Trump Tweets (Punching Back 10 Times Harder)

Standard

Yes, SOME OF President Trump’s tweets are somewhat annoying and certainly, as the news media on both sides have pointed out, they are, at least at times, interfering with his own objective: to address the American people directly. I emphasize “SOME” of his tweets because, obviously, in this booming age of social media, tweets are an excellent way to deliver his thoughts and his appeals directly to the American people. The annoying part is when he gets into a social media war with members of the extreme Left-Wing of the American Press, e.g., “Morning Joe” Scarborough and his wife and broadcast partner Mika Brzezinski.

From my point of view, MSNBC, CNN and the others in the extreme Left-Wing media are simply on a HATE campaign against Trump, not only because he beat the Left-Wing darling Hillary Clinton out of the presidency last year but also because he is a different kind of president than they (and us) have ever seen before. The Left-Wing will condemn everything he does and says and lie about him at the drop of a hat. It is because of this, the Left-Wing press has lost credibility with most Americans. Don’t take my word for it, here are the current cable news ratings published at “TV By The Numbers” they show that: “For the third straight week, FOX News Channel topped basic cable as the #1 network in primetime total viewers, averaging 1.9 million total viewers. This is the 5th time in the past six weeks FNC has topped all of basic cable in primetime viewers.”

Why Fox News? Not because they are more Conservative than the others but because they deal in real journalism. They report the facts, even when the facts do not favor President Trump, and they criticize his tweets on a daily basis, not because he is tweeting, because the Fox News management feels (as we all do) that some of his tweets need criticism.

Forget the media for a moment and analyze the situation. We have a president who is highly intelligent, an extremely savvy negotiator and who has proven to be an excellent communicator; but yet SOME of his daily communication to the American people, through Twitter, appears to be mean, controversial and otherwise inappropriate.

The answer to this riddle is obvious: Donald Trump not only dislikes it when someone insults him or lies about him (as the Left-Wing media does on a daily basis), he refuses to tolerate it. As Melania Trump has publically stated: “He’s a great leader, he’s fair, (but) as you may know by now, when you attack him, he will punch back 10 times harder.” Does this make him a bad president? I say no! I say it makes him a strong president who will once again (since before President Obama was elected) cause America to be feared by some and respected by all.

I don’t speak so loudly for President Trump because I’m a Conservative, I’m NOT. I’m much more of a Libertarian. I don’t support everything that Conservatives stand for. Their opposition to abortion is clearly religiously motivated and punishes people for making personal decisions that have little or nothing to do with their neighbors, their state government of the Federal Government. Ditto for Conservative opposition to gay marriage and their interference with small business’ who only want to choose who they serve. (For the record, I must say that I Do agree with Conservatives on the Transgender “bathroom bill”. The transgender issue is not a matter of sexual preference,  it is a serious psychological disorder.)

I seriously doubt that Donald Trump in his heart supports all “Conservative” positions but he’s a man stuck in a political situation and if he wants to get ANYTHING done in Washington, he has to play the Washington game. Disgusting, I know, but that can also be said of politics in general.

Advertisements

Paul Ryan’s Conservative Arrogance

Standard

Here’s a Washington Post headline from this afternoon:

“Paul Ryan, House GOP leadership team split on supporting Trump”

That’s not really news, it’s been going on since the day after Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee.

Politicians are arrogant by their very nature and this is Conservative arrogance at its most potent!

Paul Ryan and the GOP elite are essentially telling America’s Republican Primary voters that they voted for the wrong man, that they wasted their vote. These “never Trumpers” certainly have a right to personally dislike the man who will be leading THEIR PARTY through the election cycle after the Convention, but one would think that responsible elected Republican leaders would at least appear to rally around the people’s choice for the nomination, for the sake of the party if for no other reason.

One would think that! But when the Speaker of The House Of Representatives goes on television and announces his personal opposition to Donald Trump and essentially tells the millions of people who voted for him that they have it all wrong, he’s committing a form of political treason by giving the presumptive Democratic nominee an advantage over his own party’s nominee.

If Rep.Paul Ryan continues making public pronouncements like this last one, one can only hope that the Republican voters in his home state of Wisconsin will remember his arrogant words and actions when he’s running for reelection.

Personally, I can see no path to victory for Hillary Clinton in November . . . but then I also bet against Obama’s second term. I was blind to how it could possibly happen. I guess I need to retake the ‘Prophet 101’ home-study course.

Give me that ‘Old Atavistic Nationalism’

Standard

GOPSlit

 

That’s what the New York Times calls Donald Trump’s brand of politics: “atavistic nationalism”, with roots as old as the party itself.” GOP leaders, they go on to say, “fear their party is on the cusp of an epochal split.”

