Sunday, February 7, 2016
Why Is Rush Limbaugh Helping the Democrats?
Rush Limbaugh doesn't understand that he is the best friend the Democrats have. He is helping them get the devotion of the Main Stream Media.
Most national journalists don't understand politics, but somewhere they got the notion that politics is like fifties television westerns. They believe politics is a contest between good guys and bad guys and the good guys are called "liberals". Journalists have no idea what the term "liberal" means, but they are convinced "liberals" are the Roy Rogers and Lone Ranger of politics.
Limbaugh may score points with those who consider themselves "conservatives" when he mislabels Democrats as "liberals", but the practice helps Democrats get media and public support they do not deserve.
There was a time when Democrats could be considered liberals, but liberals do not always remain liberals. Friedrich Nietzsche once observed: "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."
Once liberals get what they want, they defend their creations like a mama bear protecting her cubs.
The fact is that liberal Democrats are an endangered, if not extinct, political species. Most national level Democrats tend to be ultraconservative elitist control freaks and thus the antithesis of liberals.
Real liberals look for new approaches to dealing with social problems and operating government. Democrats haven't had a new idea in 50 years. They have only one approach to dealing with social problems -- heavy government regulation and large spending programs controlled from Washington.
Real liberals tolerate the opinions of others. Democrat are "true believers" who attack anyone with the audacity to suggest Democrats are wrong regardless of how simple-minded the Democrat favored ideas are.
Real liberals have compassion. Democratic leaders favor policies that would please Adolph Hitler. Democrats believe in aborting babies which don't possess the characteristics Hitler desired for his "master race". No real liberal could support abortion.
Real liberals would recognize that there is only one race of Americans, if not humanity in general. Democrats practice Archie Bunker "politics". For those unfamiliar with the old "All in the Family" television show, Archie Bunker was a bigoted character who lived with his wife and their daughter and her husband. An ad for the show used a segment in which Archie explained a "balanced" political ticket to his son-in-law Michael. Archie may have used different words, but he explained that his party ran a black candidate for one position, a Jew for one position, an Italian for another, etc. and a "Regular American", a white guy like Archie, for the final position. Democrats believe Americans belong to different races with all members within an ethic group wanting the same thing.
Like Archie Bunker, Democrats believe only white people are the regular Americans and everyone else is a quasi American. For example, to Democrats black Americans are Africans [living in] America and those with Asian ancestry are Asians [living in] America.
Limbaugh also lies when he says Democrats are anti-business or anti-corporation. The fact is that Democrats are just as pro-business as Republicans, but Democrats often favor different businesses than Republicans.
Democrats tend to favor businesses that want something from government and thus are willing to help Democrats win elections. For example, health insurance companies were upset because some people weren't buying their over priced health insurance. The companies convinced their pet Democrats to pass legislation requiring everyone to obtain health insurance, with penalties for those who don't comply. If Democrats hadn't been pro-business, the program would have set up a government run program financed by a tax based on a person's ability to pay, with people being allowed to escape the tax by purchasing private insurance.
Democrats also demonstrate their pro-corporation inclination by their support for the greatest corporate fraud in history, Enron's global warming scam. The claim that changes in the carbon dioxide content of the air of a few parts per million could change air temperatures is so absurd, it should be recognized as obviously false by any intelligent person.
Real liberals tend to be optimists who look on the positive side. Democrats belong to the "disaster of the month club". They warn of impending doom if their policies are not followed on issues like global warming nonsense.
Liberal President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Today's Democrats say we should fear this, that and the other thing."
Limbaugh's continued misrepresentation of Democrats as "liberals" gives them a positive image they do not deserve. The Democratic Party is a rotten apple that is corrupt to its core. Democrats think they are better than the rest of us, but are really worse.
Friday, February 5, 2016
9th Circuit Court Would Likely Keep Cruz Off Ballot
Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn't
eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating
Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in
California and other states will challenge his eligibility.
There's at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in
San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized
citizen rather than a "natural born citizen" as required by the
Constitution.
