Monthly Archives: March 2016

Lying, Two-face Politicians and Their Media Enablers


Listen to the politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths and the media let their utterances fly by in the air unchallenged.

The first offender: Mitt Romney. Mitt’s afflicted with his own rabid hypocrisy, more venal than Donald Trump’s rousing insults and remarks. Mitt campaigned openly for John Kasich in Ohio so the governor would win his home state and deny Donald Trump as many delegates as possible. At the time, Two-bit Mitt told his fellow American citizens in Ohio, “Unlike other people running, he has a real track record,” according to a New York Times article by Thomas Kaplan in its First Draft section posted on March 14. “He has the kind of record you want in Washington, and that’s why I’m convinced you’re going to do the right thing tomorrow.”

Romney’s “unlike other people running” clearly disqualified the other three candidates standing at the time because they lacked both sufficient experience and the quality of experience Kasich presented. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are freshmen senators; Donald Trump is a freshman politician but owns an extensive business resume littered with success.

Ohioans sponged up Romney’s false flattery and gave Kasich a plurality, though not a majority, of their votes, allowing him to gather all the state’s 66 delegates.

That was yesterday. It has been quite a different day since! Romney vomited this verbiage in Utah when he went to vote in what is now his home state: “I would have voted for him [Kasich] in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail.”

That quote comes from a CNN article by Theodore Schleifer and posted on the news outlet’s website March 19.

So much for Kasich being the only candidate with the needed quantity and quality of experience! Who’s the con artist, Mitt?

Kasich himself, as with the other candidates in this race, gorged himself on hypocrisy, too. Kasich has bashed Trump for his temporary ban on all foreign Muslims entering the United States as a tool to help prevent terrorism. Trump wants to institute effective vetting procedures first. The criticism by Kasich and others is that you can’t lump all Muslims together, though their scriptures call for them to act hatefully and violently against “infidels”.

So, did the candidates say the same thing when they presented themselves before the giant Jewish lobby, AIPAC? Did they decry individual Palestinians (and Israelis) who committed violent acts?

Naw! Spluttering about the American-Israeli relationship, Kasich asserted there was “a Palestinian culture of death.” He added the spark of Palestinian attacks on Israel was “a culture of hate that Palestinian Authority has promoted for 50 years.”

Granted, Kasich did not mention Islam, but what stands as the greatest influence on Palestinian culture? Certainly, sociological work is needed to make a scientific analysis, but can we not say that Islam provides a profound motivation to those who place their trust in it? What is the result of telling people over and over that God wants them to torture and kill the infidels and that failure to do so is itself apostasy?

Even Trump pandered to the AIPAC crowd. As an American, I was sickened. What is it exactly that America gets out of its relationship to Israel? Is not one of the causes of the Middle Eastern turmoil the creation of a Jewish state where none existed?

Much to say there is, if I may wax Yodaic, but such is fodder for another day.


Make Your Super Tuesday Vote Count


Defy the Establishment!

Defy the liberal and conservative thugs ganging up on you and on Donald Trump! Meet their bullying with an act of violence on the voting lever or on the oval on the ballot! Darken it in, pressing the point of your pencil until it almost breaks! Obscure their pallid cries of racism and bigotry and prejudice and anger and frustration with every harsh stroke!

Super Tuesday lies before us, and we Americans rightly indignant over the errant course of our country the last couple of decades and more should flood the voting booths for Trump! We are sick of the minority of elites and the elitist minorities who play victim and who demand our obeisance. We are sick of hearing that the situation of the illegal alien is the axis upon which our political thought must revolve rather than the spirit and letter of our Founding Fathers embodied in our Declaration and our Constitution. We are sick of hearing that guns kill and not people, especially from people who ask doctors, and doctors who comply with such asking, to insert a sharp metallic instrument into their wombs so the doctor can crush the skull of their babies. We are sick of hearing the financial greeds and their lackeys tell us we must accept free trade and the annihilation of jobs for our fellow Americans, and that manufacturing cannot return to the United States.

Liars! Discouragers! Deviants! Devourers of Hope and of our hard-won substance! How dare you!

Vote for Trump! Take a huge step to make America great again on this Super Tuesday!

How the mind manipulators within the Democrats and the Republicans, in their unnatural coupling, want you to think Donald Trump is causing the violence at his rallies! It isn’t the people who sneak in so they can disrupt Trump’s speech or hassle a supporter. It isn’t an Only Black Lives Matter thug getting in someone’s grill, shouting obscenities, or trying to rip away a Trump sign or the American flag out of a Trump supporter’s hands. It isn’t the “gangstas” who showed up at Trump’s planned Chicago rally packing automatic guns.

