Trump is a Sympton of Republican Spinelessness

Trump is Republican spinelessness come home to roost.  Sure, he's not conservative and is only opportunistically a Republican but the man has spine.  Both Republicans and Democrats have been telling the electorate how Amnesty/Path to Citizenship/Legal Status for those who broke the law to get into the country is a must.  Trump has thrown the BS Flag and he is suddenly in the lead for the Republican nomination.  Gee, you think maybe he has a better handle on the voters than the Washington elites?  What is astonishing is that none of the other Republicans has tried to steal some of those voters by taking similar, if more nuanced, positions on illegal immigration.  No, it isn't astonishing because they are spineless.  Where most Republicans would apologize for having had the temerity to voice such a position and then slink away to obscurity, Trump added an exclamation point by having Jorge Ramos (a pro-illegal immigration propagandist from Univision) kicked out of a news conference.  Trump is trying to win over voters, the rest of the Republican field is trying to win over a hostile media.  Trump, like Gingrich in 2012, is thrilling primary voters by treating the media thusly.  Trump is winning because he fights.

 

Let's contrast.  The voters were clearly upset with Obama in 2010 and the Democrats were 'shellacked' in Obama's words.  The Republicans took over the House, the part of the legislature with the power of the purse.  Not one dime can be spent unless the House allows it.  Obamacare was dead if only they had the spine to not fund it.  Nope.  No spine.  Oh, they claimed that without the Senate, they were powerless.  That's not what they said before the 2010 election.  Fine.  In the 2014 election, the Republicans won the Senate.  No change.  Now they claim that without the presidency, they can't do anything.  Pathetic.

 

I'm no Trump fan but I wouldn't call him pathetic.  I'd bet that if Trump had only one branch of the legislature, he would have accomplished vastly more than the 'professional' politicians.  Of course, it might not be anything I want but he wouldn't be offering endless excuses as to why he wasn't delivering what he promised.

Crime? It Depends on Your Party-Affiliation

Remember the Valerie Plame fiasco during the Bush Administration?  Richard Armitage had revealed Ms. Plame's name to Robert Novak.  Novak mentioned it in a column and scandal ensued.  Eventually, we had a Special Prosecutor to investigate this non-crime.  Armitage was never charged with releasing Plame's name because she wasn't a covert agent: no crime.  Still, it was a big deal and Scooter Libby - who did not reveal Plame's name to anyone - was convicted of a felony and fined $250,000.

 

Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had classified and top secret data on a private server located in a restroom closet in Denver.  Some of these emails had to be copied from secure servers and transferred to Ms. Clinton's far less secure server.  If someone of lesser status (or a Republican) had done this, there would be an immediate revocation of all security clearances and criminal charges filed.  Thus far, nothing.  Unlike Plame-Gate, crimes were clearly committed.  Where is the Special Prosecutor?

 

Former Governor Rick Perry of Texas is currently under indictment (by a Democrat Prosecutor) for using his veto when he was governor.  Apparently, using his veto - an integral power of his office - was a crime.  This has surely contributed to his failing presidential campaign, which was the point.

 

Lois Lerner of the IRS somehow only allowed one conservative group to get tax-exempt status in the 3 years leading up to the 2012 election.  When Congress sought to look into this anomaly, her emails from that window were reportedly destroyed in a hard drive crash.  When asked to testify on the matter, she invoked her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  No charges have been brought against her or anyone at the IRS.

 

Tom DeLay, former Republican Congressman and very effective Majority Leader, was indicted (by a Democrat) for violating election laws.  Because Republicans have standards, DeLay had to step down as majority leader while under indictment (Democrats have no such rules).  He was eventually acquitted in the appeals court (8 - 1 ruling) but his political career was long over by then (again, that was the point).

 

Vice President Al Gore attended a fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple in California where thousands of dollars were funneled from China to the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign (that's a violation of election laws, by the way).  Though some of the foreign fundraisers were charged and convicted, Janet Reno declined to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Administration's part in the crime.