Then Republicans would have to choose whether to take a chance on the Supreme Court overturning the ruling or replace Cruz with someone else. Either way the Republican campaign would be delayed and the Democrat would be able to run unopposed for some time. Republicans would have trouble getting a campaign started.
Article 2 of the United States Constitution establishes eligibility for the office of President of the United States: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Cruz was not born in the United States so he cannot be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. He is a naturalized citizen because his mother took advantage of a naturalization "short cut" that allows some U.S citizens to obtain citizenship for their children who are born outside the United States. This naturalization process is not automatic and is not available to all children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States. Children born in the United States are automatically citizens. The parents of children outside the United States must request the child be given citizenship and demonstrate they are eligible to obtain citizenship for their children
When Cruz was born a child could only qualify for citizenship under this provision in naturalization law if at least one citizen parent had lived in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, and the parents were married to each other. Barack Obama had to provide evidence he was born in Hawaii to be a U.S. citizen. He could not have become a citizen if he had been born in Kenya because his mother had not lived in the United States the required five years after her 14th birthday. Thousands of individuals fathered by American soldiers in Vietnam could not become U.S. citizens by this procedure because their fathers were not married to their mothers.
A federal appeals court that would order states to accept same sex marriage would not hesitate to keep an ineligible presidential candidate off the ballot, particularly a candidate who would be likely to nominate Supreme Court justices who might vote to overturn the appeals court's rulings.
Then Republicans would have to choose whether to take a chance on the Supreme Court overturning the ruling or replace Cruz with someone else. Either way the Republican campaign would be delayed and the Democrat would be able to run unopposed for some time. Republicans would have trouble getting a campaign started.
Article 2 of the United States Constitution establishes eligibility for the office of President of the United States: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Cruz was not born in the United States so he cannot be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. He is a naturalized citizen because his mother took advantage of a naturalization "short cut" that allows some U.S citizens to obtain citizenship for their children who are born outside the United States. This naturalization process is not automatic and is not available to all children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States. Children born in the United States are automatically citizens. The parents of children outside the United States must request the child be given citizenship and demonstrate they are eligible to obtain citizenship for their children
When Cruz was born a child could only qualify for citizenship under this provision in naturalization law if at least one citizen parent had lived in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, and the parents were married to each other. Barack Obama had to provide evidence he was born in Hawaii to be a U.S. citizen. He could not have become a citizen if he had been born in Kenya because his mother had not lived in the United States the required five years after her 14th birthday. Thousands of individuals fathered by American soldiers in Vietnam could not become U.S. citizens by this procedure because their fathers were not married to their mothers.
A federal appeals court that would order states to accept same sex marriage would not hesitate to keep an ineligible presidential candidate off the ballot, particularly a candidate who would be likely to nominate Supreme Court justices who might vote to overturn the appeals court's rulings.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Whoopi Goldberg Rejects Racist Label
ABC's "The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg has joined fellow "View"
co-host Raven-Symoné in rejecting the extremely racist
term "African-American".
“You know what uh uh! This is my country,” Goldberg said. “My mother, my grandmother, my great-grand folks, we busted ass to be here. I’m sorry. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American, I’m not a chick American, I’m an American!”
In October, 2014, Raven told Oprah Winfrey' "I'm tired of being labeled. I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American."
The time has come to eliminate this term "African-American" which perpetuates the old Southern racist concept that dark complexioned Americans are a separate race from light complexioned Americans. Those using the term essentially rely on the racist concept of "part black all black" [the one drop rule] rather than looking at all of a person's ancestors.
For example, journalists routinely label Asian ancestry golfer Tiger Woods "African-American" even though he has an Asian mother and a father with Asian and North American ancestry as well as some ancestors from sub-Sahara Africa. Raven-Symoné obviously has more skin complexion genes from ancestors outside of Africa than from sub-Saharan Africa ancestors. A century ago someone with her complexion might have decided to leave her family and pass for white.
Those who use the term "African-American" don't seem to understand that Africa refers to a continent, not a group of people. The Sahara Desert divides the continent into two genetically and culturally different populations. North American slaves came from the area south of the Sahara. In this post I will use "African" to designate persons from south of the Sahara.