No. Donald Trump wants to interrupt his own speech. He wants create havoc at his own rally. He wants to use up time to direct security to remove ugly protesters in place of telling his supporters about his plans to make the country great again.

Brilliant logic media and establishment cartel!

You know what? Those disrupters should be manhandled. They should be manhandled and picked up and carried away and thrown out the door on their big, fat asses! They have a right to assemble peaceably, not to disrupt provocatively and endanger whole groups of people with their belligerent rhetoric and sabotage of free speech. If that doesn’t work, arrest their sorry asses!

The establishment cartel will never let go of their power without a resounding electoral revolution. There is only one candidate both establishment cartel’s are gunning for.

Make your vote count on Super Tuesday. Vote Trump.

Does Islam Promote Hate, Torture, and Murder?


Wittingly or not, Donald Trump has once more identified the prime issue in U.S. – Middle East relations and a key issue in both legal and illegal immigration.

In an interview with CNN Host Anderson Cooper, Trump stated frankly that he believes that Islam hates us. Below is my transcript of the initial question posed by Cooper, Trump’s response, Cooper’s clarifying question, and Trump’s added response:

COOPER: “Do you think Islam is at war with the West?”

TRUMP: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something [pause], there’s something there tha- that is a tremendous hatred there. There is a tremendous hatred there. We have to get to the bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us.” [Trump begins another word but Cooper interrupts to ask his qualifying question based on Trump’s last sentence.]

COOPER: “In Islam itself?”

TRUMP: “You’re going to have to figure that out, okay? You’ll get another Pulitzer [Prize for Journalism], right? But you’re going to have to figure that out. But there is a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful, and we can’t allow people coming in to this country who have this hatred of the United States and- and- and of people who are not Muslim.”

COOPER: [After initially talking over Trump’s last sentence]: I guess the question is, is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or is there a war between the West and Islam itself?”

TRUMP [After stopping the start of his answer to Cooper’s last question before Cooper had finished asking it]: “It’s radical, but it’s very hard to define. It’s very hard to- to separate because you don’t know who’s who.”

The buzzards of political correctness are once again putting us at risk and vilifying Trump for what they consider a bigoted and divisive statement. Trump’s statement comes on the heels of his proposal to temporarily ban all Muslim entry into the United States until effective vetting procedures are established.

Lost in such derision lies the fact that many, if not perhaps an overwhelming majority, of Americans get the same impression. The media itself has reported constantly since Iran took American hostages in the late 1970s the remarks of a variety of Islamic leaders and protesters pronouncing, shouting, or holding high banners that proclaim the United States is “the Great Satan”, “Death to America”, “Behead Those Who Insult Islam”.

Protesters in the Middle East have burned the flag of the United States repeatedly. News Reports have shown or revealed to Americans and Westerners cruel acts of ritual mutilation of female genitalia, the rape and or molestation of women and young children, the senseless brutalizing of al Quaeda and ISIS victims, beheadings of innocent people and children, including many Westerners, sneak attacks and bombings of school buses and stores and other public places, endlesss wars, and cruel genocides of Christians.

Buddhists aren’t committing these acts against Americans or the West. Confucians are committing these acts against them. Hindus aren’t committing these acts against them. Atheists aren’t committing these acts against them, etc.

In vilifying Trump, the media, politicians, and pundits vilify Americans: we who observe the same difficulty and think and speak frankly. They not only stifle free speech, they stifle and manipulate the natural thoughts and feelings that arise from witnessing such empirical realities. We begin to throttle the natural course of human feeling and reasoning within ourselves because we are told it’s inappropriate, wrong, and un-American. When that doesn’t work, the political correctors create “hate” laws to make sure they suppress free expression. It’s like Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Most importantly, we lose sight of the identification of the problem, the resolution of it, and of the affirmation of our Americanness.

Americans stand for liberty. Therefore, we stand against those who oppose liberty and who would do violence to our foundational principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If our Founding Fathers waged war against the tyranny of the Mother Country, how much more should we, receiving the torch they have passed on to us, wage war against those who seek our personal destruction, the destruction of our faith, in whatever that may be, and the destruction of liberty?

So the specific identification that needs to be made, and to which Trump spoke in his interview, is what lies in Islam that plays a role for so many of its adherents, actively or passively, to hate Westerners, and Americans in particular, and to incite Muslims to a savage frenzy. There may be other, contributing factors to their displeasure. At the root, however, is there something essential to Islam that breeds fanatical hatred in its followers?

The unwillingness to deal with this question riles American citizens who have heard or read that The Koran is littered with core religious tenets that promote hatred and violence against Americans, Westerners, and non-Muslims generally.

I have written previously that one may perform a DuckDuckGo search of “verses of violence in The Koran” to find reliable websites that can help answer that question. I will offer just a few below for the readers’ consideration.

