, the Bonwit Teller department store.

Were the Polish workers illegal immigrants snuck into the country by Trump? This isn’t clear, though there is no indication they were snuck in. In the first and seventh paragraphs, reporter Selwyn Raab called the Polish workers “undocumented immigrants”. It isn’t clear what Raab means by undocumented. In the second paragraph, Raab quoted plaintiff Wojciech Kozak saying he and the others were “frightened illegal immigrants.” Raab reported that Trump denied the immigrants were undocumented, and it isn’t clear if Trump means the same thing Raab does. Raab wrote about some of the court’s findings but did not report that the court determined the legal status of the Polish workers. Raab did report that Kozak had become an American citizen, which would seem to run contrary to the notion that Kozak had been undocumented or illegal, depending on what “undocumented” means.

To summarize, the article defined 200 Polish workers, not a thousand or thousands as Rubio suggested. The article did not name a finding of fact by the court that the Polish workers were undocumented or illegal, as Rubio claimed Thursday night, nor did the article define the meaning of undocumented. The article stated that the Polish workers demolished the building Trump Tower replaced, not that they built the Trump Tower itself as Rubio asserted. The article did state that the court at some point found that Trump owed over $300,000 to union funds, something that caused some workers to lose their pensions. However, that was apparently appealed, because Trump and the workers reached a settlement later that was sealed and ended the issue.

So Rubio has no ultimate court decision to bolster any of his claims, whereas Trump can assert that he was not sued successfully, though he did reach a settlement. Yes, it is possible the plaintiffs got what they wanted; it is also possible that the settlement favored Trump more than the workers.

In the end, it’s a lot of sizzle for Rubio, but no steak.

Let’s examine the Mar-a-Lago claim. Rubio’s attack alleges that Trump stands against illegal immigration and the deportation of illegals even as he hires illegal immigrants for seasonal jobs. The problem lies in the fact that the immigrants Trump hired all have proper government visas, so they were NOT illegal. If Rubio was trying to suggest that Trump contradicted himself with his stance against ILLEGAL immigration by hiring LEGAL immigrants for positions American citizens did not apply for, than Rubio has fallen short of the facts and has spoken fallaciously.

Legal immigration was not an issue in last night’s debate. Illegal immigration was. Rubio may have looked like he made some startling, effective point, but he didn’t. In fact, he manifested an astonishingly defective logic, yet he is the person the establishment cartel wants you to vote into office, a young man who has never built even a small business, a young politician who hasn’t even completed his first term in the United States Senate, a young man without any executive experience. They want to make Rubio the chief executive of this nation?

If we look more deeply, we can see that Trump brought in the legal immigrants on a temporary visa program often reserved for seasonal workers whose positions are hard to fill. Trump wants to eliminate the far more destructive H-1B visa program that Rubio and Cruz have supported (Cruz has flipped his stance; could he flop back?) that allows companies to fire their American high tech workers and replace them with less competent foreigners. See these websites:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/H-1B-work-visa-program-under-fire-in-Senate-6855085.php

http://nypost.com/video/emotional-testimony-by-man-laid-off-by-disney-and-forced-to-train-his-foreign-replacement/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/laid-off-disney-worker-breaks-down-in-tears-before-senate-panel/

It is shameful that “American” companies are destroying and humiliating our neighbors, our fellow American citizens, and our economy. I will not attend any Disney movie or theme park until that rotten-hearted corporate behemoth changes its ways.

If you vote for Rubio, and probably Cruz, you vote for the legalized destruction of opportunities for Americans and the sanction of corporate greed.

It is here where it is clear Trump’s vast experience comes into play. Rubio, again superficially, created the appearance that Trump contradicted himself. Trump countered beautifully, but perhaps many did not understand it. He is saying, yeah, with the conditions and legal setup as they are in this country, I have to go make things in Mexico or China or have to hire immigrants. I don’t want to do that. So I am going to change things. I am going to make better deals (economically and legally) that will make it profitable for American businesses to hire American labor and to keep and create manufacturing right here in our own country.

