Elections and Biased Media

Happy New Year!   Not happy new fear as some of the pundits would have us believe.  We can meet the future with courage and resolution or we can cower.  So let us live watchfully and walk softly and carry a big stick, to quote that august Republican Teddy Roosevelt. 

The presidential election is almost indescribable but I will give it a try.  The preordained Republican candidate is not winning and a newcomer to the political arena is winning the race in many parts of the country.  The lesser candidates are ripping each other apart as they did in primaries past, which produced losing candidates both times in the last two elections.  Maybe we need more respect for the voters, instead of viewing them as plastic to be molded.  I don’t think our election system was designed to bar candidates who have never held public office and it is obvious that the skills called for in governing do require the ability to use a consensus approach. 

Who am I to say when a candidate should drop out?  According to the polls, some don’t have much support but let’s wait for the actual vote before counting anybody out.  I like a vote better than a poll. 

I’m burned by the use of the executive order to attempt a change in gun sale regulations.  Sure, the President has not made as many executive orders as others, but it is the way he uses it.  If he can’t get something through the legislature, that means the people represented by those legislators do not want it and that people could vote them out for imposing it when they don’t want it.  That is the way the system is set up, in order to avoid dictatorial decision making.   The President is blurring the line between the Executive and the Legislative.  Crocodile tears don’t erase the Constitution. 

I’m tired of the media and their restricted vocabulary.   They use the same words to describe political contests as they use to describe war.  Everything is an ‘attack’ instead of a ‘criticism’.  Terrorists attack, politicians attack, people attack the media, God, would you give them a thesaurus?   Terrorists do attack but politicians debate and people criticize the media.  I’m sick of their negative exaggeration.

I look for a busy election cycle with many events and we will try to keep you posted about what is going on.  We hope for a mix of daytime and evening events featuring local candidates and senate candidates because we are electing a Senator this year.  All candidates are welcome to all of our meetings and there’s always time to say a few words.   This is truly one of the most important elections in modern times:  the voters will decide for more of the same downhill trends or a new direction for our endeavors. 

Republican Primary Debates

Thoughts on the Infamous ‘Debates’ held by Biased Networks and Biased Journalists

The media hostile to certain candidates is soooo disappointed at their lack of control over our electoral process, even to the point of featuring a RNC past chair talking about dislodging candidates from front runner positions as if that were the way to win a national election.   Maybe that’s why we lost.  The idea of the RNC is to back the candidates the people want, not the candidates they want the people to want.  I’m tired of RNC chairs, pundits and PACs choosing our candidates for us.  Could it be that the media wants Republicans to choose weak candidates so the Democrats can retain power? 

The Internet Age has brought unprecedented literacy to the populace in the form of cell phones with full internet capability.  The media is still operating like the Dark Ages when the church controlled all the information.  The media does not control the information anymore, except for the stories they choose to highlight or manufacture and they are apparently unaware that the population does not believe everything they say.   This educated populace now has the whole internet to learn from.  And people use this capability every day, using Facebook and other systems that disseminate information.  We are no longer dependent on what the media chooses to serve us!  And we know when they are lying, spinning, slanting and otherwise jacking with news stories BECAUSE WE ARE EDUCATED. 

How about the non-story of Vice President Biden running for president?  This drug on for months as the media blasted this man with their opinions and even bringing his family into it.  This ‘story’ emphasis was hurtful at worst and a time waster at best.  The media even kept Vice President Biden in the polls when he was not running.  Why did they do that?  To siphon off support for Bernie Sanders?  To make Hillary look good?

When John Boehner announced his resignation, the liberal media went crayzy with rabid speculation about the demise of the Republican Party, the need to bring in an outsider to restore order among the Republicans, and in general criticized the whole party and predicted ongoing chaos.  The draft Paul Ryan movement immediately caused a media circus and I don’t know how Speaker Ryan or others shut them up about their endless negative speculation.   The media bashed John Boehner, bashed the process of choosing a new speaker, and bashed everybody who expressed an interest in the position.  The process to choose a new speaker was actually quite orderly and fair, despite the media prediction of fatal Republican disharmony.   Some of the media even found negativity in Speaker Ryan’s insistence on spending time with his family, which reflects true Republican family values. 

As for the MSNBC debate debacle, the media really showed their rears.  That business station blew it by allowing John Harwood to ask unvetted questions since he obviously was there to push a negative agenda towards Republicans.  Why did they trust that man?  It was a set up but hopefully Harwood has trashed his own ‘career’ by abusing his position as a journalist.  Did the Democrats pay Harwood for his hostility?  Since Harwood damaged himself by asking vicious ‘social’ type questions and lying on the air, what did he actually get out of his miserable performance???   

