Corrupt Media and the 2016 Presidential Primary

2016 Presidential Primary

I am fascinated by the presidential primary, I must confess.  At this point in time Sen. Rubio is lost in junior high school style squabbling, Sen. Cruz is hiding and watching and Mr. Trump is taking them both on like he did during the two timing debate.  These political times are like the days of old when the bars had to be closed on election day and feelings ran high, like during the Lincoln-Douglas debates when fistfights broke out in the audience and mud slinging was actual. 

The relative gentility of the last few elections is over, when political correctness ruled and politicians obeyed their friendly ‘donors’ and the powers that be backed both sides so they would be sure to ‘win’.  The financial crisis that actually began with the cancellation of the Glass-Steagall Act lurched on while the debt load increased and the middle class began transitioning to poor as the rich became richer without risking their money.  And now the latest news is that Iran is raking in ‘interest payments’ out of the tax till, while ordinary small holder Americans can’t get peanuts for interest on their money.  What’s wrong with that? 

And the pundits wonder why people are irritated.  And some of the less intelligent pundits continue to criticize the candidates’ manner of speaking while ignoring what is actually said, which is what the voters heard.  Voters are listening to what was said.  So much for gentility, which was always a disguise for power. 

The media miscalled the election.  It was to be between Clinton/Bush and the same big donors backed both people.  This was scripted and comfortable and well controlled and the current economic stagnation would intensify but the ‘right’ people would be in control.  Instead, the media is frantic to stop the momentum of Mr. Trump’s campaign, which is built on saying it like it is even if it offends someone.  This approach tends toward the truth and evidently the voters appreciate that, because Mr. Trump is popular and is now the front runner.

The media attacks have been crass and unprofessional, culminating in the august advice to the freshmen senators running for president that they would never succeed unless they attacked Mr. Trump.  For several days before the debate, attacking Mr. Trump was the advice and prediction.  It’s interesting that the media is now manipulating the news by being the news and making projections and predictions of dire consequences if Mr. Trump becomes the nominee.  Maybe the revolution in politics that we are seeing was not predicted by the media, is not controlled by the media and will not be determined by the media and their sponsors and important relatives and all the other hangers on who have a vested interest.  This is cronyism and all the cronies are freaked out.  The people are not voting as expected.  The people are voting for the candidate they like for whatever reason and the media has yet to understand what that reason is.    So many in the media are surprised that Mr. Trump’s supporters don’t change their minds, no matter what language Mr. Trump uses!  That’s because the voters are not interested in the use of politically correct language or not but they are interested in jobs and common core.  We are not children. 

I am an old school teacher and I think the literacy level of United States citizens has changed and is higher in comprehension than ever before, due to cell phones and texting.  Political correctness and texting don’t go together.  Texting is like summarizing and summarizing is an intellectual exercise involving literacy.  I know this is teacherese but I think that people are mentally mature earlier due to all the increased communications using electronics and that their language skills have increased.  In a sense, people are more worldly and less gullible than in the past but the media is unaware of this fact and they are treating viewers like fools by attempting to manipulate public opinion while not presenting enough factual information.  Some in the media were surprised people are angry. 

Why should the voter in the street be angry? 

Retired people live under a 2% inflation target by the Federal Reserve, so their money and income depreciates at least 2% a year.  Price deflation is never mentioned. 

The Labor Participation Rate is around 60%, which means that the remaining 40% are living off of the 60%, plus they are paying for dependent children and taking care of elderly relatives.  That’s where their money is going.

And income among the middle class is not increasing even though they are subject to the same 2% or more inflation.

The stated unemployment rate of 5-6% is deceptive because around 40% of able bodied adults are not working. 

We have been attacked in our own country by Islamic terrorists.

Government regulation and crony government subsidies are driving small businesses out of business.

Zoning laws prevent home businesses and free enterprise.

Mandatory insurance has resulted in sky high rates.

Borrowing money is difficult.

2^nd Amendment rights are threatened.

Executive orders by the President are questionable. 

People are angry and these are only a few reasons that I have heard.

So this all sets the stage for the 2016 presidential election.  Now the pundits are rejoicing as the candidates ‘really go at it’, not about the issues, but personal ridicule, which the media is certainly more interested in.  Voters see some of this but they are still interested in the issues confronting our nation, rather than typos on twitter, for God’s sake let’s get back to the issues.  Let’s take a look at those libel laws again, not to limit free speech, but to limit blatant lying. 

My own stand on all of this involves a change of mind.  When the candidates declared, I liked Scott Walker because of his work about the unions but it soon became apparent this was not the year for him.  Disappointed, I cast about for another candidate.  I didn’t know much about Mr. Trump.  I’d never seen him on TV but I’d read a little about his business endeavors and successes.  I happen to like New Yorkers, because they seem open and honest, if a bit scalding at times.  So Mr. Trump’s manner and language didn’t bother me in the least as I began to listen to what he said.   What did bother me was the negative attitude of the media.

It is not the job of the media to vet the candidates.  It is the job of the voter. 

I plan to vote for Mr. Trump because I think he has insight into the economic problems the United States faces and I think he will not micromanage the military and will have an instinctive success in delegating competent people who can get a job done.  I don’t think any of the other candidates on either side can do this as well as Mr. Trump can.

I

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.