In a stunning upset predicted by almost no one, Donald Trump has become President-Elect of the United States. He won the electoral college vote 290 to 228. The popular vote totals vary slightly from site to site, with CNN reporting 59,755,284 for Hillary Clinton to 59,535,522 for Donald Trump. The difference in the popular vote is about two-tenths of one percent. It is difficult to imagine a closer vote tally out of a total of approximately 120 million votes.
Republicans held the House of Representatives 239 to 193, with 3 undecided. Republicans even held the Senate 51 to 48, with one undecided. Republicans increased their hold on governor mansions, with the new total 33 Republican to 15 Democrat. Whether one considers these results to reflect Trump's coattails, or a preference for Republican policies, the numbers are impressive. If you can, take a look at page 9A of the 11/10/16 USA Today. There is a map of the US showing each county in each state. The counties won by Trump are in red. Those won by Clinton are in blue. The map is overwhelmingly red.
There were very few states, if any, that Trump ignored. The electoral college is again in the spotlight as it appears Hillary may have won the popular vote. Small states are definitely given an advantage with the electoral college system. It also means that states with large populations (which today are generally democratic) will not have the final say. Trump wisely went into states with even a low electoral total, and he spent much time in the rust belt states. He carried Wisconsin - the first Republican to do so since Ronald Reagan did in 1984. And once again Ohioans showed that they are a reliable predictor of the winner.
In the nights since the election we have seen mobs of mostly young people in cities around the country protesting Trump's victory. Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Richmond and Los Angeles, to name some. In Los Angeles, demonstrators were able to shut down a busy freeway. There was vandalism and tagging in places, destruction of property, and I saw at least one sign reading "F... Trump." Some of the Oakland demonstrators revealed what they really think about America and our democratic system. One said "we want a revolution." Another said "some will die on both sides."
It is unclear what these demonstrators were protesting against. Trump is not the President yet. These spoiled millennials were upset that their candidate did not win. You know what? Get over it! That is how our democracy works. You spoiled brats have no right to block traffic and stop people from going where they need to go. That is not speech. Many of us were extremely disappointed and upset when Barack Obama won in 2008, and then again in 2012. But we were not out in the streets. Some organized Tea Parties, and held rallies - after obtaining proper permits - at various locations across the country. This writer was also motivated to do something. My blog started shortly after Obama took office.
On Facebook and Twitter many were beside themselves over the Trump victory, with some threatening to move to other countries. I would tell them what my father used to say: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Of course, the Hollywood crowd was unable to cope. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin wrote a letter to his wife and daughters, describing Trump as a "pig." Here's some bad news for Sorkin - most Americans really do not care what you think. Here's the bottom line - leftists do not believe in democracy. If there was a way to keep Trump from the White House and put Clinton in they would do it. They do not care about our Constitutional system, and often see capitalism as part of the problem.
Politics can be a dirty business, and this election campaign was no exception. However, having seen Trump's gracious victory speech, and Hillary's also gracious concession speech, and Obama's hosting of Trump at the White House, I am hopeful that mature Americans will follow their lead. Clearly, major policy differences exist between the two parties. And for those who think Trump needs to compromise on everything with Democrats, let me remind everyone what Obama said in 2010: "We don't mind the Republicans joining us; they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back." This was after previously telling Republicans: "I won."
Unfortunately, racists and anti-semites have been expressing their hatred. This gets blamed on Trump. When blacks in various cities across the country engaged in the ill-named "knockout game" was that Obama's fault? After all, he was an extremely divisive President, and helped race relations deteriorate to levels not seen in decades. In Chicago, a white man was just beaten up by a group of young blacks for allegedly voting for Trump. Said one: "You voted Trump. You gonna pay for that sh.." Said another: "Beat his ass." (Information from Alex Jones' Infowars.) When police officers are murdered in the street by angry blacks, do we blame Obama? After all, his racial rhetoric has been extremely divisive.
I am well aware of how dangerous words can be, especially coming from a President or President-elect. I have been extremely impressed by Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have found a way to keep Trump focused, and away from the junior high school rhetoric. I hope she has a place in the Trump Administration. I do not believe he should go after Hillary and seek her prosecution. He needs to stay focused on all the work that needs to be done: rolling back taxes and regulations in order to allow for job creation, controlling our borders, strengthening our weakened military, and coming up with much better strategies for dealing with healthcare than Obamacare.
