Posts Tagged ‘DONALD TRUMP’
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PAUL RYAN, RACIAL PROFILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 27, 2016 at 12:19 am
If Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
And it doesn’t involve building a wall along the Mexican border–which would prove ridiculously expensive and easily circumvented.
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities which have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way that President Andres Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify”–or ignore–any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should stop apologizing for the right to control the country’s national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2016 at 1:30 am
In 2014, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, declaring that illegal aliens living in the United States since 2010 could become citizens or lawful residents, thus shielding them from deportation.
Texas challenged that executive order, claiming that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by encroaching on the duties of Congress. Another 25 Republican states joined the lawsuit.
The case went to the Supreme Court–which, on June 23, blocked the implementation of Obama’s executive order.
The Justices deadlocked on the issue 4-4, thus returning the case to the lower court in Texas that ruled against the administration’s carrying out the policy.
U.S. Supreme Court
In doing so, the Justices denied at least 4 million illegal aliens the right to remain in the country without fear of deportation.
For Republicans, the ruling upheld the separation of powers.
Donald Trump–the presumptive Republican nominee for President–issued a statement: “Today’s 4-4 Supreme Court ruling has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”
And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis) declared:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and voice. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Obama quickly expressed his disappointment, saying that the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
Other Democrats were equally upset by the Court’s decision.
One of these was Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who wrote on Twitter: “Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!”
Another was Hillary Clinton–the presumed Democratic Presidential nominee–who used the Court’s decision as a way to troll for Hispanic votes.
“[Donald] Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office,” Clinton said.
“He has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers.’ He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes. I believe we are stronger together.”
Both Lee’s and Clinton’s accusations ignored a blunt reality: Families of illegal aliens did not have to break up.
Some members did not have to stay in the United States while others were deported. Instead, they could leave together and live together in the Latin or Central American country of their origin.
Illegal immigration has always been a highly emotional issue for conservatives. But it’s been given added impetus this year.
For years, Republicans and Democrats have clashed over the subject of illegal immigration.
Democrats favor wholesale grants of unearned citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who brazenly violated the law when they sneaked across American borders.
And Republicans favor beefing up security against future waves of such invaders.
But the brutal truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans truly want to end these invasions. Nor do they want to deport the millions of illegals who have already taken up residence here.
They don’t care that these illegals:
- Flood the United States with millions of poor non-citizens who don’t speak English.
- Overwhelm the public school system with children–who also don’t speak English–who require bilingual education.
- Overwhelm the public healthcare system–especially emergency rooms–with poor illegal aliens. As a result, urgently-needed medical care is often denied to legal American citizens.
Democrats, primarily governed by liberal ideology, believe it’s racist for whites to demand control of their own national borders. They also see illegal aliens as a huge constituency.
And Republicans want them as low-skilled, low-wage fodder for their major campaign contributors–such as corporate-farms and retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans like to feign outrage at the presence of so many illegal aliens within their midst.
It’s the Republican base that’s demanding an end to illegal immigration.
Those masses of alienated and angry whites who find themselves living in a nation that’s increasingly alien from themselves. And who have made Donald Trump their overwhelming choice for President in 2016.
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans ignore a blunt reality: Mexico–America’s largest source of illegal aliens–strictly enforces control of its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Meanwhile, Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, BLACKS, BOEING, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE C. WALLACE, HILLARY CLINTON, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN MCCAIN, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MAFIA, MEXICANS, NBC NEWS, PRISONERS OF WAR, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SAUDI ARABIA, STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE KENNEDYS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WOMEN
In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on June 6, 2016 at 12:01 am
Today, America has two major candidates running for President: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Trump is a billionaire businessman. Clinton is a former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.
Despite the great differences in their backgrounds, they both share one thing in common: Extremely high negatives among voters.
Trump’s hate-filled rhetoric has deliberately or unintentionally offended almost every major American voting group, including:
- Mexicans: “They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He’s also promised to “build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”
- Prisoners-of-War: Speaking of Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain, a Vietnam POW for seven years: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”
- Women: “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”
These insults delight his white, uneducated followers. But they have alienated millions of other Americans who might have voted for him.
As for Clinton: She continues to be dogged by charges that she used her position as Secretary of State (2009-2013) to enrich herself.
Countries that made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation got an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
For example: In 2011, the State Department green-lighted a $29 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, despite its dismal record on human rights.
Years before Clinton became Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. And Boeing, the biggest defense contractor involved, donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation just two months before the deal was finalized.
But 48 years ago, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy aroused passions of an altogether different sort.