 

A mere whiff of impropriety can torpedo a Republican but a city dump stench of scandal has little impact on Democrats.  This double-standard probably explains the spinelessness that I constantly attribute to Republicans.  However, this is also why - even as a Libertarian - I prefer Republicans.  The press will hammer them and the Democrats will oppose them tooth and nail.  When Democrats are in office, the press cheers them and the Republicans are too scared to oppose them lest they be called racists, sexists, homophobes. or whatnot.

Dew Shine

It is well-known among my work colleagues that I drink Mountain Dew.  My boss saw Dew Shine on a shelf and, not surprisingly, thought of me.  I do like the presentation.  My first thought was that it might be alcoholic.  Apparently that is a common mistake; the label specifically states that it is not.

I found it to be more citrusy than standard Mountain Dew and possessed of an aftertaste almost as bad as Diet Mountain Dew.  I'll keep the bottle as a souvenir but no more Dew Shine for me.

War should be Hell

I recently watched the Band of Brothers miniseries from HBO.  It came out a week before 9/11 and I saw a couple of episodes back then.  It is an interesting show, more because of the contrast it provides with war today.  The people who fought World War II have long been called The Greatest Generation and yet much of what they did would be considered war crimes under today's rules.  World War II was fought to victory.  We didn't have ceasefire agreements and peace talks.  We fought until Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally.  How did that work out?  Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe and Japan has held that position in East Asia.  Both are peaceful countries that haven't seen war since 1945.  Gee, why don't we fight wars that way anymore?

First, we had another nuclear power on the scene.  When the USSR became a nuclear power, it became necessary to prevent another total war.  Thus, we held back in Korea and Vietnam, settling for a draw in the first and a loss in the second.  With the fall of the Soviet Union, US power was supreme and yet, despite multiple conflicts, we still fought as if we feared escalation.  Iraq cannot escalate.  Afghanistan cannot escalate.  There is no reason to fight a war of half measures.  Or is there?  In WWII, we flattened cities in Germany, Italy, and Japan.  We bombed occupied ally cities.  Civilian deaths were high.  Such a strategy would be considered barbaric today.  Pinpoint bombing has made war much more tolerable for civilians.  Moreover, a reluctance to risk civilian casualties has provided enemies with a perfect shield; hide among civilians and Westerners won't shoot.

 

General Sherman said that 'War is Hell.'  War should be Hell.  War should be made as intolerable as possible so that it will end more quickly.  All our civility has done is make it impossible to win wars.  You want to end Islamic terrorism?  Start flattening cities.  Entire populations must be thoroughly convinced to abandon the current path.  Moreover, any country that has any of this Islamofascist nonsense must be told in no uncertain terms to clean it up or the bombers will start appearing in their skies.  If we fought WWII the way we are fighting the current War on Terror, we would have lost on both fronts.

 

Of course, it may be too late.  Russia is on the rise.  Is a new Soviet Empire being reborn?  China is working on a navy to rival ours.  The window of a single superpower is closing.  In fact, it is closed for the foreseeable future since President Obama wants nothing more than to withdraw the US from the world.  The consequences of that withdrawal are blooming.

Democratic Troubles

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Democrats-drop-Thomas-Jefferson-and-Andrew-6400544.php

The NAACP has demanded that the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson be dropped from an annual fundraiser because both men were slave owners.  This does not bode well for the majority of former Democrat Presidents.  Let's consider:

 

Thomas Jefferson (1801-09), the first Democratic-Republican president, was a slave owner.  In fact, it is widely held that he had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings.

 

James Madison (1809-17), Father of the Constitution, was a slave owner.

 

James Monroe (1817-25), Last of the Founding Fathers to serve as President, was a slave owner.

 

John Quincy Adams (1825-29) did not own slaves and was a noted Abolisionist but he started as a Federalist and died as a Whig.  If he had lived a few more years, he would have joined the Republican Party.

 

Andrew Jackson (1829-37), who founded the Democratic Party and was the 'jackass' that inspired the party symbol, was a slave owner.

 

Martin Van Buren (1837-41), called the Little Magician, was a New Yorker who thought slavery immoral but it was Constitutional and beyond his authority.  He only served one term and was not popular.

 

James Knox Polk (1845-49), the ultimate expression of America's Manifest Destiny, was a slave owner.

 

Franklin Pierce (1853-57) presided over Bleeding Kansas when he abandoned the Missouri Compromise, the Ostend Manifesto which was a secret effort to expand slavery to Cuba through purchase from Spain, and had Jefferson Davis as his Secretary of War.  His is viewed as a failed presidency and he is often ranked as the worst President.

 

James Buchanan (1857-61) saw the Civil War coming and twiddled his thumbs.  Regularly ranked among the worst presidents.

 

Grover Cleveland (1885-89; 1893-97) is the only Democrat elected president between 1861 and 1913.  He is also the only one to server non-consecutive terms.  Little remembered for anything else, he was not an enthusiastic supporter of the 15th Amendment (Votes for former slaves) and refused efforts to enforce their voting rights.

 

Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) was an apologist for the Ku Klux Klan.  He was a segregationist and showed Birth of a Nation (1915) in the White House.  On the other hand, he was in favor of the 19th Amendment (votes for women).

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45), who is regularly rated among the greatest presidents, setup internment camps for Japanese (George Takei being one of those interned as a child).  He was also friendly with Joseph "Uncle Joe" Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers in history.  However, he was generally good to minorities (Japanese excluded), so the NAACP may not complain if his name is associated with a fundraising dinner.

 

Harry Truman (1945-53) presided over the Red Scare which he minimized but history has since shown that it was as bad as the much maligned Joe McCarthy said.  Russia got the bomb and China went communist.  Also, he approved the dropping of the bomb (I'm okay with that but most Democrats today are not).  However, he is noted for desegregating the military and probably acceptable to the NAACP.

 

John F Kennedy (1961-63) allowed the FBI to tap Martin Luther King's phone.  He also toppled the government in Vietnam that brought us fully into the war.

 

Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-69) is generally viewed as a hero on Civil Rights grounds but his presidency is tainted by Vietnam and urban riots.  He continued the JFK policy of tapping MLK's phone.

 

Jimmy Carter (1977-81) is viewed as the worst president since Hoover.  No one wants to have a fundraising dinner with his name on it.  Who wants to revisit Iran Hostage Crisis right now?

 

William "Bill" Clinton (1993-2001) remains popular among his party despite having been impeached, having his law license revoked, and multiple affairs.  Prior to President Obama, he had been called the 'First Black President.'

 

As many people have forgotten, the Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation.  The NAACP will find that most Democrat presidents are unsuitable in today's climate.  Maybe they should take a look at the Republican Party for a change.

The Coming Mini Ice Age

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

So how do you feel about that 'Global Warming' now?  Gee, maybe this explains the switch to Climate Change.  I wonder how it will turn out to be our fault that the sun is going to sleep.

Supreme Dork

Yesterday, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of Obamacare.  In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that 'Established by the State' does not necessarily mean 'Established by the State.'  You see, that could ruin the law as it is currently being executed.  Well, let's pause there.  If the law is badly or ambiguously written, shouldn't it be returned to the Legislature to correct it?  No, apparently not.  Instead, the majority of the Court ruled that the law as the Obama administration has chosen to implement it (which has been modified from the law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2012) is just fine.  Justice Scalia put it this way:

 

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that ‘[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.’

 

The majority assumed the role of legislature and made the law conform to how the Executive Branch implemented it, not how the Congress (badly) wrote it.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is Constitutional and must be allowed in all states, the democratic decisions of those states be damned. Chief Justice John Roberts, who yesterday was in favor of judicial legislation, wrote a strong dissent:

  

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Thus the Roberts’ Judicial Doctrine is that ‘legislating is acceptable when I am in the majority but a horrible breach when I am in the minority.’ You can’t have it both ways. Either you rule on the law as written or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.