Much has been said about the fact that Trump did not show up for the recent Republican debate. A couple things people should remember. Firstly, the last debate was supposed to be the last debate before the caucus in Iowa as it was the sixth debate. It matches how many the Democrats have held. Secondly, debates are not a requirement for anyone running for office.
I wrote a little about this not long ago; but, I want to be a little more specific. There is absolutely no reason for the federal governments or states to hold primaries for national office, it is not required by the Constitution. The primaries are held for the benefit of the parties and political parties are not recognized by the Constitution. In fact many of the founding fathers thought that political parties were a bad idea. Political parties are private non-profit companies. Political parties used to have their "leaders" (the rich and powerful in their party) pick their candidates in smoky backrooms where deals were cut by old white men. After the progressive movement people started looking for the selection of party candidates to reflect the voters rather than the elites. The rift this year is between the voters and the party elites, this is occurring in both parties and both parties are using their organizations to benefit the candidate that they believe will best represent the wealthy and powerful interests within their parties.
Donald Trump chose not to attend the Republican debate on Fox News. He didn't ask his parties permission because he doesn't. He doesn't need to ask Fox News permission because he doesn't. The man is running for office and should do whatever he things will best help him win that office and he did. It was a brilliant move because it was. Talking heads on television were putting out reports saying it was a big risk and that he might lose votes for not doing the debate. That was just silly and he gained in the polls. It used to be a big thing when presidential candidates held one debate.
So Trump didn't go to the debate and the next day Fox News posted this article - GOP debate second highest rated show in FOX News history. They said they had 12.5 million people watch the debate and that it was their second highest rating in history. CNN posted this article - Who won the ratings race: Fox News or Donald Trump? They point out that the first debate on Fox with Trump garnered 25 million viewers. Double the number of viewers. Fox didn't mention that in their article, they didn't mention what had beat out the last debate in ratings on their own network. When Fox Business News channel held the Republican debates it only drew 11 million viewers and Trump was at that. What they have left out in their analysis is that the debate was probably the highest rated show in the history of Fox Business News channel. The fact is that without Trump 12 million viewers cared about the debates. The bigger issue is why did Fox care if more or less people watched when Trump was gone and why discuss it at all? Do you really believe that they don't know that shows get ratings based on who is there? When the President is on the Tonight Show ratings go up, when some unknown congressional candidate goes on the ratings do not go up.
Why was and is there so much press over whether or not Trump should attend the debates or what the ratings were. Trump knows he didn't need to attend a seventh debate. Heck, he didn't have to attend the first six. I doubt the media is seriously attempting to convince Trump that he needs them at this point, he has demonstrated he doesn't care and that he does not need them. Sanders has proven this too as they attempt to report on him not at all. The people these reports are aimed at are you and me. The media is attempting to manipulate you and me into believing that they can determine who we elect, that without their permission we will not vote for candidates that they do not like. And the media is owned by six companies. My conservative friends are beginning to see this. While most liberals are just laughing at the Republican primaries and their candidates, it is the Republican voters that are figuring out how their party and the conservative media has taken them for granted and doesn't think their opinion matters. That is why they are ridiculing Trump supporters as stupid and refer to Trump as populist and nationalist as if those were bad things in a democracy or a nation. Most of the people who die in wars for this country are nationalists. Ask them if they are fighting for globalism or nationalism, I know the answer. Americans do not go to war for the right of Billionaires to outsource jobs to Communist China. They do not go to war for the right of the wealthy to get tax breaks. The people who died during World War II did not fight so that American companies could build manufacturing plants in China and sell the cars here in the United States of America. Why can't wealthy Americans fight for the prosperity of the people of the nation that fought for them?
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Paul Kantner Died.
Paul Kantner was one of the founding members of the Jefferson Airplane. He died. They were special to me and I had the good fortune to see them in Boston decades ago.
YouTube - Jefferson Airplane - Wooden Ships.
YouTube - Jefferson Airplane - Comin' Back To Me.
YouTube - Jefferson Starship - Miracles.
YouTube - Jefferson Airplane - Wooden Ships.
YouTube - Jefferson Airplane - Comin' Back To Me.
YouTube - Jefferson Starship - Miracles.
Election articles and a fun science article at the end.
Yahoo - Mic - Latest Iowa Caucus Polls 2016: Here's Who's Leading for the Republicans and Democrats. Sanders and Trump are leading in the polls for Iowa.
The Fiscal Times - Trump vs. Sanders? Get Ready for a Populist Disaster. I like this quote from the article, " Now, a Trump-Sanders showdown in November isn’t just possible, it’s one of the more likely outcomes. That would guarantee a populist, anti-establishment outcome and could even become the greatest shock to the American political system since the advent of the two-party system in the mid-nineteenth century." I want you to read the quote twice. What the financial world fears more than anything is not Trump's temporary Muslim ban or his wanting to kick out illegal aliens, they are also not as afraid of Sanders "socialism" as much as they are afraid that for the first time in since the early 1800s the popular vote, the people would pick their leader. They are afraid of a "populist" movement, that means the average citizen.
Fox - Roger Stone: Why conservatives should back Trump.
Fox - 'The Five' Co-Hosts React to Sarah Palin Endorsing Donald Trump. Basically as it happened the conservative media was shocked by him getting Palin to endorse him. They then spent their time trying to figure out how they could make her endorsement lose meaning.
Yahoo - Mic - Nobody Is Happy With Disney's No-Fly Zone Anymore — Not Even Disney. Disneyland has a no fly zone over it. Disney asked for it; but, they want to be allowed to fly drones over their property and that violates the no-fly zone. Do you have a no fly zone? I don't have a no fly zone. If you or I asked for a no fly zone should we then be able to secure it for us to fly only? Obviously no fly zones make it tough on air traffic and that is sort of important. Are drones important? Not to me. Maybe we should have two types of no fly zones. The first that restricts all flights except authorized flights and the other that allows for drones. The drones fly at a much lower level. If we are going to allow for no fly low flying zones then I should be able to have one and not just Disney. Why should someone be able to fly a $300 drone with a camera a hundred feet over my head taking pictures of me sunbathing? Look, Disney does not have an emergency need to fly drones over it's property, they just want to do it and film it. They need to pick between having a no fly zone and not having one and if they can fly a drone over my house then I should be allowed to fly one over theirs.
Business Insider - The Fiscal Times - Lindsey Graham just changed the game for presidential hopefuls. Lindsey Graham, the man that had been running for president and dropped out has just proposed a bill that would allow the president to send troops into any country he chooses if they are fighting the war on terrorists. We could theoretically invade England if we discovered they had a terrorist in their country. It violates the Constitution and eliminates any congressional control over war and it includes our own country. Mr Graham is a traitor. We already have the Constitution that allows us to go to war with anyone so long as the Congress approves it not the President.
Huffington Post - Money Men Say, Voters Move Over, It's Not Your Election! It is an article about the "donor class" (that means the wealthy people that buy politicians and elections through the party system) needing to stop the voters from determining the outcome of the race.
Yahoo - Reuters - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source. Here is the donors thinking on Trump at the moment. They want to have Bloomberg or Romney run against Trump to cut down on his votes so that the convention can be brokered. Bloomberg could not win if he hat to and he knows it. There are deadlines for running in state primaries and he has met none of them.
Yahoo - Business Insider - One of America's most respected former military officials is worried about the 2016 presidential field. You can always tell when you are being manipulated, it is when they use an expert in one field to talk about a different field. They picked a military person to attack the national policies of Donald Trump rather than an expert on national policy, specifically he spoke about the wall between the US and Mexico. You pick people in their field to discuss their field unless you are creating pure propaganda.
Yahoo - The Fiscal Times - Here’s Why the Republican Populist Revolt Will Backfire. Simply put and article about why the donor class will win and the voters don't deserve to be heard.
Yahoo - GOP finger pointing over Trump rise finds many targets. The donor class is trying to figure out how the media and the attacks by political hacks has failed to destroy Trump and the people involved are blaming each other. If you have read this blog for a long time, listen to the whole video. In the end you should be able to read behind the lines. He says that Populists are not Republicans. He means that the majority is not conservative because they are also nationalist and believe in this country first. He later chastises them for being working class and implies that they are stupid and don't know that they should listen to their superiors. If you will listen to the interviewee, he was also against the Tea Party conservatives who he also considered stupid.
Huffington Post - Chinese Scientists Engineer 'Autistic' Monkeys. My, my , my, why did the Chinese genetically engineer monkeys to be autistic? They claim to better understand autism. Why couldn't they just study people who were autistic? LOL. It is all a joke. It is said that 1/3 of all autistic people may have special abilities. Those that do used to be referred to as having Asperger's Syndrome. Asperger's people can see things quicker and clearer than a computer or a think tank. The Unabomber had Aspergers. He entered college at like 13 or so and was a brilliant student. He was then put under some stress tests, emotional stress tests, without his knowledge. He was part of an illegal CIA program called MKUltra and you can read about it in the congressional record. This is the same program that used to slip LSD to businessmen who were visiting hookers to see how it effected them. Read up on the program. The Unabomber was studied because he was one of those unique geniuses, the ones with Aspergers who understand something without having to figure it out. Scientists are not interested in creating more people who are autistic and smash their heads into walls, they are interested in creating more autistic people like Einstein.