Southern racism treated dark complexioned individuals as if their only ancestors came from Africa. The term "Africa-American" perpetuates this false claim. The fact is that African DNA began mixing with British DNA at Jamestown in the early 17th Century. The first Africans arrived at Jamestown in1619 and were treated like the white indentured servants. Indentured servants were temporary slaves who used their labor to pay off a debt. In the North American colonies the debt was likely the cost of travel to the colony. Many of the Irish indentured servants, like the Africans, were forced to move to North America. For the Africans, the debt was the purchase price from the slave traders. Many of those with African ancestry who were brought to North America came from the West Indies rather than directly from Africa. Some of these may have had some European or western hemisphere ancestry.
Marriages across the color line began occurring even before African indentured servant John Punch married a white woman, who was probably also an indentured servant, in 1636. Four years later Punch was sentenced by a judge to be the first permanent slave in the British North American colonies after he and two other indentured servants ran away. Punch's marriage deserves special attention because it is the earliest marriage to produce traceable descendants. Nobel Prize winner Ralph Bunch is one of his black descendants. One of his white descendants is Stanley Ann Dunham the mother of President Barack Obama.
In the early years of the Virginia colony people sometimes had to marry across the black, white and red color lines because the small population reduced the number of potential mates. A similar situation existed in Spanish and French North American settlements. The earliest connection between an African and North Americans occurred in Spanish Florida in 1526 when a slave escaped and was accepted by a North American village. The practice of accepting escaped slaves would continue in the British colonies and later in the United States.
The process of British and African genetic integration accelerated briefly after the British government authorized permanent slavery. The law said that a child's status [slave or free] would be determined by the status of the mother. A white child of a slave mother would become an indentured servant. A black child would become a permanent slave. Slave owners knew that a child with a black parent and a white parent would be black so they forced their white female indentured servants to mate with their African male slaves. White male indentured servants had little choice but to mate with African female slaves.
Only about 500,000 Africans were imported to North America during the nearly 200 years the slave trade was legal with most of them arriving before America won its independence. The first U.S. census showed a population in 1790 of 3,172,000 whites and 757,000 blacks. Thus it is likely that most descendants of slaves had multiple ancestors living in North America before the Revolution. The descendants of slaves could have a hundred different ancestors who were living in North America before the American Revolution. At seven generations back a person can have 128 different ancestors.
In slave societies it is common for males in the owner class to have sex with female members of the slave class especially unmarried females. Unmarried female slaves may even encourage such attention to gain better treatment. White male - black female relationships were common in New Orleans during the Spanish and French because men from these countries often arrived without wives. The introduction of European DNA into the black population continued during the Jim Crow era when southern white men were able to rape black women without fear of punishment.
The introduction of African DNA into the white population was more indirect because those babies who received dark complexion genes would be born with dark complexions. African DNA involving other than skin color genes entered the white population when persons with African ancestry were born without the dark complexion genes and passed for white. Some descendants of the early unions between Africans and Europeans had "lost" enough dark complexion genes to pass for white by the American Revolution. This process would continue. By 1800 some slaves qualified as white such as Thomas Jefferson's concubine Sally Hemings. No paintings of her are available, but she was described as white with long straight hair.
It seems likely that many who passed for white didn't tell their children. .President Warren G. Harding was aware he had recent black ancestry but Ann Dunham apparently did not know she had African ancestry. If she had known she likely would have told her son Barack. Some people believe as many as five other presidents could have African ancestors.
The dark skinned descendants of slaves should be allowed to claim all their ancestors, not just the ones who came from Africa. Their ancestors came here and became a new people who are a blend of peoples from three, and in some cases four, continents. They only have some genes in common with the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. The Americans who have some African ancestors made their own culture after they got here. They helped make this country what it is and deserve to be recognized as full fledged Americans -- not quasi Americans.
It's time we Americans recognize that America is not the home of a black race and a white race, but instead is the home of a single race whose ancestors were red and yellow, black and white.