I avidly watched this flawed debate, hoping that CNBC would ask good business and economic questions that would show the knowledge of the candidates.  Donald Trump did shine when talking about the economy, which may have been the reason so few of those types of questions were asked.   Why was the focus on personal questions rather than political, military and economic issues?  Becky Quick and Carlos Quintanilla are experts in economics, so why did they focus on areas out of their expertise?  Why didn’t they ask questions about interest rates, the Federal Reserve and foreign trade?  What a missed opportunity!  Were they given questions or did they make them up?

How about a Democrat and a Republican debate moderated by Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt?  The Democrats would never agree to that, claiming bias in advance.  Maybe somebody could ask if Hillary rode in on her husband’s coattails?  Or about Monica?   Those questions would be considered rude but it is open season on Republicans flying away from the podium?  Harwood is evidently academically deficient in that he phrases questions in emotional terms, rather than using a systematic approach using facts to frame the question.  The emotional attack questions are easy to dream up and require no research or learning.

I like the idea that the candidates are taking over the debate terms and conditions.  As Donald Trump pointed out, the networks are making money on the debates.  The networks then want to dictate all concerning the debates, leaving the candidates at their mercy to answer every stupid question asked, while the networks rake in the money. 

How about a debate focused on issues instead of personalities, histories, criticisms, infighting and personal agendas?  And why can’t the candidates sit down at desks while debating?  All this standing looks too much like a cop show criminal lineup.    

Possible debate topics

• Discuss the Middle East. 
• How do you view cooperation with the Russians in the Middle East?
• Please briefly explain your tax policy. 
• Explain job creation and maintenance.
• Explain economic sustainability.
• What would you do about the problems in the Veterans healthcare?
• What about organized labor?
• What about Common Core?
• What about climate change?
• What about the infrastructure?
• What about the Bill of Rights?
• And many more but how many could be discussed by all who volunteer in a two hour span?

Or let candidates choose one of those topics to expound on and others to common upon.  The isolated question debate structure where they all get different questions is not a debate.  A true debate has to have interchange among the candidates on the same topic.   Divide and conquer.  Let’s all get together and actually talk about the issues and compare ideas.  And then the viewers can see for themselves all the ideas.  I would even give the candidates the topics in advance.  A debate is when you come prepared to discuss and defend your positions on the issues. 

Let’s have a real debate! 

Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal: The Corruption Connection

At home with a bad cold while missing a fun meeting, I watched the Bengazi Hearings chaired very competently by Rep. Trey Gowdy.  After Rep. Gowdy’s thought provoking opening statement, I was prepared to listen and learn from the well prepared questions formed by the committee members. 

As I listened, several things became clear.  Most of the Democrats were ill prepared and obviously had not done what the committee was charged to do because they ‘believed’ poor little Hillary was being victimized because she dared to run for president.  I don’t care what their ‘beliefs’ were, they should have formulated questions that brought out the truth.  I applaud Rep. Duckworth on her devotion to duty and of her carefully prepared questions concerning security and backup.  She did not waste her time on emotional and belligerent displays against the charge of the committee, as did others.  A clear dereliction of duty was obvious among Democrat committee members who were ill prepared with questions and choose to pontificate instead.  I hope they are voted out in the next election they face.    

The interest in Sidney Blumenthal was phenomenal, but was unfortunately divided along partisan lines, with the Democrats asking no questions about Sidney Blumenthal.  Why not?

Who is Sidney Blumenthal?  Described as a well-paid sycophant and author, he has written books with titles like:  The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, and The Clinton Wars, among others.  He protected the Clintons from the Lewinski scandal and has been a close friend for years.  Mr. Blumenthal is a vicious partisan with a history of conspiracy theories who apparently had Mrs. Clinton’s ear, particularly about Libya. 

It has been suggested that the overthrow of Kaddafi was orchestrated by the UN and the Clinton State Department in order to accommodate business interests in Libya.  I hope such a cynical conclusion is not proven.   Sidney Blumenthal was forwarding the business interests of contractors interested in Libya who possibly hired Mr. Blumenthal to represent them because he had access to Mrs. Clinton.  Did money change hands over this?  Was Mr. Blumenthal selling access?

Mr. Blumenthal received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation, where his duties were problematical, which was also during the time of the Bengazi tragedy and during his tenure working for the supporters of the Hillary campaign for president.  How much income did all this work generate?  Was he working for the contractors hoping for projects in Libya or was he just doing that for free?  This guy looks like he was being paid for three jobs at once. 

 Apparently at least some of the e mails sent to Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Blumenthal made their way to Ambassador Stevens.  Did Ambassador Stevens receive fallacious information?  Did he believe this information? 

