New York Values

I've been asked about my thoughts on last night's Cruz Missile attack on New York Values.

So, here is my direct opinion.

This 2016 presidential election is not going to be about whose values is better than the other candidates.  Past presidential and congressional debates always centered on values, family values, traditional values, Christian values, whatever.  It was as if we were electing a political pope, and then we'd often here how this politician or that politician of whatever party wasn't all that interested in values when it came to his personal life.  Hypocrisy, I say?!

I am a native New Yorker, born-n-bred, educated and cultured with the linguistic skills so necessary to survive in the wilds of a metropolitan behemoth.  I am a product of New York Values and I will never deny it, and I will always protect it.  It is a part of me even as I live in the South.  When you talk to me, you will be warmed by my values or repelled by it.  It all depends on my fucken mood and how you approach me.

Now, I like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.  He is a brilliant Constitutionalist and great American political figure, and I know he was referring to the progressive politics that envelopes all of New York City and State.  It's easy to confuse New Yorkers based on their voting pattern.  However, he should have been specific when referring to the kind of values he was attacking instead of attacking all of New York and its people. 

There are still a lot of New Yorkers who don't support the unctuous progressive politics of their city and their state, but those people are far outnumbered by the Give-Me-Freebies leftists and that is unfortunate for it weakens the Empire State considerably.  Don't take it out on them, Ted, anymore than New York conservatives should blame Texas for Roe.

There is a saying in the Lone Star State:  Don't mess with Texas.  Well, don't mess with New York!  We're all on the same boat.

So, let's keep out of the values nonsense and get to the real issues that affects peoples' lives today.

We've had eight very miserable years of abysmal leadership bent on kowtowing to America's enemies.  The focus should be on the future of America.

And there you have it, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!

Dear George Will

Every once in a while I read a silly column full of lies or misrepresentations or utter nonsense or a mixture of the three to make one nauseous.  Mostly, those silly columns come straight from left field and on a few occasions, I'll read one that comes from right field.

One such column was published last week written by someone I like, and that is George Will.

Now, I always tend to keep my guard up when I read political columns be it from the right or the left. It's just natural for me to do so.  Every writer, myself included, has a point to make to persuade the reader to his or her side of the argument.  That's all fair so long as the argument isn't littered with bull shit and urine, and that is how I have to describe Will's column "If Trump wins the nomination, prepare for the end of the conservative party".

The gathering of the GOP establishment against the number one Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, is beyond comprehensible.  It's an outright betrayal against the grassroots political movement that sprang into action shortly after President Obama's inauguration in January 2009.  That is, the TEA Party with its millions of angry voters.

The GOP establishment and the Republican voter base have been at war with one another for decades, but it's been played out in front of the nation for almost seven years.  We can go as far back as 1976 with the establishment's treatment of Ronald W. Reagan, and their support for President Gerald Ford who then went on to lose to Governor Jimmy Carter.

But then something happened in 1980.  And it wasn't the hostage crisis, although that event did help solidify Reagan's support.  The GOP establishment threw its weight behind George H.W. Bush against Reagan.

Why?

The former wasn't an ideologue whereas the latter was a champion of conservatism, and he didn't mince words.  He spoke eloquently about America, it's freedom and strengths, and told the crowd of supporters that he would repair and embolden the economy and would also strengthen the military.

Yet, despite the Reagan rhetoric throughout the campaign, the GOP establishment was not hearing it. They remained non-committed to the revolution that was taking place right in front of their eyes and refused to accept Reagan as one of their own.

So, what did propel Reagan to win the nomination and eventually the White House?  Well, it was the 1980 version of the TEA Party, the so-called Moral Majority led by the Baptist Rev. Jerry Falwell who coalesced a large group of evangelicals into a powerful conservative political group that would support Republican candidates and the Republican party throughout that decade.

Here we are in late 2015, and the GOP establishment is having another conniption fit because its preferred candidate, Jeb Bush (much like his father in 1980), hasn't been able to break out of his 3% quagmire despite political connections and contributions of over $100M and television commercials in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What has Trump spent to garner close to 40% support?  A very small, meager fraction compared to Bush's, and most of it has been spent on the red baseball caps bearing the words "Make America Great Again".

Like 1980, 1992 (with H. Ross Perot), and 1994 (with the Newt Gingrich House majority victory), there is a political revolution occurring where the voters are pissed off at their politicians and the party establishment and the media.