Kennedy had been a United States Attorney General (1961-1964) and Senator (1964-1968). But it was his connection to his beloved and assassinated brother, President John F. Kennedy, for which he was best known.
Robert F. Kennedy campaigning for President
Millions saw RFK as the only candidate who could make life better for America’s impoverished–while standing firmly against those who threatened the Nation’s safety.
As television correspondent Charles Quinn observed: “I talked to a girl in Hawaii who was for [George] Wallace [the segregationist governor of Alabama]. And I said ‘Really?’ [She said] ‘Yeah, but my real candidate is dead.’
“You know what I think it was? All these whites, all these blue collar people who supported Kennedy…all of these people felt that Kennedy would really do what he thought best for the black people, but, at the same time, would not tolerate lawlessness and violence.
“They were willing to gamble…because they knew in their hearts that the country was not right. They were willing to gamble on this man who would try to keep things within reasonable order; and at the same time do some of the things they knew really should be done.”
Campaigning for the Presidency in 1968, RFK had just won the crucial California primary on June 4–when he was shot in the back of the head. His killer: Sirhan Sirhan, a young Palestinian furious at Kennedy’s support for Israel. He died at 1:44 a.m. on June 6.
On June 8, 1,200 men and women boarded a specially-reserved passenger train at New York’s Pennsylvania Station. They were accompanying Kennedy’s body to its final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery.
As the train slowly moved along 225 miles of track, throngs of men, women and children lined the rails to pay their final respects to a man they considered a genuine hero.
Little Leaguers clutched their baseball caps across their chests. Uniformed firemen and policemen saluted. Burly men in shirtsleeves held hardhats over their hearts. Black men in overalls waved small American flags. Women from all levels of society stood and cried.
A nation says goodbye to Robert Kennedy
Commenting on RFK’s legacy, historian William L. O’Neil wrote in Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960′s:
“…He aimed so high that he must be judged for what he meant to do, and, through error and tragic accident, failed at….He will also be remembered as an extraordinary human being who, though hated by some, was perhaps more deeply loved by his countrymen than any man of his time.
“That too must be entered into the final account, and it is no small thing. With his death something precious disappeared from public life.”
The Kennedy family never again roused the same passions among voters as it did during RFK’s short-lived run for the Presidency.
And America has never again since seen a Presidential candidate who combined toughness on crime and compassion for the poor.
Republican candidates have waged war on crime–and the poor. And Democratic candidates have moved to the Right in eliminating anti-poverty programs.
RFK had the courage to fight the Mafia–and the compassion to fight poverty. At a time of rising rates of income inequality and corporate crime, his kind of politics are sorely missed.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BORIS YELTSIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, KIM JONG-UN, MISS TEEN USA, MISS UNIVERSE, MISS USA, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, RED ARMY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on June 3, 2016 at 12:01 am
“And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald [Trump’s] bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.”
The speaker was Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, addressing an audience in San Diego, California, on June 2.
“He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.
“He said, ‘You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit’ for taking over North Korea–something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.
“And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A. Now, I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants,” said Clinton.
Yes, Donald Trump admires Vladimir Putin. And Vladimir Putin admires Donald Trump.
To many people, it’s the ultimate odd-couple: The lifelong Communist and former KGB officer (Putin) walking arm-in-arm with the billionaire, publicity-hungry capitalist.
What could be going on here?
First Putin:
“He is a bright personality, a talented person, no doubt about it. It is not up to us to appraise his positive sides, it is up to the U.S. voters. but, as we can see, he is an absolute leader in the presidential race.
“He is saying that he wants to move to a different level of relations with Russia, to a closer, deeper one. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome that.”
Now Trump:
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
Donald Trump
Appearing on the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, [he’s] also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
TRUMP: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.
TRUMP: I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m confused. So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?
TRUMP: Oh sure, absolutely.
When Trump praised Putin as a leader–“unlike what we have in this country”–he no doubt meant President Barack Obama.
Ironically, it is Obama–not Trump–who has repeatedly been named in Gallup polls as the most admired man in America in each of the last seven years, beginning with 2008, the year he was elected president.
Although Trump didn’t mention former President George W. Bush, his insult applies–unintentionally but accurately–to Obama’s predecessor.
In June 2001, Bush and Vladimir Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.
Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush
Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.
“I did play rugby,” said Bush. “Very good briefing.”
Bush knew that Putin had worked for Soviet intelligence. So he should not have been surprised that the KGB had amassed a lengthy dossier on him.
But more was to come.
BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy Land.
