Betsy DeVos is Trump’s Best Cabinet Pick, by Far!

February 4, 2017

The American Left saved most of its fire for Betsy DeVos who is the Republican nominee for Secretary of Education. There is a good reason. She is Donald Trump’s most qualified and powerful cabinet nominee and she can transform American education. Which could transform the nation. Finally, the children and parents of this country have an advocate.

It all comes to a head on Monday.

The numbers are stark. American education continues to sink. We are now 39th in math and 27th in science, having fallen dramatically under the last two presidents, a Republican and a Democrat. And the news only gets worse. Some American students, especially students of color, are now falling hopelessly behind world numbers. New studies show that the top performing countries see fewer than 5% of their 15-year-old youth scoring at the lowest levels of PISA for math, reading and science. Compare that to the United States where the numbers reach 29%

The teachers unions argue that there has been modest improvement in some of the testing and scores but unfortunately the educational improvements in other countries have left us in the dust, leaving us further behind in worldwide comparisons.

It is a vivid contrast to 2009, when newly elected president Barack Obama promised to be the “post partisan,” education president. National politicians united behind his choice for secretary of education, Arne Duncan. Former Republican secretary of education and Senator, Lamar Alexander, called Duncan “the best.” Newt Gingrich and Al Shaprton actually took a national tour together to tout the Obama plan. Jeb Bush openly praised the program.

Obama sounded more like Betsy DeVos in those days. He took on the entrenched teachers’ unions and touted charter schools. But all of that slipped away when the teachers’ lobby brought its power to bear. Barack Obama could send his own kids to private schools, that was okay. But that was the end of it. From then on he would have to say and do what the teachers’ union demanded.

Now, they are demanding that Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Susan Collins of Maine vote against Betsy DeVos and support the status quo and it appears that the two obedient Senators have agreed. This will force the Senate to take on this issue this Monday, with vice president, Mike Pence casting the deciding vote.

The horror stories coming out of American schools are legion. If an American student is lucky, he or she will be subjected to years of propaganda promoting a Leftist socio-political agenda. They will see open drug use in the halls and classrooms and be subjected to violent attacks in front of teachers who will not report it to authorities. While less than 1.9% of them will be Muslim, they will be allowed to wear a Hijab but will be openly ridiculed for manifesting any Christian beliefs. And usually, teachers will not be fired. In Brooklyn a teacher who admitted to sexually abusing a sixth grade female student was kept on the school payroll.

Meanwhile, the American elite send their own children to private Christian schools. This includes the Obama’s and the Clinton’s.  Since 1906 no president of the United States has ever sent their child to a public school with the exception of Jimmy Carter who quickly backed out of the arrangement.

Betsy DeVos, herself, was criticized by Senators for attending a private school as a child. But she is not alone. Most of America’s presidents attended private school, including in recent years, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The latter attended the New York Military Academy.

Donald Trump’s bold choice of Betsy DeVos sends a clear message that it’s time for the hypocrisy to end. It’s time to fire teachers who are incompetent or even criminal. It’s time to end the socio-cultural experimentation and start teaching our children how to read and to teach them math and science. It’s time to end the government abuse of children and empower parents to find the best schools for their own sons and daughters when those options are available.

Read the story of Donald Trump as a student at the New York Military Academy.

Advertisements

Hillary “Rotten” Clinton went viral on Twitter before it was shut down.