(That’s what I truly love about the New York Times, and I’m not being sarcastic, they don’t allow you to get too far from your dictionary.)

The Times story was basically the same one dominating the news cycle this weekend, about that epic (excuse me, I mean “epochal”) split in the GOP that is threatening and terrifying those who choose to call themselves Conservatives.

A term that I love, used either by or about Donald Trump’s approach to politics is Commonsense Conservatism”, I saw that and said “Voila” (figuratively of course); that’s what was missing in Conservatism, common sense. I always use to hesitate to identify myself as a Conservative because most Conservatives are still piddling around with the “religious” Conservatism that was born in the 1960s and was ingrained by the 1980s. Religious Conservatism is in itself an oxymoron that was created to convince legislators that they have the right to interfere with social issues that have no reasonable link to the Constitution or to the major functions of the federal government.

Even outside of the ‘Religious Conservative’ context, the GOP has been making a fool of itself for the past 4 years by being unwilling or unable to keep the promises made to voters in 2012. These are the same voters who believed the promises and put Republicans in majority roles in the House and Senate with the understanding that, among other things, they will replace ObamaCare with something that gives the power over healthcare back to the people. That didn’t happen, in spite of the supposed “power of the purse” held by the majority of Republicans in the House. Not much else has been accomplished either to undo the damage that Obama, and his cadre of Liberal followers has done to the country and the Constitution.

Considering all this, a “split” in the GOP is almost inevitable unless the powers that be start getting in touch with and in tune with the commonsense Republican ideas that caused a majority of primary voters to flock to Donald Trump.

The Weakest Leg of the Stool

Standard

From it’s Inception, the American ‘Stool’ Only Needed Three Legs

1) The ‘small, unobtrusive government’ leg to allow citizens to be truly free from unwanted, unneeded political influences in their lives.

2) The ‘strong national defense’ leg to keep citizens safe from enemies who either envy or hate us for being free and strong.

3) The ‘free enterprise’ leg to maintain the American traditions of invention and industry that create an atmosphere amenable to personal wealth building and charitable giving.

To maintain order, this stool sits on a platform of laws that are devised to protect citizens from the greed, jealousy and arrogance that lives within all of us . . . and controls some of us..

The “American Stool” I have attempted to describe above represents a basic Libertarian vision of America; a vision of free men and woman making their own decisions and acting on them with the only restriction being respect for the property and privacy of others. America grew from a fledgling nation to a world power based on the three principles that support that Libertarian vision.

Some will try to make you believe that the ideals of small government, a strong national defense and free enterprise are Conservative ideals, that’s not quite true! If you trade in your ‘Libertarian stool’ for a ‘Conservative stool’, you are likely to get a stool with the same three strong legs, but also a fourth leg that does not quite reach the ground: the Judeo-Christian leg.

Enter the Christian Right

Greed, jealousy and arrogance unleashed, in the hands of those who set aside America’s Constitution and tried to replace it with a Christian Bible began the destruction of the American political system in the late 1970s, when an unsubstantial fourth leg was added to the American Stool; the Judeo-Christian leg (aka the Moral Majority leg). This leg was weaker than the other three legs because it was fashioned out of ephemeral hope and wishes and fueled by a greed for power as well as the arrogance of organized religion, i.e., spiritual desires are served rather than human needs.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision the self-important Christian Right jumped on the decision and eventually, successfully managed to corrupt the Constitution’s clearly implied desire to keep religion and government separate; they did this by inserting Christian ethics into, what was intended by the founders, to be a system insulated from and superior to religious belief.

Remember that first leg of the American stool, the ‘small, unobtrusive government’ leg, intended to allow citizens to be truly free from unwanted, unneeded political influences in their lives? Thanks to the corruption of the American political system caused by the Christian Conservative faction in the government, that leg has deteriorated to the point where, among other things: the logical right of a woman to control or terminate her own pregnancy is being challenged by politicians instead of by pediatricians; and where government officials attempted, and almost succeeded, to preempt the right of two adults to get married unless the match was approved by the state.

It needs to be made perfectly clear to politicians and government agencies that an American with strong religious beliefs is NOT ‘superior’ in any way to an American who does not share those beliefs. We are a nation of laws, not moral edicts.

I do not in any way claim that a set of personal religious beliefs is a bad thing, but Christian Evangelists need to be reminded: that we are a nation of laws that have ascended from centuries of tradition and experience; Christian ethics that harm or diminish personal freedoms and rights must be condemned.

Gun Control Or Public Safety?

