Wednesday, February 03, 2016

What should the Republican Party do if they were cheated in the General Election?

OK,  I’ll lay it on the table.  The Republican Party has been rightly accused of being whimpy, lacking conviction, resolve and caving to the left on many issues.

That’s why the heading above is called “What SHOULD…” the Republican Party do; not “What WOULD…” it do if they got unjustly screwed in the General Election.  They probably would do NOTHING.  But they SHOULD do what Trump is doing relative to the Iowa cheating.

More to the point, what would Cruz have done if he was the one against whom dirty tricks were played prior to the Iowa caucus?

How legitimate is it for Cruz to accuse Trump of  “Trumper Tantrums” in response to the Cruz crew cheating prior to the Iowa caucus?

What, exactly is Cruz accused of doing in Iowa?  Here it is:

1)  Misrepresenting a CNN story about Carson going back to Florida to get a new suit – inferring instead he was dropping out of the race and his supporters should vote for Cruz.

2)  Mailing out thousand of deceptive and misleading forms to Iowans just before the caucus.  As reported by the not all that conservative New Yorker Magazine, “Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks.”

Lizza-Iowa-Cruz-mailer

From the New Yorker:

“At the top of the mailers, in a bold red box, are the words “VOTING VIOLATION.” Below that warning is an explanation:

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.”

There is no doubt that the mailer is misleading, inaccurate, and fraudulent.

Yet Cruz dismissed the fraudlent mailer by stating:

“I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote.”

And instead he reverts to name calling against a fellow candidate whose voting outcome was negatively impacted by the fraud.

This demonstrates stark contrasts among the two candidates:

Trump, who is personally offended by fraudulent behavior and takes assertive action to draw attention to it and seeks justice, and

Cruz, who excuses and justifies fraudulent behavior and resorts to name calling against anyone who complains about it.

HERE is the complete time line of the Cruz shenanigans from Diana West’s excellent analysis.

Let’s bring this closer to home:

Imagine that you were cheated by someone who contributed to your loss of money or reputation.  Imagine further that you brought the cheating to the attention of the media or the authorities.  Imagine that it was confirmed by the authorities that you were in fact cheated.  Yet the perpetrator mocks you for “whining” or complaining about his cheating actions.

How would you feel?

One of Trump’s apparent “character flaws” is that he hates injustice.  He despises a just cause being sabotaged.  He complains and takes action when he observes laws being ignored.

Apparently  a Cruz character flaw is that he relishes cheating as an essential ingredient to win, and will defend his tactics even to the point of mocking those who call him out on his cheating.

Before this incident I would have had no qualms about supporting Cruz if he won the Republican nomination.  After this incident I need to seriously reconsider.

Does Trump criticize others who deserve criticism?  Sure he does.  But he doesn’t use name calling to defend fraud and dirty tricks.  Cruz does.

Trump is despised by the Republican establishment because he hates injustice, dirty tricks and corruption.  He speaks out and takes action against it.  The Republican Party over the past decade or so would prefer to ignore corruption, or better, be a part of it.  Cruz is acting just like Republican Party, choosing to play the same sort of game.  

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Oh oh, we don’t want a candidate who fights for our country too aggressively…

God forbid we get a candidate who is too aggressive, too self-confident, too over-powering to fight for the good of our nation.

For the past two presidential election cycles I’ve heard Republicans and especially conservatives lament the fact that Republican candidates are not forceful enough, lack conviction, don’t have enough “fire in the belly.” 

In 2008 we had meek, moderate John McCain, quite the opposite of “Big John” of coal miner country music fame, who lost the election.  In 2012 we had mild-mannered Mitt “don’t-rock-the-boat” Romney who lost the election even worse than Little John.

Ever since that last election we’ve longed fort a Republican candidate who is a fighter, who has fire in the belly, who doesn’t give in, give up or or go limp.   A candidate who stays strong, fights for our convictions, fights for our country, and is not bound be the debilitating disease of political correctness.

