Thursday, April 6, 2017

Proof: Trump is a Terrible Businessman

The demotion of Bannon from the National Security Council and Reince Priebus becoming invisible to Trump highlights why Trump is not a good businessman. Yes, he has had success, but he is nowhere near as successful as many of his "peers," most of which seem to dislike him intensely. Michael Bloomberg opposed Trump's presidency and specifically criticized his business acumen, and as Bloomberg's success dwarfs little Donald's, you know who I trust.

Let me clarify something. Neither Bannon or Priebus were right for the jobs they hold. Both were hired more for loyalty to Trump and what they could do for him, not the country, and have proven to be major mistakes forcing Trump to withdraw into his mental bunker.

Now Trump is further showing his poor management style by moving his daughter and her husband into the driving seats of his administration. These actions reflect his narcissistic personality, with an unhealthy dose of paranoia, which makes him choose those he feel closest to him as the only people he can trust. No matter that he has no experience running the nation. It is a "blind leading the blind" situation.

It has always been like this. Nepotism is Trump's reaction for loyalty. He has always put his sons and daughter in control of his company. Although Kayleigh "Trump Is Always Right" McEnany claimed on CNN last week that Ivanka Trump is qualified for a position advising the president because she has proven herself as vice-president of the Trump brand. When your daddy hires you, that means nothing, and her success on her own has been falling apart, mainly because she does not have the business savvy to separate her from her father.


Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Is Cruz eligible to be president?

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, and I will tell you why. In the Constitution it says that the president must be "natural born." Like a few other parts of the document (like amendment 2), it is unclear, which leads to many arguments about what it means. To figure it out, we need to think like it is 1787 again.

When they wrote the clause, the intent was to be sure that the president would be free of being influenced or having loyalty to a foreign power. A lawyer, St. George Tucker, wrote about the reasoning, saying that the clause was "a happy means of security against foreign influence" and that the "admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."

In the late 18th century there was no such thing as dual-citizenship. It did not exist until a century later, in the late 19th century. So the founding fathers did not think about it when writing the Constitution. Going by the spirit of the founders, I think that anyone who is a citizen of another country, even while retaining US citizenship, is not eligible. How does letting a person be president be a citizen of another country in this case guard against a loyalty to another country?

I know that Representative Alan Grayson (R-Florida) has a lawsuit ready to file the day Cruz wins the nomination (if he does) and it will go to the courts. I would be interesting, especially hearing Republicans defend Cruz after years of saying Obama was not a citizen.

Monday, January 4, 2016

The Militia Morons

So, a dozen militia wackos have taken over a small building in the middle of a national forest. Anyone care? Not the police who are not having the standoff they wanted. Not the president, who has better things to worry about. Not the public, who have nicknamed the group Y'all-qaeda and VanillaISIS.

I think we need to worry, because this is a step up for the militia movement. There are over two hundred in the US (that we know of), and they have some very radical ideas. These yahoos on Oregon think they are going to die in another Waco and encourage other "patriots" to take up arms against the government. That they have done this badly planned effort means more dangerous acts may be coming.

This is a direct response to the win they had when the feds backed down on Cliven Bundy, a rancher that owes tons of cash to the feds (i.e. you and me). In order to avoid a fight, they backed off, and the militia had their first real win, which leads to the non-standoff in the woods.

These guys are seriously ready to die for their cause of completely misunderstanding the Constitution. One of them, Arizona nutball Jon Ritzheimer, a man who has tried to start a war with Muslims twice, let this teary message on the web:

 Sad. No, they are pathetic. He is not the only one to talk about his upcoming transition to martyr.

I like that the police and FBI are staying away. They have threatened to shoot at the cops if they come near. The best plan is the one they have: leave them alone. They are not holding hostages, just a building. If the cops act on them it will only embolden these people. Instead they will let them wait until they give up out of either boredom or hunger (apparently they have made an Internet plea for snacks to be sent to a local post office. Not as prepared to occupy the building for "years" as they have claimed). The FBI knows who they are, and when they vacate they will issue warrants and take them in. They do have serious charges coming, not the least sedition.

Friday, December 4, 2015

War on Inclusiveness 2015

"Federal" does not mean "religious."
It's December, and that means the annual tradition of evangelical Christian's whining about "the war on Christmas." Yeah, that is why I as a atheist, and every non-believer I know, hate Christmas so much we will be spending December decorating the trees and giving presents. This is because the the real reason for the season is love, and love is not a Christian trademark. Jesus talked about loving each other, and if you like what he said, maybe Christians should try celebrating that, instead of sending coal to homosexuals because they are going to hell or whatever the new Christmas activity is for the kids to do this year. Really, its a war on inclusiveness.

Anyway, the American Family Association, dedicated to shoving their religion down everyone's throat because it is the Christian thing to do (not!) each year makes a list of "naughty and "nice" stores to shop. No, this is not about safe places for your kids, it is all about whether they are Christmassy enough. Their criteria is "... [the] AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was 'Christmas-friendly' in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company's ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach 'Christmas' shoppers. If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word 'Christmas,' then the company is considered as censoring 'Christmas.'"

Yep. Even if you have hanukkah decorations, or other holiday material, and Christians are only part of your choppers, if you say "holiday" instead of "Christmas" you are nothing but an anti-Christian heathen who wants to destroy Christmas. This is America folks. Give me merry Christmas or give me death!

The list of naughty companies follows. Please, if you need a gift they have get it from them. Also, the AFA wants their people to call an complain that they do not like the companies. They will only hear from them. Please contact them on Facebook or however and say you appreciate their inclusiveness. Because that is what Christmas is really about, no matter what your religious beliefs are.