As much as the political establishment and the media would like to have the people believe that the TEA Party is dead, don't believe it.  It's all hype and meant to keep voters at home feeling insignificant in the political arena.  The TEA Party is quite alive and breathing fire.

Just ask former GOP representative from Virginia, Eric Cantor, a GOP rising star defeated in his own primary in 2014 by a TEA Party candidate.

But, that's not all.  The fact that piles of money is not playing the heavy role it once did for the preferred candidate says plenty, and that is what is frightening the Republican party.  All parties thrive on money, the more dollars the better, and since many GOP contributors are keeping their wallets shut, what can the RNC do but sit it out or ask the rank and file to donate.

I haven't, and I won't!

In his anti-Trump rant, Will writes, "In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency.  It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible -- a conservative party as a constant presence in US politics."

That was 1913 and 1964 thinking.  That would only be true if, in 2015, the Republican establishment truly supported the conservative wing of its own base.  However, the RNC has, for years, been shifting away from that base for what it sees as a more fertile ground of progressivism, thus their championing for comprehensive immigration reform, more bloated government spending, and refusing to repeal Obamacare, among other things.

Trump may not be the ideal conservative orthodox.  Hell, he's been married three times, but then again, President Reagan married twice.  Yet Reagan still carried the conservative torch.  Why?

Because, come 2016, this election is not going to be about fooling the American people once again with lofty but meaningless campaign slogans coming from the mouths of phony conservative ideologues like Jeb and Kasich.

It's about leading the United States of America in a positive direction.  The establishment wants the status quo whereas the American people want something new, something fresh, something bold. Washington is rancid!  It stinks!  It's corrupt! Everybody knows it and voters are prepared to do something about it.

Writes Will, "It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over.  But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months."

He continues, "The larger portion should understand this:  One hundred and four years of  history is in the balance.  If Trump is the nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either."

Those words are coming from a "conservative" who hosted a dinner at his Chevy Chase, Maryland house to welcome then president-elect Obama in January 2009.

First, the only national embarrassment is the one in which Jeb Bush is incapable of gaining any traction despite his family name and the millions he's already spent to keep that 3%.  That's embarrassing!  Same goes with Kasich and Christie.

Secondly, "this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism"?  Really, that's Will really sinking to new depths given how Obama has ruled, and Hillary stating she would circumvent the GOP congress and issue executive orders to get her way if she is elected.

And lastly, the conservative party or movement, whatever you want to call it, is not going away so long as there are people willing to support freedom, the Constitution and a clean form of government. The same predictions have been made by the pundits and the progressive Democrats about the TEA Party, but the TEA Party remains a visible force in politics.

What I will guarantee to the Republican establishment is that if Trump does win the White House, there might not be a Republican party in 2020 that mirrors the party of 2016, 2012 or 2008 with its elitist smug and trappings.

 The Republican party's party of fooling the American people is over!

And there you have it folks, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!

FBI Director Comey vindicates Trump's safety plan

During a House committee hearing on homeland security in October, the director of the FBI, James Comey testified that the vetting process of Syrians was a gamble at best getting it right.  Said Comey, "We can only query against that which we have collected.  And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them."

This was in comparison to the Iraqi vetting process whereby for over ten years, we had Americans on the ground in Iraq gathering intelligence on people who sought to emigrate to the US.  However, that wasn't also picture perfect as yet terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida who had attacked US forces in Iraq managed to slip through the vetting process and resettled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, as reported by ABC News in November 2013.

So, one month before the Paris massacre by jihadi terrorists, one of whom had recently emigrated as a refugee; and six weeks before the San Bernardino massacre where one of the jihadi passed the US government vetting in Pakistan, Comey had announced that its vetting process may not be as good as we would like it to be.

We have known all along that the vetting process wasn't as tight as it should be, but our leaders prefer to turn a blind eye so as not to run the risk of angering a few folks and thus being called racist and xenophobe.

So, here comes GOP presidential hopeful, Donald J. Trump saying this past week on Good Morning America, "What I'm doing is calling very simply for a shut down of Muslims entering the United States, and here's a key, until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.  They don't know."

The key words in Trump's statement was "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Don't our elected representatives want to thoroughly investigate what is going on with the vetting of Muslim refugees?  After all, it was FBI Director Comey who let it be known first that the Bureau was not equipped to vet the influx of 10,000 Syrian refugees, let alone 200,000 Syrian refugees President Obama has planned for 2016.