Standard

To start, let me say that I am, for the most part at least, a strong Conservative. That is to say, I believe in small, limited government, a strong military, secure borders, and free enterprise with only the most necessary restrictions on business. I also believe in legal gun ownership.

Some people believe it should be everyone’s unrestricted RIGHT to own and even openly carry a handgun on their hip. Here in Texas, as in many other states, we have that right, but there are some commonsense restrictions such as having a clean criminal record and not having a diagnosed mental disorder that would make us a danger to others. There are very few responsible American citizens who object to those restrictions.

Yesterday, President Obama announced 10 steps he will take, through executive actions, to enforce those commonsense restrictions and help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who ‘should not own guns.’

Immediately Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular began sounding alarms and the right-wing media began throwing around the term “gun control’ in the headlines. They are calling the president’s proposals illegal and un-Constitutional; Marco Rubio is quoted as saying  the President is “waging war” on the Constitution and Ted Cruz is promising that if he wins the presidency, these and other Obama executive actions will all be repealed.

All that is for the courts to decide and while the kinds of actions Obama proposed may fall under the very broadest definition of “gun control” they are, more importantly, clearly needed Public Safety measures.

The dirty little secret that the people who are screaming “gun control” are not being very vocal about is the fact that IF THEY had stopped playing politics long enough to create some clean, commonsense legislation that had eliminated some of the public safety threats caused by guns being in the wrong hands; what is about to happen via executive actions would not have been necessary.

A prime example is closing the gun show ‘loopholes’. What, I ask, is worse: causing some minor inconvenience for people who want guns for personal protection or sport, or selling a gun to someone who will have no second thoughts about using it to commit a crime or to someone who is incapable of distinguishing legal behavior from illegal behavior?

Conservative lawmakers are screaming about the 2nd Amendment being violated. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, it does not address the problems that are caused by ‘guns in the wrong hands’ so regulations about gun sales, which were proposed yesterday, can hardly be considered a violation of the amendment.

It’s true that nothing being proposed for executive actions would have likely stopped the vast majority of mass shootings we hear about so often but you can be sure that they will make it harder for people who should not have guns to legally own guns, and that will certainly save some lives.

On Monday night the President Tweeted the accusation that the “gun lobby” may be holding Congress hostage, not a comforting thought, but perhaps a very realistic one, considering that Washington is chock full of politicians who care more about funding their next campaign than they do about their constituents’ safety. 

All this is not to say that President Obama is not incompetent or that he does not have a deep dislike for what is traditionally American or that he has not proposed many dangerous, reckless and frankly stupid things in the past. He has always impressed me as someone with an Anti-American agenda, but on this one issue I personally can’t fault his actions.

I want everyone to own and even, if they want, carry a gun — everyone except, that is, the people who are a danger to me and you and our families.

My Considered Choice: Ted Cruz

Standard

What the Republican Party needs, if it hopes to defeat the ‘Illogical Left’ in 2016 is a candidate who values (and espouses) a rational plan to return the United States to its positions of economic and military leadership in a world that appears to be lost and uncertain in the wake of a weak and floundering central government.

A Democratic victory in the U.S. Presidential Election in November of 2016 would be disastrous to the United States, to the few countries we can still count on as allies and to the world’s economy.

I firmly believe that what the Republican Party, The United States and ultimately the world needs is a safe and strong United States that stands un-intimidated in the face of dictators and in the face of the rabble who are attempting to destroy all the underpinnings of a civilized world in the name of the most brutal aspects of their religion. Anything less than a return to sanity in Washington, on ‘Main Street’ and on Wall Street and the rebuilding of a strong American military that reflects the traditional values of the United States will not be enough to save us from the uncertain future we face today.

Soft-spoken, intelligent Ben Carson is certainly capable of learning what he needs to know to run the country, but, relatively speaking, if elected, he would be like a first-year medical student doing brain surgery.

Donald Trump is undoubtedly a very successful entrepreneur who, as president, would most likely be able to understand and control our currently out of control economy, but it appears that, as our ‘really great president’, the United States Constitution would rapidly be replaced by a still unwritten tome titled ‘The World According To Donald Trump’; the problem is, that isn’t the way the world or the United States works.

So who is this leader that can restore America to greatness? My hopes are on Ted Cruz.

Originally, in this blog, I boosted Donald Trump and then Ben Carson. They are both good men who share my vision of a safe, strong, powerful United States. Why then this shift to Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz also shares my visions for America and, as a sitting United States Senator (TX) he has proven to oppose the business-as-usual, just-for-profit, anything to get reelected mentality of many (most?) members of Congress. Also, as a sitting member of Congress, he has valuable insights into how our government works now and, more importantly, what can be done to make it work better for the American citizen/taxpayer. This “insider” advantage, combined with his commonsense, anti-establishment, ‘politically incorrect’ positions on the important topics of National Defense, the economy and public welfare makes him preferable to Ben Carson or Donald Trump.

