So little Baby Donald is upset with "the establishment" GOP. You know, the folks who he has been insulting like a four year-old since he got into this race. And now little Baby Donald has decided that the pledge that he signed last year to support the eventual nominee of the Republican party is now null and void.
Because the people he's belittled and insulted for 6-9 months are upset with him. Of course, no one in the GOP party hierarchy has pulled back their support for the eventual nominee, but little Baby Donald has never let acts get in the way of his rhetoric and bluster.
Not surprising, the two remaining candidates in the GOP race have backed off somewhat from their earlier pledges as well. Frankly, there is one thing I can agree about with Ted Cruz; if you go after my wife or family, you're dead to me. D-E-D dead. A super PAC supporting Cruz should not have brought Trump's wife into the fray, but since candidates cannot have any contact with independent super PACs, it is clear that Ted Cruz likely knew nothing about the ad until after it aired. That Trump would threaten to exposed alleged dirt on Cruz's wife in response is indicative of the unhinged nature of Baby Donald.
The GOP front-runner is a kindergarten kid with millions of dollars, but hardly two working brain cells attached to each other.
Or maybe he's got some undisclosed brain tumor causing his mental unbalance.
Either way, with his ability to simply throw out agreements he's signed (like the pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee), Baby Donald shows he can't be trusted to do literally anything he says he going to do. Appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court? Wanna bet? Build a wall and deport 12 million illegal aliens? Don't count on it. In fact, no matter what he's told you thus far in this campaign, it's clear that he will stand by NOTHING he's said.
Is he lying when he speaks? Who knows. But at the very least, his word can't be trusted, and that's something this country doesn't need in the Oval Office after the 8 years of this current Disaster-in-Chief.
If these stories don't scare the crap out of you, nothing will.
Feds to fine schools for not following Michelle Obama's lunch rules. So, the First Nanny gets her husband to put rules in place to force schools to feed kids things they do not want to eat. Kids and school systems rebel at the idea, mainly because what the First Nanny thinks is healthy is also pretty damned unappetizing, not to mention much more expensive to serve, and now the First Hubby is using the power of government to start pursuing fines against school systems who won't follow the expensive and restrictive guidelines.
Schools are already hard-pressed to meet budgets for educational purposes. Adding extra rules that force schools to serve more expensive food that is just going to be wasted is simply ludicrous. Following up with additional fines borders on the criminally insane.
We can't kick those two out of the White House soon enough.
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal vetoes a so-called "religious liberty" bill. Christians apoplectic and persecuted.
Let's net this out, shall we?
Your right to practice your religion as you see fit stops when that religious belief discriminates against another human being.
And it is beyond despicable that so-called "conservative" elected officials would try to codify their religious beliefs by using the power of government to enforce them. Here's what one of the idiots who sponsored this bill had to say:
"The question we have to resolve is whether or not government is going to be used to punish people with a particular point of view,” Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, one of the champions of religious liberty bills in the General Assembly, said.
So, in Josh McKoon's alleged "mind", it's OK to punish gay people for being gay, but it's not OK to punish Christians for discriminating against gays. Got it.
Perhaps Sen. McKoon is familiar with another quote: "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
Sadly, this fool will likely get re-elected every year due to his constituents being just as dumb as he is.
How better to describe their zeal in which to pass state-based Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which are designed to guarantee religious freedom for a few select ministers and preachers in their state, while denying the freedom to marry to same sex couples.
Hint: You cannot provide freedom to someone by taking away the rights of others.
News flash! The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that same sex marriage is legal in the United States, therefore, passing RFRA laws at the state level is not only futile, but sticks a thumb in the eye of our judicial branch of government. I've never been too impressed with the level of intelligence of many of our elected officials, but the stupidity of those in Georgia who voted to pass this law ratifies my belief that we're electing some really dense people to state office.
Not only that, but they'd rather protect their local pastor's sensitivities instead of caring about the economic health of the state of Georgia. Over the past few years, Georgia has become the third-largest state in the nation in the entertainment industry. We're home to multiple brand spankin' new studios in Atlanta and surrounding areas. The entertainment industry is booming in Georgia! That means we're home to some of the most socially-liberal minded people in this world who have been coming here and spending their money in a down economy in a state which has a poor track record in attracting other businesses.
Guess who's going to leave if our governor signs the RFRA bill?
Disney - one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. Marvel - arguably the fastest growing TV and movie companies in the 21st century with multiple successful franchises, and more in the works.
And they'll leave, all because some elected officials are still stuck in the 18th century.
But let's not stop there. With a new NFL stadium in the works for the Atlanta Falcons, look for Atlanta to try to get another crack at a Super Bowl in the near future.
NFL to Georgia: Don't hold your breath.
Hopefully, our governor will exhibit some of the intelligence our friends in the Christian Coalition have been unable to show, and will veto this bill, sending it to the trash heap where it belongs. Because putting the word "freedom" in a bill's name doesn't mean a damned thing if the bill takes away someone's recently granted freedom.