The Impressions lamented in their song "This is My Country" --
"Some people think we don't have the right
To say its my country
Before they give in, they'd rather fuss and fight
Than say its my country"
It's time we started encouraged the descendants of slaves to call America, rather than Africa their country. If light skinned Americans whose ancestors all arrived after the Civil War can call themselves 100% Americans, why must dark skinned Americans whose ancestors may have arrived before the American Revolution be treated as part American and part something else. Many slaves earned their freedom by helping to defeat the British during the Revolution.
“You know what uh uh! This is my country,” Goldberg said. “My mother, my grandmother, my great-grand folks, we busted ass to be here. I’m sorry. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American, I’m not a chick American, I’m an American!”
In October, 2014, Raven told Oprah Winfrey' "I'm tired of being labeled. I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American."
The time has come to eliminate this term "African-American" which perpetuates the old Southern racist concept that dark complexioned Americans are a separate race from light complexioned Americans. Those using the term essentially rely on the racist concept of "part black all black" [the one drop rule] rather than looking at all of a person's ancestors.
For example, journalists routinely label Asian ancestry golfer Tiger Woods "African-American" even though he has an Asian mother and a father with Asian and North American ancestry as well as some ancestors from sub-Sahara Africa. Raven-Symoné obviously has more skin complexion genes from ancestors outside of Africa than from sub-Saharan Africa ancestors. A century ago someone with her complexion might have decided to leave her family and pass for white.
Those who use the term "African-American" don't seem to understand that Africa refers to a continent, not a group of people. The Sahara Desert divides the continent into two genetically and culturally different populations. North American slaves came from the area south of the Sahara. In this post I will use "African" to designate persons from south of the Sahara.
Southern racism treated dark complexioned individuals as if their only ancestors came from Africa. The term "Africa-American" perpetuates this false claim. The fact is that African DNA began mixing with British DNA at Jamestown in the early 17th Century. The first Africans arrived at Jamestown in1619 and were treated like the white indentured servants. Indentured servants were temporary slaves who used their labor to pay off a debt. In the North American colonies the debt was likely the cost of travel to the colony. Many of the Irish indentured servants, like the Africans, were forced to move to North America. For the Africans, the debt was the purchase price from the slave traders. Many of those with African ancestry who were brought to North America came from the West Indies rather than directly from Africa. Some of these may have had some European or western hemisphere ancestry.
Marriages across the color line began occurring even before African indentured servant John Punch married a white woman, who was probably also an indentured servant, in 1636. Four years later Punch was sentenced by a judge to be the first permanent slave in the British North American colonies after he and two other indentured servants ran away. Punch's marriage deserves special attention because it is the earliest marriage to produce traceable descendants. Nobel Prize winner Ralph Bunch is one of his black descendants. One of his white descendants is Stanley Ann Dunham the mother of President Barack Obama.
In the early years of the Virginia colony people sometimes had to marry across the black, white and red color lines because the small population reduced the number of potential mates. A similar situation existed in Spanish and French North American settlements. The earliest connection between an African and North Americans occurred in Spanish Florida in 1526 when a slave escaped and was accepted by a North American village. The practice of accepting escaped slaves would continue in the British colonies and later in the United States.
The process of British and African genetic integration accelerated briefly after the British government authorized permanent slavery. The law said that a child's status [slave or free] would be determined by the status of the mother. A white child of a slave mother would become an indentured servant. A black child would become a permanent slave. Slave owners knew that a child with a black parent and a white parent would be black so they forced their white female indentured servants to mate with their African male slaves. White male indentured servants had little choice but to mate with African female slaves.
Only about 500,000 Africans were imported to North America during the nearly 200 years the slave trade was legal with most of them arriving before America won its independence. The first U.S. census showed a population in 1790 of 3,172,000 whites and 757,000 blacks. Thus it is likely that most descendants of slaves had multiple ancestors living in North America before the Revolution. The descendants of slaves could have a hundred different ancestors who were living in North America before the American Revolution. At seven generations back a person can have 128 different ancestors.
In slave societies it is common for males in the owner class to have sex with female members of the slave class especially unmarried females. Unmarried female slaves may even encourage such attention to gain better treatment. White male - black female relationships were common in New Orleans during the Spanish and French because men from these countries often arrived without wives. The introduction of European DNA into the black population continued during the Jim Crow era when southern white men were able to rape black women without fear of punishment.