PUTIN: It’s true.
BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir?
Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others–even world leaders–through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian theology.
Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commonality to build a bond. He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.
“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”
Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.
“Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Associated Press correspondent Ron Fournier asked Bush.
“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue.
“I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”
Of course, no one from the Right–including Trump–is now recalling such embarrassing words.
It’s far more politically profitable to pretend that all of America’s tensions with Russia began with the election of Barack Obama.
And that those tensions will vanish once another Rightist–and non-black–President enters the White House.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BERNIE SANDERS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, D-DAY, DAILY KOZ, DAVID BROOKS, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE S. PATTON, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HEINZ GUERIAN, HILLARY CLINTON, HUFFINGTON POST, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LIBERALS, MARCO RUBIO, MARK SHIELDS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NOCCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLANDER, SLATE, STALINGRAD, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TED CRUZ, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE PRINCE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WAFFEN-SS
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on June 2, 2016 at 12:13 am
Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to know something that most of her fellow Democrats don’t–or choose to ignore.
Nazi Germany wasn’t defeated because “we were the Good Guys and they were the Bad Guys.”
On the contrary: It was defeated because the Allies waged war as brutally as the Germans.
For example:
- From D-Day to the fall of Berlin, captured Waffen-SS soldiers were often shot out of hand.
- When American troops came under fire in the German city of Aachen, Lt. Col. Derrill Daniel brought in a self-propelled 155mm artillery piece and opened up on a theater housing German soldiers. After the city surrendered, a German colonel labeled the use of the 155 “barbarous” and demanded that it be outlawed.
German soldiers at Stalingrad
- The United States and Great Britain carpet-bombed about 150 German cities by day and night, killing 305,000 to 600,000 civilians.
- During the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, Wilhelm Hoffman, a young German soldier and diarist, was appalled that the Russians refused to surrender. He wrote: “You don’t see them at all, they have established themselves in houses and cellars and are firing on all sides, including from our rear! Barbarians! They use gangster methods….”
In short: The Allies won because they dared to meet the brutality of a Heinz Guderian with that of a George S. Patton.
This is a lesson that has been totally lost on the liberals of the Democratic Party. Which explains why they lost most of the Presidential elections of the 20th century.
To Republicans, “lawfully elected” applies only to Republican Presidents. A Democrat who runs against a Republican is automatically considered a traitor.
And a Democrat who defeats a Republican is automatically considered a usurper, and thus deserves to be slandered and obstructed, if not impeached.
Unable to defeat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Republicans tried in 1998 to impeach him for getting oral sex in the White House.
Similarly, 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain, asked in a conference call with bloggers why Republicans couldn’t just impeach President Barack Obama, replied:
“That’s a great question and it is a great–it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action.”
Barack Obama
In Renegade: The Making of a President, Richard Wolffe chronicled Obama’s successful 2008 bid for the White House. Among his revelations:
Obama, a believer in rationality and decency, felt more comfortable in responding to attacks on his character than in making them on the character of his enemies.
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama is easily one of the most academically gifted Presidents in United States history.
But for all this, he failed–from the onset of his Presidency–to grasp and apply this fundamental lesson taught by Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science.
Niccolo Machiavelli
In The Prince, Machiavelli warns:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be more loved than feared, or feared more than loved.
The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved….
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Just as they have blithely disregarded the lessons of history, liberals have ignored the Realpolitik of Machiavelli–with catastrophic results.
On Facebook and Twitter, liberals are already celebrating the “certain” Presidency of Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders or former First Lady Hillary Clinton in 2017.
They forget–or ignore–that liberals couldn’t believe America would elect, respectively, Richard Nixon (1968 and 1972), Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984), George H.W. Bush (1988) and George W. Bush (2000 and 2004).
But Elizabeth Warren clearly hasn’t forgotten those Republican victories. Nor does she take for granted that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump is certain to lose in November.
Elizabeth Warren
Instead, Warren has dared to do what no other Democrat–or Republican–has: Attack Trump head-on, with the kind of blunt, insulting language he has lavished on his opponents.
On March 31, she appeared on The Late Show, with Stephen Colbert. Her take on the egotistical billionaire:
“Donald Trump is looking out for exactly one guy, and that guy’s name is Donald Trump. He smells that there’s change in the air and what he wants to do is make sure that that change works really, really well for Donald Trump.
“The truth is, he inherited a fortune from his father, he kept it going by cheating and defrauding people, and then he takes his creditors through Chapter 11.”
When Colbert said that Trump had never broken the law, Warren replied that he had never broken the law “and been caught.”