Rubio either doesn’t understand that or does and deliberately obscures its truth. That’s because he supports corporate greed and the punishment of the more competent American worker. He doesn’t even follow and support the conservative reasoning that Trump is employing and the conservative conclusions he is reaching. Rubio is, indeed, beholden to special interests. If that does not bother you, then vote for him. If it does, vote for Trump.

It is so funny. Rubio contradicted himself when he argued with Trump about health care. He said he understood what Trump was saying about eradicating the lines or barriers around the states that OUTLAW competition and keep insurance rates high, high, high. Then he said something like, “Okay, you want to get rid of the lines around states, whatever that means.” So he didn’t understand. The young, still-in-his-first-term senator wants to approach the problem of health care from some political angle because that is all he knows. Rubio is NOT a businessman. He just wants to score points by repeating – over and over – that he is going to repeal Obamacare.

Trump wants to do something that is so simple and so in concord with the American spirit of competition: break down the walls around each state the prevent insurance companies from competing for consumers’ business. That’s why Trump said there would be so many plans and why he didn’t have details: because the insurance companies will have to craft them to compete and to meet the needs of consumers in the new competitive marketplace. It’s kind of like computer chip makers who make different kinds and capacities of chips to compete and to gain certain market shares.

Rubio’s ignorance was astonishing. Perhaps it got lost in his flair. In the end, it is more of the same: lots of sizzle, no steak.

Mitt in a Snit over Trump Taxes

Standard

Angry Mitt Romney

An angry Mitt Romney is in a snit over Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s taxes. Mitt, who was hit with a similar demand to release his taxes when he ran four years ago, ignored those demands until finally releasing his tax returns two months before the national election.

Some are pointing fingers at Mitt and calling him “Mitt the hypocrite”, because now he, the one who resisted the release of his taxes, demands that Trump release his. To date, no other current Republican candidate except Ted Cruz has released any tax returns. Mitt did not appear to be making a snit over any other candidates’ taxes.

So why would Mitt cause a split over fellow Republican Trump’s taxes? One can only speculate, though Mitt himself suggested there was a “bombshell” in Trump’s taxes. He told a news commentator it could be that Trump did not make as much money as he claimed, was not worth as much, did not pay as much taxes as one “would expect”, or did not donate as much to some of the causes the real estate billionaire says he supports.

Mitt’s snit was generally panned on Fox News’ The Five, where one commentator suggested Mitt’s hit was something the Democrats would do. The simple explanation may be envy. Trump has been far more successful than Mitt, is worth far more, is known far more and, if Trump is elected president, will have risen higher on the political scale than shitty Mitt, who was humiliated by Obama, a first-term senator and community organizer, in the 2012 general election.

Missouri Fires Professor

Standard

I told you I would keep you apprised of University of Missouri Prof. Melissa Click. The Univeristy’s Board of Curators fired her today, according to the Washington Post and USA Today.

Click shouted her way into the national spotlight last November when she sought to bar a student reporter from an outdoor, on-campus protest and to have him ejected by physical force. She yelled for some “muscle” to compel his departure.

The incident was caught on video, and the image of Click’s angry, glaring face pushing closer to the lens, shouting her demands, riveted viewers and readers alike.

Ironically, Click, 42, worked at Missouri’s Communications school and held an honorary appointment in the Journalism school, which was withdrawn after the incident.

Trump Conservative on Essentials

Standard

The television commentators continue to approach the Republican primary campaign from the angle that Donald Trump’s competitors for the nomination must attack him and take him down. The Republican establishment cartel bosses have anathematized Donald Trump. They reiterate to commentators, whom they boss, that, yes, they must go after Trump, they being Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or else – horrors! – they will never catch up to Trump’s burgeoning lead in the delegate count and will not be able to prevent Trump’s nomination.

What does that mean? How can it be that the establishment cartel does not want their frontrunner to be their candidate?