I own a Penguin Classics edition of The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood, an Iraqi Jew born in Baghdad who became a translator of Arabic classics like The Koran and the Thousand and One Nights. The edition I own is from 1999, contains an introduction, a note to the general reader, a chronology of events in Muhammad’s life, the main text of 114 chapters or surahs, some of which are less than a page long and others longer, some notes, and an index.

Keeping in mind the difficulties inherent in translation and the context of what is written, the sitz-im-leben of the author/speaker and any intervening redactors, I will attempt to present some verses honestly and accurately.

I do not condemn any person who thinks differently from me; as a freeman, I reserve the right to condemn actions that threaten, harm, or destroy the lives of me and my fellow citizens, and I make no apology for that. Elected and appointed officials owe Americans a duty to protect them, to consider and promote their interests and well-being before those of any others. That’s the basis for and the purpose of the formation of our American government.

So, when Trump states “I think Islam hates us” and that “there is a tremendous hatred there”, is he correct?

This is from the chapter called “The Spoils” and begins at what is marked 8:12 through about 8:16:

God revealed his will to the angels, saying, “I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads! Strike off the very tips of their fingers!”

That was because they defied God and his apostle. He that defies God and his apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them, “Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers.”

Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except for tactical reasons, or to join another band, he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home, an evil fate.

It was not you, but God, who slew them.

Let’s break this down, admitting that with more knowledge and scholarship, our understanding may change.

First, because these verses reveal God’s will, they relieve the Muslim of moral responsibility for his actions. God directs the angels, who in turn encourage the believers. God casts terror into the hearts of infidels. The believer decapitates the infidels, but it is God who slays them.

Second, the objects of wrath deserve the terror and horrible deaths they receive. They are infidels in relation to Islam, kind of like a bed-hopping wife is an infidel in relation to her husband. Infidel comes from the Latin infidelis, “in” (not) “fidelis” (faithful). Contrast that with the Marine Corps. motto, semper fidelis, shortened to “semper fi”, always faithful. In the eyes of the Muslim, those who do not believe in Islam defy God and his apostle with their infidelity. Not only must the infidel taste horrible torture and slaughter here on Earth, he can expect more in the next life, where the scourge of the Fire waits to engulf him.

Third, failure to comply with the directive to torture and slaughter itself merits damnation. The only reason a Muslim should walk away from a fight is to regroup or to gain a tactical advantage. If he walks away for any other reason, he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home.

Pretty strong stuff, eh?

So when Trump judiciously, if not grammatically, says that “Islam hates us”, he identifies a prime if murky problem for our representatives, one that is not helped or solved by the venom of the adherents of political correctness who terrorize our thought and speech and whose emotional instability propels them and the nation to rash judgment. Nor is it solved by pretending what The Koran says is not what The Koran says.

We should not avoid the problem out of fear, but we should engage in a healthy national debate. Do Muslims believe those verses are true, or do they now, in the 21st century, reject them? Are the so-called radical Muslims really radical, or do they just believe exactly what The Koran says?

Those are essential questions.

We should address the problem honestly and openly and rationally and, when needed, with emphatic and successful military force, with the eye toward affirming and securing our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Down with the buzzards of political correctness! Let’s answer the question of whether Islam fosters hate, torture, and murder. If the asnwer is affirmative, we take the appropriate actions that protect American citizens.

Don’t Let Them Make You Feel Guilty


Watching Morning Joe this Tuesday morning on MSNBC, I heard Joe Scarborough comment on the ridiculousness of some people and media outlets. Those people or media outlets, or both, had been taking snapshots of Donald Trump’s campaign rallies.

The snapshots were usually taken when Trump jocularly got the attendees at his rally to raise their right hand and take an oath to vote for him.Once the oath was done, Trump told his audience members they had to vote for him, then said they didn’t have to do that.

It’s just kind of a fun thing that Trump does, and the members of the audience seem to enjoy it. They are hooping and hollering all along.

However, the little vengeful ones, the establishment lackeys, Romney’s Robots, have been using the snapshots to describe a “Hitler-like salute” as Trump holds a fascist or white supremacist rally.

The effort comes on the heels of a Saturday Night Live skit that portrayed all Trump supporters as swastika-wearing white supremacists.

Frankly, it is part of an alarming, chilling effort to discredit people who have legitimate political, economic, and cultural concerns about this country, and effort to shame them into voting for the candidate the discreditors want them to elect.

Call it mind manipulation.

Mitt Romney shoulders much of the responsibility for this turn (although the liberal media was happy to push it on) after he spat his venom against Trump and, by implication, his supporters, with his unChristian harangue last Thursday.