And, as much as I like Sean Hannity, I take issue with his suggestion that Trump seek a new Speaker of the House in place of Paul Ryan, and a new Senate majority leader in place of Mitch McConnell. Why? First, because Congress is a separate branch of government and Trump should not try to dictate who their leaders are. Second, Ryan, at least, has expressed a willingness to work with Trump in order to accomplish his agenda. So, I would not look for battles that may not be necessary.
So, as we conservatives and Republicans had to do after the election of Obama, a man seeking to "fundamentally change" the best nation on earth, I suggest everyone take a deep breath and realize we will all survive. I am hopeful that Trump will pick solid people for his Cabinet and White House advisers. And, as my brother liked to say, "we still have to get up and go to work each day." (Actually, he's now retired, so...)
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Hillary's Views of the Supreme Court and the Constitution
In her own words, Hillary Clinton told us her views of the Supreme Court and Constitutional issues. "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights,on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
She continued: "...it is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.
Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.
Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.
Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.
But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.
Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.
So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.
She continued: "...it is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.
Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.
Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.
Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.
But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.
Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.
So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Why I Do Not Support a Two State Solution Between Israel and the Palestinians
One need not go back very far in time to see why a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is not sensible. As I fully understand that not even all Jews see either the religious or historical basis for Israel maintaining full control over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), I will show why, even from a practical point of view, such a two state arrangement makes no sense.
Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."
Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."
Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.
But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?
Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.
Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.
In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"
It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."
I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.
Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."
Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."
Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.
But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?
Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.
Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.
In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"
It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."
I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part II
The media has been focusing on the source of the emails being released by Wikileaks. It may be Russia. It is certainly troublesome if a foreign power is trying to influence our election. It is proper for the media to investigate. But many emails have been released by the FBI, through Congressional hearings, and Freedom of Information requests by groups such as Judicial Watch. But the media seems less concerned with the content of the emails.
Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.
John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.
Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.
A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."
Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.
Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."
Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.
I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?
On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.
Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.
John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.
Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.
A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."
Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.
Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."
Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.
I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?
On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.
Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part I
My last post discussed whether I might vote for Trump following the release of an 11 year old video, in which Trump is essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted with women. There was a question of whether it was braggadocio or a reflection of his behavior. Now, we have a number of women coming forward alleging sexual harassment incidents involving Trump, although often regarding events from decades ago. Nevertheless, the question has arisen: even now, will I still vote for Trump?
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.
Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).
Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.
There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.
In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.
Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.
When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.
Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).
Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.
There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.
In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.
Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Will I Still Vote for Trump?
Not knowing there was an open mic, in 2005 Trump was heard to say, among other things, these words: "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait...and when you're a star they let you do it...You can do anything...grab them by the p...., you can do anything."
So, did Trump actually do these things, or was he simply bragging about his sexual prowess to a young Billy Bush? Who knows. I do not speak in that manner. But let's get real. Many men do. I am not just talking about uneducated men. I have heard men with college degrees and higher use similar language. How many of you believe you are voting for saint?
Many of you may be familiar with some of the transgressions of prior presidents. FDR had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby. Kennedy? We may never know all the women with whom he had extramarital sexual relations. Johnson had an affair with Madeleine Brown, who had a child by LBJ.
Then we come to Bill Clinton, who will be back in the White House should Hillary win. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey says Clinton groped her, without her consent. Paula Jones claims he exposed himself to her and and sexually harassed her. We know he had extramarital sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. How many of you voted for him anyway?
How many of you will vote for Hillary notwithstanding her verbal attacks against the women Bill sexually harassed? Such as: "They're trash, nobody's going to believe them." Now, we have some leaked comments made by Hillary in some of her paid political speeches. To Brazilian bank executives, Hillary said this: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders..." Open borders. Anybody think open borders is working well in Europe? I guess, if you believe in the Islamization of Europe. So, sneak into Mexico or Brazil, say, and you automatically gain access to the US? In the age of terrorism, why is that a good idea?
So, I am hearing much greater outrage over Trump's words than I recall hearing about Bill Clinton's actions. But Hillary Clinton is the Clinton running now. Fine, here is a brief summary of some of her words and deeds. At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary met with the families of those killed in Benghazi. Recall she and Obama pushed the false narrative of the Benghazi attack not being a planned terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous demonstration against some anti-Muslim video. So, she promised those families: "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." And she and Obama did! Even though she immediately admitted privately to the Egyptian President: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." How do you lie to the faces of the families of American heroes who died because of her inaction? How do you have an innocent man arrested? Anything to help Obama win reelection, as this all occurred only two months prior to the 2012 election.