It’s nice to know what kind of people are hired by the Clinton Foundation at the behest of Bill Clinton.  I hope all the donors take note.  Sidney Blumenthal’s son, Max Blumenthal has expressed many biased opinions concerning the Middle East, including opinions that possibly generate income for the Clinton Foundation from wealthy families hostile to Israel.  Of course, Sidney Blumenthal is promoting his son’s career. 

This Sidney Blumenthal was too radical for the Obama Administration, who rejected him as an employee.  Yet Mrs. Clinton gave him access anyway to an inner circle of influence that never should have existed.  The official channels of the White House, Military and others should have taken precedence over any non-vetted person.  Mr. Blumenthal had been vetted and rejected as an employee, yet Mrs. Clinton continued his influence, even to the point of redacting his name from e mails he sent her and forwarding them to the state department and possibly Ambassador Stevens. 

I saw a clip on Fox News this morning that described a meeting held three weeks before Ambassador Steven’s death.  The conclusions of this security and operations meeting were that the Ambassador’s outpost should be consolidated with the CIA headquarters for security reasons and that the situation was untenable as it was. 

Mrs. Clinton sat there and said that nobody called for any changes at the Bengazi facility so things continued.  Did she read the memo or even attend the meeting or receive a report from somebody at the meeting?  Did she know about this consolidation request?  Where was her leadership?  Why didn’t she make the move to close it down, instead of waiting for ‘underlings’ to suggest it?  IT WAS HER DUTY TO KNOW ABOUT ALL OF THE EMBASSIES WITH SECURITY RISKS AND IT WAS HER DUTY TO CLOSE IT DOWN OR REINFORCE SECURITY IN THE FACE OF ESCALATING THREATS. 

The hearing was definitely illuminating, just not in the way some had envisioned.  I do resent the spurious attitude on the part of the intensely partisan Democrats who tried to sabotage the hearing with critical comments about other members of the committee or about partisan politics in general.  The lack of professionalism on the part of the Democrats with the exception of Rep. Duckworth, was an indicator of what is wrong in Washington these days. 

The fiercely partisan politics of Sidney Blumenthal and the Clintons has damaged the climate in Washington to the point that the naysayers and the dividers are controlling and nothing gets done.  Votes are held in secret and their top presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declares that Republicans are enemies, something even Vice President Biden disavows.   The country cannot afford any more influence from the likes of Sidney Blumenthal, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the corruption and divisiveness they represent.

Tucson City Council Debate and Vote No on Pima Bonds!

 

Tucson City Council Candidate Debate

I attended the Tucson City Council Debate hosted by the League of Women Voters on October 14, 2015.  All the candidates were finally in attendance, as the Democrat council members stood up the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Debate and I was wondering if they would stand up the League of Women Voters too, but all the Democrats did show up last night so the show went on!

It was obvious from the outset that the Democrats were committed to more and more subsidies and more and more borrowing and spending for short term goals.  None of them had a grasp of the gravity of the city’s financial situation, which resembles Detroit.  They were all proud of their accomplishments and want to continue the program.  Their emphasis on constant growth is naïve.   They are like a kid with her first job looking at Corvettes in the showroom, willing to commit to 27 years of heavy debt to just get her hands on the car. 

They are willing to mortgage the future and spend the money now.

We live in a constrained environment.  Water resources are getting scarce.  If drought conditions are declared on the Colorado, we could be impacted right here in Tucson.  Yet the city council is for more annexation and more growth, instead of making an attempt to recognize environmental constraints on dreams of grandeur.   They need to do the job.  The job is to do what the charter says.  Instead we get red light cameras and Parkwise, neither of which raise money for the general fund.  If there were no Parkwise, people could park mostly free and the city would not have to subsidize Parkwise and money would be saved.  Since the city gets negligible income from the red light cameras, the money is being sucked out of the city.  These city council members support these boondoggles and they are not doing their jobs, as per the city charter.   Look at the streets!

The Republican Candidates offered a refreshing view of what could be different in Tucson.  They actually talked about paying down the debt instead of adding to it and they even talked about not raising taxes and the benefits of lower taxes to the local economy.  Kelly Lawton wistfully remembers the Tucson of yesterday, when the streets were good and the economy was healthy and small businesses were king.  I remember those days too and I believe that the era of big government in Tucson is literally bankrupt.  The government should not be a prime source of jobs for the community.  The private sector, the university and the base should be the sources, not bond projects.   

Vote Bill Hunt, Kelly Lawton and Margaret Burkholder for Tucson City Council!

Shirley Scott was so jubilant over the spending in her ‘district’ that was paid for at taxpayer expense, which probably benefitted her supporters’ financial interests!  Of course Ms. Scott is for more borrowing and more money sent out of state, just like other government officials who want nothing more than to get their hands on all that money right now and spend it while it takes decades to pay back.  Ms. Scott is proud of all that development and wants all annexation possible and no doubt is promoting more and more water hookups while the water table and the Colorado River drops.  Archaic attitudes like Ms. Scott appears to hold should be voted out of office.  Ms. Scott wants a $1.2 billion debt added to the $1.4 billion debt the county already has.  It should be in Ripley’s Believe it or Not!