Donald Trump fits those specifications to a “T.”

Yet Republicans and many conservatives are still not satisfied.  No wonder we lose.

They feel that Donald Trump is too much of a good thing.

They complain about his “tell it like it is” style.  He is too frank, blunt, and up front.  I guess they want a candidate a bit more like Little John or Mild Mitt so they can lose again.

They note that polls show that even Hillary is sometimes less disliked than Donald.  Yet Republicans and conservatives complain about politicians who pander to the welfare and government dole class to gain “likes.”  Yup, promising more “stuff” does help make the greedy, selfish, and ignorant among us like politicians more.  That explains why Hillary is disliked less.

Yes, Trump is a showman, just like Reagan was an actor.  As a showman, Trump uses hyperbole to make his point about really liking “quality” and optimum performance in running the country.  He had an opportunity to use hyperbole when he joked about the poor sound system in Pensacola during a recent event.  The audio really was poor, so he went into a schtick about “firing” the sound guy.  Here are quotes from The Business Insider:image

 

Pensacola’s Microphone System – or so it seemed

 

"Whoever the hell brought this mic system, don't pay the son of a b----," he said.

Trump added: "This mic is terrible. Stupid mic keeps popping. Do you hear that George? Don't pay him! Don't pay him. You know, I believe in paying, but when somebody does a bad job like this stupid mic, you shouldn't pay the bastard. Terrible. Terrible. It's true."

The billionaire businessman said he hoped the sound system was functioning for the packed crowd, but he kept hearing a "boom" sound.

"So we're not going to pay," he continued. "I guarantee you I'm not paying for this mic. Every two minutes I hear like, 'Boom! Boom!'"

Reporters covering the rally said they had difficulty understanding the candidate as well.

That rant shows me that Trump does not tolerate mediocrity.  He doesn’t put up with it.  And he will make that abundantly clear.  Sure, he could have had his people talk with the sound people after the event.  But that would not have revealed to the audience his quest for quality in everything he touches.  That is a major part of the package he is offering to bring to Washington:  Quality in government – zero tolerance for bad performance. 

The naysayers also criticize those who compare Trump to President Reagan.  There are two different characteristics of each person that are being compared.  The accurate characteristic is that both were outsiders, bucking the establishment.  Reagan formerly associated with Democrats as did Trump.  And to a lesser extent, both were not primarily politicians, except for Reagan’s stint as Governor of California.

The comparison that the naysayers object to is the comparison of style.  Reagan was relatively soft-spoken, more like Romney, but with a better sense of humor.  Reagan sounded fatherly.  Trump sounds brotherly – or more like a coach.  Trump is anything but soft-spoken.

Reagan fit the nation’s needs of 35 years ago.  Trump fits the nation’s needs today.  There is a greater need today for Trump’s style than Reagan’s.  Why?  Many things have changed.  We’ve have a number of new and more serious threats to our nation today.  We didn’t have the problem of rampant illegal immigration that was allowed to fester and degrade our economy over the last two decades.  We didn’t have the problem of Islam that is a real threat to our freedoms and national security.  We didn’t have the out of control federal spending and huge and growing national debt to the extent we have today.

Yes, Trump is angrier than Reagan was.  And he is more outspoken and not as mild-mannered as Reagan was.  We are in a different time today.  We have different and in many cases more serious threats than we had back then.  Trump’s personality and style fit the needs of today.  Reagan fit the needs of the 80’s.

Trump is accused of speaking in sound bites with little substance.  That is the observation expressed by those who would manage a losing campaign in today’s soundbite world.  Yes, he often speaks with the flamboyant, blunt hyperbole of a showman.  If he spoke in significant detail, he would have lost his audience five minutes after he started.  He recognizes the attention span and needs of his audience.  Some would say that doesn’t speak well of the electorate, but that is the world we live in.  Yet at the same time, for anyone who has bothered to read the issue statements on his website, or who has Image result for crippled americataken the time to read his book, “Crippled America:  How To Make America Great Again” will see his understanding of the issues and his solutions are substantive.  And Trump is well known for finding and hiring extremely well-qualified and well-performing executives.