The introduction of African DNA into the white population was more indirect because those babies who received dark complexion genes would be born with dark complexions. African DNA involving other than skin color genes entered the white population when persons with African ancestry were born without the dark complexion genes and passed for white. Some descendants of the early unions between Africans and Europeans had "lost" enough dark complexion genes to pass for white by the American Revolution. This process would continue. By 1800 some slaves qualified as white such as Thomas Jefferson's concubine Sally Hemings. No paintings of her are available, but she was described as white with long straight hair.
It seems likely that many who passed for white didn't tell their children. .President Warren G. Harding was aware he had recent black ancestry but Ann Dunham apparently did not know she had African ancestry. If she had known she likely would have told her son Barack. Some people believe as many as five other presidents could have African ancestors.
The dark skinned descendants of slaves should be allowed to claim all their ancestors, not just the ones who came from Africa. Their ancestors came here and became a new people who are a blend of peoples from three, and in some cases four, continents. They only have some genes in common with the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. The Americans who have some African ancestors made their own culture after they got here. They helped make this country what it is and deserve to be recognized as full fledged Americans -- not quasi Americans.
It's time we Americans recognize that America is not the home of a black race and a white race, but instead is the home of a single race whose ancestors were red and yellow, black and white.
The Impressions lamented in their song "This is My Country" --
"Some people think we don't have the right
To say its my country
Before they give in, they'd rather fuss and fight
Than say its my country"
It's time we started encouraged the descendants of slaves to call America, rather than Africa their country. If light skinned Americans whose ancestors all arrived after the Civil War can call themselves 100% Americans, why must dark skinned Americans whose ancestors may have arrived before the American Revolution be treated as part American and part something else. Many slaves earned their freedom by helping to defeat the British during the Revolution.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Sen. Ted Cruz Is a Naturalized Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen
The United States Constitution requires presidents to be
"natural born citizens". The original Constitution
doesn't define "natural born citizen", but the 14th Amendment states
there are two categories of U.S. citizens: those who are born
in the United States and those who are naturalized under Acts of
Congress.
Sen. Ted Cruz was not born in the United States so his citizenship is conferred by Congress under its naturalization authority. Children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States do not automatically qualify as U,S, citizens under the Constitution. They can only qualify if a parent meets the criteria required by the law. For example, when Cruz was born one U.S. citizen parent had to have lived in the United States for 10 years before the birth with at least five of those years coming after the 14th birthday. t
The criteria can be changed by Congress at any time. For example, Congress might decide to require that both parents be citizens or change the residency requirements. The specific criteria required of Cruz or others aren't important. The important point is that a person whose citizenship is due to naturalization law cannot be a "natural born citizen".
Cruz has stated that he never checked to see if he became a Canadian citizen when he was born in Canada until the Dallas Morning News said he was a Canadian citizen. I hope that he checked to see if any required applications for U.S. citizenship registration have been met. If registration requirements have not been met, Cruz is not any kind of U.S. citizen.
Sen. Ted Cruz was not born in the United States so his citizenship is conferred by Congress under its naturalization authority. Children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States do not automatically qualify as U,S, citizens under the Constitution. They can only qualify if a parent meets the criteria required by the law. For example, when Cruz was born one U.S. citizen parent had to have lived in the United States for 10 years before the birth with at least five of those years coming after the 14th birthday. t
The criteria can be changed by Congress at any time. For example, Congress might decide to require that both parents be citizens or change the residency requirements. The specific criteria required of Cruz or others aren't important. The important point is that a person whose citizenship is due to naturalization law cannot be a "natural born citizen".
Cruz has stated that he never checked to see if he became a Canadian citizen when he was born in Canada until the Dallas Morning News said he was a Canadian citizen. I hope that he checked to see if any required applications for U.S. citizenship registration have been met. If registration requirements have not been met, Cruz is not any kind of U.S. citizen.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Democrats Should Draft Sebelius for President
Democrats should encourage former Kansas Governor Kathleen
Sebelius to run for president. She would be
a far better choice for president than Hillary Clinton who would
never have gotten any place in politics if her husband Bill hadn't
served as President of the United States;
Will the race for the Democratic presidential candidate be a repeat of 1968? In 1968 Democrats entered the primary season expecting to nominate President Lyndon Johnson for reelection. After Johnson's poor showing in New Hampshire, he withdrew from the race and Democrats had to find a new candidate. Democrats may have more time to recover this year than they did in 1968. Hillary is already slipping behind an unknown candidate, Democrats need to recognize she has no chance even with the Clinton Broadcast System running a show designed to con people into thinking that Hillary was a capable Secretary of State.
Democrats who support Hillary Clinton ignore her past association with disasters including her decision before the 1992 election to represent the corrupt Whitewater Savings and Loan before a board appointed by her husband Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. That decision caused the appointment of a special prosecutor which eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton on an unrelated matter. The health care proposal she developed was so unpopular it helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.
Hillary's service as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her incompetence allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory in Libya when the terrorist organization used a mob to kill the American Ambassador to Libya. Those familiar with al Qaeda knew it was likely to try something on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack during an American presidential year. Clinton shouldn't have needed CIA torture to figure out that the instability in Libya made it an ideal target. A competent Secretary of State would have reduced the potential for a successful attack in Libya by having the Ambassador and his staff attend some type of conference at NATO headquarters or some other European country. At the very least she should have ordered the Ambassador to stay in the capital so the Libyan government could help protect him.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time Americans killed an al Qaeda leader in some Middle Eastern country. Thus the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya was a major al Qaeda victory.
Kathleen Sebelius made her own way in politics. Her father had been a governor, but in Indiana rather than Kansas. Her father-in-law was a popular member of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but he was a Republican and Sebelius is a Democrat. Sebelius was elected governor as a Democrat twice in heavily Republican Kansas. Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in heavily Democratic New York.
Sebelius had to deal with controversy during her tenure in the Obama cabinet because Obama assigned her the near impossible task of implementing Obama's overly complicated health care system. As I had expected there were some significant problems, particularly with the computer software, but she handled them effectively.
I don't agree with some of her political views, particularly the global warming nonsense. However, I would consider voting for her for president because she is a competent executive which is what we need in the White House. If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton I will have to vote for the Republican to keep her out of the White House.
Hillary Clinton has handicapped the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election. She has preempted the publicity for the Democratic Party allowing the Republican candidates to be better known than other potential Democratic candidates. Democrats need to encourage Sebelius, Vice President Joe Biden, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and other potential candidates to get in the race now so they won't have to start from scratch if Hillary's campaign crashes during the primary season.
Will the race for the Democratic presidential candidate be a repeat of 1968? In 1968 Democrats entered the primary season expecting to nominate President Lyndon Johnson for reelection. After Johnson's poor showing in New Hampshire, he withdrew from the race and Democrats had to find a new candidate. Democrats may have more time to recover this year than they did in 1968. Hillary is already slipping behind an unknown candidate, Democrats need to recognize she has no chance even with the Clinton Broadcast System running a show designed to con people into thinking that Hillary was a capable Secretary of State.
Democrats who support Hillary Clinton ignore her past association with disasters including her decision before the 1992 election to represent the corrupt Whitewater Savings and Loan before a board appointed by her husband Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. That decision caused the appointment of a special prosecutor which eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton on an unrelated matter. The health care proposal she developed was so unpopular it helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.
Hillary's service as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her incompetence allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory in Libya when the terrorist organization used a mob to kill the American Ambassador to Libya. Those familiar with al Qaeda knew it was likely to try something on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack during an American presidential year. Clinton shouldn't have needed CIA torture to figure out that the instability in Libya made it an ideal target. A competent Secretary of State would have reduced the potential for a successful attack in Libya by having the Ambassador and his staff attend some type of conference at NATO headquarters or some other European country. At the very least she should have ordered the Ambassador to stay in the capital so the Libyan government could help protect him.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time Americans killed an al Qaeda leader in some Middle Eastern country. Thus the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya was a major al Qaeda victory.