This bond thing is a fight over money and who controls it.  The vested interests want to reap the luxury living gained through taxpayer investment, which they do not call profit but it is a handsome living for the few.  They just set up deals, without financial risk to themselves, which true private enterprise cannot do. 

Mr. Hecker was really interested in Rio Nuevo and now he takes a titanic interest in these bond proposals.  I am uncomfortable with those same old names popping up as the prospect of a new free trough opening up again, just like Rio Nuevo.

The problem with Mr. Hecker’s premise that such a small amount per year increase in taxes benefits everyone through these bond projects that he and his friends control.  They are attempting to use the force of taxes to amass money quickly through borrowing to pay for projects they control and have chosen to put on the ballot.  It’s so easy for them to get something on the ballot.  And it is so difficult to fight their choice of projects and contractors. 

They want $780,000,000, which creates a debt of about $1.2 billion because of the enormous amount of interest paid for the privilege of allowing this group of people to amass and spend this huge sum.  Do you want these people to control this much money, leaving a debt for the children to pay?  Shall the sins of the Fathers be visited upon the children?  In this case, YES, the debt is said to extend 27 years into the future……

I don’t want these people to amass and spend the surplus for the next 27 years.  That is too much money for too long and it is too expensive.  I think the money should remain in the hands of the people to spend as they see fit.  I think the county should take available revenue, pay down the huge debt without rollovers, maintain what the law requires and stop raising property taxes.  Rents go up, payments go up, apartment owners and cooperatives are hit with higher taxes, and everybody pays more to maintain the control and collection of huge money from the little people who might rather use that money every year to buy gifts for grandchildren, rather than to pay for parks and amenities for developers far from the old neighborhoods of the south side. 

The county is trying to get more money for roads when they already have authorization for millions in road bonds.  Why?  They are like the four year old who heaps his plate and reaches for more. 

Mr. Hecker said that private enterprise doesn’t build libraries and museums.   Apparently in Mr. Hecker’s world, government is the end all be all and private enterprise is negligible unless it’s a favored contractor.  Remember the Carnegie Library chain throughout the United States?  Andrew Carnegie financed these through money obtained through private enterprise!  Has Mr. Hecker ever visited a private museum?  Like the Daughters of the American Revolution museum in Washington DC?  Wow!  There are even private enterprise transportation systems!  Look at Uber!  Call your local taxi!   Maybe people would rather spend their money on Uber rather than subsidizing the union controlled bus system milking the taxpayers.  Mr. Hecker is trying to justify the increase in the debt load by defining the meaning of government to include exclusive rights over the building and control of cultural activities and transportation systems.  He is wrong. 

Suppose that $1.2 Billion remains in the Tucson economy the next 27 years instead of going out on these chosen projects?  What could happen if the county were to pay down the debt, which IS the highest in Arizona?

• Taxes might stabilize, which is good for predicting a business model.
• Rents might stabilize. 
• Taxes could even go down, as the public debt is paid off. 
• More ready cash would be in the coffers at the county due to debt paydown.
• Road maintenance, transportation, parks and other services could be paid for with the cash instead of more borrowing and rollovers.
• The debt on the HURF fund would be paid off, freeing up cash to be used in road maintenance.
• Infrastructure conditions could be improved without further debt.

About the Pima bond proposal:  Say everybody has at least $50 a year to spend instead of paying the $50 a year for 27 years or even saving the money and they would have $13,500 plus interest in their personal accounts.  If you own more expensive properties, the amount is even greater.   If people spent some of the money eating out, local restaurants would benefit financially.  If the money were spent on goods and services locally, this money would circulate through the economy many times throughout the years, bringing prosperity by circulating the money locally.  Local businesses would benefit by the money in the economy and from tax relief.

If the bond proposals are passed, this money will be concentrated in the hands of a few contractors and their workers right now for them to spend.  Huge sums of the money will go out of state to pay interest on the debt, which will be of no local benefit.  Contractors using temps from outside Pima County are often hired, which takes money out of the county.  Sure, we get these proposed structures and improvements but so much more could be had if the debt were paid down instead of increasing.  The problem of maintenance of existing facilities has not been met by Pima County and has not been addressed in the budget, yet they want to go into debt to build more facilities to neglect.  Part of their job is to have an ongoing maintenance program that is successful using the amount of funding available.  That is the job and they are not doing it and I don’t think they should have more power to borrow more money. 

VOTE NO ON PIMA BONDS