Yup, we’ve gotten in Trump a candidtate who most of us had wished for over the past eight years.   Yet we still get complaints over too much of a good thing.

I keep reminding myself that no candidate is perfect.  There will be “hit pieces” and bashing commentaries motivated by a variety of reasons.  Most often the motivation will be due to support of another candidate. 

Some candidates come closer than others to the ideal that fits today’s needs.

Trump fits today’s needs better than any.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

The faux conservative’s war on Trump…

Who is the real conservative?  And who are the fakes?

Since the beginning of the campaign, Trump has been on the right side of illegal immigration, conern about Islam, job creation, and bad trade deals.Image result for national review trump

Up until the National Review, the Weekly Standard and FOX News started bashing Trump a few months ago for his stand on these issues, I thought those news outlets were conservative.

Last August I wrote a piece titled Conservatives in Name Only (CINO) Against Trump.  The faux conservativsm of many of these people became evident back then.

These faux conservative organizations have turned out to be the real charlatans of conservatism.

How can you be against a candidate that promises to take effective action against illegal immigration and send illegals back home and still be a conservative?

How can you be against a candidate who promises to take definitive action to keep impossible-to vet-Muslims out of this country until we can figure things out (which we are a long way from doing) and still be a conservative?

How can you be against a candidate who is best equipped to create jobs in this country and still be a conservative?

How can you be against a candidate whose forte is negotiation and deal making, and desires to use his skills on behalf of the interests of this country and still be a conservative.  

I think I know how.  Two reasons.

1) When your editors and owners are beholden to those who thrive off of illegal immigration and globalist policies, and

2) When you are owned or controlled by people whose vested interests are not those of the United States.

Now these faux conservative media have kicked it into overdrive gainst Trump as their latest issues and slams demonstrate.  First National Review, then the Weekly Standard, and now FOX News. Image result for Fox news muslim owners

This image is alleged to be  Photoshopped, but it nonetheless reflects reality.

Snopes plays accountant by saying because Al-Waleed owns “less than 50%” of FOX News that the stataement that he is “co-owner” of FOX is false.  Well, excuse me.

Yes, I did Google It.  HERE is a story from NPR, not noted for taking conservative sides, that discusses Al-Waleed’s associations and interests with FOX News.

Years ago we heard rumors of FOX being partly owned by Middle Eastern Islamic interests.  These rumblings are now a lot more than rumors – they are full blown news items and their rants against Trump confirm where their interests lie – pretty much the same as the Bush’s Middle Eastern Oil interests.

On tonight’s CNN broadcast of the Trump Veterans event in Iowa, the commentators, Beckel and others are scratching their heads wondering why Trump shot himself in the foot by not attending the FOX debate.    Their short memories of the previous 15 times they were proved wrong about Trump failed them.  If you disagree, check out the next 24 hour news cycle.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The Megyn Kelly, Michael Moore and FOX News/Muslim love-fest.

The Megyn Kelly, Michael Moore and FOX News/Muslim love-fest.

Pamela Geller has the story, below.  She agreed Trump was right to pull out of the debate.  It looks like this was more than the Megyn-related tiff.  Trump staff smelled a rat in an activist Muslim being one of the panelists throwing out questions.  It was going to be a total setup.

Trump rolled back the curtain on FOX revealing a bunch of money grubbers who care little about America.

Trump has been right on so many things – I’m surprised that FOX is persisting in their idiocy.

http://pamelageller.com/2016/01/fox-megyn-moore-anti-trump-muslim.html/

 

FOX’s Anti-Trump Crusade: Megyn Kelly ♥ Michael Moore, PLUS FOX Gives Debate Role to Anti-Trump Muslim Supremacist

ByPAMELA GELLER on January 27, 2016

ADVANCING ISLAMIC LIES WHITE HOUSE 2016

Noor-Trump-Hitler-640x480

FOX News has jumped the shark. I don’t know if you saw the lovefest last night between Megyn Kelly and Michael Moore, but it pulled the curtain back on the RINO news network. It was jarring.