NOTE: Ted Cruz is currently also being touted as the ‘flavor-of-the-month’ for Evangelical voters. As long as his religious beliefs have a negligible effect on his important positions and he continues to quote from the Constitution and not from some religious text, I’m alright with that.

Recommended Reading:

All about Ted Cruz : Follow the links for his Bio, his philosophy, his positions and more.

W.P. Wonk Blog: The Washington Post publishes the “Wonk Blog” on a regular basis, a current post on that blog is “A guide to what Ted Cruz really believes” . While the Washington Post is not a big fan of Ted Cruz (or any Republican) their ‘Guide to Ted Cruz’ is an interesting and apparently fair look at Ted Cruz’ positions relative to Donald Trump and other Republicans.

Conservatives Still Playing in the Planned Parenthood Sandbox

Standard

The world is in disarray; our sworn enemies are getting stronger and closer; with the release of the billion$ to Iran (after our Jihadist-in-Chief worked his magic) we are now one of the largest financiers of terrorist networks in the world and, simultaneously, we are assisting our most diabolical enemy in the creation of Nuclear warheads that will be pointed at us; our national Debt is near the breaking point; we have millions of uninvited guest living and working here and using resources that were only intended for U.S. citizens; our unemployment rate is ridiculously and dangerously high.

With all this (just the tip of the iceberg) and even more going on and threatening our existence, the so-called Conservative Republican contenders for President in 2017 are still going to extreme, nauseating lengths, planning a war with Planned Parenthood.

I agree with the basic Conservative principle of limited government, I champion a free market, I oppose excessive taxes and unnecessary regulations on business and I champion a strong national defense, but I loudly and firmly oppose any connection between organized religion and organized politics (only because there IS NO CONNECTION and there should not be one).

Mr or Ms Conservative candidate proudly proclaim, on a near-daily basis, the purely moral position that they are “pro-life.” Does that make them better at making the right political decision when the good of the country is at stake? NO, of course not! Politicians (even Conservative ones) should do their jobs and make decisions on the bases of Constitutionality and relevant law. Yes, we are all moral beings, that’s just part of our better nature and part how most of us were brought up; with ingrained rules that say this is right and that is wrong. A politician who self-identifies as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” brings NOTHING to the table when it comes to doing the jobs they were elected to do. Yet that seems to be the primary “credential” for many of them in this (and past) election seasons.

Here’s a news flash for citizen, non-politicians who have been drinking the Religious Conservative Kool-Aid for so long that they believe that they can’t call themselves Conservative without being devoutly religious and advertising it! You’ve been duped! If you believe, as I stated above that I do, in the core Conservative values of small government, less regulation and a strong free market a strong national defense and responsible levels of taxation you ARE a Conservative. Don’t let Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or any other Conservative talker tell you otherwise because you disagree with them on the LEAST IMPORTANT issues facing America and Americans.

The Website About.com has an excellent “Overview of Political Conservatism”. What is excellent about this particular definition of Conservatism is the fact that it correctly identifies Conservatism as a two-part philosophy:

Part 1 is identified as “core tenets” of Conservatism. For me, these core tenets define what I call “Secular Conservatism. The “core tenets” of Conservatism are the basic beliefs in three principles: (from the article): “1) Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American society, 2) A small, non-invasive government, (and) 3) A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism.”

Part 2 consists of the “Ancillary Principles & Ideologies” of Conservatism. These ancillary principles are the things that Religious Conservatives see as potential threats to their religious beliefs: Attitudes about “traditional family values”, marriage, the commitment to faith and religion and the assumed right to life for still un-born potential citizens. Even the strongest Religious Conservative would have to scratch pretty hard to find an “Ancillary Conservative Principle” that will help them do the main job they were elected to do.

Nothing wrong with morality or religion, but my point is, when these things become the focal point of an elected official’s political life the importance and connotations of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ as they were intended by our forefathers can become too easily lost in admonitions from bible verse. Also, when Religious Conservatism is forced down the country’s throat as the ONLY alternative to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, it begins to ‘taste and smell’ like sour milk.

One more thing, all this ranting and raving against Planned Parenthood is based solely on some videos that were produced by a group whose primary (and perhaps ONLY) goal is to cripple Planned Parenthood. Sounds suspicious to me!

Recommended:

Washington Post: “Why the war over Planned Parenthood will hurt the GOP in 2016