Like a self-righteous coward, Romney hurled rocks at Trump, hoping to kill his candidacy. Romney is an elitist who refuses to allow the establishment to lose its iron grip on the Republican Party and on what he defines as conservative.

Envy had something to do with it, too. Romney greened as he saw Trump’s astonishing successes. He did not want Trump to succeed where he, Romney, had failed so miserably.

Among Romney, the Republican establishment cartel, and the liberal media abides a desire to paint hardworking white people, and any race or ethnicity that joins them, as fascist or white supremacist. It is in a way funny, because in the clip Morning Joe showed were black people at the Trump rally raising their hands to take the oath.

Facts never get in the way of media fiction, however, and the effort is charging ahead full steam to discredit Trump’s campaign and his supporters as fascists or white supremacists.

Don’t let them shame you! You have nothing of which to be ashamed. Don’t let them make you feel guilty! You have nothing about which to feel guilty.

Increasingly in this country it seems like white people – and it probably isn’t accurate to use that phrase – are being derided for looking at life through the Anglo-Saxon lens, even though that is our heritage and the foundation for our country.

I am half Hispanic and half Celtic, and I may have a touch of Jewish in me by way of my Spanish side. So I am quite diverse in myself. I am sure there are other “whites” or members of other races or ethnicities who could say they are even more diverse. Tiger Woods used to say he was a “Cablinasian”: a mix of caucasian, black, and asian heritage.

I am proud of what I am. But I am also proud of my country’s Anglo-Saxon influence, and while that influence has been and can be seasoned by other cultures or subcultures, I hope it remains the predominant influence.

Yet that influence and the people who represent it are savaged for being themselves and for standing up for this country, these United States, born of Great Britain and her Christian beliefs and rationalist philosophy.

When they want immigration laws enforced and borders secured, they are called fascist. When they want to temporarily ban entry to the country by Muslims, the group that generally spawns and supports terrorists, until effective vetting procedures are created and put into place, they are called racist or white supremacist. If you are pro-life, you want to trample on women.

Romney, the Republican establishment cartel, and the liberal media employ the rhetoric of extremism. A fellow citizen disagrees with a liberal or a Romneyan, so he shames him into agreement. Paint him as a Nazi, or a closet member of the Klan, or as a “throwback” to all that was evil in this country and in the world. Condemn his frank speech, because it is impossible to condemn the wisdom of the policies proposed.

Once shamed, the fellow citizen shuts up, and the members of the establishment on both sides, Republican and Democrat, get opposition out of the way and get what they want, which is to maintain control.

Don’t fall for it. You aren’t a Nazi or fascist or white supremacist or whatever because you support Trump, or even Cruz, who would probably be getting the brunt of the attacks if he were in the lead.

You aren’t evil because you see life through an Anglo-Saxon lens. Just the opposite. Be proud of what our heritage has accomplished, which means even if you aren’t Anglo-Saxon, you can be proud of that national heritage and make it yours. (That’s what integration was supposed to be about.) It’s what makes us American.

Trump Launches Ad Against Rubio


The New York Times ran a story this afternoon that reported Donald Trump’s campaign had launched advertising in Florida to discredit Marco Rubio’s performance as a state legislator and senator. A link for the ad appears below:

The Times called Trump’s advertising “savage”. I’m not sure what they are calling the ganging up and bullying by every special interest Super PAC and Mitt Romney, using every defamatory word and accusation they can make up. Trump’s advertisement states Rubio is corrupt, that his attendance in the United States Senate is the worst, and that he misused a Republican Party of Florida credit card.

The advertising comes on the run up to next Tuesday’s Florida primary election, in which the delegate allotment is winner-take-all. Trump has led in Florida by double digits for at least two months, but a recent Monmouth University Poll shows a tightened race with Trump leading Rubio by eight percentage points.

Is Rubio corrupt? That is a conclusion each voter will have to reach or reject. Is the evidence Trump provides in the advertisement factual? Yes.

Click on this link to discover Politifact’s rating of Rubio’s claim that his own money financed the use of the party credit card:

Has Rubio failed to attend more senate votes than any other U.S. senator? As of a February, 2015 article at Vocativ, Rubio had more missed votes than any other senator, so it is a pattern with him that began before any serious campaigning. Interestingly, Ted Cruz was fifth worst. The article and data are here:

Rubio’s attendance has plummeted precipitously since July. For the last two quarters of 2015, Rubio’s absentee rate was over 50% and closing in on 60%. For the first three months of this year, Rubio has been absent for more than 90% of the senate’s votes. Scroll down the page at this link to find the graphic:

Rubio and his campaign will argue that he deserves to miss those votes because he is running for president. On the other hand, Rubio is cashing checks from Florida taxpayers for the public service he is NOT performing but for which they elected him. Not a good deal for Floridians.