My tweet (below) was retweeted hundreds of times. Megyn Kelly and FOX news have jumped the shark. Megyn has Michael Moore? Mind you, Megyn Kelly has never had me on — even in the wake of the assassination attempt in Garland, Texas and the Boston beheading plot.

My take? Kelly is angling to be the next evening news anchor on one of the big three networks. She aspires to be the next Diane Sawyer (the new haircut is a dead giveaway).

Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 11.50.35 AM
Michael Moore: ‘God Bless You Megyn Kelly’ — ‘War on Women’ Question to Trump Was ‘Great’

Megyn Kelly, Michael Moore have televised love-in after Trump debate debacle

Michael Moore to Megyn Kelly: “I Feel Bad for You”

Now we hear FOX is giving an anti-Trump Muslim supremacist a platform for her hatred. Really? Why not Ibn Warraq or Robert Spencer? Why not, finally, have a true scholar on jihadic doctrine on instead of soldier for Islamic supremacism?

Trump was right to pull out of the debate.

Conservatives and the principled right have no media outlet — none. Is there not a conservative billionaire who can buy HLN or some failing liberal news outlet and put us out of our abject misery?

ELECTION 2016
Fox gives debate role to anti-Trump Muslim
‘His loudest message reeks of hatred and Islamophobia’
(BREITBART) —Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.

“We have a presidential candidate whose loudest message reeks of hatred and Islamophobia… turning on the news now is scary, and oftentimes, humiliating,” the Muslim woman, Nabela Noor, says in a December YouTube video.

She admits to becoming a Muslim political activist amid the growing criticism of Islam’s doctrines. “The current social environment for Muslims today is not safe or just… as a Muslim American, I felt like I needed to use my voice,” she claimed.

Noor also urged her YouTube viewers to rally against critics of Islam. “I’m so thankful for those who speak up and out against anti-Islamic speech and ideologies. Our community needs more allies like you, but we have a long way to go,” she said.

The two companies announced Tuesday afternoon that the anti-Trump Muslim advocate would be allowed to play a role in the debate.

Google is teaming up with the Fox News Channel for the final  Republican debate in Iowa on Thursday, January 28, 2016, and integrating three new components into the debate to help people get informed before they head to the polls, including a way to hear directly from candidates on Google; real-time Google Trends data; and questions from three of YouTube’s most prominent voices—Nabela Noor, Mark Watson, and Dulce Candy — who will join the moderators in the debate to ask the candidates a question on an issue that matters to them and their communities. 

The Republican National Committee also approved the choice of Noor, an LA.-based press aide for YouTube, Jackie Cavanagh, at MPRM Communications, told Breitbart. “I believe” she was chosen by YouTube, with help from the RNC and Fox, she said.

“YouTube creators were selected in collaboration with Fox based on things such as audience size and their ability to bring a new, fresh perspective to the most important issues of our time. Fox informed the party/candidates of the format,” said a p.r. person.

Allison Moore, a press secretary for the RNC, told Breitbart that “We had nothing to do with that.”

Irena Briganti, a spokeswoman for Fox, also did not respond.

In December, Trump announced he would restrict the immigration of Muslims until the jihad problem can be addressed. “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” said Trump.

The statement came 14 years after Islamic jihadis killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, and after many other jihadis launched or tried to launch a series of attacks across the United States.

In her videos, Dulce Candy, the invited Latino questioner, said she was brought from central Mexico to the United States while a young girl. She later joined the U.S. military and served in Iraq. The press announcement described Candy:

With over 2 million subscribers on her YouTube channel, Dulce is a top YouTube beauty, fashion and lifestyle influencer. The only thing more impressive than her fanbase is her story: she immigrated to the United States from Mexico at age 6 and served in the armed forces in Iraq. Today, she’s a proud U.S. citizen, mother, and entrepreneur who serves as a role model for latinas, women, and more.