Said Trump on Greta recently, "We have an obligation to protect our citizens."  Trump continued, "Our political leaders are very weak, they're very ineffective.....Look, it's the safety of our country that we're talking about."

Is Trump right? Or should we continue our slide into the quick sand pit and do nothing to protect ourselves from the obvious threat before us, just because it's politically incorrect to target a specific group of people not residing in the U.S., mind you, because it's just not the American thing to do?

The notion that the United States has to accept foreign aliens that call themselves refugees on a large scale is an invitation to disaster as we are seeing quite clearly in western Europe, especially when the majority of the refugee hordes are male between the ages of 16 and 45.  We cannot screen them because of the lack of information on them!

During the House hearing on the committee on homeland security in November, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked a very interesting question to homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson which went unanswered.  Said Smith, "Another red flag to me, is that in past years, historically, traditionally, refugees have been members of families.  And yet, the typical profile of Syrian refugees, I am told, is that most are young, single males as opposed to family members. And if so, to me that would raise a red flag, as well."

(Let me add that most of those refugees crossing into Europe are not simply Syrians but north Africans, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis.)

Is the president or the US Congress going to confer a constitutional right to foreign aliens abroad before they ever set foot on U.S. soil?  I know for a fact that no foreign alien has a right to travel to the US without permission, and that those foreign aliens who have US visas can automatically have the visas rescinded and stamped "Cancelled Without Prejudice" by the US consulate.  Criteria must be met before being granted a visa.

Therefore, why all the hoopla over Trump's statement?

As you can see, this is all an engineered effort by the mainstream media, along with progressive Democrats and the Republican party elites at destroying Trump's credibility and presidential campaign before Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

Which begs the questions that the anti-Trumpistas will not answer:  1) Are you more afraid of what Donald Trump says than you are of what ISIS has done to people and looks forward to executing right in your own back yard? And 2) Are you not concerned that the US Government doesn't have the proper mechanisms in place to vet foreign aliens coming out of that Middle Eastern region and whom may have terrorist ties to ISIS, al-Qaeda and other jihadi front groups?

The American establishment, sad to say, would rather have the American people not hear the Trump Truths so as to feather their own nests all-the-while promoting the leftwing, anti-American extremist agenda to the detriment of the republic.

And there you have it, folks, the good, the bad and the ugly!!!

Obama Diplomacy: Speak softly and carry a twig

Having heard President Obama's G20 speech in Turkey a few days after the multi-pronged Islamic jihadi terrorist attacks in Paris, the best way to describe Obama's foreign policy, as it relates to fighting Islam-inspired terrorism, is "speak softly, and carry a twig."

There is no doubt that Obama left many in the conference shaking their heads wondering just what's happened to the United States of America that we've come to know.

They know what's happened.  It isn't until they see their own cities attacked by Islamic terrorists do they come to wonder why.

The US had been, right up until January 20, 2009, the global leader.  Because the world turned its head against the US and President Bush because of two wars, sixty-seven million voters elected a complete dunce into the White  House.

I remember the spell he cast over Europe during his campaign speaking to Berliners trumpeting a new beginning, his promise to forge new relations with the world by ending the US practice of might-makes-right.  He signaled to the world that his rule would be one molded in peace through reasoning, because after all, he was a college professor who'd rather think things through rather than act on the human predatory instincts.  For this, he won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it other than promote "Hope & Change".

He was, we were often told throughout that campaign, an intelligent and articulate (black) man.

Well, almost seven years later, we've seen how the world was wrong.  We've seen just how inexperienced Obama is when it comes to hard military decisions to protect this country and those fighting jihadism.

So let this be a severe lesson the next time we elect a president.  Do we, as Americans, continue with this Speak Softly and Carry a Twig Diplomacy championed also by Hillary who terms it as Smart Power?  Or do we implement a policy that is straightforward and muscular, and leaves nothing to the imagination of friend or foe of what we will stand for and will do to thwart evil?

The GOP Establishment's War on Trump

Today's Washington Post has a very good column on the Trump and Carson phenomenon written by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa on the growing frustration between the GOP establishment's concerns with the two top republican candidates versus the rank-and-file GOP voters' anger and frustration at the Republican party.

As I see it, both Republican former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and current South Carolina governor Nikki Haley nail it right on the head.

Now, the GOP establishment, we know, have a strong dislike, if not a deep aversion to Trump (and Carson and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas) for three reasons:  1) They're not professional politicians; 2) they have created waves and storms disturbing the status quo; and 3) they have stopped wealthy donors from donating hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of the Republican National Committee (the life's blood for both major parties).