Though Trump has a checkered past ideologically, the policy goals he embraces now lie well within the fortress of conservative thinking: create a large, well-oiled, well-funded military machine that is the most powerful in the world; staunch the flow of illegal immigrants, build a wall on the border with Mexico, patrol it heavily, deport illegals; ban the entry of Muslims and refugees into the country until proper vetting procedures can be established; destroy ISIS; strengthen our national cybersecurity against our enemies, especially the communists and quasi-communists in Red China, Russia, and North Korea, and the bloodthirsty, murderous Muslim terrorists; create and bring jobs back to America, especially manufacturing jobs; punish corporations that damage our economy; tax people fairly; diminish the taxes on companies so they can prosper and expand, thus creating jobs; replace Obamacare in part by tearing down artificial legal barriers to competition from insurance companies across state lines so they compete for customers’ dollars and rates come down; protect Christians and Jews here and abroad; defund and if possible eliminate abortion; reign in the pharmaceutical companies; earn and demand respect for America and Americans; restore our civic spirit and national pride; and more.

With which one of those goals does the establishment cartel of elitists, insiders, and news jockeys disagree? With which goal does the average Republican or conservative take issue? The answer is readily apparent.

Sure, Trump possesses some positional anomalies, but isn’t he in sync with those many vital positions listed above? Who would trade in a ban on Muslim entry for what we have now, when immigrants are simply asked on a form whether they are going to do us harm? Raise your hand if you think a terrorist would answer that honestly. Our current vetting procedures are laughable, and even the terrorists must howl at how easy it is for them to enter the United States. It’s like getting an invitation!

It’s time for the establishment cartel to get in line with its party members and the American public, not the other way around. Ignore their call for obedience and the slick advertising that would shackle you and warp you to their will. Make them tow the line… submissively. Cast your vote accordingly!

The voter turnout in Nevada in particular sent the establishment a grim message. More than twice the number of people caucusing for the Republican Party came out in 2016 as came out in 2012, when the dullard Mitt Romney was the prime candidate, just another establishment player pushing special interests and ignoring the vast majority of people, which is one reason the middle class has been shrinking. Voters don’t want business as usual. Community organizer Barack Obama whipped Romney in debates that highlighted Romney’s fecklessness, limited appeal, and limited presidentialness. Voters don’t want anyone like that again.

Now the people have Trump, a man of strength. What a difference!

Cokie Roberts, Establishment Cog

Standard

As is my custom, I watched Morning Joe this Wednesday. I am hooked on political junkiness, at least for a season. I stayed up to watch MSNBC’s coverage until the end, 2 a.m. Thought Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow performed well. I don’t like the extreme views Maddow purveys on her show, but as an anchor/moderator she stands out.

Among Morning Joe’s several guests sat Cokie Roberts. She is an example of what is wrong with America. I understand her desire for civility, but she charged Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with being a bully who utters harsh comments against the disabled and others, this in the wake of his triumph in the Nevada caucuses.

There are two problems with Roberts. First, she lashes Trump for what she perceives as his failings in style while giving a pass to the much more substantial failings of Hillary Clinton, who exposed our country to several national security breeches. Whether Clinton gets charged or not, she did several things which were ILLEGAL; Trump has said some things that were NOT NICE. Which person/candidate is worse?

Roberts’ misplaced emphasis signals her own political stance and her favor for form over substance. It also, secondly, signals her hypocrisy and her giving more weight to the less weighty. Why doesn’t she rant about Hillary Clinton’s bullying of the women her husband victimized? The threats, the disrespect, the failure to acknowledge the victimization of their womanhood?

And why doesn’t Roberts speak out about what the privileged establishment has been and is doing: ganging up on Trump like a pack of wild hyenas while trampling, not only on voters’ worries and issues, but on their disappointment?

It’s funny. Politics is a bloodsport (and reporters salivate at every cut!), and the pundits I have heard say the Republican primary in South Carolina, for instance, was not nearly as bloody as it has been in the past. By bloody, we mean candidates picking on each other and slashing each other to shreds in the name of the holy grail of American politics: the presidency. Roberts is willing to look away from the campaign trail strewn with the all-too-common lies, deceptions, half-truths, tricks, negativity, bombast, character assassination, and slaughtered promises but she sees with acute moral awareness Trump’s desire to temporarily ban Muslims or description of the way a crippled reporter reacted as offensive and unpresidential.