Noor is described in the company anouncement as well:

Born in New York, Nabela is a 24 year old Muslim American whose parents immigrated from Bangladesh. As an up-and-coming beauty creator with over 140,000 subscribers, Nabela hasn’t shied away from social issues. In a recent video, she spoke about being called a “terrorist” in elementary school after 9/11 and emphasized the importance of tolerance above all.

The perspective of the Muslim woman, Noor, has been shaped by her Bangladeshi immigrant parents, who were paired off by their parents in an arranged marriage as teenagers, aged 17 and 14.

These Bangladeshi Muslim parents migrated to the United States — while hiding am anchor-baby pregnancy — and later kept Noor in the house for many years to prevent her from integrating with American society. “Growing up, we weren’t allowed out much, our parents wanted to preserve our culture at all costs,” she said. They even refused to let her date a man, even after she had gone to college, Noor said in a biographical video. The parents also arranged a marriage for Noor’s older sister. Her mother still wears a head-covering to mark her as a loyal Muslim.

Aspects of Islamic culture remain part of Noor’s personality, under the outward appearance of an American fashionista.

For example, Noor argues that Muslims are individually and collectively insulted when many Americans’ offer sincere and well-argued criticism of Islam’s violent doctrines — for example, jihad, bans against free speech, the death penalty for quitting Islam, sexual subordination of women, opposition to democracy and the separation of mosque and state, etc., etc. That bigoted claim of injury from free speech echoes the demand from orthodox Islam that critics of Islam be silenced – by force if needed – and that the status or honor of each Muslim is damaged if they fail to fight against any criticism of Islam by non-Muslims.

So Noor claimed:

To be hateful and Islamophobic has become so common that it is proudly displayed all around us, online, on the news, and in politics. it is dehumanizing and it hurts. It is hard not to see a bumper sticker of a bigoted presidential candidate and not feel personally attacked when his entire campaign rests on the backs of Muslim-Americans. Where there should be messages of hope and tolerance, there are messages being spread of fear and hate, thus breeding violence.

In contrast, Western Christians and non-Christians try to treat criticism of ideas, such as Christianity’s claim that unborn humans deserve the right to life, or the merits of any particular presidential candidate, as a problem to be solved by facts, logic, free-speech, and compromise. That’s fundamentally different from Noor’s Islamic-style, only-one-winner fight over honor, pride, and supremacy.

That only-one-winner, zero-sum attitude often pushes Muslims to escalate debates into shouting matches and threats. Noor, for example, showed an image linking Trump and Hitler, which suggests that Trump’s criticism of Islam’s jihad ideology is so morally reprehensible that it is equivalent to actually murdering six million Jews, plus at least 10 million Slavic Russians, plus millions of other victims of Hitler’s socialism-for-Aryans Nazi ideology.

In fact, much to the embarrassment of Muslim advocates in the United States, that aggressive aspect of Islam was admired by Jew-hating, left-wing Hitler, who naturally also hated Christianity’s peacefulness, reason and emphasis on individuals’ conscience.

Noor also described criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia,” as if only the existence of a nationwide mental-disease could explain why Americans criticize jihad or child-marriages or the murder of captured Christians or the murders of homosexuals or the murder of a seventh-century poet.

That term, “Islamophobia,” was developed by Islamic advocates to help their allies stigmatize critics of Islam. Generally, Western advocates do not describe their critics as mentally diseased, but as illogical, selfish, or misinformed.

In her video, Noor also tried to argue that Trump’s implied criticism of the violence associated with Islam — likely, including the 9/11 atrocity, the San Bernardino murders, and many other recent jihad attacks — is somehow causing more attacks by Americans against Muslims in America. She did not supply evidence, but did show a newspaper clipping that was actually about a Muslim in Detroit who stabbed two non-Muslims after asking them if they were Muslims.