The GOP establishment has been waiting for months for Trump (and Carson) to self-destruct.  Wait. Wait. And more wait they do, yet nothing happens to Trump.  The GOP establishment grows more frustrated because they've yet to realize that a new political paradigm has taken hold among the Republican voters.

Instead, the Old Republican Guard continue on trusting their Old Political Paradigm will take hold and cast aside Trump (and Carson) into the ash bin of history in order to make JEB the anointed candidate.

It hasn't happened, and the chance of it happening grows bleaker by the day as Iowa and New Hampshire primaries get closer.

So what to do?

Ahhh, the RNC elites have suddenly raised the specter  of Drafting Romney, the loser of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Don't the RNC elites ever learn?  McCain failed in 2008 against a relative unknown from Chicago; and Romney couldn't even defeat Obama in 2012 despite the latter's high negatives.  What gives?

It is clearly obvious that if that the pattern the GOP establishment has set for the party, that is, to select a preferred presidential candidate who will fail to win (and force the congressional leadership to not take a strong stand against a Democrat president who is knowingly taking the country in a radically wrong direction), then the GOP voters are going to take a stand themselves by supporting candidates they can trust who articulates the same anger and frustration by challenging the GOP establishment and the Democrat president.

JEB and Kasich have been running far away from the base in an effort to look inclusive and non-divisive, but it is that type of political campaign behavior that has many GOP voters see as offensive, divisive and counter-productive.

The Club for Growth president labels both Trump and Carson as "pretenders".  However, when you analyze the anger and frustration on the part of the GOP base, the real pretenders have been Eric Cantor (defeated in the 2014 primary by a TEA Party candidate), John Boehner (forced to resign his speakership in October 2015), John McCain (2008 presidential loser and amnesty supporter), and Mitt Romney (2012 presidential loser and amnesty supporter).  Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell is barely hanging on to his leadership post.  And anyone who runs against the rising tide of the anti-political establishment is sure to have a hell of a fight in the primary.

There is a reason why over 1000 Democrat have lost seats nationwide, and why there are 32 GOP governors and a majority of state legislatures in GOP control.

The TEA Party, despite numerous news reports of waning influence, is still vibrant and energized and waiting for 2016.

"I'm not a happy camper," Florida doctor and 2012 Romney donor, Peter Wish, said.  "Hopefully, somebody will emerge who will be able to do the job," but, he added, "I'm very worried that the Republican-base voter is more motivated by anger, distrust of D.C. and politicians and will throw away the opportunity to nominate a candidate with proven experience that can win."

Hey Peter, care to explain what happened to the candidate with proven experience who can win Mitt Romney in 2012?

AHUH!!!

YEAH!!!

And the GOP voters are supposed to listen to the enlightened GOP establishment in 2016?

A bunch of sure establishment losers, if you ask me!!!

On Piers and Guns

Looks like Piers Morgan has been on a desperate crusade lately talking about his missed opportunities to understand Americans' "obsession with guns."  Making the rounds on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, the British snob stated that rather than attack gun owners and the 2nd Amendment as he did for years on CNN, he should have instead opened up a two-way discussion so as to understand what it was about guns that riled up American gun owners.

Here's what Piers said verbatim:  "I think I became too aggressive.  I think I didn't listen to the other side as much as I should have done.  I think there is a culture of gun ownership in America which I didn't afford enough respect to."  If he had to do it all over again, "it would be a much more two-way conversation I would have with people to try to understand why America has an obsession with guns, as many people see it and how you get to a place where there is more safety involved in guns than perhaps there is now."

Okay Piers, let's have this two-way discussion.  There is such a force, kind of like gravity, that is called freedom, and nothing in the world can actually stop it.  It's part of nature.  Like the wind or a wave.  It's there.

Freedom allows the people to do things that makes them great and industrious.  Freedom also allows people to defend what is rightfully theirs.  Guns, like the bow and arrow, are simply tools for added measure to ensure that freedom.

Of course, with guns comes responsibility as well as respect.  You protect your own domain and I protect mine, and if you need assistance in protecting what is your, then simply make a request and I'll come right over and vice versa.

Included in the U.S. Constitution are what's called the Bill of Rights where the Founders, wanting to protect freedom, simply codified and enshrined for posterity a natural right with the words "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."