For Democrats to win elective victories and enact their agenda, they must find their own George Patton to take on the Waffen-SS generals among Republican ranks.
Only Elizabeth Warren has so far grasped this truth. And only she seems determined to act on it.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BERNIE SANDERS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, D-DAY, DAILY KOZ, DAVID BROOKS, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE S. PATTON, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HEINZ GUERIAN, HILLARY CLINTON, HUFFINGTON POST, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LIBERALS, MARCO RUBIO, MARK SHIELDS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NOCCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAND PAUL, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLANDER, SLATE, STALINGRAD, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TED CRUZ, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE PRINCE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WAFFEN-SS
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on June 1, 2016 at 12:04 am
Donald Trump, “for all his moral flaws, is a marketing genius.”
So stated New York Times columnist David Brooks on the May 27 edition of the PBS Newshour.
“And you look at what he does. He just picks a word and he attaches it to a person. Little Marco {Rubio], Lyin’ Ted [Cruz], Crooked Hillary [Clinton].
Donald Trump
“And that’s a word. And that’s how marketing works. It’s a simple, blunt message, but it gets under. It sticks, and it diminishes. And so it has been super effective for him, because he knows how to do that. And [Hillary] just comes with ‘Oh, he’s divisive.’
“These are words that are not exciting people. And her campaign style has gotten, if anything…a little more stagnant and more flat.”
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton isn’t the only Presidential candidate who has proven unable to cope with Trump’s gifts for insult. His targets–and insults–have included:
-
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry: “Wears glasses to seem smart.”
-
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: “Low Energy Jeb.”
-
Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: “Crazy Bernie.”
-
Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Mathematically dead and totally desperate.”
So far, only one opponent has managed to stand up to Trump: Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom Trump has called “goofy.”
Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio tried to out-insult Trump at the Republican Presidential candidates’ debate on March 3.
“I call him Little Marco. Little Marco. Hello, Marco,” said Trump.
And so Rubio retaliated with “Big Donald.” Since Americans generally believe that “bigger is better,” this was a poor choice of insult.
On the May 27 edition of the PBS Newshour, syndicated columnist Mark Shields noted the ability of Elizabeth Warren to rattle Trump:
“Elizabeth Warren gets under Donald Trunp’s skin. And I think she’s been the most effective adversary. I think she’s done more to unite the Democratic party than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
“I mean, she obviously–he can’t stay away from her. He is tweeting about her.”
Elizabeth Warren
JUDY WOODRUFF (moderator): “But whether it’s Elizabeth Warren or not, doesn’t Hillary Clinton need to come up with some approach that works, that is as effective comeback?”
DAVID BROOKS: “Yes. Well, I think she does, not that anybody else has managed to do this….
“And so the tactics…is either you do what Elizabeth Warren has done, like full-bore negativity, that kind of [get] under the skin, or try to ridicule him and use humor. Humor is not Hillary Clinton’s strongest point.”
But sharp-edged humor clearly works for Warren.
A May 12 story on CNN–“Elizabeth Warren Gives Trump a Dose of His Own Medicine on Twitter”–notes:
“In the past week the Massachusetts Democrat has refined an aggressive anti-Trump message through a series of so-called tweetstorms.
“Whenever Trump criticizes her, Warren fires right back at him, sometimes twice as hard.”
Warren’s tweets, according to the article, appear to have two goals:
- Challenge Trump on social media, which he has so far dominated; and
- Use attention-catching words like “bully” and “loser.”
Among her tweets:
- “But here’s the thing. You can beat a bully–not by tucking tail and running, but by holding your ground.”
- When Trump boasted “I’m driving her nuts” Warren tweeted: “No, @realDonaldTrump – your racism, sexism & xenophobia doesn’t drive me nuts. It makes me sick. And I’m not alone.”
- “You care so much about struggling American workers, @realDonaldTrump, that you want to abolish the federal minimum wage?”
- “@realDonaldTrump: Your policies are dangerous. Your words are reckless. Your record is embarrassing. And your free ride is over.”
Nor has Warren restricted herself to battling Trump on Twitter.
On May 24, Warren unleashed perhaps her most devastating attack on Trump at an event hosted by the Center for Popular Democracy:
“Just yesterday, it came out that Donald Trump had said back in 2007 that he was ‘excited’ for the real estate market to crash because, quote, ‘I’ve always made more money in bad markets than in good markets.’
“That’s right. The rest of us were horrified by the 2008 financial crisis, by what happened to the millions of families…that were forced out of their homes.