Conservative lies and the liberal conspiracy to appease the terrorists.

The radical righties are having a field day since this shooting. A friend of mine shared the message on Facebook that claimed the liberal media refuses to call Tuesday's San Bernadino attack "terrorism." Yes they did not, but not because of the "librul conspiracy," but because they were following journalistic procedures (which, unlike Fox News just hearing a foreign sounding name was involved to link it to ISIS). This ties into the conspiracy theories that President Obama is appeasing Islamic terrorism, and allowing them to attack here because he “hate's America.” 

I explained to him that the reason the media is up in the air if it was terrorism or not is because the FBI was not yet sure (as of the writing of this they are, a full three days after the shootings). No conspiracy, just the media actually having some integrity to respect the experts opinion. He challenged my by saying he has not seen "in the media" (my guess Fox News, because I sure as hell got that from CNN) that the FBI said  is not yet convinced in the media, so I forwarded an article that proves it. Instead of saying he made a mistake, he attacked me about gun control, and then something else, because librals always wrong, conservative always right. Typical. He cannot discuss something rationally, instead it goes to attacking me for something else.

The attacks on Obama continue. Sarah Palin, who is no brain trust, was on the 700 Club spreading the propganda. She criticized the President for trying to be friends with ISIS and thinking that would solve everything. Which is made up bull. 

She then implicated all Muslims as radicals, implying their religion is the problem. Yes, the whole of Islam is all complicit, and it is not must her that thinks so.

Of course, when a Christian does an atrocity it is an instant double face: the person does not represent Christians, even though using her thought process the person should. Hypocrites. By the way, Christians have proven themselves to be no better that the terrorist the hate. They have their own level of evil, like comes out of the mouth of Fox Fan Favorite Ted Nugent.

His fascistic call to cleanse America old libruls frankly kind of scares me. They should watch their mouths, because even if they do not believe their rants can inspire violence, nutballs will pick it up and move on it. I do not want to own a gun, but frankly a time will come when we will have to defend ourselves from crazies inspired by this nonsense.

Also, many Conservatives in the media claim Muslims do not talk out against killing in their religion's name, again implying they approve and continuing to demonize innocent people. After the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris a meme went around claiming no Islamic organization spoke out against the attacks, an easily lie to disprove, yet their flock bought it hook, line, and sinker. Of course, no consevative media reported this, so maybe there is a media conspiracy, just not librul.

Back to Palin, She also said the President has no strategy, which if you look back at this post of mine you already know there is a strong strategy. To prove Obama is more interested in appeasement the righties point out Obama is not killing civilians (Donald “Kill Them Babies” Trump actually saidthe other days we need to target wives and children).

The fact is, in Syria we have put together a mainly Muslim fighting force made of citizens of Syria and other countries to fight back and it is working (with thousands of ISIS members fleeing the country, which is a success). Indiscriminately killing civvies or claiming this is a war against their religion would undo much of the diplomatic work that was needed to put this coalition together. It is already hard enough with Turkey and Russia's hatred, or getting the Turkish government to work with the Kurds, a minority they basically hate. That is the line we are toeing, which the conservatives attack, basically undermining a good strategy. Of course, this would not be the first time conservatives tried to undermine important diplomatic processes to score political points with their low-information base.

Not many people really care what Palin has to say these days, even conservatives, but she is merely parroting the party line, so she is a symptom of a much larger disease.

A note to you haters: liberals do not appease these attacks. We abhor them, and we also abhor terrorist attacks from the right wing wackos. Stop making out we somehow do. Stuff your propaganda up your butts, please. BTW: alienating liberals did not work well to get McCain or Romney into office, yet you are doing it again with even more vigor. The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Like trickle down theory and tax cuts for the rich.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Guns are not the answer to everything.

If any conservatives chant "moar guns, moar guns" in the face of this latest terrorist attacks (and usually while saying that liberals are politicizing this by calling for gun control while they politicize this by calling for "moar guns"), here are a few points:
1. After the Paris attacks the FBI reported that over 2000 firearms had been sold to citizens on the terrorist watch list since 9/11 because they are restricted from stopping them because of the NRA and their supporters.
4. One of the guns on used to murder 14 people yesterday was verified to have been bought legally by a guy who was on the radar of the FBI for possible terrorist activities. In fact, all four weapons were legally obtained.
IMO, and in the opinion of anyone with half a brain, this might have been prevented if gun advocates were not so obstinate.
This blood is on the hands of these radical Muslims, but Republicans, the NRA, and the ammosexuals who oppose common sense gun laws are enablers.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Terrorists attack in Minneapolis Monday. Did you even know it? UPDATED

The news is weird. It is obsessed with refugee terrorists (a threat that barely exists) but a terror attack by Americans just does not rate.

Monday, 23 November, three white guys show up and open fire on a Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis while calling them the n-word. Five were injured, luckily no one was killed, though one needed emergency surgery. Two are in custody right now. They are believed to be white supremacists.

This is a terror attack, designed to scare blacks by threatening their lives, is the definition of terror, one that the FBI concurs with, though many conservatives seem to think domestic terrorism does not exist. The FBI has said in the past domestic terrorists are far more of a danger to us than foreign terrorist.

So why the media blackout. Where is CNN and the breaking news?

UPDATE: CNN covered it last night after I wrote this post, however is was basically a side note to the protests in Chicago which had their intention, as the potential for violence is a better ratings winner.