It makes me chuckle at times to hear advertisements funded by the billionaire Super PACs that claim Trump isn’t tough and doesn’t know how to do business. Who thinks Trump never crossed some pretty tough folks during his 40+ years of business development and negotiations? Who doesn’t think Trump knows how to do business when he has built a $4.5 billion empire? That’s about 20 times the amount of the value Mitt Romney built, yet the media, in its lust to satisfy the establishment cartel, allows Romney to comment on Trump’s business smarts! Amazing!

Romney in comparison to Trump is a lightweight.

Mexico’s Assclown President


Mexico’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto (pronounced en-REE-kay   PAIN-yah   nee-AY-toe) whined today about Donald Trump’s word to build a wall along the American-Mexican border to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigration and illegal drugs from that crime-fueled country into the United States. 

Trump has also promised to patrol the borders effectively and to deport those who migrated and set up residence here illegally while draining taxpayers for all the illicit freebies they receive.

Peña Nieto cried out that Mexico will never pay for the wall, as Trump said it would. Anyone want to bet on who is going to win that disagreement?

Of course, to bolster his claim, the Mexican president had to make the astonishing assertion that Trump’s words were like Hitler’s and  Mussolini’s.

“That’s the way Mussolini arrived and that’s the way Hitler arrived,” Peña Nieto was quoted as saying to a Mexican newspaper, El Excelsior.

What an assclown! Peña Nieto doesn’t know anything about history. He doesn’t even know anything about his own people, even though he tried to claim Trump didn’t understand them.

It’s not Trump’s job to understand the Mexican people. It is Peña Nieto’s, but clearly he doesn’t. because he cannot manage his own country’s problems.

Countries put up walls, barbed wire, checkpoints, etc. along their borders and they always have. We get it that Mexico’s old, entrenched Spanish system, which depreciates the Indian and relegates him to second- or third-class status stinks to high heaven and impoverishes him more or less permanently, which is why so many become violent and part of the deadly drug trade.

The question is when is Peña Nieto and the Mexican legislature going to get off their collective asses and relieve the suffering of the vast majority of their oppressed peoples? Do they even possess that desire and the moral strength to carry it out.? Probably not. But at the least they can shut their faces and not interfere with what we need to do to protect our citizens and our economy.

If they don’t like it, too bad!

Calling someone Hitler or Mussolini, or what they say or do “fascist”, has become such a hollow rhetorical cliché that really means, “Your proposal disagrees with mine and puts me on the spot and might actually solve the problem that I don’t want to solve.”

It’s just a cheap, rhetorical shot that only works with the ignorant and folks so emotionally sensitive that they lack the capacity to critically perceive its worthlessness.

Build the wall, Trump, and make it 50 feet high! Kick out the freeloading illegals!

Weighted Debate: Some Post-debate Analysis


As I said in a previous post, we are going to examine in greater detail examples from Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate at Detroit and on Fox News.

As part of the analysis, I will spotlight errors or rhetorical misdirection by the candidates, including Trump, and try to shed light on the motivations of the moderators in the questions they chose to ask and the manner in which they asked them. You can make up your own minds about whether I am on target or not, who won or who is qualified or whether this or that moderator was, ultimately, fair.

My encouragement to you to support Trump is neither blind nor permanent. As an American, I hold steadfastly to our liberty and to our being the governed whose consent is required by any candidate in any election. If we elect them, the candidates work for us; we do not work for them. A candidate has to earn our votes in the course of his candidacy and/or of his performance. If we find either deficient or defective, we may withdraw our support at any time. We are under no obligation to be or to remain loyal. It is the obligation of the candidate to remain loyal to us and to the proposals he proffered to gain our support.

Trump is at least honest about one thing: the need for flexibility. Get used to the idea that a candidate is likely to compromise on legislation. Only dictators get everything they want, and many voters don’t give a hoot about the ideology behind a law or policy, only whether it produces the result they wanted.

That said, we do want a candidate whose laws and policies take us in the direction he said he was going to take us. To the extent that a candidate does and fulfills his word and remedies the ills of the country, producing the effects we desired, we may choose to remain supportive. To the extent that a candidate fails in those things, we can withdraw our support or, if we have already elected him, make him a one-term president.

My context for understanding the debate and the candidates is the craving of the Republican elite establishment and its media arm to oust Trump from the race to thwart his policy proposals and to make sure the voters accept the candidate who will most likely guarantee their privilege.