“But Donald Trump was drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown–because it meant he could buy up a bunch more property on the cheap.
“What kind of a man does that? Root for people to get thrown out on the street? Root for people to lose their jobs? Root for people to lose their pensions?
“What kind of a man does that? I’ll tell you exactly what kind—a man who cares about no one but himself. A small, insecure moneygrubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes some money off it….
“Sometimes Trump claims he is tough on Wall Street–tough on the guys who cheated people….. But now he’s singing a very different song.
“Last week, he said that the new Dodd-Frank financial regulations have…’made it impossible for bankers to function’ and he will put out a new plan soon that ‘will be close to dismantling Dodd-Frank.’
“Donald Trump is worried about helping poor little Wall Street? Let me find the world’s smallest violin to play a sad, sad song.”
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BERNIE SANDERS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, D-DAY, DAILY KOZ, DAVID BROOKS, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE S. PATTON, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HEINZ GUERIAN, HILLARY CLINTON, HUFFINGTON POST, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LIBERALS, MARCO RUBIO, MARK SHIELDS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NOCCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAND PAUL, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLANDER, SLATE, STALINGRAD, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TED CRUZ, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE PRINCE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WAFFEN-SS
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 31, 2016 at 12:05 am
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks appear every Friday on the PBS Newshour to review the week’s major political events.
On May 27, Shields–a liberal, and Brooks, a conservative–came to some disturbingly similar conclusions about the character of Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
With the business magnate having won the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, both columnists appeared increasingly dismayed.
David Brooks and Mark Shields
MARK SHIELDS: “Donald Trump gratuitously slandered Ted Cruz’s wife. He libeled Ted Cruz’s father for being potentially part of Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of the president of the United States, suggesting that he was somehow a fellow traveler in that.
“This is a libel. You don’t get over it….
“I cannot figure out any possible advantage to Donald Trump when he’s got a problem with Latinos and with women to go into New Mexico, where the nation’s only Latina woman Republican governor sits, who has not said anything negative about him, who endorsed one of his opponents, but has not been an attack dog on Donald Trump, and absolutely goes after her and is abusive to her.
“And I’m just saying to myself, what is the advantage to this?
“…I think this man may be addicted to the roar of the grease paint and the sound of the crowd, or however it goes, smell of the crowd.
“And those rallies bring out something in him, and he just feels that he has to–and it’s all personal….I mean, it’s not a philosophical difference. It’s not a political difference. It’s all personal.”
Donald Trump
Ironically, Rand Paul, Republican U.S. Senator from Kentucky, has reached a similar conclusion about Trump:
“I think there is a sophomore quality that is entertaining with Mr. Trump, but I am worried. I’m very concerned of having him in charge of his nuclear weapons because his visceral response to attack people on their appearance–short, tall, fat, ugly–my goodness that happened in junior high.”
DAVID BROOKS: “Trump, for all his moral flaws, is a marketing genius. And you look at what he does. He just picks a word and he attaches it to a person. Little Marco [Rubio], Lyin’ Ted [Cruz], Crooked Hillary [Clinton].
“And that’s a word. And that’s how marketing works. It’s a simple, blunt message, but it gets under.
“It sticks, and it diminishes. And so it has been super effective for him, because he knows how to do that. And she [Hillary Clinton] just comes with, ‘Oh, he’s divisive.’
“These are words that are not exciting people. And her campaign style has gotten, if anything…a little more stagnant and more flat.”
How did American politics reach this state of affairs?
In 1996, Newt Gingrich, then Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote a memo that encouraged Republicans to “speak like Newt.”
Entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” it urged Republicans to attack Democrats with such words as “corrupt,” “selfish,” “destructive,” “hypocrisy,” “liberal,” “sick,” and “traitors.”
Newt Gingrich
Even worse, Gingrich encouraged the news media to disseminate such accusations. Among his suggestions:
- “Fights make news.”
- Create a “shield issue” to deflect criticism: “A shield issue is, just, you know, your opponent is going to attack you as lacking compassion. You better…show up in the local paper holding a baby in the neonatal center.”
In the memo, Gingrich advised:
“….In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning.
As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: ‘I wish I could speak like Newt.’
“That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases….
“This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media.
“The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.”