Barack Obama gives the Queen of England a bunch of videos as a gift and returns a gift from England to us, but that’s okay. The president deliberately, with malice aforethought, characterizes the San Bernardino slaughter as “gun violence” instead of calling it Muslim terrorism. He and his former secretary of state tell the parents and relatives of the Benghazi terrorist victims that a video prompted the murderous rampage by Muslims, but that wasn’t true. Then Clinton says, when told of all the relatives’ memories, that she never said what they say she said and that she is not the one not telling the truth, but we hear no sound of indignation from Ms. Roberts!

I think Joe Scarborough had some fun with it. He asked, and tried to assert that he was being serious, why no criticisms stick to Trump but that Hillary doesn’t get a pass on her emails and Benghazi incompetence. The answer is because what she did was illegal, even if her buddies in the White House or Justice Department won’t prosecute her. What Trump did may have been vulgar, but at least he is speaking without affectation or disingenuity. Clinton could not even say in a national television interview with CBS’s Scott Pelley that she had never lied to the American people. He pressed her. The best she could come up with was that “I don’t believe I ever have.”

Where is Cokie Roberts’ indignation?

See, Trump is raw and unedited. There is a truth about him even when he is lying. People know he doesn’t tell the truth all the time (Chris Matthews provided an excellent analysis of Trump’s rhetoric last night). And he knows they know. But Clinton wants to pretend that she doesn’t lie, and Roberts is willing to go along with the pretense because Roberts is part of the snobby establishment, too.She has to understand everything that is done and said within the establishment framework, a framework that no longer suits a growing number of American citizens. It is not the way they see the world any more, if ever they did. And Roberts does NOT understand that.

Gamble

Standard

Written Feb. 23; posted Feb. 24, 2016

I began to have doubts today. I began to doubt that I should give my vote to Donald Trump.

I did not begin to doubt because of anything the panicked, manipulative establishment was saying about him. Nor did I begin to doubt because of anything the media or the candidates were saying about him. No vital revelations about Trump’s past political activities or beliefs spurred the cloudiness.

The question of would Trump keep his campaign affirmations if elected planted the doubt in my mind. He has trumpeted his ability to negotiate as a key reason to vote for him. He has said he would be willing to compromise (not intrinsically a bad thing) to achieve the best, most advantageous deals for Americans and the country. If he does it enough, would that mean he would not build a wall at the border with Mexico and have that country pay for it? Would he decide against a temporary ban of Muslims entering these United States? Would he accept Syrian refugees after all and risk the entry of terrorists into the country? Would he allow American companies to relocate overseas?

History has taught us that most Republicans and Democrats do not serve the public interest. Upon election, candidates kick the kitchen sink they promised to the curb, along with the common man. They embark on their servitude to the paternalistic special interests that anointed them and that got them elected or to a strict ideological dogma that obliquely traverses common sense. Generally, the two are chained together.

I quelled my worry by the thought of the lack of alternatives. Ted Cruz waxes too ideological for me. Yes, I like his respect for the Constitution. His stand on immigration, while not as tough as Trump’s, shows promise. He does, however, wrestle with honesty. He does have ties to special interests, although all do. As a strict conservative, intentionally or not, his views help those who already own wealth as opposed to those mired in debt and a lack of opportunity. This is a serious flaw in “conservatism”. It is great to speak about maximizing individual freedom when you have the money to do all the maximizing you want. When you don’t, a long period of financial servitude lies in store, what with college debt, housing debt, taxes on small salaries, health care debt: The cost of living, of surviving in today’s world, is off the charts. It crushes the human spirit and destroys liberty for many, if not most.

The establishment has bought and paid for Marco Rubio, and as interesting and attractive as he sometimes seems, the kid has little to no experience and mostly a track record of ambition. How will he help the common man? With more of the same ole same ole: enacting legislation that gives free reign to the so-called “job creators”? How well has that worked for you or for the country the last 20 to 30 years?

It hasn’t.

The same can be said for John Kasich. He will promote the interests of the job annihilating “job creators” who are, when they do, creating jobs overseas. In fact, they have been creating them in countries that hate us and who want to take us down, specifically, Red China. Astonishing! On top of that, while he was governor of Ohio, Kasich has been engaged in privatizing prisons, an effort that always leads to a mass of violations and troubles at the prison and dishonesty. Kasich crusaded against the public employee unions of teachers and emergency workers to crush their opportunity to earn money and benefits. In a statewide plebiscite, Ohio voters roundly rejected the legislation he obtained against those workers. He bowed to their will reluctantly.

The so-called capitalists and “job creators” scream for a free market, but that always means a market free from the competition of union members and laws that hold them accountable for their illicit or immoral practices. They want a clear path for their greed to reach the treasure chest of excess profit!

Party labels mean little sometimes. Hillary Clinton is just another establishment candidate. Her resume may extend lengthily, but her struggle with honesty, her mishandling of national security, and her total misunderstanding of the middle class, plus her pro-death stance, disqualify her. Bernie manifests integrity, but I am worried his suggested policies would bring catastrophe to our economy. I also have a problem with someone who was a conscientious objector becoming commander-in-chief. Ironic, to say the least.

That brings us full circle back to Donald Trump. He has upset and continues to upset the apple cart. Good. The cart needs a massive makeover and restocking. His antics, strength, and policy recommendations lay a heavy burden on himself, however. You are gambling on yourself, Trump, as we are gambling on you. We are gambling that you are not going to be like the other politicians who have done nothing and crushed our hopes and left our country a mess. Please, don’t disappoint us. The effect from such disappointment could be catastrophic.

“Conservative” Crybabies

Standard

Elitist Rich Lowry and his Super PAC buddies have renewed their hellbentness on destroying Donald Trump’s candidacy.

CNN Money reports that Trump has warned the Ricketts family, owner of the Chicago Cubs, to be careful in light of their $3,000,000 donation to the Our Principles PAC, madly run by former Romney cabalist Katie Packer.

The “Our Principles” PAC has one zealously avowed purpose: destroy Trump’s chances at nomination.

Both the Ricketts’ and the super PAC’s actions confirm that the elitists do not want you to think and feel for yourself; they want you to do as you are told. Fortunately, we actually have intellects and can enjoy them spending millions and millions of dollars on their impotent campaign. Be wise, my fellow freethinkers!

It is so funny to hear or read Lowry whine about Trump being a bully, because it is so juicily hypocritical and ironic! Lowry is the bully,  and he’s trying to get all his wealthy friends together to stomp on Trump. What Lowry and so many other of the spoiled brats have been discovering, however, is that Trump is too tough for their sissy kicks.

I am absolutely reveling in their mighty angst and swirling panic. And many are refusing to get on board Lowry’s and Packer’s and the elitist’s sinking ship. I am still tingling from the bitchslapping Fox’s gorgeous Andrea Tantaros gave Lowry a week or so ago. He was apoplectic that she was showing him up!

Every American sick of the weak, deceitful conservatives who have been lining their pockets with special interest money and prostituting their votes and policies should rejoice in the demise of the establishment’s influence. Indeed, they should keep working to make it happen.

The job isn’t done and we haven’t won until Trump has won. Make your votes count. The elitists want you to obey them and vote for anyone other than Trump. They don’t want jobs coming back here. They want to build factories overseas, in fact, in countries that hate us and compete with us and have military aspirations against us, such as Red China. They don’t want an American middle class. They want their upper class and a compliant, controlled lower class. They don’t want to make protecting American lives the priority. They want to let in as many foreigners, legally or illegally, so they can pay even high tech workers less, just like treacherous Disney, which is terminating Americans so it can hire cheaper tech workers from overseas given special visas. If that means increasing the danger by allowing in Muslim terrorists, then so be it, they believe.

Fuck Disney! Don’t go to Disney World and don’t go to a Disney movie during 2016. They are rotten and screwing your fellow citizens.