Now I don't think Piers has given up his challenge against gun ownership.  He is clearly anti-gun, and you can hear it in this interview.  He's quite upset at the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that killed 26 children and teachers on December 14, 2012.  I was upset as well and so was the nation.  Nobody looks forward to seeing little kids and their teachers mercilessly gunned down inside a school in a Gun-Free School Zone.

Says Piers, "To me, it remains unconscionable that a country of the power and magnificence of the United States of America could allow twenty first graders to be blown to pieces in their classrooms." He continued, "The bottom line is absolutely nothing has been done to stop that happening again.  I find that extraordinary."

First, let's understand that Piers is a statist, and so he blames the United States for allowing the Sandy Hook massacre to happen because in his view there just isn't that much gun control.  If there was gun control, Sandy Hook would not have happened, right?

But what about the Gun-Free School Zone?  Shouldn't that have deterred Adam Lanza?  No, for the simple reason that laws against murder didn't deter Lanza from committing the act of matricide in the first place prior to the school killing.

So in the end, I'm left to wonder just what kind of "guns movie" is Piers going to make?  Will he focus on the vatos locos, bloods and crips and other assorted gang-banging creatures and toothless Appalachian moonshine distillers to make his point that guns are bad?

Or, is Piers truly serious about understanding America's sacred obsession with freedom and its guarantor, the 2nd Amendment?

The Democrats in political turmoil

I have never like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) because I have always thought of him as slimier than slime.  A political con artist who only cares about his image on the screen and one who lusts for political power at all cost.  He is, in my opinion, a master manipulator, but he is also a savvy longtime political player.  And for that, he should not be avoided.

So this past week, after assessing the dramatic losses of Democrat seats, Schumer has come out swinging at Obama saying that instead of focusing on healthcare law reform, the Democrats, led by Obama, should have been putting their entire energy on economics and helping middle class families in the midst of a severe economic recession, if not, depression for many.

Schumer is absolutely correct.  The Democrats played hardball politics against the GOP and it blew up in their faces in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Why?

Because the Democrats had tunnel vision since 2009; they all fell in love with Obama.  The Democrats rode on Obama's long coattail simply because he was the first mulatto president elected in the history of the United States of America.  They, having absolute control of Washington from 2009 to 2011, wanted to shove as much laws and regulations down the throats of suffering Americans as they could possibly get away with in an effort to make the Democrat party "the party of the people."

None said a word about the speed with which their train was running.  Nobody on the Democrat side wanted to apply the breaks, even a tad bit to slow down the steamrolling.  They all, including Schumer, went right along thinking they would govern for decades as they did prior to the Newt Gingrich Revolution of 1994.

However, the Democrats made numerous calculated mistakes.

One, unlike the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the internet has become the sole source of freedom for people to network with many like-minded people from around the nation.  Information is rather easy to obtain now than before 1994.  Americans are more political than ever before, and there is no stopping that fact, be they on the left or the right.

Two, economics is bread and butter for a majority of Americans.  What's the use of ObamaCare when millions of Americans are out of work or were forced to drop to part time status because of ObamaCare?

Three, why force a change in healthcare when 85% of Americans were happy with what they had?

Four, why spend so much money we don't have in order to create shovel ready jobs that were not there to begin with?  Where did the $1T go and what did they do with it?

Lastly, denying Keystone to satisfy the environmentalist nut jobs, and the disastrous green investments that has cost the government billions.

As the GOP has been saying since 2009, the congress should have been focusing more on the economy and the middle class than on a cause that had no real urgency for action, healthcare.

Schumer and the Democrats should have seen Obama for what he truly was, not an economics-minded politician nor a savvy political negotiator, but simply a bully who either got what he wanted (and he did when the Democrats controlled Congress), or he would do whatever on his own or shut the government down until the GOP blinked (which happened when the GOP wrested control of the House.)

So while Schumer attempts to save the Democrat party, he should also get partial blame for allowing the Democrats to fall so precipitously off the cliff because he's the Number-3 go-to-guy.  He allowed all this to befall on the Democrats.

But the larger picture is this.  Schumer and the Democrats have nothing to fear now from Obama since he can't run again for president.  The time now is to patch things up for Hillary's run.  Two years may not be enough, especially given the voters' hostility towards the Democrats and Obama due to the stagnant economy many thought they would fix but didn't.

Thus, the question on many peoples mind.  Will the Democratic minority work with the GOP majority in the 114th Congress to pass meaningful legislation and override any presidential veto?

That's really up to Schumer, Sen. Harry Reid and Cong. Nancy Pelosi.