Here is the list of words Gingrich urged his followers to use in describing “the opponent, their record, proposals and their party”:
- abuse of power
- anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
- betray
- bizarre
- bosses
- bureaucracy
- cheat
- coercion
- “compassion” is not enough
- collapse(ing)
- consequences
- corrupt
- corruption
- criminal rights
- crisis
- cynicism
- decay
- deeper
- destroy
- destructive
- devour
- disgrace
- endanger
- excuses
- failure (fail)
- greed
- hypocrisy
- ideological
- impose
- incompetent
- insecure
- insensitive
|
- intolerant
- liberal
- lie
- limit(s)
- machine
- mandate(s)
- obsolete
- pathetic
- patronage
- permissive attitude
- pessimistic
- punish (poor …)
- radical
- red tape
- self-serving
- selfish
- sensationalists
- shallow
- shame
- sick
- spend(ing)
- stagnation
- status quo
- steal
- taxes
- they/them
- threaten
- traitors
- unionized
- urgent (cy)
- waste
- welfare
|
Yes, speaking like Newt–or Adolf Hitler or Joseph McCarthy–“takes years of practice.”
And to the dismay of both Republicans and Democrats, Donald Trump has learned his lessons well.
2012 ELECTION, 2016 ELECTION, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ADULTERY, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HUMOR, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LANGUAGE, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, OPEN MARRIAGE, REPUBLICANS, SOUTH CROLINA PRIMARY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 27, 2016 at 12:08 am
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
—Matthew 7: 17-20
Meet the Gingrich Twins: Good Newt and Bad Newt.
Both of them ran–unsuccessfully–for President in 2012. And both of them are seeking power in 2016–as Donald Trump’s pick for Vice President.
Both of them also have much to teach America about the effective–and unscrupulous–use of language.as used by ambitious, ruthless politicians.
Here’s how Good Newt responded to a question by CNN Moderator John King during the GOP Presidential debate at Charleston, South Carolina, on January 19, 2012:
Newt Gingrich, once again giving “the finger” to America
King: “As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post.
“And this story has now gone viral on the internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?”
Good Newt: “No, but I will. I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that….
“To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine….
“Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false.
“They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor. They’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.”
Good Newt is “appalled” that anyone could stoop so low. He’s concerned not only for himself and his party, but the country.
Unfortunately, for Good Newt, he has an identical evil twin: Bad Newt. And sometimes people–especially Democrats–mistake one for the other.
It was Bad Newt who, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote a 1996 memo that encouraged Republicans to “speak like Newt.”
Entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” it urged Republicans to attack Democrats with such words as “corrupt,” “selfish,” “destructive,” “hypocrisy,” “liberal,” “sick,” and “traitors.”
Even worse, Bad Newt encouraged the news media to disseminate such accusations. Among his suggestions:
- “Fights make news.”
- Create a “shield issue” to deflect criticism: “A shield issue is, just, you know, your opponent is going to attack you as lacking compassion. You better…show up in the local paper holding a baby in the neonatal center.”
In the memo, Bad Newt advised:
“….In the video ‘We are a Majority,’ Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning.
“As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: ‘I wish I could speak like Newt.’
“That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases….
“This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media.
“The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.”
Here is the list of words Bad Newt urged his followers to use in describing “the opponent, their record, proposals and their party”:
- abuse of power
- anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
- betray
- bizarre
- bosses
- bureaucracy
- cheat
- coercion
- “compassion” is not enough
- collapse(ing)
- consequences
- corrupt
- corruption
- criminal rights
- crisis
- cynicism
- decay
- deeper
- destroy
- destructive
- devour
- disgrace
- endanger
- excuses
- failure (fail)
- greed
- hypocrisy
- ideological
- impose
- incompetent
- insecure
- insensitive
|
- intolerant
- liberal
- lie
- limit(s)
- machine
- mandate(s)
- obsolete
- pathetic
- patronage
- permissive attitude
- pessimistic
- punish (poor …)
- radical
- red tape
- self-serving
- selfish
- sensationalists
- shallow
- shame
- sick
- spend(ing)
- stagnation
- status quo
- steal
- taxes
- they/them
- threaten
- traitors
- unionized
- urgent (cy)
- waste
- welfare
|
Yes, speaking like Newt–or Adolf Hitler or Joseph McCarthy–“takes years of practice.”
So you can understand why Good Newt hates being mistaken for his evil twin, Bad Newt.
Unfortunately, they look–and sound–so alike it’s impossible to tell them apart.
But since they’re both 72, perhaps one day soon we’ll find out which one we’re left with–Good Newt or Bad Newt.
Unless, of course, they both drop off at the same time. Then we will never know which was which.