July 25, 2016
.
     Monday night at the Democratic National Convention delegates on the floor spontaneously drove up the Twitter search of #HillaryRottenClinton. It soon spread out of the arena in Philadelphia and across the nation, reaching 42k in a matter of minutes and was ranked number six before Sanders’ supporters claim that Twitter had apparently interfered and eliminated it as a viable hashtag.
     At this writing, Twitter is still showing it as a “trending topic.” But not the hashtag. So what gives?
     It seems that not only is DNC Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz tilting the scales for Hillary Clinton, but according to some Bernie Sanders’ supporters, executives at Twitter, feeling the heat from the powerful political leader, are doing the same. Or does someone else have an explanation?
     Yesterday, we woke to the news that months ago top officials at the DNC were brainstorming on how to smear Bernie Sanders to Southern Baptist ministers in the Party. The insider emails pointed out that not only was Sanders a Jew, but that he was likely an atheist, which was apparently fair game for the DNC operatives, who were rigging the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton.
     Just before the weekend, the choice of Senator Tim Kaine as Clinton’s running mate, had infuriated Sanders’ supporters who had hoped for someone who might champion their goals. Kaine is seen as the darling of the Wall Street 1% which plays into fears of rank and file Bernie Sanders supporters.
     So what is it that Bernie Sanders die hard’s believe?  And what can Hillary do to win them over?
     Many of the young people I spoke with see the American economy as co-opted by a new oligarchy. They spread the blame around to both Republicans and Democrats but most say it began in earnest with George W. Bush and the War in Iraq when billions of dollars were spent – off the books – resulting in a massive windfall for a few lucky corporations and, of course, the bankers who financed them. Meanwhile, the economy collapsed for everybody else.
     But the Democrats don’t get off very easy either. Bernie supporters point to a University of California Berkeley study that shows the poor got poorer and the rich got richer under President Barack Obama.
     According to the narrative of Bernie supporters, Obama stimulus legislation, that lawmakers admittedly did not read, provided massive exemptions from environmental regulations and other regulations for chosen big companies, all in the name of creating jobs, while small businesses had to keep them. The Federal Reserve made massive interest fee loans to some companies and nothing to others.
     And corporate welfare, that is, direct money to companies from the taxpayers, soon towered above welfare to the poor and needy.
     Both the Democrat and Republican political parties got money direct from the government pipeline to a few chosen, favored companies who in turn donated heavily back to the respective lawmakers.
     According to Sander supporters, corruption in America has reached epic proportions. American now resembles a government on the subcontinent or in Latin America. And Hillary Clinton, who has telegraphed her willingness to be bought by apparently accepting donations to her Foundation in return for favors, is the epitome of that corruption.
     The disheartened Sanders supporters declare that the American Dream is over. Supply and demand no longer work in a manipulated marketplace that is artificially controlled and its outcome predetermined by insiders who bet on what they know will happen.
     Frustrated, heartbroken, weary, Bernie Sanders supporters inside the stifling Convention arena in Philadelphia tried to express themselves on Twitter, only to feel that this door too had been closed to them.
     Perhaps it will all be unraveled tomorrow. Or perhaps they are asking to much. The Clintons, like the Lannisters from Game of Thrones, always pay their debts and there are too many people in corporate American who know that.

Chaos in Cleveland: The Trump Riots

July 17, 2016

Massive riots coming to the Trump Convention in Cleveland?

The conventional wisdom – no pun intended – is that this year’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland will be a mirrored image of the Democrat National Convention in Chicago in 1968.

In Chicago, the Vietnam War was the issue and young Democrats battled police in the streets to protest their own leaders, who were in power. It resulted in a divided party.  The Democrats lost the White House in the 1968 election.

In Cleveland this week, street riots may have the opposite effect. If young Democrats – or Black Lives Matter protesters – battle police outside Quicken Loans Arena it will only unify the Republican Party. And if they hurt or bloody innocent people, it may turn thousands of new voters to Trump.

There is an irony in all of this.

The RNC in Cleveland, like the RNC in Tampa in 2012, is designated a “National Special Security Event,” which means that the security is ultimately handled by the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security.  In 2012 the FEDS spent $50 million on security in Tampa.

Pundits all over television are hearkening back to the 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago and saying that if there are riots Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich will be the one to call out the National Guard but in fact, in this post 9-11 America, President Barack Obama will be in charge of security at the RNC, and if he runs it the way he runs the IRS or the Veterans Affairs, it really means that nobody will be in charge.

So in Cleveland, you can conceivably have federal officers – answering to the Obama administration – trying to control African American protesters outside the Trump Convention and the national media will blame those “hateful” Trump Republican policemen on the street for any protester that gets hurt.

On the other hand, if the Obama DHS fails to do its job and there are images of bloodied Trump supporters in downtown Cleveland, the Democrats can kiss the state of Ohio goodbye in a general election.