Kathleen Sebelius made her own way in politics. Her father had been a governor, but in Indiana rather than Kansas. Her father-in-law was a popular member of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but he was a Republican and Sebelius is a Democrat. Sebelius was elected governor as a Democrat twice in heavily Republican Kansas. Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in heavily Democratic New York.
Sebelius had to deal with controversy during her tenure in the Obama cabinet because Obama assigned her the near impossible task of implementing Obama's overly complicated health care system. As I had expected there were some significant problems, particularly with the computer software, but she handled them effectively.
I don't agree with some of her political views, particularly the global warming nonsense. However, I would consider voting for her for president because she is a competent executive which is what we need in the White House. If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton I will have to vote for the Republican to keep her out of the White House.
Hillary Clinton has handicapped the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election. She has preempted the publicity for the Democratic Party allowing the Republican candidates to be better known than other potential Democratic candidates. Democrats need to encourage Sebelius, Vice President Joe Biden, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and other potential candidates to get in the race now so they won't have to start from scratch if Hillary's campaign crashes during the primary season.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Taliban Like Attitudes in American South
The world cringed when the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhist
Statues in Afghanistan. The Taliban destroyed the
historic artifacts because Buddhist statues represented something
the Taliban considered immoral. They didn't want people to be
reminded that people in the region had at one time been involved in
something that was no longer considered morally acceptable.
Buddhist statues were not "politically correct" under the Taliban's
view of the Muslim religion. Allowing the statues to stay
advertised that Afghans had once behaved in what the Taliban
regarded as an immoral fashion. Recent reports claim that ISIS
may be doing the same thing to historic artifacts where they are
operating.
People in New Orleans, La., and other southern cities want to remove statues of men who had the audacity to not have the same moral values people have today. Many southerners prior to the Civil War accepted the African and Muslim moral value that it was acceptable for one person to own others. Africans had been buying, selling and owning each other for thousands of years and they had no problem with selling their fellow Africans to Europeans like they had been selling their fellow Africans to people in the Middle East.
The men whose statues are the subject of controversy in New Orleans were born into a society that had long accepted slavery. They thought they had no other option for recruiting workers for their plantations because people wouldn't voluntarily do such work. As far as they knew, plantations had always been worked by slaves. They were not evil men. They simply lacked the ability to "think outside the box" of slavery.
Instead of trying to censor history, southern cities should use the Civil War as an example of what can happen when politicians cannot find ways to resolve their differences. Slavery had caused the United States to become two different nations with different economic needs and perspectives. Politicians from the north and the south were so stuck in their own little worlds that they couldn't consider the needs of the other part of the country.
About the only thing the white people who controlled both the northern and southern states could agree on was that they both supported the myth that black people were inferior to white people. Northern whites didn't want slavery in their states because they were bigots who hated the people who were held as slaves.
As the great grandson of a Union soldier I have never really understood why southerners would want to erect statues of losers. I doubt that the statues were erected because without the actions of men like Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee slavery would likely have continued for decades. The decision by the southern states to leave the Union provoked northern politicians into acting against slavery. Gen. Lee's ability to prolong the war even convinced northern politicians to guarantee the freed slaves and other blacks equal rights that many northern states denied to their black residents.
People in New Orleans, La., and other southern cities want to remove statues of men who had the audacity to not have the same moral values people have today. Many southerners prior to the Civil War accepted the African and Muslim moral value that it was acceptable for one person to own others. Africans had been buying, selling and owning each other for thousands of years and they had no problem with selling their fellow Africans to Europeans like they had been selling their fellow Africans to people in the Middle East.
The men whose statues are the subject of controversy in New Orleans were born into a society that had long accepted slavery. They thought they had no other option for recruiting workers for their plantations because people wouldn't voluntarily do such work. As far as they knew, plantations had always been worked by slaves. They were not evil men. They simply lacked the ability to "think outside the box" of slavery.
Instead of trying to censor history, southern cities should use the Civil War as an example of what can happen when politicians cannot find ways to resolve their differences. Slavery had caused the United States to become two different nations with different economic needs and perspectives. Politicians from the north and the south were so stuck in their own little worlds that they couldn't consider the needs of the other part of the country.