It’s definitely a mystery worth living with.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANCIENT ROME, ANTONIN SCALIA, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, CBS NEWS, CITIZENS UNITED, CLEOPATRA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FORECLOSURES, GLADIATORS, JULIUS CAESAR, KIRK DOUGLAS, LAURENCE OLIVER, MARCUS CRASSUS, MEIN KAMPF, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, SHELDON ADELSON, SPARTACUS, SUPREME COURT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on May 24, 2016 at 12:56 am
The 1960 Kirk Douglas epic, Spartacus, may soon prove to be more than great entertainment. It may also turn out to be a prophecy of the end of the American Republic.
In the movie, Spartacus (Douglas), a Roman slave, entertains Marcus Crassus (Laurence Oliver) the richest man in Rome. He does so by fighting to the death as a gladiator.
Poster for Spartacus
While Spartacus and his fellow gladiator/friend, Draba, slash and stab at each other in the arena, Crassus idly chats with his crony, Marcus Glabrus.
Crassus has just secured Glabrus’ appointment as commander of the garrison of Rome. Glabrus is grateful, but curious as to how he did it.
After all, Gaius Gracchus, the leader of the Roman Senate, hates Crassus, and stands ever ready to oppose his every move.
“I fought fire with oil,” says Crassus. “I purchased the Senate behind his back.”
Draba defeats Spartacus in their gladiatorial bout, but refuses to kill him. Instead, he throws his spear at Crassus and is immediately slaughtered by Roman guards.
Soon afterward, Spartacus leads 70 other gladiators against their Roman masters, forms an army of freed slaves, and marches against Rome.
Just as Crassus bought the Roman Senate in Spartacus, so, too, are billionaires now buying the 2016 Presidential election.
In 2016, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, ran as the pet candidate of casino billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson. Since 2007, Adelson had spent millions in support of Gingrich and his causes.
Newt Gingrich
Adelson put up seed money and, ultimately, $7.7 million between 2006 and 2010 for a nonprofit group that served as a precursor to Gingrich’s presidential campaign.
Sheldon Adelson
Such a contribution is no small amount to the average American. But Adelson is listed by Forbes as the eighth-wealthiest American, with a net worth of $21.5 billion.
Naturally, Adelson denied he had any selfish motives for shelling out so much money to a candidate for the most powerful office in the world:
“My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife Miriam and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy.”
Unfortunately, Gingrich was not the only candidate of the rich, by the rich and for the rich seeking the Presidency.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney relied heavily on a small group of millionaires and billionaires for support.
By February, 2012, a quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign came from just 41 people. Each contributor gave more than $100,000, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors had contributed $1 million or more.
Some of Romney’s biggest supporters included executives at Bain Capital, his former firm; bankers at Goldman Sachs; and a hedge fund mogul who made billions betting on the housing crash.
Like Adelson, Bain has directly profited from the losses of others.
Fast forward to 2016:
In early May, Adelson met privately with Republican Presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald Trump. Nevertheless, at least this much has leaked:
Adelson promised to contribute more to secure Trump’s election than he had contributed to any previous campaign. This could exceed $100 million.
Meanwhile, Trump is bragging that he’s “not beholden” to any “special interests” because “I’m really rich.” This myth has been a main reason for his popularity as a candidate.
Donald Trump
All of this can be directly traced to the 2010 “Citizens United” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ended limits in corporate contributions to political campaigns. The decision is so named for the group that successfully sued over federal campaign finance laws.
The 5-4 decision led to the rise of Super PACs–outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidate. The overwhelming majority of this money goes for negative ads–that slander opponents without saying anything about what a candidate proposes to do.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brushed aside criticism of the corrupting role money played in politics: Change the channel or turn off the TV.
“I don’t care who is doing the speech–the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”
On the contrary: A fundamental principle of propaganda holds that most people are stupid–or can be made to behave stupidly. If they are ceaselessly bombarded with mind-numbing lies, they will eventually substitute these for reality.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler laid out his formula for successful propaganda: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials.
“These must be expressed as far as possible in stereotypical formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
During the early 1960s a series of movies about the Roman Empire–like Spartacus and Cleopatra–hit the big screen. In these, rich criminals like Marcus Crassus openly bought the favors of ambitious politicians like Julius Caesar.
No doubt millions of moviegoers thought, “Boy, I’m glad that couldn’t happen here.” But it has happened here–and it’s happening right now.
ABC NEWS, ANITA STAVER, BATHROOMS, BOYCOTTS, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, CHRISTIAN RIGHT, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, LIBERTY COUNCIL, NBC NEWS, PACE UNIVERSITY'S LUBIN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, PROTESTS, RESTROOMS, RIGHT-WINGERS, TARGET DEPARTMENT STORES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TRANSGENDERS, TWITTER, VIOLENCE, YOUGOV BRANDINDEX
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on May 18, 2016 at 12:20 am
“Attention, Target customers. Do not be deceived. Target would have you believe that they love mothers and children. This is a deception.