Hillary was wrong on virtually every major issue while serving as Secretary of State. She supported the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mubarek for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, a dictator, yes, with the result being a failed state run by Islamic terrorists. We know about her "reset" with Russia, which Putin took as a green light to take over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And she supported the giving of nukes to the Iranian Ayatollahs. I could easily write several posts on all of Hillary's scandals - her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, the millions she collected for giving speeches - a convenient end run around campaign finance laws.
And then there is this - the undoing of Western Civilization by the left and radical Islamists (and those who support them and support Sharia law). Where has the left created greater freedom and greater economic success? No, the left will and does work hand in glove with Islamists to bring less freedoms and less economic growth, and certainly less security. Jews have had to leave Europe in increasing numbers. How long will European countries as Western societies even survive? So, will I still vote for Trump? Yes, because I understand that I am not voting for Saint-in-Chief.
So, did Trump actually do these things, or was he simply bragging about his sexual prowess to a young Billy Bush? Who knows. I do not speak in that manner. But let's get real. Many men do. I am not just talking about uneducated men. I have heard men with college degrees and higher use similar language. How many of you believe you are voting for saint?
Many of you may be familiar with some of the transgressions of prior presidents. FDR had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby. Kennedy? We may never know all the women with whom he had extramarital sexual relations. Johnson had an affair with Madeleine Brown, who had a child by LBJ.
Then we come to Bill Clinton, who will be back in the White House should Hillary win. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey says Clinton groped her, without her consent. Paula Jones claims he exposed himself to her and and sexually harassed her. We know he had extramarital sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. How many of you voted for him anyway?
How many of you will vote for Hillary notwithstanding her verbal attacks against the women Bill sexually harassed? Such as: "They're trash, nobody's going to believe them." Now, we have some leaked comments made by Hillary in some of her paid political speeches. To Brazilian bank executives, Hillary said this: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders..." Open borders. Anybody think open borders is working well in Europe? I guess, if you believe in the Islamization of Europe. So, sneak into Mexico or Brazil, say, and you automatically gain access to the US? In the age of terrorism, why is that a good idea?
So, I am hearing much greater outrage over Trump's words than I recall hearing about Bill Clinton's actions. But Hillary Clinton is the Clinton running now. Fine, here is a brief summary of some of her words and deeds. At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary met with the families of those killed in Benghazi. Recall she and Obama pushed the false narrative of the Benghazi attack not being a planned terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous demonstration against some anti-Muslim video. So, she promised those families: "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." And she and Obama did! Even though she immediately admitted privately to the Egyptian President: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." How do you lie to the faces of the families of American heroes who died because of her inaction? How do you have an innocent man arrested? Anything to help Obama win reelection, as this all occurred only two months prior to the 2012 election.
Hillary was wrong on virtually every major issue while serving as Secretary of State. She supported the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mubarek for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, a dictator, yes, with the result being a failed state run by Islamic terrorists. We know about her "reset" with Russia, which Putin took as a green light to take over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And she supported the giving of nukes to the Iranian Ayatollahs. I could easily write several posts on all of Hillary's scandals - her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, the millions she collected for giving speeches - a convenient end run around campaign finance laws.
And then there is this - the undoing of Western Civilization by the left and radical Islamists (and those who support them and support Sharia law). Where has the left created greater freedom and greater economic success? No, the left will and does work hand in glove with Islamists to bring less freedoms and less economic growth, and certainly less security. Jews have had to leave Europe in increasing numbers. How long will European countries as Western societies even survive? So, will I still vote for Trump? Yes, because I understand that I am not voting for Saint-in-Chief.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part II
I do not believe there should be a political litmus test for the right to do business in this country. It smacks of McCarthyism - but I guess the left only cares when the other side is doing it. (For those who missed it, many Democratic elected officials expressed a desire to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to do business based on the owner's expressed belief in traditional marriage.)
I oppose Obamacare, and any expansion of it. Not surprisingly, it is failing, with more and more insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare market. The ACA resulted in many people losing their insurance, and no longer being able to see their same doctors. If the government did not waste so much money they might be able to afford a catastrophic care fund, leaving competition in the rest of the market.
I do not believe we should undo the economy of the USA (or the world) in order to lower global temperatures by one tenth of a degree - or even one whole degree.
I do not believe it is healthy for society when the Fourth Estate acts as the propagandist-in-chief for its left-wing agenda, instead of reporting the news, and challenging abuse of government power.
I do not believe in the tax and regulate mentality, which has resulted in eight consecutive years of low growth.