It is very complicated and there are many moving parts to this scenario.

The media, of course, will spin this with their biased partisan slant but in election years they tend to do too much and it backfires. Their audience is often insulted by the rigidity of their message and start rebelling. That happened in 1980 when the national media tilted so far against Reagan that the nation elected him president in a landslide.

And this time there is the Fox News Channel which will gladly pick up any stories that the networks leave laying on the bloodied streets of Cleveland and thus the lion’s share of the national audience and advertising revenue.

For the moment, the national media is content with keeping the Clinton NGO scandal out of the news and promoting the idea of a fractured Republican Party. For example, it is making a big deal out of the fact that the two Bush presidents will not be attending the 2016 RNC in Cleveland.

They conveniently neglect to remind their viewers that the two Bush presidents didn’t attend the 2012 Convention in Tampa either.  That the absence is not about Trump any more than it was about Romney.  It is about winning and the last Bush presidency is a drag on those chances.

So here comes the Cleveland Convention. If Black Lives Matter fails to register on the Richter scale their movement is over and their money will dry up. If they don’t show at Trump’s Convention, where will they ever show again?

And if they do show they must be heard to matter.

And President Barack Obama and his DHS and Secret Service will be swinging the batons and firing the rubber bullets and holding up the fences. While the national media will blame it all on Republicans. And in this explosive mix may come the story that will rivet the nation and decide the election.

Remember, Trump’s rise to the national stage was propelled by the murder of Kate Steinle, 32, on a San Francisco pier by an undocumented immigrant who had been deported back to Mexico five times and kept coming back. “Dad, help me, help me,” she called out, as she lay dying from the random attack.

Donald Trump’s unlikely election as president may come from a few seconds of video on the streets of Cleveland this week.  Let’s pray that there will be no Kate Steinle offered on the altar this time.


What made Obama president? His absent father.

June 13, 2016

Here it is, the timeless formula for great leaders. Good or bad. Thomas Jefferson or Adolf Hitler. But you are not going to like it.

Most great figures in history were “mama’s boys” with an absent father. But here is the key. It was not good enough to be absent. The prisons of the world are filled with men who are “mama’s boys” with absent fathers. The father must also be seen as heroic or successful in the eyes of their son.

It is a fascinating study.

This video from 20o8 discusses the uncanny similarities between the presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama and their fathers.


Exposing the corrupt reasons why “the establishment” fears Trump and Sanders?

April 4, 2016

Why does the GOP establishment fear Donald Trump? And the Democratic establishment fear Bernie Sanders?

Money.

 

Both political parties depend on large donations from banks and corporations. So too do candidates running for office.

What do the banks and corporations get in return?

Money right back at ya. Big money. Directly and indirectly. Money through the Federal Reserve, money through the Export-Import Bank and most of all, money by creating artificial monopolies through selective enforcement of regulations.

First there is direct corporate welfare. This is not the biggest source of income, in fact, it is the least, but it is the easiest for the public to understand so I will begin there and tell more in later posts.

Billions of dollars are given to companies directly from the U.S. Treasury. In fact, twice as much money goes to corporate welfare than to welfare for the poor. The latter is a point that Bernie Sander’s supporters like to make.  Look it up yourself.

These grants are smothered in honorable language, “to create jobs, to stimulate the economy, to protect the environment, to redress past wrongs,” the list goes on and on. Special interest groups, some of them well-intentioned, promote these “causes” but in the end, the establishment corporations make most of the money.

There are sometimes very compelling and logical reasons for corporate welfare. When I was in the White House a major company wanted millions of dollars to compete in France. They said that the French saw their company as a cultural invasion and so the French government was subsidizing their own.  

But whatever the reason, the bottom line is this, the big companies get money from the government for their business and YOU don’t.  If you start a company you are on your own and worse, you will be subsidizing your competition with your very own tax dollars. 

Oh yeah, once they get that money they turn around and give it back as donations to the politicians and political parties that helped them get it. 