Whether you agree with Trump or not or with his brash style, Mitt Romney, standing in the stands, cowardly throwing rocks at Trump from above the sideline, sickened me. Trump is correct: Romney failed. Look at how few Republicans he was able to draw out to vote in 2012! He choked at the end, despite the support he did receive. And here he is, the failure, trying to prevent someone else from succeeding. That was worse than a vulgarity uttered and was itself the embodiment of offensive vulgarity.

The talk of a brokered convention proves to me the establishment does not want to lose control to an outsider. That’s why they hate Trump and are ganging up on him. They barely like Cruz more and would just as soon oust him, too.

Further proof is the establishment’s manipulation of Marco Rubio, whose career is all but over. They manipulated Rubio into launching even worse personal, vulgar attacks at Trump than Trump had launched at others. Rubio compromised his core personal values to do the establishment’s filthy work, and I suspect they are ready to toss him aside after he fails to win Florida. He will have been useful and become “expendable.”

It will probably take a few posts to makes the vital points. Sometimes I will use my own recording of the debate, at others a transcript I downloaded from the Washington Post, at others a mix of the two. Sometimes I will condense and/or paraphrase; at others I may offer and extended paraphrase or quote. The analysis will be in-depth, I hope, so I will begin here with just the first question to each candidate, except for the question to Kasich.

In the First Round of questions, note that Trump gets hit with two, and Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich each with one.

The FIRST QUESTION OF THE FIRST ROUND is to Trump from Wallace: bascially, Mitt Romney ripped your reputation this morning, questioning your legitimacy and the legitimacy of your proposals, what is your response?

TRUMP REPLIES: Romney is a loser. He (Trump) does believe in free trade and supports it, despite Romney’s attack, but not when the United States is sustaining such huge trade deficits to China, Mexico, and Japan. We are getting “beat so badly.” We have to redo our trade deals to make them favorable to the United States.

ANALYSIS: Wallace’s lead-in to the first question was lengthy, so though Trump does not answer every criticism by Romney that Wallace enumerated, Trump does endeavor to respond directly. Trump points out that Romney’s failure to win undermines the former nominee’s critique and says he believes what Romney believes about free trade but not how free trade was negotiated nor how it is being executed.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY: Trump’s lack of rhetorical skill manifests itself here as in other places. We don’t want our candidates to be nothing more than varnish, but we appreciate some polish and depth, too. Trump could have pointed out Romney’s outburst betrayed not only himself as one whose endorsement Romney sought, obtained, and cherished, but also betrayed the party and its faithful as well as average Americans.

Trump should have made the case that Romney’s low-road criticism betrayed Trump’s and other candidates’ voters by Romney’s focus on ideology and perfect form instead of substance, and that Romney perpetuates the deafness of establishment Republican politicians to the needs and desires of average Americans in their party. Did spouting ideology and principle while dividing Americans into two classes (the elites and the “other 47%”, though I suspect in Romney’s World the “other” 47% is probably the “other 87%”) bring about the benefits promised to Americans, with or without Romney elected as president? No, it did not. It can be argued that Romney’s electoral failure gave birth to Obama and his checkered administration. It produced polarity and gridlock in Washington that accomplished virtually nothing for Americans. If he (Trump) is angry about that like a lot of other Americans, then his indelicate utterances are just steam being vented, and Romney and the deaf establishment elite should be paying more attention to voters’ concerns.

Meanwhile he, Trump, should say that he is making an appeal to mainstream Republicans who have suffered economically, culturally, and politically, who have gone unheard and unrepresented by the deaf establishment crowd compromised by special interests. That’s why Republicans are coming to the polls in record numbers and voting for outside candidates in record numbers. Romney failed to speak to them in 2012, and since that time, establishment Republican elected representatives have failed to respect them and honor the commitments they made to them.

FIRST ROUND, SECOND QUESTION TO TRUMP FROM WALLACE: Wallace states there has been a “race controversy” (as in racial as opposed to a controversy within the Republican race for the nomination, though a man as intelligent as Wallace probably meant both) fueled by a question about David Duke, a white supremacist who endorsed Trump. Wallace said he wanted to go further and ask Trump about his views of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

TRUMP RESPONSE: Trump answers directly and says hyperbolically but meaningfully that Wallace’s question is about the 18th time he (Trump) has been asked it. Trump enumerates the many times historically and recently he has disavowed David Duke and white supremacy. He notes that journalists look at and report on his Twitter comments all the time but somehow they didn’t see his response on Twitter immediately after the interview in which the press claims he fumbled the answer, A Twitter response in which he unequivocally disavowed Duke.

ANALYSIS: One of Trump’s best responses of the night. He clearly and directly answered Wallace’s question and put to bed the press-manufactured “controversy” about which so many journalists were hyperventilating.