The Fiscal Times - Trump vs. Sanders? Get Ready for a Populist Disaster. I like this quote from the article, " Now, a Trump-Sanders showdown in November isn’t just possible, it’s one of the more likely outcomes. That would guarantee a populist, anti-establishment outcome and could even become the greatest shock to the American political system since the advent of the two-party system in the mid-nineteenth century." I want you to read the quote twice. What the financial world fears more than anything is not Trump's temporary Muslim ban or his wanting to kick out illegal aliens, they are also not as afraid of Sanders "socialism" as much as they are afraid that for the first time in since the early 1800s the popular vote, the people would pick their leader. They are afraid of a "populist" movement, that means the average citizen.
Fox - Roger Stone: Why conservatives should back Trump.
Fox - 'The Five' Co-Hosts React to Sarah Palin Endorsing Donald Trump. Basically as it happened the conservative media was shocked by him getting Palin to endorse him. They then spent their time trying to figure out how they could make her endorsement lose meaning.
Yahoo - Mic - Nobody Is Happy With Disney's No-Fly Zone Anymore — Not Even Disney. Disneyland has a no fly zone over it. Disney asked for it; but, they want to be allowed to fly drones over their property and that violates the no-fly zone. Do you have a no fly zone? I don't have a no fly zone. If you or I asked for a no fly zone should we then be able to secure it for us to fly only? Obviously no fly zones make it tough on air traffic and that is sort of important. Are drones important? Not to me. Maybe we should have two types of no fly zones. The first that restricts all flights except authorized flights and the other that allows for drones. The drones fly at a much lower level. If we are going to allow for no fly low flying zones then I should be able to have one and not just Disney. Why should someone be able to fly a $300 drone with a camera a hundred feet over my head taking pictures of me sunbathing? Look, Disney does not have an emergency need to fly drones over it's property, they just want to do it and film it. They need to pick between having a no fly zone and not having one and if they can fly a drone over my house then I should be allowed to fly one over theirs.
Business Insider - The Fiscal Times - Lindsey Graham just changed the game for presidential hopefuls. Lindsey Graham, the man that had been running for president and dropped out has just proposed a bill that would allow the president to send troops into any country he chooses if they are fighting the war on terrorists. We could theoretically invade England if we discovered they had a terrorist in their country. It violates the Constitution and eliminates any congressional control over war and it includes our own country. Mr Graham is a traitor. We already have the Constitution that allows us to go to war with anyone so long as the Congress approves it not the President.
Huffington Post - Money Men Say, Voters Move Over, It's Not Your Election! It is an article about the "donor class" (that means the wealthy people that buy politicians and elections through the party system) needing to stop the voters from determining the outcome of the race.
Yahoo - Reuters - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source. Here is the donors thinking on Trump at the moment. They want to have Bloomberg or Romney run against Trump to cut down on his votes so that the convention can be brokered. Bloomberg could not win if he hat to and he knows it. There are deadlines for running in state primaries and he has met none of them.
Yahoo - Business Insider - One of America's most respected former military officials is worried about the 2016 presidential field. You can always tell when you are being manipulated, it is when they use an expert in one field to talk about a different field. They picked a military person to attack the national policies of Donald Trump rather than an expert on national policy, specifically he spoke about the wall between the US and Mexico. You pick people in their field to discuss their field unless you are creating pure propaganda.
Yahoo - The Fiscal Times - Here’s Why the Republican Populist Revolt Will Backfire. Simply put and article about why the donor class will win and the voters don't deserve to be heard.
Yahoo - GOP finger pointing over Trump rise finds many targets. The donor class is trying to figure out how the media and the attacks by political hacks has failed to destroy Trump and the people involved are blaming each other. If you have read this blog for a long time, listen to the whole video. In the end you should be able to read behind the lines. He says that Populists are not Republicans. He means that the majority is not conservative because they are also nationalist and believe in this country first. He later chastises them for being working class and implies that they are stupid and don't know that they should listen to their superiors. If you will listen to the interviewee, he was also against the Tea Party conservatives who he also considered stupid.
Huffington Post - Chinese Scientists Engineer 'Autistic' Monkeys. My, my , my, why did the Chinese genetically engineer monkeys to be autistic? They claim to better understand autism. Why couldn't they just study people who were autistic? LOL. It is all a joke. It is said that 1/3 of all autistic people may have special abilities. Those that do used to be referred to as having Asperger's Syndrome. Asperger's people can see things quicker and clearer than a computer or a think tank. The Unabomber had Aspergers. He entered college at like 13 or so and was a brilliant student. He was then put under some stress tests, emotional stress tests, without his knowledge. He was part of an illegal CIA program called MKUltra and you can read about it in the congressional record. This is the same program that used to slip LSD to businessmen who were visiting hookers to see how it effected them. Read up on the program. The Unabomber was studied because he was one of those unique geniuses, the ones with Aspergers who understand something without having to figure it out. Scientists are not interested in creating more people who are autistic and smash their heads into walls, they are interested in creating more autistic people like Einstein.
Monday, January 25, 2016
The Devil Has Never Been to Hell, Yet.
This is a religious post that will probably confuse my Christian readers; but, it is true. When I was preaching I always tried to challenge beliefs that were based more on tradition than on the words of the bible. It is said that traditions make void the word of God.
Lets start with this. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Satan has been to hell. In fact it says he was thrown out of heaven down to earth. It also says he is the king of this world until Jesus returns at which time he is thrown into the pit. The pit is all we know about hell. As far as we know from the bible, Jesus is the only being to have been in hell and come back. Satan hasn't been there yet, it is where he is headed; but, he knows nothing about what it really is. At least no more than anyone else, he just knows it is not a nice place.
The media image of the Devil is of this powerful being when in fact the Devil makes lots of mistakes (just read Job or the new testament) because he is an idiot a self important idiot at that. His goal is to stay out of hell by proving that people are worse than him. That cruelty is worse than selfishness while embodying both in himself or herself. I don't believe the gender of angels or devils is written in the bible, I am not even sure they have a gender are you?
Lets start with this. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Satan has been to hell. In fact it says he was thrown out of heaven down to earth. It also says he is the king of this world until Jesus returns at which time he is thrown into the pit. The pit is all we know about hell. As far as we know from the bible, Jesus is the only being to have been in hell and come back. Satan hasn't been there yet, it is where he is headed; but, he knows nothing about what it really is. At least no more than anyone else, he just knows it is not a nice place.
The media image of the Devil is of this powerful being when in fact the Devil makes lots of mistakes (just read Job or the new testament) because he is an idiot a self important idiot at that. His goal is to stay out of hell by proving that people are worse than him. That cruelty is worse than selfishness while embodying both in himself or herself. I don't believe the gender of angels or devils is written in the bible, I am not even sure they have a gender are you?
Friday, January 22, 2016
More Establishment Lies and Propaganda About Trump.
The Davos World Economic Forum is a meeting of the wealthy and the powerful to set the world agenda. This quote is from Wikipedia, "The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, based in Cologny, Geneva. Recognized by the Swiss authorities [1] as the international institution for public-private cooperation, its mission is cited as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas". If you have never heard of it then they don't need to have a secret conspiracy to control the world. By the way, they have their own website so you can read their stuff for yourself.
World Economic Forum
YouTube - Reuters - Davos elite alarmed at prospect of nominee Trump.
Now the article claims that the elites in Davos don't like Trump because he wants to keep out illegal aliens and come up with a plan to screen Muslims to see if they are radicalized. This article claims that the elites don't like Trump for saying those things in a rude manner; but, they also don't like Sanders according to this article. Hmmm, why don't they like Sanders? What do the two of them have in common? Well the article says they are populists, that means supported by the majority, just like Democracy is meant to be for. They also refer to them as being nationalists. Usually when you call someone a Nationalist it is meant to refer to their wanting to go to war with other nations; but, both Sanders and Trump were against going into Iraq. Both want to use the military less. Why would this bother the peace loving globalists? One of the globalists, the Chief Finance Minster of Chile, said, "In Chile we have a deep view that integration of the Americas is a good thing, whether it is goods, financing and yes people. So I’d be happier with a more welcoming rhetoric." He said that Trump's words were not inviting to this.
The Huffington Post believes in globalism as does the Republican establishment. On both the right and left you have people who do not believe in nations. To them that is the real number one enemy. They are confused that Americans are finally wanting to protect this country to the globalists that sold out the nation. From India to South America and all the rest of the world the few who own and control the world are worried by Trump and Sanders. The article shows how they believe Trump is just using strong rhetoric or just trying to expand his brand, that he is not serious. That is called denial and Trump better make sure he has real good security, the best. Once they pass the point of denial they go to fear and then they do bad things, that is history.
I am a socialist, anyone who has read my blog for long should know that because I don't hide it. I actually registered to vote today and I haven't voted in 15 years because I was so disgusted by the nominees. I would not vote during the Bush era, the Clinton era, the Bush Jr era or the Obama era. I wouldn't vote for any of them because I could see how controlled the races were, the candidates were and how little difference who you voted for meant. I registered as a Democrat. I would like to see Sanders win. Now I wished I had registered as Republican so that I could vote for Trump in the primary. Trump scares those who would continue to loot and weaken this country more than the others. Now, it may be that they don't think Sanders has a chance; but, at this moment he scares them more. Why? Why do Social Democrats in Europe want to see Hillary win more than Sanders? Oh, yeah she is Globalist and he is not. You cannot have a effective left or right in a country if you have no nation and that is what globalism is all about.
Did you know that in England recently, their Parliament had a vote on whether or not it would allow Trump in their country because he said things in an American election they did not like? F them, who the heck are they to tell us who they like that is running for President. We do not as a nation tell other nations who they can and cannot like or support, that is anti-democratic. What would you think if other countries made formal statements on who we should or should not vote for to lead this nation? Should Iran and China be able to say that if we vote for Trump or Sanders, they will not talk to them in person for the purpose of effecting our votes?
A musical interlude while I write about other news. YouTube - Alice Cooper - Steven.
The Telegraph - World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran. I don't have any debt, that nation has debt; but, I have paid all mine. How far do you think the defaults be allowed to go, just nations or all people? Who is the debt owed to? Other countries or other countries banks? Did you know that only ONE country paid the United States back for the loans we gave them during World War II? Nations default on their loans to other countries by agreement and there are many of them over history. Would you rather see our nation default on it's debts or allow all the citizens to do the same? Are debts primarily personal or national? That is a dilemma for Libertarians.
FoxNews - Effort to find San Bernardino terrorists' hard drive, crack encrpyted data, challenges FBI. I hope you remember awhile back when I wrote about what happened in San Bernardino. I said the media was making statements that they could not prove and their statements were about the motive in the case. Well, guess what, the FBI is still trying to figure out the motive in the case because they don't have any firm evidence. That is what is in the article.
Huffington Post - They've Invented An Ingenious New Type Of Intersection That Could Save Lives. Read the article; but, remember the particular design is meaningless to the greater issue. In Europe the streets are narrow and old because they were not built for cars and because of that many inner cities strictly limit car traffic therefore bikes are used. That is why America is building unused bike lanes on central city streets, to make the streets not work for personal automobiles.
Yahoo - Business Insider - A self-made millionaire says the single most effective way to get rich is a simple decision most people don't make. Here is his earth shattering advice quoted in a Business-Elitist paper, "pay yourself before you pay" your debts. Read the article, lol. After you read the article you will understand why the world faces a wave of epic defaults. It is because they people that took the loans are not going to pay the loans and they want you and I to go into permanent debt to pay the loans for them.
Yahoo - Bloomberg - Regulation Made the World More Dangerous, Blackstone CEO Says. This is my favorite type of lie from the media. Let's start with this, over 90% of all mass media is owned by 6 companies that control all mass media. That means that the .01 percent of the population control all media. Do you think there are poor people owning any newspapers in the United States? Each of these six companies are globalist companies. That is simply a fact. You can make more from pushing an agenda then from newspaper sales, that is also a fact. What makes more for a paper, sales or advertisements? This article claims that regulations caused the economy to fail because the regulators did not catch all the corruption. Still, their solution is to regulate less. Why do we want cameras on every street to catch pitch pockets and terrorists; but, not check on or regulate the banks that stole trillions?
Daily Mail - He's vulgar, vain and obnoxious. But refusing to take Trump seriously would be infantile folly, says Stephen Glover. Another article, opinion, from another country on who we should elect. Why are international elites so afraid that America might put America first? Imagine an American paper posting an article that said the same about someone running for the English Parliament. Would you like that?
Yahoo - AP - Palin's re-emergence underscores GOP split. This article is by someone who believes Sarah Palin was the reason that McCain lost the election. McCain lost because even Republicans did not like him, the voters not the managers of thought, those with their own opinions didn't like him. The article talks about and then ignores that Palin was the VP nominee because she was from the tea party. That election was used to blame the tea party for the loss of the election by their establishement candidate. They lost because McCain was a political hack and an establishment follower.
Yahoo - .Mic - Latest Iowa Caucus Polls 2016: Here's Who's Leading for the Republicans and Democrats. Sanders 51%, Clinton - 43%. Trump 37%, Cruz 26% and the others below 14% each with Bush having only 3%.
World Economic Forum
YouTube - Reuters - Davos elite alarmed at prospect of nominee Trump.
Now the article claims that the elites in Davos don't like Trump because he wants to keep out illegal aliens and come up with a plan to screen Muslims to see if they are radicalized. This article claims that the elites don't like Trump for saying those things in a rude manner; but, they also don't like Sanders according to this article. Hmmm, why don't they like Sanders? What do the two of them have in common? Well the article says they are populists, that means supported by the majority, just like Democracy is meant to be for. They also refer to them as being nationalists. Usually when you call someone a Nationalist it is meant to refer to their wanting to go to war with other nations; but, both Sanders and Trump were against going into Iraq. Both want to use the military less. Why would this bother the peace loving globalists? One of the globalists, the Chief Finance Minster of Chile, said, "In Chile we have a deep view that integration of the Americas is a good thing, whether it is goods, financing and yes people. So I’d be happier with a more welcoming rhetoric." He said that Trump's words were not inviting to this.
The Huffington Post believes in globalism as does the Republican establishment. On both the right and left you have people who do not believe in nations. To them that is the real number one enemy. They are confused that Americans are finally wanting to protect this country to the globalists that sold out the nation. From India to South America and all the rest of the world the few who own and control the world are worried by Trump and Sanders. The article shows how they believe Trump is just using strong rhetoric or just trying to expand his brand, that he is not serious. That is called denial and Trump better make sure he has real good security, the best. Once they pass the point of denial they go to fear and then they do bad things, that is history.
I am a socialist, anyone who has read my blog for long should know that because I don't hide it. I actually registered to vote today and I haven't voted in 15 years because I was so disgusted by the nominees. I would not vote during the Bush era, the Clinton era, the Bush Jr era or the Obama era. I wouldn't vote for any of them because I could see how controlled the races were, the candidates were and how little difference who you voted for meant. I registered as a Democrat. I would like to see Sanders win. Now I wished I had registered as Republican so that I could vote for Trump in the primary. Trump scares those who would continue to loot and weaken this country more than the others. Now, it may be that they don't think Sanders has a chance; but, at this moment he scares them more. Why? Why do Social Democrats in Europe want to see Hillary win more than Sanders? Oh, yeah she is Globalist and he is not. You cannot have a effective left or right in a country if you have no nation and that is what globalism is all about.
Did you know that in England recently, their Parliament had a vote on whether or not it would allow Trump in their country because he said things in an American election they did not like? F them, who the heck are they to tell us who they like that is running for President. We do not as a nation tell other nations who they can and cannot like or support, that is anti-democratic. What would you think if other countries made formal statements on who we should or should not vote for to lead this nation? Should Iran and China be able to say that if we vote for Trump or Sanders, they will not talk to them in person for the purpose of effecting our votes?
A musical interlude while I write about other news. YouTube - Alice Cooper - Steven.
The Telegraph - World faces wave of epic debt defaults, fears central bank veteran. I don't have any debt, that nation has debt; but, I have paid all mine. How far do you think the defaults be allowed to go, just nations or all people? Who is the debt owed to? Other countries or other countries banks? Did you know that only ONE country paid the United States back for the loans we gave them during World War II? Nations default on their loans to other countries by agreement and there are many of them over history. Would you rather see our nation default on it's debts or allow all the citizens to do the same? Are debts primarily personal or national? That is a dilemma for Libertarians.
FoxNews - Effort to find San Bernardino terrorists' hard drive, crack encrpyted data, challenges FBI. I hope you remember awhile back when I wrote about what happened in San Bernardino. I said the media was making statements that they could not prove and their statements were about the motive in the case. Well, guess what, the FBI is still trying to figure out the motive in the case because they don't have any firm evidence. That is what is in the article.
Huffington Post - They've Invented An Ingenious New Type Of Intersection That Could Save Lives. Read the article; but, remember the particular design is meaningless to the greater issue. In Europe the streets are narrow and old because they were not built for cars and because of that many inner cities strictly limit car traffic therefore bikes are used. That is why America is building unused bike lanes on central city streets, to make the streets not work for personal automobiles.
Yahoo - Business Insider - A self-made millionaire says the single most effective way to get rich is a simple decision most people don't make. Here is his earth shattering advice quoted in a Business-Elitist paper, "pay yourself before you pay" your debts. Read the article, lol. After you read the article you will understand why the world faces a wave of epic defaults. It is because they people that took the loans are not going to pay the loans and they want you and I to go into permanent debt to pay the loans for them.
Yahoo - Bloomberg - Regulation Made the World More Dangerous, Blackstone CEO Says. This is my favorite type of lie from the media. Let's start with this, over 90% of all mass media is owned by 6 companies that control all mass media. That means that the .01 percent of the population control all media. Do you think there are poor people owning any newspapers in the United States? Each of these six companies are globalist companies. That is simply a fact. You can make more from pushing an agenda then from newspaper sales, that is also a fact. What makes more for a paper, sales or advertisements? This article claims that regulations caused the economy to fail because the regulators did not catch all the corruption. Still, their solution is to regulate less. Why do we want cameras on every street to catch pitch pockets and terrorists; but, not check on or regulate the banks that stole trillions?
Daily Mail - He's vulgar, vain and obnoxious. But refusing to take Trump seriously would be infantile folly, says Stephen Glover. Another article, opinion, from another country on who we should elect. Why are international elites so afraid that America might put America first? Imagine an American paper posting an article that said the same about someone running for the English Parliament. Would you like that?
Yahoo - AP - Palin's re-emergence underscores GOP split. This article is by someone who believes Sarah Palin was the reason that McCain lost the election. McCain lost because even Republicans did not like him, the voters not the managers of thought, those with their own opinions didn't like him. The article talks about and then ignores that Palin was the VP nominee because she was from the tea party. That election was used to blame the tea party for the loss of the election by their establishement candidate. They lost because McCain was a political hack and an establishment follower.
Yahoo - .Mic - Latest Iowa Caucus Polls 2016: Here's Who's Leading for the Republicans and Democrats. Sanders 51%, Clinton - 43%. Trump 37%, Cruz 26% and the others below 14% each with Bush having only 3%.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
We Bailed Out GM and They Outsource More Jobs to China And Lots of Articles
Sort of a spring cleaning of all the links to articles I have saved and not posted on.
The Telegraph - Marco Rubio 'helped cocaine dealer brother-in-law get an estate agent's licence. The short of the story is that his brother in law was convicted of selling $15 million in drugs and went to jail. His brother in law was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail and only did 11. After being released Marco sent a letter to the group that licenses realtors in Florida asking that they grant a license to his brother in law. He did however forget to mention that in the letter and was in the state legislature at the time. That is not what is interesting to me. Why hasn't this been picked up by the American press? The English paper published over two weeks ago, 18 days ago.
Yahoo - Harman CEO says autonomous vehicles could be less than 5 years away. I spoke to my brother recently and I was talking about the issue. He asked a good common sense question and I would like to answer it here. My brother said that people had made predictions about the future in the past, predictions that we would have flying cars and travel on monorails. He pointed out that that those things never happened. That is all true; but, those were all predictions about what would happen a 100 years from now, speculative technologies. I should also point out that Las Vegas has a monorail and you can buy a flying car, it is just regulated like any other plane. This prediction about self driving cars is not a prediction about the technology being developed, it is already here. This is just a question of when implementation becomes common. I am reading more and more saying by 2020 and that is only four years away.
The Washington Post - Still don’t think Donald Trump can win? This chart should convince you. Whether you like a candidate or not it is foolish to ignore the trends and deny to yourself what is obvious.
Yahoo - AFP - GM bets Americans will buy cars made in China. Remember when Bush bailed out the banks and the auto companies? Me too. The Untied States government owned GM. Remember the joke about them becoming Government Motors from the right? Me too. Well they have taken their profits since them and saved a bunch of them up so they can build a factory in China and sell those cars in America. Why do we allow this?
Huffington Post - Why Bernie Sanders Has Already Won. Interesting article. The author does not think Sanders will win the Candidacy; but, does believe it says where the younger Democratic voters are headed based upon their support for Sanders rather than Clinton.
Yahoo - The Atlantic - What If Bernie Sanders Is the Democrats' Best Bet? The article plays a game with the reader and does not answer it's own title question. Instead it says that if Sanders wins the first four primaries, he will still lose because Clinton gets the southern votes. Both the establishment left and establishment right are trying the exact same games to weaken the favorites of their parties in favor of the establishment candidates.
Yahoo - AP - GOP establishment loses hope of winning Iowa, New Hampshire. The wealthy donors to Republicans do not like Trump or Cruz and are now calling for the other candidates drop out so that an Establishment Candidate can win before Trump or Cruz gain momentum. LOL. This is a case of way too little way too late. LMAO. I guess the denial of how Trump could win is beginning to go away from within his party.
FoxNews - Why is the Republican Party taking shots at Donald Trump? Let me give you the set up here. A Republican governor was chosen by the Republican Party to give their response to Obama's State of the Union Address. She took that opportunity to attack Trump in the same speech. The conservative media questioned that approach and then during the Republican debate, that same governor was there as a "friend" to Donald Trump. This stuff is just too funny and transparent. What do you want to bet that her poll numbers in her state went down after her attack on Trump? I will bet my whole bank account that the governor approached Trump and asked how she could make it up to him and be seen in a more positive light by his supporters. Trump now owns her.
CNET - Trump promises he'll force Apple to manufacture in the US. I just love the hypocrisy of the owned media in this country. The author claims that Trump cannot possibly make Apple produce it's products in America and that if he used tariffs to do it he would be evil, even if we got the jobs I assume. Why is an American computer magazine against manufacturing computers and cell phones in America, the same nation that created these devices?
USDOT - Secretary Foxx Unveils President Obama’s FY17 Budget Proposal of Nearly $4 Billion for Automated Vehicles and Announces DOT Initiatives to Accelerate Vehicle Safety Innovations. The federal government is going to give $4 Billion to companies to find ways to allow self driving vehicles work in the United States. The Federal government is subsidizing the death of millions of driving jobs. Your political parties at work in support of the few and wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
The Telegraph - Marco Rubio 'helped cocaine dealer brother-in-law get an estate agent's licence. The short of the story is that his brother in law was convicted of selling $15 million in drugs and went to jail. His brother in law was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail and only did 11. After being released Marco sent a letter to the group that licenses realtors in Florida asking that they grant a license to his brother in law. He did however forget to mention that in the letter and was in the state legislature at the time. That is not what is interesting to me. Why hasn't this been picked up by the American press? The English paper published over two weeks ago, 18 days ago.
Yahoo - Harman CEO says autonomous vehicles could be less than 5 years away. I spoke to my brother recently and I was talking about the issue. He asked a good common sense question and I would like to answer it here. My brother said that people had made predictions about the future in the past, predictions that we would have flying cars and travel on monorails. He pointed out that that those things never happened. That is all true; but, those were all predictions about what would happen a 100 years from now, speculative technologies. I should also point out that Las Vegas has a monorail and you can buy a flying car, it is just regulated like any other plane. This prediction about self driving cars is not a prediction about the technology being developed, it is already here. This is just a question of when implementation becomes common. I am reading more and more saying by 2020 and that is only four years away.
The Washington Post - Still don’t think Donald Trump can win? This chart should convince you. Whether you like a candidate or not it is foolish to ignore the trends and deny to yourself what is obvious.
Yahoo - AFP - GM bets Americans will buy cars made in China. Remember when Bush bailed out the banks and the auto companies? Me too. The Untied States government owned GM. Remember the joke about them becoming Government Motors from the right? Me too. Well they have taken their profits since them and saved a bunch of them up so they can build a factory in China and sell those cars in America. Why do we allow this?
Huffington Post - Why Bernie Sanders Has Already Won. Interesting article. The author does not think Sanders will win the Candidacy; but, does believe it says where the younger Democratic voters are headed based upon their support for Sanders rather than Clinton.
Yahoo - The Atlantic - What If Bernie Sanders Is the Democrats' Best Bet? The article plays a game with the reader and does not answer it's own title question. Instead it says that if Sanders wins the first four primaries, he will still lose because Clinton gets the southern votes. Both the establishment left and establishment right are trying the exact same games to weaken the favorites of their parties in favor of the establishment candidates.
Yahoo - AP - GOP establishment loses hope of winning Iowa, New Hampshire. The wealthy donors to Republicans do not like Trump or Cruz and are now calling for the other candidates drop out so that an Establishment Candidate can win before Trump or Cruz gain momentum. LOL. This is a case of way too little way too late. LMAO. I guess the denial of how Trump could win is beginning to go away from within his party.
FoxNews - Why is the Republican Party taking shots at Donald Trump? Let me give you the set up here. A Republican governor was chosen by the Republican Party to give their response to Obama's State of the Union Address. She took that opportunity to attack Trump in the same speech. The conservative media questioned that approach and then during the Republican debate, that same governor was there as a "friend" to Donald Trump. This stuff is just too funny and transparent. What do you want to bet that her poll numbers in her state went down after her attack on Trump? I will bet my whole bank account that the governor approached Trump and asked how she could make it up to him and be seen in a more positive light by his supporters. Trump now owns her.
CNET - Trump promises he'll force Apple to manufacture in the US. I just love the hypocrisy of the owned media in this country. The author claims that Trump cannot possibly make Apple produce it's products in America and that if he used tariffs to do it he would be evil, even if we got the jobs I assume. Why is an American computer magazine against manufacturing computers and cell phones in America, the same nation that created these devices?
USDOT - Secretary Foxx Unveils President Obama’s FY17 Budget Proposal of Nearly $4 Billion for Automated Vehicles and Announces DOT Initiatives to Accelerate Vehicle Safety Innovations. The federal government is going to give $4 Billion to companies to find ways to allow self driving vehicles work in the United States. The Federal government is subsidizing the death of millions of driving jobs. Your political parties at work in support of the few and wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Monday, January 18, 2016
A Couple of Old Pimpernel Drawings
I used to draw, long before I got arthritis I used to draw a lot. I have very few of my pictures left; but, I found two and thought I might post them. My son-in-laws are artists. One of them is a professional artist who works with video games and slot machine art. He is an amazing artist and certainly much better than I ever was. I am going to guess that the first picture was done between 1976 and 1978, it is of the actress Linda Purl. The second is of actress Nastassja Kinski and was probably done between 1978 and 1982. I apologize for the poor quality of the scans, the pictures were done on normal typewriter paper and have faded over the years. I hope you enjoy them anyways.
Ms. Kinski
It is for the viewer to decide if I did any good.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Crooked Realtors in Nevada
There are those who will say that the Pimpernel they know can be down right mean when forced to deal with liars and cheats. I don't see it that way, I just think that when someone is trying to steal from you it is okay to address the issue directly and in public, call them out on their deceit. That is basically what I do on this blog and I don't even get paid for this.
Well, a relative asked me to go out to Nevada where he is selling his house and help him make sure he was treated properly. What I found was utter corruption in one small community by the realtors of that community. I want you to know what I found in case you find the same thing in your community. Firstly, the realtors in this town got together and agreed to fix the price of realtor services. A realtor usually gets 5% of the sales price of a house when sold and often splits it with the buyers agent. In this place the majority of realtors have colluded to make the price 6% that is automatically split between both realtors. Price fixing is illegal nationally, it is a federal law that prohibits it.
The next thing I found was that the property listings have a whole lot of mistakes in the MLS, this is basically the official advertised selling price of a property. The MLS showed my relatives property having half the size that it does and as a result the value at half of what it is. Some realtors even brought "comps" to prove to him he was getting a good price. The only problem was that the comp sales were not comp sales at all and they knew it. It gets better.
A little Pimpernel background. I first started following real estate when I was about 16. I followed it because it sure seemed important to my parents and all the smart adults I knew. After graduating law school I went to work at a Title Insurance company and became a title examiner and quite a good one because I studied up on how to draw out legal descriptions and I recorded many deeds. I also investigated the permits for properties and eventually was offered a job as a Vice President at one company, I took a job in the government instead at one third the pay. When a friend of mine decided to become a realtor, she used to ask me for advice and help in understanding the market, she later became a mortgage broker and I had an interest in the company acting as an advisor. Eventually I was asked to give a two day seminar to people involved in real estate in Nevada. The seminar occurred before the market crash which I told the people was coming and when it was coming, both ended up being true. I know how to appraise a property and have been responsible for completing leases of commercial property as large as 65,000 square feet. I should probably also point out that for the purposes of lawsuits I have been found qualified to be an expert regarding public easements and have actually been asked to write a book on the subject. The realtors that my relative and I met with did not know anything about me other than I was a relative and advising my relative. They were dumb and answered my questions mostly, after a bit, they got more guarded.
So lets look at the game that they were playing. They assumed that the Zillow quote would impress us; but, I had to point out that it underestimated the property by half as it was based on a MLS (that is where Zillow gets most of it's information) that showed the property at half the size it is. One of them attempted to tell me that it is real hard to fill out the MLS because it has drop down selection menus. The mistake in the MLS was not a mistake, it was intentional. The person who placed the property in the MLS, prior to my relative buying it, was a relator representing a large bank and my guess is that the loan was actually owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as are just about all mortgages in the United States. The banks merely act as processing agents for the fed. By the way, the MLS did not reflect the property tax records, the title and deed or even the view of the Insurance company. The realtors we met with did not seem bothered by this and recognized that it was twice the size. They tried to tell me that the MLS listing was probably just a mistake by some fool. It was more than that.
I haven't even mentioned half of the corruption in that town regarding property sales. The realtors we met with wanted to give their "investors" a chance to look at the property prior to correcting it and putting it in the MLS. Hmmm, they said it like it was a good thing; but, they didn't know that I knew what pocket listing are and how they disadvantage the seller and benefit the buyer by limiting competition. I should probably mention that the realtors I met with also worked for companies that were property management companies. Hmmm, isn't that a conflict of interest? If you hire a realtor to sell your property they are supposed to represent your interests and not the interest of the buyer or their own company which will act as the property manager for the buyer if they sell your house?
I don't know exactly how I will deal with these people in the future; but, a change in their actions is not negotiable. What is the old saying, "Change or die", that is too merciful to those who conspire to steal from their neighbor. What if I just see them all go to jail and lose their licenses? Isn't that nicer? Have a great weekend, I will thinking and strategizing.
Well, a relative asked me to go out to Nevada where he is selling his house and help him make sure he was treated properly. What I found was utter corruption in one small community by the realtors of that community. I want you to know what I found in case you find the same thing in your community. Firstly, the realtors in this town got together and agreed to fix the price of realtor services. A realtor usually gets 5% of the sales price of a house when sold and often splits it with the buyers agent. In this place the majority of realtors have colluded to make the price 6% that is automatically split between both realtors. Price fixing is illegal nationally, it is a federal law that prohibits it.
The next thing I found was that the property listings have a whole lot of mistakes in the MLS, this is basically the official advertised selling price of a property. The MLS showed my relatives property having half the size that it does and as a result the value at half of what it is. Some realtors even brought "comps" to prove to him he was getting a good price. The only problem was that the comp sales were not comp sales at all and they knew it. It gets better.
A little Pimpernel background. I first started following real estate when I was about 16. I followed it because it sure seemed important to my parents and all the smart adults I knew. After graduating law school I went to work at a Title Insurance company and became a title examiner and quite a good one because I studied up on how to draw out legal descriptions and I recorded many deeds. I also investigated the permits for properties and eventually was offered a job as a Vice President at one company, I took a job in the government instead at one third the pay. When a friend of mine decided to become a realtor, she used to ask me for advice and help in understanding the market, she later became a mortgage broker and I had an interest in the company acting as an advisor. Eventually I was asked to give a two day seminar to people involved in real estate in Nevada. The seminar occurred before the market crash which I told the people was coming and when it was coming, both ended up being true. I know how to appraise a property and have been responsible for completing leases of commercial property as large as 65,000 square feet. I should probably also point out that for the purposes of lawsuits I have been found qualified to be an expert regarding public easements and have actually been asked to write a book on the subject. The realtors that my relative and I met with did not know anything about me other than I was a relative and advising my relative. They were dumb and answered my questions mostly, after a bit, they got more guarded.
So lets look at the game that they were playing. They assumed that the Zillow quote would impress us; but, I had to point out that it underestimated the property by half as it was based on a MLS (that is where Zillow gets most of it's information) that showed the property at half the size it is. One of them attempted to tell me that it is real hard to fill out the MLS because it has drop down selection menus. The mistake in the MLS was not a mistake, it was intentional. The person who placed the property in the MLS, prior to my relative buying it, was a relator representing a large bank and my guess is that the loan was actually owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as are just about all mortgages in the United States. The banks merely act as processing agents for the fed. By the way, the MLS did not reflect the property tax records, the title and deed or even the view of the Insurance company. The realtors we met with did not seem bothered by this and recognized that it was twice the size. They tried to tell me that the MLS listing was probably just a mistake by some fool. It was more than that.
I haven't even mentioned half of the corruption in that town regarding property sales. The realtors we met with wanted to give their "investors" a chance to look at the property prior to correcting it and putting it in the MLS. Hmmm, they said it like it was a good thing; but, they didn't know that I knew what pocket listing are and how they disadvantage the seller and benefit the buyer by limiting competition. I should probably mention that the realtors I met with also worked for companies that were property management companies. Hmmm, isn't that a conflict of interest? If you hire a realtor to sell your property they are supposed to represent your interests and not the interest of the buyer or their own company which will act as the property manager for the buyer if they sell your house?
I don't know exactly how I will deal with these people in the future; but, a change in their actions is not negotiable. What is the old saying, "Change or die", that is too merciful to those who conspire to steal from their neighbor. What if I just see them all go to jail and lose their licenses? Isn't that nicer? Have a great weekend, I will thinking and strategizing.
The Establishment Plan To Get Rid of Trump
The Republican establishment does not like Trump. They do not dislike him because he wants to keep out illegal aliens, that is something the RNC has supported in the past as have most of the establishment candidates. They don't hate him because he distrusts the Muslim world, the Republican is vehemently anti-Arab Muslims and are happy to bomb innocent civilians to take out a couple of ISIS members, they certainly don't mind collateral damage. They do not hate him because of his stance on abortion as the party is split over the issue. So why do they hate him? They hate him because they do not own him, he is his own man, good, bad or indifferent.
Now lets talk about how the wealthy that control the party are going after Trump. In July they laughed at him and said his was a joke candidacy, not serious and being done just to get publicity. In August they began looking for a new dismissal of his candidacy by saying nobody would take him seriously and that he was too crude. In September and October they were saying that his support was not going to last and that he would soon drop in the polls, he went up again anyways. In November and December they began attacking him for every brash comment he made, they said he was extreme for promoting the same things the party promoted because he used crude words. He continued to rise in the polls. Sometime in December they began to understand that the old tricks would not work with the public when it came to Trump. Their tactics are old and everybody knows it. The tactics are the ones designed by the media and political consultants to knock a candidate out of a race. He went up in the polls anyways.
Because nothing has managed to hurt Trump, the establishment has decided it is time to take out the other non-establishment candidates starting with Cruz and Carson. They believe that if all the other candidates go away, the voters will pick Jeb. They have made an incredibly stupid tactical mistake. During World War II, Germany could have invaded England and taken it over; but, when England did not fall as quickly as expected (mainly because America was illegally helping Britain as we were not yet in the war). they turned to the east and put all their resources into attacking Russia. Germany ended up losing that war on both fronts. It is particularly amusing to see the wealthy stick to Bush who is in the single digits while saying that Cruz and Carson who are in double digits should drop out of the race. Here is an article, read and think.
Yahoo - CNBC - Trump? Carson? Here's who should drop out. They believe if Carson drops out his votes will go to Bush or maybe Rubio. People who support Carson and people who support Cruz do not like Rubio much or Bush at all. At best half of Carson's voters would go to Trump and that would give him 45% in the polls. The article claims that candidates should literally drop out so that Bush can get their votes.
Now lets talk about how the wealthy that control the party are going after Trump. In July they laughed at him and said his was a joke candidacy, not serious and being done just to get publicity. In August they began looking for a new dismissal of his candidacy by saying nobody would take him seriously and that he was too crude. In September and October they were saying that his support was not going to last and that he would soon drop in the polls, he went up again anyways. In November and December they began attacking him for every brash comment he made, they said he was extreme for promoting the same things the party promoted because he used crude words. He continued to rise in the polls. Sometime in December they began to understand that the old tricks would not work with the public when it came to Trump. Their tactics are old and everybody knows it. The tactics are the ones designed by the media and political consultants to knock a candidate out of a race. He went up in the polls anyways.
Because nothing has managed to hurt Trump, the establishment has decided it is time to take out the other non-establishment candidates starting with Cruz and Carson. They believe that if all the other candidates go away, the voters will pick Jeb. They have made an incredibly stupid tactical mistake. During World War II, Germany could have invaded England and taken it over; but, when England did not fall as quickly as expected (mainly because America was illegally helping Britain as we were not yet in the war). they turned to the east and put all their resources into attacking Russia. Germany ended up losing that war on both fronts. It is particularly amusing to see the wealthy stick to Bush who is in the single digits while saying that Cruz and Carson who are in double digits should drop out of the race. Here is an article, read and think.
Yahoo - CNBC - Trump? Carson? Here's who should drop out. They believe if Carson drops out his votes will go to Bush or maybe Rubio. People who support Carson and people who support Cruz do not like Rubio much or Bush at all. At best half of Carson's voters would go to Trump and that would give him 45% in the polls. The article claims that candidates should literally drop out so that Bush can get their votes.
Friday, January 15, 2016
The Fox Business Republican Debate of 1/14/2016
I have just returned from Nevada, more about that in another post. While there I watched the Republican debate with a relative who is a Republican. We both enjoyed it and discussed it. I think the result will be that Donald Trump picks up even more votes, Ted Cruz goes down in the polls and Marco Rubio goes up in the polls. As for Bush, nothing can help him, people just don't trust the Bushes.
The most impactful moment of the election, in terms of gaining or losing votes, was when Ted Cruz basically insulted all of New York. He tried to say that everyone in New York was pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and greedy. Wow. I may not love New York; but, I have Republican friends from New York who are very conservative Tea Party members. There is now no way that Cruz can win the primary in New York and he may very well see his New York funds drying up. In fact if the big banks in New York continue to contribute to his campaign those banks will lose their support in New York and it will come out.
Other than Ted Cruz insulting a whole state, the rest pretty much followed the same pattern. They would try to attack Trumps ideas and then present basically the exact same plan regarding immigration, Muslims and Iran. Trump for his part came off well. He was calmer and more controlled in his speech and presentation and still managed to appear unrehearsed. Whatever you think of him, the man is not stupid. One issue that came up was what he would do with his company if elected President and he said he would turn it over to his kids to run and ignore it. I have watched interviews with his kids and he means it and they would do a great job. Ivanka Trump is a brilliant businesswoman, her brothers are sharp as tacks and they all work together well while being incredibly supportive of their father. I actually think he would enjoy having them run the company as it will tell him what he can expect from them when he passes on.
The most interesting issue of the night was regarding Ted Cruz's right to run for the office of President or even be a Vice President. There is a clause in the Constitution that says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." This is very important as it is found in Article 2 of the Constitution. It is also why Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be President. The reason behind this clause was to prevent the country from being run for people under foreign influence in fear that they might not look out for America first. If you are born in the United States you are by definition a natural born citizen, a birth right citizen. Everyone else is a naturalized citizen. Naturalized means you switched your citizenship and renounced any foreign citizenship you had before becoming a citizen of the United States. Ted Cruz never did that, he did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until about two years ago. He is a citizen; but, he is not a natural born citizen and is therefore not eligible to be either President or Vice President. There is one area where someone could be born in another country and still be considered a natural born citizen and that is if they were born at a U.S. Military base to American citizens or to a member of a consulate. Consulates are considered U.S. territory. United States territories (Guam, Puerto Rico...) would also follow the same rules.
I find it all funny as for the last 8 years the Republicans have claimed that Obama may not be a natural citizen because his father was Kenyan, even though his mother was a United States citizen and he was Obama was born in the United States. At a minimum, after having the Republicans bring this up time and time again about Obama, it is impossible not to at least address the issue with Cruz.
The most impactful moment of the election, in terms of gaining or losing votes, was when Ted Cruz basically insulted all of New York. He tried to say that everyone in New York was pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and greedy. Wow. I may not love New York; but, I have Republican friends from New York who are very conservative Tea Party members. There is now no way that Cruz can win the primary in New York and he may very well see his New York funds drying up. In fact if the big banks in New York continue to contribute to his campaign those banks will lose their support in New York and it will come out.
Other than Ted Cruz insulting a whole state, the rest pretty much followed the same pattern. They would try to attack Trumps ideas and then present basically the exact same plan regarding immigration, Muslims and Iran. Trump for his part came off well. He was calmer and more controlled in his speech and presentation and still managed to appear unrehearsed. Whatever you think of him, the man is not stupid. One issue that came up was what he would do with his company if elected President and he said he would turn it over to his kids to run and ignore it. I have watched interviews with his kids and he means it and they would do a great job. Ivanka Trump is a brilliant businesswoman, her brothers are sharp as tacks and they all work together well while being incredibly supportive of their father. I actually think he would enjoy having them run the company as it will tell him what he can expect from them when he passes on.
The most interesting issue of the night was regarding Ted Cruz's right to run for the office of President or even be a Vice President. There is a clause in the Constitution that says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." This is very important as it is found in Article 2 of the Constitution. It is also why Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be President. The reason behind this clause was to prevent the country from being run for people under foreign influence in fear that they might not look out for America first. If you are born in the United States you are by definition a natural born citizen, a birth right citizen. Everyone else is a naturalized citizen. Naturalized means you switched your citizenship and renounced any foreign citizenship you had before becoming a citizen of the United States. Ted Cruz never did that, he did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until about two years ago. He is a citizen; but, he is not a natural born citizen and is therefore not eligible to be either President or Vice President. There is one area where someone could be born in another country and still be considered a natural born citizen and that is if they were born at a U.S. Military base to American citizens or to a member of a consulate. Consulates are considered U.S. territory. United States territories (Guam, Puerto Rico...) would also follow the same rules.
I find it all funny as for the last 8 years the Republicans have claimed that Obama may not be a natural citizen because his father was Kenyan, even though his mother was a United States citizen and he was Obama was born in the United States. At a minimum, after having the Republicans bring this up time and time again about Obama, it is impossible not to at least address the issue with Cruz.
Monday, January 11, 2016
David Bowie and Growing Up in the 70s.
I was just informed that David Bowie has died. I was surprised as he just put out an album and I thought he was better. Bowie was iconic in the 70s and meant a lot to many of my friends who were in the "Glamour Movement". I wasn't a glam; but, I liked much of Bowies music. I thought he got even better in the 80s. He started a movement, not many people can say that. Here are some of his songs.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Let's Have a Party; But, a New One.
The New York Times - For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split. Basically, the party establishment knows the party needs to bring in Hispanics and youth to survive At the same time, they are splitting themselves apart over who controls the beliefs of the party, the wealthy or the middle and working classes. That is why Trump and Cruz are leading in the polls and also why Jeb Bush cannot garner any popular support. In fact it is even worse than the party establishment knows. The anti-party establishment people will all vote for anti-establishment candidates and they will give their votes in unison to whoever lasts till the end, they will not switch their vote to an establishment candidate no matter what. People forget history, especially the powerful and rich. They only remember the parts they like. The Republican party was created in 1854 by ex-Whigs and the Democratic party was created in 1828. The creation of both parties came about not by the establishment but by average citizens revolting against the establishment..
Yahoo - AP - GOP candidates pitch conservative path to fight poverty. This was just a bad idea, trying to woo the poor over to the Republican party by promising them to give more tax breaks to the rich and providing less support to the poor. Why did this seem like a good idea and to whom? Promising them that the jobs will return to America if we continue to give tax breaks to companies that outsource to China is insanity.
UPDATE:
CNN - GOP tells NBC next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions. The headline misses the most interesting part of the story. The Republican National Committee (AKA The Establishment that controls the party) has sent a letter to NBC saying that they will not have the debates on NBC because of bias by the liberal media. This quote is what is relevant.
"The letter from Priebus is a move to assert control over the debate process at a time when Republican campaigns seem poised to wrest control from the RNC's hands.
On Thursday, representatives from several campaigns made plans to hold a Sunday meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss plans for wresting more control of the debates from the committee."
The Republican party establishment has made a fatal mistake. You see they supported the unhindered funding of PACs and they got their wish. The mistake they made was in thinking that the PACs would work more for the party than for individual candidates and they were wrong. The PACs are instead committed to specific candidates and the parties support economically is less important than ever before. It is really quite simple, special interests want to own politicians, not parties and funding specific candidates means that candidate owes you more than the party.
Yahoo - AP - GOP candidates pitch conservative path to fight poverty. This was just a bad idea, trying to woo the poor over to the Republican party by promising them to give more tax breaks to the rich and providing less support to the poor. Why did this seem like a good idea and to whom? Promising them that the jobs will return to America if we continue to give tax breaks to companies that outsource to China is insanity.
UPDATE:
CNN - GOP tells NBC next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions. The headline misses the most interesting part of the story. The Republican National Committee (AKA The Establishment that controls the party) has sent a letter to NBC saying that they will not have the debates on NBC because of bias by the liberal media. This quote is what is relevant.
"The letter from Priebus is a move to assert control over the debate process at a time when Republican campaigns seem poised to wrest control from the RNC's hands.
On Thursday, representatives from several campaigns made plans to hold a Sunday meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss plans for wresting more control of the debates from the committee."
The Republican party establishment has made a fatal mistake. You see they supported the unhindered funding of PACs and they got their wish. The mistake they made was in thinking that the PACs would work more for the party than for individual candidates and they were wrong. The PACs are instead committed to specific candidates and the parties support economically is less important than ever before. It is really quite simple, special interests want to own politicians, not parties and funding specific candidates means that candidate owes you more than the party.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Self Driving Taxis In Four Years
Huffington Post - AP - We're Getting Closer To Self-Driving Taxis.
Here is a line from the article. "In Japan, a company called Robot Taxi Inc. plans to offer a full commercial service in 2020. In Greece, driverless buses called CityMobil2 have been tested in real traffic. General Motors Co. said Monday it is investing $500 million in ride-hailing company Lyft Inc. and forming a partnership that could eventually lead to on-demand, self-driving cars."
Wired - The Lyft - GM Deal and Why You Probably Won't Buy a Self Driving Car. They are betting that in the future, you won't bother owning a car and will merely rent self driving cars as needed.
The reason I write about self driving cars and trucks is because it is coming sooner than people think and we had better prepare for how it is gong to change our lives. The single biggest change in history that occurred in the last century was man landing on the moon. President Kennedy said after being made President in 1960 that he planned on putting a man on the moon within ten years and he did it. At the time it was believed to be impossible even by the people who were to work on the project; but, it happened and we did it. To think that we cannot do the same with driverless cars in the same amount of time is foolish denial.
Here is a line from the article. "In Japan, a company called Robot Taxi Inc. plans to offer a full commercial service in 2020. In Greece, driverless buses called CityMobil2 have been tested in real traffic. General Motors Co. said Monday it is investing $500 million in ride-hailing company Lyft Inc. and forming a partnership that could eventually lead to on-demand, self-driving cars."
Wired - The Lyft - GM Deal and Why You Probably Won't Buy a Self Driving Car. They are betting that in the future, you won't bother owning a car and will merely rent self driving cars as needed.
The reason I write about self driving cars and trucks is because it is coming sooner than people think and we had better prepare for how it is gong to change our lives. The single biggest change in history that occurred in the last century was man landing on the moon. President Kennedy said after being made President in 1960 that he planned on putting a man on the moon within ten years and he did it. At the time it was believed to be impossible even by the people who were to work on the project; but, it happened and we did it. To think that we cannot do the same with driverless cars in the same amount of time is foolish denial.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Police Shooting Unarmed People and Leaving Armed People Alone Why?
So once again we have a bunch of people who believe they are the United States Private Protectors. Morons who commit treason are not my heroes, they are the enemy. Here is a question, why are all the so called "patriots" also bigots? You may remember the fight that happened in Arizona by a rancher named Bundy who refused to pay his fees for grazing on Federally owned land, well his son and his friends are not playing the same game in Oregon. You may recall that his father was finally ignored after he claimed that blacks would be better off as slaves.
A cartoonist made a really simple point. If it is okay to kill unarmed black children who have toy guns, why don't we shout people with real weapons who have openly threatened the police like the "militia" holding the land in Oregon? Do the police not believe these people will shoot them because the "militia" is all white people?
So what is the lesson to be learned if you are white? I guess it is to carry a weapon around the police. And what is the lesson to learn if you are black, I guess it is to also openly carry a real weapon around the police. Do you believe the NRA would support an advertisement for all blacks in America to always open carry weapons when in public?
There was a lot of moral outrage by conservatives over the #BlackLivesMatter movement because a very few of its supporters called for shooting cops. In Oregon we have a group of people with weapons taking over a federal facility and saying they will kill cops if challenged. For consistencies sake alone, shouldn't the cops just kill them all?
This is not a new thing. While the Occupy Wall Street Movement was going on the police in a coordinated federal action evicted the unarmed protestors from their encampments. When the Bundy ranch controversy I questioned the media and conservatives did not support getting rid of the militia on federal lands; but, had openly accepted the police getting rid of the Occupy Movement from legally being on local public lands. Think about it.
A cartoonist made a really simple point. If it is okay to kill unarmed black children who have toy guns, why don't we shout people with real weapons who have openly threatened the police like the "militia" holding the land in Oregon? Do the police not believe these people will shoot them because the "militia" is all white people?
So what is the lesson to be learned if you are white? I guess it is to carry a weapon around the police. And what is the lesson to learn if you are black, I guess it is to also openly carry a real weapon around the police. Do you believe the NRA would support an advertisement for all blacks in America to always open carry weapons when in public?
There was a lot of moral outrage by conservatives over the #BlackLivesMatter movement because a very few of its supporters called for shooting cops. In Oregon we have a group of people with weapons taking over a federal facility and saying they will kill cops if challenged. For consistencies sake alone, shouldn't the cops just kill them all?
This is not a new thing. While the Occupy Wall Street Movement was going on the police in a coordinated federal action evicted the unarmed protestors from their encampments. When the Bundy ranch controversy I questioned the media and conservatives did not support getting rid of the militia on federal lands; but, had openly accepted the police getting rid of the Occupy Movement from legally being on local public lands. Think about it.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement
There is a faction within the Republican party that is considered Libertarian. Ron and Rand Paul are the best known of these; but, other right wing Republicans accept some of the same beliefs. What they all have in common is a fanatical dislike of Progressives. One of the most famous progressives was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. He was a pretty popular and well liked president and one of the few on Mount Rushmore. Teddy Roosevelt was so popular that when he ran for a third term, after a previous two terms after which his protégé Taft was elected, he split the Republican Party apart by creating the Progressive Party known as the Bull-Moose Party. He actually got more votes than Taft in that election. Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite President, he was more concerned about the people of this nation than sell out political hacks. It was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt that created what is known as the "Progressive Era", a time when the nation was the safest, government became more honest and all were helped.
Here is what the Progressive Movement believed in. First they believed in "Good Government", What was going on at that time was spoils politics. Basically, when a person was made President or Governor or Mayor, they could decide who got the contracts with the government. There was no competitive bidding process. If you won the election, you gave the contracts to just your friends or people who would "take care of you". At the same time this went unchecked because each time a new person was elected, he would get rid of all the prior government employees and replace them with political supporters. This is why cities had political machines, they hired the people who couldn't get jobs in private industry. The Irish and Italians and Catholics found it hard to get jobs in the private companies which were almost exclusively owned by Protestants. In exchange for their votes, they got government jobs. Once given a job they would be absolutely committed to the candidate. In response to this the Progressives called for the creation of "Civil Service" and the government employees were made responsible to rules rather than just the politician.
As for his approach to the rest of the nation. He was responsible for the making of Monopolies illegal, this was called Trust Busting. He was against anti-competitiveness in private industry, he believed in competition and thought it was good for the nation. Roosevelt was responsible for regulating interstate transportation by regulating the railroads to protect interstate commerce from corruption. Roosevelt was responsible for the Pure Food and Drug Act which allowed the government inspect food that was being sold because of the numerous problems that had occurred. He was responsible for the creation of National Parks and conservation. I should also point out that he appointed blacks to Federal position. Roosevelt was also a hawk when it came to foreign policy and was not afraid to use force against other nations.
The Progressive Movement was basically the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement in one place. Progressives are not Communists, Communists are Communists. Progressives are Nationalists who seek what is best, right and fair for all of the nation and that is why he is on Mount Rushmore. He is one of the most respected Republicans in history, yet, his view points are now made fun of by large aspects of the republican establishment. Roosevelt is also the one that defined what a "Living Wage" should be and he believed it should be a wage high enough that someone could live a decent life which even included time to relax and enjoy themselves.
If people ask me I will say that I am a Liberal with socialist beliefs; but, it is not really accurate. I say it because most people do not understand what Progressives believe. The truth is I am a Progressive. I believe in a nation that protects our nations interests and that includes having a strong army, I just think we overuse ours currently and I don't like risking American lives for stupid policies.
Now that I have explained what it is to be a progressive it may be easier to understand why I would like to see the election come down to Trump and Sanders. Right now there are only two groups, the Progressives and the Anti-Progressives. Their believers are members of both the Republican and Democratic parties and they are angry. They see the working man as getting screwed and the middle class being eliminated. They are seeing corporate corruption being uncontrolled and the parties political elite being owned by corporate interests. We all see it. The supporters of both Sanders and Trump don't believe the other candidates or the establishment listens to or cares about them and they are right.
Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat and a Progressive, he believed in the same things as Teddy did. He was the one that helped England before we joined into World War II, he was the one that got us out of the great depression by creating infrastructure projects and he was the one that sent us into World War II when we fought for our very survival. He was so popular that he was given four terms in office, the only President to do so. He was also the hero and leader of the "Greatest Generation", the people who returned from that war and built the things that made America the greatest industrial nation in the world.
Weeks before the Presidential election where Teddy ran as the Bull Moose party presidential candidate, he was shot and hospitalized. What we are seeing right now is a mini-Progressive movement under Trump and Sanders. A return to a fair nationalism, one that looks out for the whole nation and not just a few. That is the message the people are hearing even if they do not know the name.
You hear a lot of people in the media saying they don't understand why people support Trump or Sanders; but, they are lying. They have been told why, that is what Focus groups and polls are for. They know about Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive era, it just scares them as it is for the nations interest rather than special interests.
Here is what the Progressive Movement believed in. First they believed in "Good Government", What was going on at that time was spoils politics. Basically, when a person was made President or Governor or Mayor, they could decide who got the contracts with the government. There was no competitive bidding process. If you won the election, you gave the contracts to just your friends or people who would "take care of you". At the same time this went unchecked because each time a new person was elected, he would get rid of all the prior government employees and replace them with political supporters. This is why cities had political machines, they hired the people who couldn't get jobs in private industry. The Irish and Italians and Catholics found it hard to get jobs in the private companies which were almost exclusively owned by Protestants. In exchange for their votes, they got government jobs. Once given a job they would be absolutely committed to the candidate. In response to this the Progressives called for the creation of "Civil Service" and the government employees were made responsible to rules rather than just the politician.
As for his approach to the rest of the nation. He was responsible for the making of Monopolies illegal, this was called Trust Busting. He was against anti-competitiveness in private industry, he believed in competition and thought it was good for the nation. Roosevelt was responsible for regulating interstate transportation by regulating the railroads to protect interstate commerce from corruption. Roosevelt was responsible for the Pure Food and Drug Act which allowed the government inspect food that was being sold because of the numerous problems that had occurred. He was responsible for the creation of National Parks and conservation. I should also point out that he appointed blacks to Federal position. Roosevelt was also a hawk when it came to foreign policy and was not afraid to use force against other nations.
The Progressive Movement was basically the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement in one place. Progressives are not Communists, Communists are Communists. Progressives are Nationalists who seek what is best, right and fair for all of the nation and that is why he is on Mount Rushmore. He is one of the most respected Republicans in history, yet, his view points are now made fun of by large aspects of the republican establishment. Roosevelt is also the one that defined what a "Living Wage" should be and he believed it should be a wage high enough that someone could live a decent life which even included time to relax and enjoy themselves.
If people ask me I will say that I am a Liberal with socialist beliefs; but, it is not really accurate. I say it because most people do not understand what Progressives believe. The truth is I am a Progressive. I believe in a nation that protects our nations interests and that includes having a strong army, I just think we overuse ours currently and I don't like risking American lives for stupid policies.
Now that I have explained what it is to be a progressive it may be easier to understand why I would like to see the election come down to Trump and Sanders. Right now there are only two groups, the Progressives and the Anti-Progressives. Their believers are members of both the Republican and Democratic parties and they are angry. They see the working man as getting screwed and the middle class being eliminated. They are seeing corporate corruption being uncontrolled and the parties political elite being owned by corporate interests. We all see it. The supporters of both Sanders and Trump don't believe the other candidates or the establishment listens to or cares about them and they are right.
Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat and a Progressive, he believed in the same things as Teddy did. He was the one that helped England before we joined into World War II, he was the one that got us out of the great depression by creating infrastructure projects and he was the one that sent us into World War II when we fought for our very survival. He was so popular that he was given four terms in office, the only President to do so. He was also the hero and leader of the "Greatest Generation", the people who returned from that war and built the things that made America the greatest industrial nation in the world.
Weeks before the Presidential election where Teddy ran as the Bull Moose party presidential candidate, he was shot and hospitalized. What we are seeing right now is a mini-Progressive movement under Trump and Sanders. A return to a fair nationalism, one that looks out for the whole nation and not just a few. That is the message the people are hearing even if they do not know the name.
You hear a lot of people in the media saying they don't understand why people support Trump or Sanders; but, they are lying. They have been told why, that is what Focus groups and polls are for. They know about Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive era, it just scares them as it is for the nations interest rather than special interests.
Friday, January 1, 2016
12-31-2015 News Stuff
Huffington Post - The Plutocrats Are Winning. Don't Let Them! This is a good article about how we are all getting taken advantage of for the benefit of a few wealthy people.
L.A. Weekly - Tear Down a Freeway? In Southern California? It Could Happen. Watch for more of this across the nation, the repurposing of transportation corridors.
The New York Times - For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions. If you want to know why the wealthiest can avoid taxes and pay a lesser rate than the rest of us, read this article.
Yahoo - The Fiscal Times - O'Malley: The Democratic Primary Is ‘Rigged’.
L.A. Weekly - Tear Down a Freeway? In Southern California? It Could Happen. Watch for more of this across the nation, the repurposing of transportation corridors.
The New York Times - For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions. If you want to know why the wealthiest can avoid taxes and pay a lesser rate than the rest of us, read this article.
Yahoo - The Fiscal Times - O'Malley: The Democratic Primary Is ‘Rigged’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)