When you read that the establishment is backing Marco Rubio or now, reluctantly, Ted Cruz, that is where some of that backing comes from. When there was a misquote from the Chairman of Goldman Sachs saying he was fine with either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton as president, that was why it was so widely believed. And that’s why it raised eyebrows when Ted Cruz forgot to report a $750,000 loan from Goldman Sachs that launched his political career. 

Forget about liberal and conservative. Think in terms of insider and outsider. 

When I worked in the White House conservative businessmen came in to make sure I was onboard for federal dollars going to their companies.

“This is our chance,” they explained. “We are in power. The liberals do it.  We have to do it too.”

I also had publishers of conservative magazines and presidents of think tanks come in and lobby me for money for these same “conservative” companies. It didn’t take long for me to see that the companies who got government money were the companies who bought advertising in those same “conservative” magazines and who financed the retreats for their think tanks and gave them research grants.

This is how the liberal-conservative equation has become compromised. Liberals will push for environmental legislation but then exempt companies that give them money. Conservatives will criticize fraudulent welfare abuse but award money to companies that overcharge for worthless services.

Yes, there are good people in the middle of this. People who believe in their cause. Private contractors who give good service to the public, government servants who give their lives to help others. But the poor continue to get poorer and the rich continue to get richer.

The Democratic establishment doesn’t trust Bernie Sanders who would answer corruption with government run socialism.

Socialism is the poor man’s way to “game” the system. They will get YOU to pay for their rent, their food, their education. It’s popularity shows how hopeless the public is about corruption.

The Republican establishment doesn’t trust Donald Trump who keeps saying that Washington is stupid, that it should be run like a business, that contracts should go to the lowest bidder. But there is a reason why they don’t go to the lowest bidder. Corruption

Trump’s answer is a return to free enterprise, supply and demand, the American Dream.


Inside Romney’s attempt to steal the nomination from Donald Trump

March 3, 2016

Most pundits have missed the point behind Mitt Romney’s speech to the GOP.  He is actually considering a play for the nomination. This will resolve itself very quickly but it is based on new rules of the Republican National Convention that are not well known.

Today, Romney is being compared to Ronald Reagan who gave a speech supporting the disastrous Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater in 1964. That speech, given in support of a controversial figure is far different from this speech which will not endorse anyone and will by implication suggest that the party should now turn to Romney himself.

Imagine Reagan giving a speech in 1964 in which he attacks Goldwater and doesn’t support anyone else and you get the idea. Reagan’s speech was selfless, trying to save the Party. Romney’s speech is an act of betrayal, planned to tear the Party asunder.

Overlooked in this discussion are the rules that Romney and his GOP establishment lawyer, Ben Ginsburg, wrote at the last Republican nominating convention.  Convinced that Romney would be elected president in 2012 and wanting to assure that his re-nomination in 2016, as the incumbent president, would be a flawless process, the Party rammed through rules that allow the delegates at the convention to qualify or disqualify each other at will.

The driving force behind the rules change was to give the Party establishment the power to block an outsider, a rogue candidate with grass roots appeal, someone like Ron Paul, who they felt would embarrass the Party and the presumed incumbent president Romney.

The real issue was money.

There was a very real danger that an outsider – and Paul happened to be a very good example of this –  might oppose the deals at the Export-Import Bank, or the government’s selective enforcement of regulations, or the zero percent interest loans that the FED gave some companies and not others.  An outsider could end the gravy train that picked up steam in the last year of the presidency of George W. Bush and has now continued without interruption throughout the years of Barack Obama.  The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer at a staggering rate.  See the study at the University of California Berkeley.

Even beyond Ron Paul, any outsider might mess up the process in some clumsy way. Such a candidate might hijack a state caucus and arrive at the national convention with enough delegates to get their name in nomination. Anything could happen. An outsider might even get the nomination.

It is these rules that Romney and Republican Party insiders are now considering to steal the nomination away from frontrunner, Donald Trump, and give to the dignified, true statesman and long suffering president in waiting, Mitt Romney.

They know it’s a long shot. But they will have strong support in the national mainstream media whose corporations depend on advertising dollars from the very companies that benefit from the current Republican-Democrat establishment.