FIRST ROUND, THIRD QUESTION: Anchor Brett Baier asks Marco Rubio about what he (Rubio) said three weeks ago, and he quotes Rubio: “I don’t do the personal attacks, primarily because it is not who I am, because I think it’s beneath the office that I am seeking, but also because I do not want to embarrass my kids.” Baier says in the past week Rubio has mocked Trump’s tan, made fun of his spelling, called Trump a con artist, suggested Trump wet himself backstage at the last debate, and spouted other vulgar jokes and jabs. Baier finished with “What happened?”

RUBIO’S RESPONSE: Donald has been mocking everyone for the last year, and if ever anyone deserved to be attacked that way, it’s Donald Trump. Rubio said he would “much prefer to have a policy debate” and hoped the Detroit debate would feature that. He added, “Let’s be honest, too, about all this. The media has given these personal attacks that Donald Trump has made an incredible amount of coverage.”

ANALYSIS: In my opinion, this was the period to Marco Rubio’s fall from grace and from electoral opportunity. Rubio does not answer the question, and the Fox News moderators do not follow up to point that out and to demand an answer, as was their duty, and as they so often do with Trump. That Trump may have deserved the medicine he doled out does not mean that Rubio should have been the one to give it back to Trump.

If personal attacks and vulgarity and offensiveness render a candidate unpresidential, a father a poor model to his children, and a man a loser of his character, as Rubio said they would, then Rubio converted himself into someone who is a poor role model to his kids, who is beneath the office of the president, and who loses his character.

Rubio fell prey, perhaps, to pressure from the establishemt or to the manipulation of his campaign handlers or to his own poor judgment or to some combination of those.

That the media has given Trump’s brashness coverage says nothing about Rubio’s character change. He whiffed hugely.

It was most unpleasant to see, and I can’t help but feel that the establishment Republicans used Rubio before intending to toss him aside. Shame on biased Fox for failing to pin down Rubio as he tried to squirm away with his misdirecting answer!

TRUMP’S REBUTTAL: Says he takes back calling Rubio a lightweight then backhandedly says, “He’s not that much of a lightweight.” Trump then tackles Rubio’s reference to his hand size and its implications for the size of Trump’s phallus. “I guarantee you: There’s no problem.”

ANALYSIS: Generally, I think this was a blundered answer. The first thing Trump should have done was spotlight Rubio’s betrayal of himself, added his change on amnesty, and reiterated that Rubio would frustrate voters in a similar fashion, if elected president. Second, Trump should have admitted the brashness of his spontaneous reactions, that he has been trying to get attention to the issues, and that he does not sit around and plan to say anything that is harsh about anyone. Most people are willing to give Trump leeway because they view him as honest and forthright instead of mean-spirited, a view which could change in a wink. Third, he should have pointed out that Rubio, at the behest of the establishment and like Romney in his treacherous tirade, became mean-spirited and went too far with his suggestive comments and that he (Trump) will never descend to that level. Trump had done just that with Vicente Fox’s use of the F word. Fourth, he should not have said anything about his privates. Not everyone agrees with me on the latter. One woman told me Trump had the right to respond. I think it just gave Rubio room to breathe because Rubio was then no longer further off from decency but had Trump with him.

ANALYSIS OF FOX’S FIRST THREE QUESTIONS: Notice how Fox has asked three negative questions that all involve Trump and which place him on the defensive. Journalists can say what they want about not being dictated to, but they are, or at least they allow themselves to be. Romney’s pre-planned and staged comments deliberately delivered the morning of the debate drove Fox’s first three questions, as they drove every network’s coverage all day. Why? For all the blather about government policy, it’s absent from the first three deliberately chosen questions. In asking their first question, the Fox moderators got to repeat all of Romney’s venomous criticisms. In the second question, they chose to ask Trump to respond to a slur they brought to mind again that had already been answered three days before, over and over again. And with the third question to Rubio, they easily anticipated that Rubio was going to rip Trump, once again making Trump answer for yet another contrivance, this one manufactured by Rubio that “Trump made me do it.”

FIRST ROUND, FOURTH QUESTION, TO CRUZ FROM KELLY: “You say you are the true conservative in this race, but you’ve only won four of the 15 states that have voted so far.” He’s lost with “your core voting groups” including evangelicals and conservatives. “Hasn’t your brand of conservatism been rejected by an electorate that appears to be more taken with Mr. Trump’s more populist message?

ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION: Superficially, this question appears to be a tough one that puts Cruz on the defensive. In reality, it’s a disingenuous and crafty question from Kelly. First, at this point, Cruz was within 100 delegates of Trump and only a half million voters behind in a primary that has seen such a record turnout that more votes have been cast for each of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio at this stage than had been cast for Romney in 2012! Again, each one of them alone has more votes than Romney did at this same stage of the primary in 2012! Second, Cruz is in second place in a race with three other candidates. Why would this question be asked of Cruz when there are two other candidates behind him? Third, isn’t it a bit early to ask if voters have rejected the No. 2’s brand of conservatism? And why did Kelly add Trump and “his populist” message to the question, if not to highlight her implied contention that Trump is not a true conservative? Why didn’t she just leave the question at “your brand of conservatism” without adding Trump? This question is really meant to give Cruz a platform to praise himself and sell his “brand”. Shame on biased Megyn Kelly, who has been after Trump from the beginning!

CRUZ’S RESPONSE: I will not put quotation marks around this paraphrase of Cruz’s answer, but if you compare it to a transcript or your video, you will see it is virtually word-for-word.

At the end of the day, this is not about the insults among the candidates, the attacks. This is about the people at home who are struggling [unnatural pause] through seven years of Barack Obama. This is [about] the single moms who are working two or three jobs 28, 29 hours a week because their hours have been forcibly reduced because of Obamacare. This is the truck drivers and the steel workers and the mechanics with callouses on their hands who’ve seen their wages not grow year after year after year while the cost of living goes up. This is all the young people coming out of school with student loans up to their eyeballs that aren’t able to find a job. And I don’t think the people of America are interested in a bunch of bickering schoolchildren. They are interested in solutions, not slogans. It’s easy to say, “Make things better. Make things great.” You can even put it on a baseball cap. But the question is do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place. As president, I will repeal every word of Obamacare. I’ll pull back the regulators that are killing small businesses, and we will pass a simple flat tax and abolish the IRS. And what that’s going to do, Megyn, is small business is going to explode. We’re going to see millions of high paying jobs. We’re going to see wages go up. We’re going to see opportunity. That’s where our focus needs to be. That’s where my focus is. And that is why my campaign is the only campaign that over and over again has beaten Donald Trump to date. And it’s why we’re the one campaign going forward that can and will beat Donald Trump in this election.

ANALYSIS: Simple. Did Cruz answer the question? No. Did he identify his “brand” of conservatism and Trump’s “brand” of conservatism? No. Did he explain why voters had rejected his “brand” as Kelly asked? No. Cruz doesn’t even deny her assumption, which he would do, and easily enough, if he were answering the question. He doesn’t even explain the conservative principles at work in his ideas and policies.

Cruz embarked on a verbose circumlocution as the Fox moderators winked at him. Using imagery and in preacher fashion, Cruz listed tough situations in which some Americans might be finding themselves, took a few jabs at Trump, and listed a few populist measures of his own, like ridding the U.S. of Obamacare and implementing a flat tax, which will rid us of the IRS. He offers no insight into the problems, and he presented solutions in the same way Trump does, nominally, yet without scrutiny and any hollering about failing to offer details. Where is Rubio’ condemnation that that is all Cruz is offering, a flat tax? Will someone who makes $5,000 a year pay the same tax rate as someone who makes $5,000,000? Really? Is that fair?

To Cruz’s credit, we have to say he usually debates as a master rhetor, in preacher-like fashion, building up the emotion of the audience, their outrage, so that when he offers his solutions, they are all behind them without thinking what they are really about, because what they want most is for the offending problems to be gone.

What you won’t hear out of a Fox moderator is anything that challenges what has been held as a conservative principle. For instance, companies have been reducing what they consider their payroll burden for decades, eliminating full-time jobs and the accompanying pay and benefits for them to replace them with much less expensive part-time jobs. Obamacare, perhaps unintentionally (I do not support it as a policy) gives companies another reason to keep making the transition to part-timers. So Cruz is being dishonest. He will not do everything to make life better for American workers, if under conservatism owners and managers can do whatever they want with workers. A flat tax will almost certainly benefit wealthier people and hurt poorer. What about compassionate conservatism? Did it die with Jack Kemp’s exit from office? Abolishing the IRS: Will it really happen? Who will monitor tax frauds? How will removing EPA regulations make small businesses explode and employment rise, especially when we continue to endure massive trade and national deficits? BTW, Cruz uses slogans, too, like “TrusTed”. It’s on a banner behind him at rallies and news conferences.

Did Fox follow up or pin him down, as they do Trump? Nah! They deliberately threw a softball at him, now that they have turned against Rubio and need someone to support against Trump.

CONCLUSION: Hopefully, just by the opening questions alone (at this point I did not think it important enough to include Kasich’s), you can see the weightedness of the particular questions, of the pattern of questions, and of the moderators’ actions or inactions in response to the candidate’s response. I hope this is helpful to you as you sift through the campaigns and campaign coverage. It isn’t an easy process, and politician’s make it even more convoluted. Thanks for reading!