“Nick Loussia, Deputy Chief of Police for the Southfield Police Department, said [the stabber] ‘is Muslim, and asked the victims what religion they were’ before allegedly attacking them,” said a report at MLive.com.

But Noor portrayed the Muslim-against-not-Muslim jihad attack as actually caused by Americans’ fear of Muslim attacks

“The fear-mongering tactics are a direct cause of hate-violence against Muslims and that makes being a Muslim in America today very, very scary,” she claimed. Noor did not mention any of the many, many, many attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims in America.

She did, however, try to argue that the many Islam-inspired attacks are not Islamic. ‘There are people out there that manipulate our texts to serve their own sick twisted agenda,” she said, without trying to explain how ISIS violates Islamic texts, or trying to disavow the many commandments for jihad in the Koran.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/01/fox-megyn-moore-anti-trump-muslim.html/#sthash.rK82bp9U.dpuf

Monday, January 25, 2016

Trump’s “negatives” are America’s positives…

There is no shortage of Trump antagonists who use poorly thought out reasons to be opposed to him.  The elitists, the donor class, the “establishment”, RINOs, faux conservtives, progressives, and most media are inventing all sorts of reasons why Trump is evil.  None of the reasons stick, and for good reason.  

Below are some of the most popular complaints against a Trump candidacy.

Trump is a nativist (says the US Chamber of Commerce):

This is really a stupid accusation.  What is a nativist but an “American citizen first” proponent.  A nativist is the opposite of an internationalist who doesn’t mind taking away US sovereignty or US jobs.  A related complaint is that Trump is a a xenophobe – disliking foreigners.  He neither said nor implied any such thing.  He insists foreigners enter the US legally.  He prefers giving US citizens first dibs on jobs.  Big business through the US Chamber of Commerce promotes employing foreigners to lower wages for everyone.

Trump is a fear monger (says some faux conservatives):  

This is just wrong.  Trump “fears” very little, unlike most other candidates who fail to speak the truth because of their fears.  He is not mongering fear – he is tapping into the disappointment, anger and frustration felt by the majority of US citizens toward failed US policies; toward the Obama administration’s attempts at destroying the prosperity and standing of our nation in the world.

Trumps is angry  (says CNN and Trump): 

Yes, this is true.  Trump is in lockstep with the anger of most Americans at the course our country has taken over the past 8+ years.  Anger at Republicans, anger at the media, anger at Progressives.  Anger is the second step of recovery in the Five Stages of Grief, right after denial.  That is an understanding way ahead of any other candidate who is still in denial.  Interestingly, “bargaining” comes right after “anger”, a quality that is Trump’s forte.

Trump is too brash; an egomaniac (says most RINOs): 

I have heard many Republicans and most conservative over the past decade  yearn for a candidate who shares their views to be bold and brash to help advance their agenda.  Finally they get one and they wish they didn’t get what they asked for.  And what national politician with ANY chance of winning is NOT an egomaniac?

Trump is for ethanol subsidies (true, but…):  

Oil prices have recently plummeted to below $35 a barrel.  Who needs corn to replace cheap oil?  But wait a minute.  Just 3 years ago oil was hovering over $100 a barrel.  What short memories we have. 

Even if you believe that ethanol subsidies are a bad idea, consider where does the ethanol issue come down in your list of national priorities?  What are the most urgent, important, significant issues and how well equipped and likely are the candidates to effectively address each?"

So consider:  Where does the ethanol issue rank relative to illegal immigration, strong borders, energy independence, Islamic threat, trade imbalances, puttting Americans to work, keeping our asses out of uncommitted wars, fewer regulations, strong military, tax policy, etc.

Does Trump’s ethanol policy fit into any of these other policy categories at the moment?  In fact it does.  It fits into the categories of energy independence, putting Americans to work, and trade imbalances with regard to reducing oil imports.

Granted, oil prices have crashed and, aside from putting Americans to work (Iowans in this case), corn for fuel doesn't make as much sense as it did when oil was $80 a barrel barely a year ago.  But in the overall scheme of things, the ethanol issue is probably down to 7th or 8th place in importance among all the issues we face.  

Trump is not conservative (says National Review): 

Wow, what a hit piece National Review came out with last week!  National Review, the magazine of the elitist moderates.  What would Buckley think?

From my perspective, Trump is hitting all the right “conservative buttons” that I believe are important to the survival and prosperity of our nation.  But Mychal Massie of  The Daily Rant descirbed the priority not so much as “conservatism” but “problem solving” and “pragmatism”.  Here is an excerpt…

“…I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned.

“Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

“Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff – appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

“Immigration isn’t a Republican problem – it isn’t a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

“The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect. Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

“Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

“As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers.

“I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.”

…or by devisively calling it a Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, or black vs. white problem.

Trump insults women (says Rosie and Megyn):

Trump focuses his critical feelings and comments on the deserving.  That is part of the lack of “political correctness” at the core of his being.  And that is a significant reason for his popularity:  He fearlessly says what he believes needs to be said.  That is an asset; not a liability.  Bluntness is also a part of his “schtick.” 

But he uses that quality judiciously.  He could not have succeeded in business and raising business-savvy daughters without a huge respect for women.

Trump insults Mexicans (says El Chapo): 

That’s right.  El Chapo, the Mexican drug lords, and the Reconquista Movement (Mexico and Mexican’s attempt at the reconquest of the American Southwest for Mexico), along with the ignorant or complicit media make every attempt to pervert Trump’s words.  Trump got our attention, and that of every candidate, regarding the big problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, human smuggling, illegal immigration, and the huge potential for terrorist entry that comes from which border?  C’mon, you know this.  Yes, the MEXICAN border.  Very good.

Trump is mean spirited against immigrants (says Cruz and Rubio):

That’s right, Cruz and Rubio have a history of promoting an unbridled influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) to fill the jobs Americans don’t want.  Tell me that when record numbers of our citizen workforce is out of work that American don’t want these jobs.

There are hundreds of examples of a “foreigner first” mentality and government policies.  One example is in Orlando, where DisneyWorld colluded to replace American workers with foreigners.   Disney is now subject to a well-deserved lawsuit.

Trump insults Muslims (says CAIR): 

Yes, CAIR, the Council of American Islamic Relations, the propaganda arm of Islam in the United States (much like the propaganda arm of Nazis during WWII) is upset with Trump.  Muslims everywhere want to demonize anyone who speaks the truth about Islam.  They particularly hate anyone who proposes effective measures to reduce the potential for Islamic-generated mayhem in this country.  God forbid we call a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we figure out why we are so stupid about the Muslim intent to terrorize and subvert our nation.

Trump isn’t experienced in foreign policy (says Hillary): 

With foreign policy experience like Hillary’s, who needs enemies?  Common sense and a pro-America attitude that Trump brings to the table will be miles better than the “experience” Hillary and our current State Department bring to the table.

Trump only recently became a Republican (said Cruz):

Teddy’s accusation hit a stone wall with the recent release of Trump’s voting record.  Trump voted as a Republican for the last umpteen years, or is it two decades?

Trump is a very dangerous man (says Glenn Beck): 

Glenn Beck is foaming at the mouth against Trump.  He said he would rather vote for Bernie Sanders if Trump was nominated.  That should tell us something about Beck’s thought processes.  So much for principle that Beck used to be known for.

And the catch-all complaint: 

Trump is too harsh/ vindictive/ reactionary/ mean/ defensive/ offensive/ uncouth/ disrespectful/ too casual (says the Republican establishment and Hah-vid elitists):

And I say:  Finally we have a fighter who is not afraid to say what most of America is thinking.  Finally we have the antidote to the failed Republican Establishment that is going nuts because they may be losing control of their perks and power.  It is about damned time.