About the only thing the white people who controlled both the northern and southern states could agree on was that they both supported the myth that black people were inferior to white people. Northern whites didn't want slavery in their states because they were bigots who hated the people who were held as slaves.
As the great grandson of a Union soldier I have never really understood why southerners would want to erect statues of losers. I doubt that the statues were erected because without the actions of men like Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee slavery would likely have continued for decades. The decision by the southern states to leave the Union provoked northern politicians into acting against slavery. Gen. Lee's ability to prolong the war even convinced northern politicians to guarantee the freed slaves and other blacks equal rights that many northern states denied to their black residents.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Is Princess Hillary too Thin-Skinned for Presidency?
The American media's heir apparent to the presidency, Princess
Hillary Clinton, has had a hissy
fit because that cad Donald Trump slipped a pea
under her mattress. She's all a flutter because he used
a sexually oriented word
that 99% of Americans have never heard of. Princess
Hillary seems to believe that women should be protected from such
language like they were in the 1950's. Or,maybe she's
been so protected she doesn't know some women use more well known
words with a similar meaning. I've even heard teenage girls
use such terms in church.
I started writing when the incident happened but decided I didn't want to disrupt my Christmas mood by writing about politics. I forgot about the subject until a few days ago when I saw a commercial that used a comparable term that more Americans are familiar with. I don't want to risk offending anyone, or upsetting the text editor, so I won't use it. I'll only say it involves the type of activity that got Bill Clinton in trouble. I also belatedly watched Blake Shelton's "Christmas" special which featured other sexually related words that have become acceptable.
When I first heard the bleeped version of Trump's comment on television, I thought maybe he was suggesting Princess Hillary was what many people believe Trump is the son of. That prompted an unsuccessful search for a quote from the 1972 Democrat race for the presidential nomination. I don't remember which candidate's wife said it about the wife of another candidate, but here it is: "she's an I can't say it but it rhymes with rich."
I was surprised to find out it had been used again during the 1984 general election race. Barbara Bush, whose husband George H.W. Bush was the incumbent Vice President, used the phrase to describe the Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. Some sources suggest she said "rhymes with witch."
Trump also has been criticized for retweeting a message from Texas cowgirl Sawyer Burmeister: "If Hillary can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Burmeister later retracted the tweet. Burmeister's tweet raises the question of what Princess Hillary meant when she said that Trump's word was humiliating to women. Did Princess Hillary mean that talking about sex was humiliating to women or that sex was humiliating to women?
While looking for a link for this post I was reminded of Princess Hillary's bathroom break during a debate. I know what my mom would have said: "she should have gone before the debate." My mom always had us kids use the bathroom before we went any place.
I started writing when the incident happened but decided I didn't want to disrupt my Christmas mood by writing about politics. I forgot about the subject until a few days ago when I saw a commercial that used a comparable term that more Americans are familiar with. I don't want to risk offending anyone, or upsetting the text editor, so I won't use it. I'll only say it involves the type of activity that got Bill Clinton in trouble. I also belatedly watched Blake Shelton's "Christmas" special which featured other sexually related words that have become acceptable.
When I first heard the bleeped version of Trump's comment on television, I thought maybe he was suggesting Princess Hillary was what many people believe Trump is the son of. That prompted an unsuccessful search for a quote from the 1972 Democrat race for the presidential nomination. I don't remember which candidate's wife said it about the wife of another candidate, but here it is: "she's an I can't say it but it rhymes with rich."
I was surprised to find out it had been used again during the 1984 general election race. Barbara Bush, whose husband George H.W. Bush was the incumbent Vice President, used the phrase to describe the Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. Some sources suggest she said "rhymes with witch."
Trump also has been criticized for retweeting a message from Texas cowgirl Sawyer Burmeister: "If Hillary can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Burmeister later retracted the tweet. Burmeister's tweet raises the question of what Princess Hillary meant when she said that Trump's word was humiliating to women. Did Princess Hillary mean that talking about sex was humiliating to women or that sex was humiliating to women?
While looking for a link for this post I was reminded of Princess Hillary's bathroom break during a debate. I know what my mom would have said: "she should have gone before the debate." My mom always had us kids use the bathroom before we went any place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