I do not believe the federal government, or state or local government for that matter, should dictate what kids are allowed to eat in school.
I do not believe it is the job of government to tell me what size soda I may buy. Or what type of light bulb I may buy.
I do not believe we should have given the Iranians a clear path towards obtaining nuclear weapons. They repeatedly express their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the United States.
I do not believe in political correctness. While I do not believe in unnecessarily insulting others, I also do not like being told what I may say or think.
I do not believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth. Let me repeat: "If you want something, work for it."
I do not believe in any utopia, socialist or communist or otherwise. Utopias at best tend to enforce conformity (are we there already?) and at worst have resulted in millions of deaths.
But, maybe for some the policies of the candidates are less important than the personalities and records of the candidates. Hillary was a US Senator. According to National Review, her biggest accomplishment as Senator was getting a US courthouse renamed the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.
But she was Secretary of State. She supported the "Arab Spring," resulting in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in a failed state in Libya controlled by terrorist groups. And let's not forget Benghazi. She supported the "reset" with Russia, allowing Russia to seize the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. She supported the Iran nuke deal.
Hillary said that she and Bill left the White House in 2001 broke. In the last 15 years they have managed to become multi-millionaires, being paid exorbitant amounts to speak to Wall Street and foreign countries. Of course, all those people expect nothing in return for all the money paid to the Clintons. Just like the many contributors to the Clinton Foundation who did, in fact, get special treatment following their "donations."
But Hillary supports women. Like when she called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon." Or when she blamed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all the women sexually harassed by Bill. She even threatened "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."
So, I do not support the policies of the Democratic party. But maybe you believe Hillary will deviate from those policies. I do not believe she is the shining example for women to emulate. But she is smart. All I can say to that is shame on you if you believe IQ is more important than good values - like honesty and integrity. Can I say that Trump has good values? Probably better than Hillary's. But I do not vote on that basis. These people are not saints. That is why I ignore these issues and vote based on policies.
I oppose Obamacare, and any expansion of it. Not surprisingly, it is failing, with more and more insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare market. The ACA resulted in many people losing their insurance, and no longer being able to see their same doctors. If the government did not waste so much money they might be able to afford a catastrophic care fund, leaving competition in the rest of the market.
I do not believe we should undo the economy of the USA (or the world) in order to lower global temperatures by one tenth of a degree - or even one whole degree.
I do not believe it is healthy for society when the Fourth Estate acts as the propagandist-in-chief for its left-wing agenda, instead of reporting the news, and challenging abuse of government power.
I do not believe in the tax and regulate mentality, which has resulted in eight consecutive years of low growth.
I do not believe the federal government, or state or local government for that matter, should dictate what kids are allowed to eat in school.
I do not believe it is the job of government to tell me what size soda I may buy. Or what type of light bulb I may buy.
I do not believe we should have given the Iranians a clear path towards obtaining nuclear weapons. They repeatedly express their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the United States.
I do not believe in political correctness. While I do not believe in unnecessarily insulting others, I also do not like being told what I may say or think.
I do not believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth. Let me repeat: "If you want something, work for it."
I do not believe in any utopia, socialist or communist or otherwise. Utopias at best tend to enforce conformity (are we there already?) and at worst have resulted in millions of deaths.
But, maybe for some the policies of the candidates are less important than the personalities and records of the candidates. Hillary was a US Senator. According to National Review, her biggest accomplishment as Senator was getting a US courthouse renamed the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.
But she was Secretary of State. She supported the "Arab Spring," resulting in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in a failed state in Libya controlled by terrorist groups. And let's not forget Benghazi. She supported the "reset" with Russia, allowing Russia to seize the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. She supported the Iran nuke deal.
Hillary said that she and Bill left the White House in 2001 broke. In the last 15 years they have managed to become multi-millionaires, being paid exorbitant amounts to speak to Wall Street and foreign countries. Of course, all those people expect nothing in return for all the money paid to the Clintons. Just like the many contributors to the Clinton Foundation who did, in fact, get special treatment following their "donations."
But Hillary supports women. Like when she called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon." Or when she blamed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all the women sexually harassed by Bill. She even threatened "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."
So, I do not support the policies of the Democratic party. But maybe you believe Hillary will deviate from those policies. I do not believe she is the shining example for women to emulate. But she is smart. All I can say to that is shame on you if you believe IQ is more important than good values - like honesty and integrity. Can I say that Trump has good values? Probably better than Hillary's. But I do not vote on that basis. These people are not saints. That is why I ignore these issues and vote based on policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)