“This is not love, and they’ve [Target] proven it by opening their bathrooms to perverted men.
“I am a mother of 12, and I am very disgusted by this wicked practice. Target does not protect mothers and children.”
So screamed a fundamentalist Christian woman as she waved a Bible and strolled through an unnamed Target department store.
Her rants were captured on a video posted to YouTube on May 12.
Click here: Mother Marches Through Target With Her Family To Protest Transgender Bathroom Policy! – YouTube
They were triggered by the chain’s announced policy on April 19 that its customers can use any bathroom or fitting room that matches their gender identity.
“We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” read the official Target statement.
“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”
Target corporate headquarters
The announcement won Target much praise on social media. On Target’s Facebook page, the following posts appeared:
“I want to tell you that I will forever be a Target shopper.”
“You have, again, shown that your stores are inclusive and meant to be a safe haven, and I intend to repay your loyalty with my own.”
But others were enraged, and made no effort to hide it.
“Shame on Target,” read one post. “Restrooms have placards depicting gender on them for a reason. I will not step foot in another Target.”
Since its April 19 announcement, more than 1.2 million people have signed a pledge to boycott the store owing to its transgender policy.
The protesters’ goal: Force Target to reverse its policy–or, failing that, to hit the retailer in its pocketbook by persuading customers to shop elsewhere.
But Target CEO Brian Cornell has refused to budge: “We took a stance and we are going to continue to embrace our belief of diversity and inclusion,” he said on CNBC.
Critics have been holding protests at Target stores across the country. And they show no signs of ending.
Many are demanding access to bathrooms of the opposite sex to prove that “perverts” can now prey on women and children as a result of the policy.
One male protester entered a Target store and asked an employee if he could use the women’s bathroom because that’s where he felt comfortable. The employee gave him permission and said that if any women complained, “they can come and we will speak to that.”
Continuing with the video:
The porcine, pony-tailed woman, wearing a purple blouse, and accompanied by about a half-dozen children and adults, continued to yell as she strode through a Target store.
Her movements and shouts were filmed–clearly by a member of the group.
“Mothers, get your children out of this store. Mothers, have enough decency to get out of this store. It’s a dangerous place.”
“This is not loving. What Target has done is very hateful. It’s hateful towards families. It’s hateful towards mothers. It’s hateful towards children.
“America, when are you going to wake up? When are you going to stand up for the right things, America?”
Sales may drop for at least a short period, speculated YouGov BrandIndex, a firm that measures consumer perceptions of major brands on a daily basis.
Before the boycott, 42% of consumers said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they had to visit a department store. In the last two weeks, that share has fallen to 36%.
But the boycott may prove short-lived.
Eighty million Americans shop at Target’s stores every month. So a loss of 1.2 million shoppers would amount to 1.5% of Target’s customers.
And being able to buy affordable goods will eventually overcome the boycott, said Larry Chiagouris, a professor of marketing at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York:
“The boycott is not going to last very long. There is a big difference between signing a petition compared to not taking advantage of a big sale at Target. People will always take advantage of the sale.”
And when insults, threats and boycotts fail to gain the results they desire, Right-wingers can always be counted on to resort to violence.
Anita Staver, president of the Orlando-based Liberty Council, a theocratic law group, says she will be taking her gun inside the restrooms at Target stores from now on.
On April 22, she posted on Twitter: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget @Target“
Meanwhile, the Bible-waving Christian fundamentalist angrily strode out the Target store, still shouting:
“Are you going to let the Devil rape your children, America? It’s time to stand up and have a voice instead of bowing to the homosexual perverted agenda that’s taking over this nation!
“You need to run and flee this place. I wouldn’t spend a penny of my money here.
“This is wicked. This is confusion. This is twisted. This is abominable in the sight of God.”
With Donald Trump, the presumed Republican nominee for President, making hatred and violence socially acceptable for the Right, a peaceful resolution of this controversy is by no means assured.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PAUL RYAN, RACIAL PROFILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
TAKING BACK OUR BORDERS: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 27, 2016 at 12:19 amIf Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
And it doesn’t involve building a wall along the Mexican border–which would prove ridiculously expensive and easily circumvented.
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities which have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way that President Andres Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify”–or ignore–any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should stop apologizing for the right to control the country’s national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this: