Why should Trump sell off his businesses?

In the early days of our country, those who were our leaders had businesses. They weren’t corporations, but they certainly were rather large for the times. George Washington had many businesses, one of which was making whiskey, and Washington made decisions that benefitted his whiskey business by making it hard, almost illegal, for the average person to make whiskey themselves without the government coming after you. This lead to the infamous Whiskey Rebellion. Google it if you're not familiar with it. Does anyone hold this against Washington today? Not one bit. It’s just a footnote in history.

Jefferson had a large plantation and many slaves. It could be said that Jefferson could have favored policy that benefitted his plantation and his slave holdings. Did anyone ask Jefferson to divulge of all of his holdings when he became president? Of course not. That was not how things were understood in early America. In early America, our leaders were meant to be citizens, not career politicians.

Why should Trump sell all of his businesses? If Trump passed legislation that required people to use Trump’s services, or if he used his position to purchase land that would not otherwise be available to him, or if he funneled money through his business (like Hillary has been doing with her foundation), then there would be a conflict of interest. However, if Trump took a pro-business stance that helped all businesses, his included, then what is wrong with that? America elected a businessman.

There are many who think this will place Trump in a constitutional conflict as the constitution has a provision about accepting foreign money. The theory on this is that if Trump accepts any money through his hotels from foreign governments, who I suppose may rent rooms from Trump, that this would throw him into a position rife for impeachment.

The section in question is found in section 9, Article I of the Constitution.

 "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."  

I have read up on this and there’s a good piece in the New York Times about this. You can read about it by clicking HERE. In short, George Washington accepted two gifts from France without consulting Congress and nothing happened to him. It seems the law is on Trump’s side, even if some of our citizens aren’t.

What is truly lacking in this country is a good understanding of the founding of America. A good history of the early years, an understanding of why things were designed the way they were, and just civics in general is sorely lacking in America. When I was younger, I remember arguing with my father about the way things should have been instead of why they were the way they were, and Dad told me that I would have made a good shit-house lawyer, meaning, someone who could argue a point quite well, even if the facts of the matter weren’t on my side. That’s what we see a lot of these days due to our woeful lack of civic understanding.

In short, should Trump not divest all of his business interests, while it may seem inappropriate to those who don’t understand historical precedent, it is not illegal.

 

 

On why Hispanics voted for Trump

A fact of life – those who have an investment in something, take better care of that which they have invested in than those who don’t have an investment.

Case in point; In general, parents who purchase automobiles and other things for their children, find that their kids beat the crap out of those vehicles or other items because the children didn’t have to work or sweat for that car or item.

Generally, children whose parents make them get a job and buy their own car, see their children take care of that car or item because the child knows what it takes to purchase it.

As a parent, I have seen this myself in my own kids. Again, this is pretty much the rule, although I assume there are a few exceptions.

The same holds true for our immigration policy. Those who come here illegally, don’t feel the investment into our country the way someone who has gone through all of the hoops does. How can they? How can they appreciate what it takes and means to become a citizen of the United States? They break our laws right off of the bat. They take away our ability to discern who we let in. I cannot think of any other country that allows unrestricted immigration. In fact, as a disabled man, I could not become a citizen of Canada unless I was very rich. That is a fact! Canada will not take anyone they deem to be a burden on their social services. Look it up if you think I’m kidding.

CNN ran a story tonight wondering why so many Hispanics voted for Trump. The answer they got over and over was that they themselves came here legally, and that they have little sympathy for those who came here illegally. CNN just doesn’t get it. Those who came here legally understand the investment in their citizenship and they scoff at those not willing to make the same investment. It’s like paying for something and watching someone else steal it.

This argument has been terribly twisted by the left. This argument isn’t about immigration as much as it’s about legal immigration. Trump has never said that he would stop legal immigration. Regarding the Syrian situation, Trump has never said that he would never take another Syrian again, but would instead stop it until a system is in place to ensure that only those who will come here and accept our laws and way of life, get in. What’s so wrong about that?

Yes, my family is a family of immigrants, but I can tell you for a fact, as I’ve done the genealogy, my family came here legally, and I would expect all other immigrants to come here legally too.

I should add, the same thing can be said about our veterans. Our veterans have paid the price for the American Flag and this is why you won’t see them out there torching or stomping on the flag. Our veterans have an investment in that flag and they take much better care of it than those who haven’t.

Guaranteed – nearly every person who see burning or stomping on the American Flag have never paid the price for it. That’s why they don’t take care of it.

 

 

 

The Clinton Playbook – “Change the story, polish, minimize, and spin”

Hillary Clinton is sick. Let’s not beat around the bush about it. There have been rumors of her illness for some time, especially since she hit her head and had a concussion in 2012. What happened to her on 9/11/2016 was not a case of simple dehydration or pneumonia as her and her campaign have stated.

Watch the video of her. She is fine, hugging, kissing, and schmoozing people. Then there are photos of her with her doctor or nurse, squeezing fingers and the next thing we see is Clinton standing at the street, waiting for her ride, which is against all Secret Service protocol as it leaves Clinton as a ‘sitting duck’ on the side of the street. All the while, nobody is panicking. This is obviously something that Hillary’s entourage is accustomed to. Even Bill Clinton let it slip to Charlie Rose that this has happened many times. He then back-tracked and CBS edited the interview to take that part out. It is apparent that whatever is wrong with Hillary Clinton is not what we are being told.

Surprise Surprise! This is the Clintons that we’re talking about!

Hillary appeared a couple of hours later, coming out of Chelsea’s apartment, and looked so much better. Pneumonia, really? Pneumonia isn’t something that leaves you fine one moment, on death’s door the next, and then an hour or two later you’re fine.

No, pneumonia is a killer. Those afflicted with cancer and AIDS often die from pneumonia. The elderly take pneumonia shots because pneumonia kills so often.

Pneumonia caused by bacteria or virus is contagious. Here Clinton was out hugging and kissing folks. Was she told that her pneumonia was non-contagious or did she not care about spreading it about? The types of non-contagious pneumonia are from inhalants, fungus, and aspiration issues. Is this the type of pneumonia that she had? To be honest, I doubt she has pneumonia. She would have been in terrible shape to begin with if she had. I’m more apt to believe dehydration, but even then, it would be a stretch. It wasn’t that hot. Water is plentiful, and she wasn’t doing anything physically strenuous.

Why the lies? It’s because that’s what the Clintons do. I don’t know why that is. Some people rob banks. Others murder people. Some people just lie because that’s who they are; liars. That’s the Clintons for you.

Bill Clinton was the master at this. Hillary isn’t quite as good, but it isn’t for lack of trying. Below, I have posted a video from 1992. Here, Bill Clinton is facing criticism for his, “I didn’t inhale” comment. The two situations are slightly different, but in both cases, Bill and Hillary use the same tactics. First, they try and restructure the truth into a version that creates a new narrative. They polish this narrative up. It’s a narrative that allows them to minimize what they said. After that, they spin like a crocodile in a death roll.

First, Hillary;

Hillary comes out of Chelsea’s apartment two hours later looking refreshed and claims to the media that she feels fine. She even finds a kid to hug. This changes the narrative from, “Hillary is ill” to “Hillary is not ill”. But, at this point, it may not have been apparent to Hillary that video of the event was captured and then released to the public. At this point, the official story was, “She was dehydrated.” Her appearance on the street reflects this narrative.

Then, as it became apparent that video of the situation was leaked, it then became, “She was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.” She sure didn’t act like a woman who had pneumonia, but, this allowed Hillary to again change the narrative and make herself look like a warrior, someone who just works and works and works, even when sick with potentially fatal pneumonia! That’s the polish folks. Even Christiane Amanpour used apologetics to explain how great Hillary was when compared to other past American leaders, and then Amanpour retorted, “Can’t a girl have a sick day?” How effective. It makes Clinton look like a victim and in today’s society, we’re all supposed to feel sorry for the victims. Everyone wants to be a victim these days it seems…..

Then, later in the evening, knowing that damage control must be done, she goes on Anderson Cooper and furthers her story stating that as soon as the van doors shut and she got some water, she was perfectly fine. Really? Then why not come back out and greet people some more? Why cancel your trip to California? But, this is part of the minimization tactic on this Clinton play. She even used her husband’s famous phrase, “I didn’t think it was a big deal.” Really? Boy, a female John Wayne we have on our hands here!

Finally, she spins it. She goes into stating that Trump needs to release his health information and that he hasn’t done this or he hasn’t done that. Guess what? It wasn’t Trump who collapsed and then told lies about it! Not once has Trump shown any ill health. But, this is the spin to redirect attention. It’s almost a psychological tactic if you ask me. Don’t look in this hand, look in this other one….

Compare this to her husband’s appearance on Arsenio Hall in 1992. First, Bill tells the story differently than it actually happened. This allows him to put some personal Clinton shine on it and it makes the story capable of handling the bullshit that he’s about to make the story carry.

He then minimized it by using very similar words that Hillary just used the other night, “I didn’t think it was a big deal,” from her to his, “..it is not a big deal.” Then they both spun. First, Hillary spun it into re-directing attention to Trump and claiming that he needed to be scrutinized too. Bill spun and started talking about sending kids to college.

In short, they change the story. They polish it. Then they minimize their part in it, and then they spin. On the video, you'll have to fast forward to the 23:55 mark. Here’s the video below and below that, is the transcript from the pertinent section:

 

Here is a link to the actual time where the transcript below comes from: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=23m55s

“Here’s the deal, when a politician says something, if you’re a politician, the cynicism about politicians is so great that people thought, “Well, this guy calculated this whole answer, and he calculated it so that he thought, ‘Well, maybe he won’t burn me quite as bad if I say I didn’t inhale?’.” That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.

They asked me a question that I didn’t know they were going to ask and I gave an honest answer. And that, “I didn’t inhale.” was a nervous after-thought. I was sort of laughing about it after 22 years. I mean, that’s all that was going on and I was sort of laughing in my mind about it, but I got beat-up about it, ‘cause everybody thought that I calculated this answer.

You know, maybe I should…maybe I should be more calculating than I am? But, you know, if, you folks are never going to get good politicians, uh, really good public officials, if all you want is somebody that calculates every word they say, every deed they do; and their whole life becomes like a robot, or an automaton, you know. I did something when I was younger. I told the truth about it and I made a mess of telling about it because, I guess, I’m still kind of embarrassed about it after all these years.

But it is not a big deal, and it sure…and it was made into a federal case. I got more publicity on that … than my idea about how to send every kid in America to college, who wants to go, which I think is more important to the election and to the future of this country.”

(Applause)

(Smug smirk) (Drink of water)

My advice to Ted Cruz

It is probably too late to change your speech, but if there is time, I make the following suggestions:

1.    You do not have to endorse Donald Trump. You can tell the American public that while you have disagreements with Donald, he is a better alternative than Hillary Clinton.

2.    You should admit that you still have political aspirations. You had a great following who faithfully showed their support for you on the floor of the convention and more. Let your followers know that you still represent their wants, dreams, and hopes.

3.    Explain to the country that while you may disagree with Donald Trump and have political aspirations to be president yourself, that the threat of Hillary Clinton is so great, and your love of country so strong, that you’re willing to concede that Donald Trump would be a better choice for the next 8 years than Hillary Clinton.

4.   You should be a great unifier and ask your supporters to stand behind Trump this election to ensure a brighter future for our children, and the rest of us.

5.    You should end the speech by explaining that you will do your part to help Donald Trump run this country and that you will continue to represent all those who supported you.

If you do this, you have the potential to give one of the greatest speeches given at a convention in a very long time. In doing so, you do not concede anything, yet, you look selfless, as a patriot, putting love of country above your own aspirations. You’re also not knocking Donald Trump, you’re hitting Hillary Clinton, and you’ll be viewed as a great statesman and unifier.

Solution for those who find it hard to support Trump

Can we all agree that Hillary Clinton will be a worse choice than Donald Trump? If you don’t believe that, please consider the situation with the Supreme Court. Can you honestly allow the court to go full progressive liberal? We are only one justice away from losing the court. America will be changed in irreversible ways. We no longer seem to have the nerve to change the constitution when the Supreme Court goes rogue. We sit back and idly allow the Supreme Court to create case law contrary to what many of us believe the laws say. It is imperative that we work together to prevent our losing the court.

I empathize with those who are having a difficult time voting for Trump. He seems to represent the attitude and demeanor that we have long attributed to crazy liberals. What is someone that finds it hard to vote for Trump to do in order to help keep Hillary Clinton out of office?

Pull Republican. That’s right, vote straight party ticket. By doing so, you are voting for the party, not the person. Yes, a straight party ticket is a vote for Trump too, but not explicitly. Pulling the straight party lever allows the voter to claim that they didn’t vote for Trump, but rather the party.

It’s important to do this as there is a lot of worry that down-ballot republicans may be hurt by Trump. If Hillary wins and we manage to keep the Senate and House, we cannot hold off nomination to the court for another 4 years. The liberals win by having a court circumvent Congress by legislating from the bench. If we lose the Senate, it only gets worse and Hillary's progressive agenda will get a better foot-hold. If we lose the House, all bets are off. We need to win the presidency, keep the Senate, and keep the House. We need to install conservative justices in order to protect ourselves from the progressive/socialist agenda. Hillary Clinton for sure will not give us that sort of justice. Donald Trump has said that he would nominate conservative justices. I would rather take my chances with Trump than surely lose with Hillary. Too much is at stake this election. Our country is on the line. Voting straight party helps ensure that we win and keep control of the bodies which will allow us to save the Supreme Court.

So, in short, if you cannot bring yourself to vote explicitly for Trump, vote straight party this election.

 

Keep the House

Keep the Senate

Save the Court

Save America

The system has failed.

This piece is about the recent police shootings in Dallas. This piece will infuriate those who are used to reacting emotionally to things like this instead of using their brain and thinking. I ask that you read this entire piece, then think about what you’ve read. I do not condone what happened in Dallas. You have been warned.

I am a huge proponent of the second amendment. When you ask most ardent gun owners about the purpose of the second amendment, almost every one of them will tell you that our forefathers wanted guns in the hands of the people as a hedge against a tyrannical government. When we look at what happened in Dallas, isn’t that what the shooters are saying was their motivation? To them, the government has gone tyrannical and they are using their guns to fight back.

Black people see a system that has failed them. When police are brought up on charges, many times they are exonerated. In the case of Freddie Gray, the police officers have chosen a bench trial over trial by jury. You know why that is, don’t you? They don’t want their fate to be in the hands of everyday people. They want their fate to be in the hands of someone that they see as being sympathetic to them, the judge. Judges work with these policemen daily and there is a certain chumminess that exists between the two. Police are supposed to represent the administrative branch of our government while the courts represent the judicial branch, but it’s hard to tell that they are two separate branches by the way they work so harmoniously. When black people see police repeatedly “get away” with murder, they no longer have faith in the government.

A white governor in Minnesota has even said that the man shot dead recently in Minnesota probably died because he was black. He said that if that couple had been white, the outcome would have been much different. The black community hears this, but instead of justice, they see a policeman who was comforted by his fellow officers while the victim’s welfare seemed an after-thought. These policemen generally get put on paid administrative leave, only to be returned to work after they get what appears to the black community to be a pass.

We are told that the reason we give such latitude to police officers is because if we held them to the same standards that we hold normal citizens, our police force would not be as effective. We are told that we cannot have police officers constantly second guessing themselves. Tell that to those who have been murdered by police. Who is there to advocate for these victims? We see big fancy funerals for slain officers. Not so much for the citizens who lose their lives to the hands of police officers, no matter how innocent they may have been.

It’s not just black people being killed by errant police. Police routinely raid homes and kill innocent people inside. Police use no knock warrants, sometimes on the wrong homes, and the inhabitants of these homes, not knowing that it’s the police, try defending themselves. They get murdered by the police and the families have to fight in court for any monetary award for their loss, and many times, the police refuse to admit any wrong-doing, so they continue to kill people in this manner. Google the name Jose Guerena as just one example of this happening. In his case, the police officers claimed they were being shot at when the evidence clearly pointed to the contrary. The outcome is maddening because the family had to fight for any monetary award, but in the end, no amount of money can replace this family’s husband and father.

I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the recent situation with Hillary Clinton. She did things that would put most people in jail. The FBI director admitted as much, but he also said that no prosecutor would pursue the charges against her. What he doesn’t tell you is why that is. There is a double standard in this country and he knows it. Most Americans know it, and the black community knows it.

This brings me to the tragedy that happened in Dallas. The shooter who was blown up told negotiators that he was mad at Black Lives Matter, he was mad at police, and he was mad at white people. He obviously felt that he had no recourse through a failed justice system which historically has let those in power off while trivializing the losses that the American people have suffered at the hands of police.

This isn’t to say that the police who died deserved to die. They didn’t. However, they are the face of the broken system to many who feel like they are being hunted by a police force that is rarely, if ever, held accountable. Those who have been harmed have seen the system fail to bring justice to those in power on so many occasions, so they have turned to their guns and have taken justice into their own hands.

If we want to defuse the situation, we need to admit that the system has failed. We need to start holding all those in public trust accountable for mistakes. Police are human beings. They freely choose their profession, knowing full well the dangers that come with it. They need to be held to a higher standard than the people they protect. The average citizen rarely has the training that a police officer has, or at least, should have. When the untrained citizen is held to a higher standard than the well trained police officer, we have a problem. Police should think about their actions. We see what happens when they aren’t held accountable. Public trust breaks down and we have incidents like we find ourselves in now. It’s not just the police, but every level of public service.

In summary, the system has failed and people are starting to take matters into their own hands. People are angry, and rightfully so. Killing police officers is unacceptable, but so is killing innocent people because of police mistakes. Until public confidence is restored in the justice system, we will continue to see this lashing out against those in power.

God bless those who have lost their lives on both sides of the aisle.

Most God-Awful Show that I’ve Ever Watched

I was sitting here today watching television while I worked. It was Antenna TV, channel 9.3, out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Today, they say they are playing Norman Lear’s favorite episodes. Norman Lear is the fellow who brought us The Jeffersons, Good Times, All in the Family, and Maude, to name a few. Today, the show was Maude and the God-awful episode was called, “Maude’s Dilemma”. It’s a two-part episode, made in 1972, a year before Roe vs. Wade, and the topic was abortion.

In this episode, the title character, Maude (played by ultra-liberal Bea Arthur), finds out that she is pregnant at the age of 47. Her adult daughter finds out and starts spouting out all the reasons to have an abortion. She reminds her mother that she is “too old”, and that having a kid at that age would be an “inconvenience”. She tells her mother that abortion is accepted now, nothing to be ashamed of, and is as simple as going to the dentist. She harps and harps on her mother about having this abortion and at one point, Maude tells her daughter to get off of her back.

Now, the father of the child is Maude’s husband (second husband, not the father of the adult daughter), and he is almost 50 years old himself with no children. He tells Maude that he doesn’t care if she has the child or not, he only wants what she wants, and to ensure that Maude doesn’t get pregnant again, he rushes out and schedules a vasectomy after a round of golf.

I was so appalled at the show, the way they treat having children as such an inconvenience, and with such flippancy towards taking the life of an unborn child, that I couldn’t finish the show. I was hoping that maybe Maude would decide to have the child, but knowing a little bit about the show, I didn’t recall Maude having a young child. I looked it up on Google to find out the resolution and apparently, Maude decides to have the abortion. I couldn’t finish the episode. I had to turn it off.

The episode reeked, and I mean to high Heaven, of Nazi-style propaganda. I couldn’t see much difference between this episode’s treatment of the unborn vs. Hitler’s films about the dirty Jews. They both share a callous indifference towards life and both are masterfully created fictions that tell the audience that it’s okay to kill. They do their best to convince you, their audience, that there are reasons that these people shouldn’t live. It’s horrible.

Now, there are those out there who think there is a difference between killing Jews and killing the unborn, but I don’t. In both cases, you kill somebody. The only difference is that on one hand, you’re killing someone whose scream you can hear, on the other, they are silent.

Abortion is a horrible thing. Never should we allow the killing of the unborn because of inconvenience. Life is inconvenient. Allowing this reduces the value we as a society place on life and that is the whole point of the abortion movement, the assisted-suicide movement, and others who treat life the same way they would a wart.

Abortion is a medical procedure that should only be used in the most dire of cases. In any case, it should never be treated as a simple procedure, like going to the dentist. It should also never be done in a case where the child can be saved. Partial birth abortions should be outlawed. Anyone who supports them should be forced to watch an hour worth of video of “doctors” performing the procedure before they can advocate for the procedure. It’s gruesome. It’s not much different than Mengele’s “body-shop” in the concentration camps.

Abortion should only be allowed in the very early stages, preferably before there is a heart-beat. While I don’t believe in abortion at all, I believe this is a fair compromise. I, in opposition to my church, support contraception, but in no case, forced contraception (like the Chinese), in order to prevent pregnancies. This includes the “day-after” pill, if needed. While I would not wish my wife or daughter to use these things, I admit that I might change my mind should my wife or daughter be raped. Therefore, it should be an option.

In the end, this episode of Maude was disgusting. It’s appalling. It’s almost inhuman in how it treats human life. At one point, the daughter starts into an argument for population control (packing people in like sardines). Most people who support abortion love to use population control and “unwanted babies” as an argument for euthanasia. If these people feel the world is so overpopulated, we should designate a cliff for them to do their part by jumping off of it head-first. It’s always okay for them to prescribe death for someone else, just not them.