Wait a second, you say. This won’t work. Romney can’t do that. The people won’t allow that. And you are probably right, although, Romney may wait for the polls that follow his speech to finally convince him.  But remember, he knows about those rules that he created. The rules that will allow the Republican Convention to do what it wants. It’s hard to have such a weapon in hand and not use it.

And finally, keep in mind. Romney, whose corporate cronies feast off of the system in place doesn’t have to win to win.  He just has to destroy Donald Trump.

Sure, he would like to be president. God wants him to be president.  But as the Chairman of Goldman Sachs allegedly said a year ago. He would be perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. It doesn’t really matter. Democrat or Republican. Just make sure it is an insider who can assure us that the power and the money will keep flowing to the people who deserve it.

(Coming Monday, March 7, 2016. Point by point, how the Republican establishment will try to steal the nomination away from Donald Trump.)

 

 

 

 

 


A History of the State of the Union Address

January 8, 2016

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

– Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr

The State of the Union address began with George Washington.  A quick look at his speech and you can see how history repeats itself.

On January 8, 1790, Washington spoke before Senators and Representatives at Federal Hall in New York City.  In his speech, Washington addressed the most important issues of his day which ironically included immigration and national defense.

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace,” he said.

Not much has changed in 225 years.

The Constitution had declared that the president should from time to time report on the State of the Union to Congress. Washington’s address in New York, at the beginning of the New Year, was his interpretation of those words.  The practice continued under John Adams.

The third president, Thomas Jefferson, broke the tradition by submitting his address in writing.  Succeeding presidents would follow this pattern until Woodrow Wilson resurrected the Washington tradition with his address before a joint session of Congress in 1913.

Great moments in State of the Union speeches?

December 2, 1823, President James Monroe enunciated what is now known as “the Monroe Doctrine,” one of America’s most enduring foreign policy positions.  It promised that we would not intervene in European political matters and warned that no European power should colonize or further involve itself in political matters in the Western Hemisphere.

December 1, 1862, only three months after signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln published his State of the Union address. He dramatically confronted the moral issue of slavery.

“We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

January 6, 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had already delivered his most famous speech, referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor as, “a day which shall live in infamy,” yet his State of the Union address, which followed a month later, was more deeply philosophical and gave the nation purpose as it faced the long road of war ahead.

Some of the more notable goofs?

December 2, 1913. Woodrow Wilson proved that presidents are not prescient. “The country, I am thankful to say, is at peace with all the world, and many happy manifestations multiply about us of a growing cordiality and sense of community of interest among the nations, foreshadowing an age of settled peace and good will.” A few months later the world was plunged into the slaughter of the First World War.

January 25, 2011.  President George W. Bush, anxious to justify a war against Iraq, announced alleged secret information that later proved false.  “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The future of State of the Union addresses.

The State of the Union address has lost much of its original meaning.  It has evolved from a report to Congress into a public relations stunt.  Nothing illustrates this more than President Obama’s “facts” from his last address.

“Over the past five years,” the president declared, “our businesses have created more than 11 million new jobs.”

What was left for the rest of us to unscramble was that he was counting jobs from February, 2010, a low point that was actually reached deep into his own term as president.  Also carefully avoided by choice of words was the fact that the federal and state governments had cut 500,000 jobs during the same period.  Thus it was not total jobs but only jobs that “businesses” had created.

Originally, the State of the Union reflected the state of mind or our chief executive.  But today a president is much too busy to actually write his own speech.  In an age of specialization one cannot be a great politician and a great wordsmith at the same time.

I offer that observation advisedly for I have not only been a student of presidential history, I have sometimes had a front row seat, having served on senior staff in the White House.

A State of the Union speech begins with a president sitting down with speechwriters and outlining what he wants. It is eventually shopped all over the White House where it is parsed and edited based on foreign policy issues, legal issues, intergovernmental issues, legislative issues, coalitions needs.  What will the Chinese think?  What will the Washington Post say?

Like all traditions in history, this one is organic and changing. And yet one only need to read the first address by George Washington to see how much is still the same.