I generally hate broad, sweeping statements, but this one happens to be true.
Especially when it comes to helping our kids to think.
Nothing points out that glaring weakness in our educational system as looking at our current political climate, beginning maybe 30 years or so ago, and moving up to today's embarrassment of political theater.
I've recently been having "discussions" regarding the eligibility of two current GOP hopefuls, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, to qualify for the office of President of the United States. Certain Trump supporters (notable for their inability to think or use facts), claim that neither are "natural born citizens" of this country, and crying "Respect the Constitution!" as their only defense. In the case of Rubio, they claim that since neither of Rubio's parents were citizens at the time of his birth in Florida. Minor problem; the 14th amendment to the very Constitution they claim to respect and know states very clearly that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Marco Rubio was born in Florida. On that there is no disagreement. Doesn't matter if his parents were citizens or not. You can argue about the rightness or wrongness of the so-called "anchor baby" provision of the 14th amendment, but you cannot argue about the legality of it. Marco Rubio is every bit a natural-born U.S. citizen as I am.
Now while the Ted Cruz issue is a bit murkier, a lawsuit was recently tossed out of court by a judge in Illinois that questioned Cruz's eligibility. Here's the thing - there's is NO definition or description in the Constitution of what a natural born citizen requires - one parent a citizen, both parents citizens - nothing, so the long-held view that if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and you're born to them you are also a U.S. citizen is the correct one. Even if you're born outside of the country as Ted Cruz was because his parents were working in Canada at the time.
But - "Respect the Constitution!" is the best most birthers can come up with. And that goes for people who think Obama isn't a natural born citizen as well.
But that's not the only area where our education system has failed us. Let's look at the "I-believe-it-because-someone-told-me" mentality pervasive in today's GOP primary.
Did you know Marco Rubio is a member of the "establishment" wing of the GOP?
Yeah. Neither did I until the campaign started. Maybe because he has one of the most conservative voting records in the U.S. Senate, that must be the reason for that designation. I mean, his record is as conservative as another GOP Senator running for President - Ted Cruz - and Cruz is an "outsider", but Rubio is "the establishment" guy.
Because nuance isn't allowed in today's political discourse. It's "us against them", and if you do ONE THING someone doesn't agree with, you're automatically "them". Rubio's mistake was actually trying to get some form of immigration reform through a divided Congress, and knowing that what passes in the Senate would certainly be changed in the more conservative House in conference committee. That's right. Rubio gets branded for actually knowing the rules, while Cruz gets lauded for doing nothing.
That's what "outsiders" get accomplished - nothing.
But because the media wants ratings, and candidates need something to attack one another with, we have to label someone "them", even though they are much more like "us", and it's our education system that has taught us to buy into what someone tells us, rather than challenging us to think, reason and investigate issues for ourselves.
Civics knowledge has taken a beating in the last 30 years or more as well. How many people heard over the weekend that Donald Trump's Constitutional right to free speech was infringed upon, because protesters had the temerity to break up his rallies over the past few days? Yes, Donald Trump has a right to speak, but the Constitution protects us from GOVERNMENT attempts to silence us. Private citizens have the right and duty to speak up against that which they deem offensive, and if you're going to be deliberately offensive, any private citizen runs the risk of being called out for it. Government is restricted in telling you what to say, and unless you're specifically inciting violence, their role is to simply step back and let you be the jerk and suffer the consequences for being so. In short, if you're going to be an ass, don't whine about others being asses in return.
Finally, to the overall subject of rights. We hear it all the time from liberals - we have a right to healthcare, we have a right to a living wage, a right to this and a right to that.
But what is a "right"? The Constitution does a pretty good job of showing us the direction, and I challenge my readers to show me where my following reasoning is wrong. The big four rights are defined pretty early on, those being the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and to keep and bear arms. What do all these "rights" have in common?
You can do them without the participation, assistance or permission of others.
It's that simple. Yet we don't even bother to teach something that basic throughout the entirety of an American citizen's education. And that's why all these liberal calls for rights to healthcare and wages fall flat.
A RIGHT IS THAT WHICH YOU CAN DO BY YOURSELF.
The most glaring failure of the U.S. government education system.
So, how's that leading candidate doing for you now, GOP-ers? Embarrassed enough yet?
You should be.
Not only does his very presence and inflammatory rhetoric spark violence at his rallies, Trump insists he's not responsible for it.
According to Donald J. Blowhard, he's just the messenger.
Maybe, with any luck, the average Trump voter is just now starting to realize they've been supporting a class-A, number-1, crude, rude jerk who brings no usable ideas or any gravitas to the electoral process. I doubt it, but with two losses over the weekend, maybe light is finally dawning on marble heads (as we like to say up in Massachusetts).
I'd love to vote for the GOP nominee in November of 2016, but I can tell you right now, if that nominee is Donald Trump, I'll be writing in "None of the Above" once again in a presidential race. To me, he'd be as much of a disaster as any Clinton or Sanders if he got into the Oval Office, because House and Senate Republicans could at least keep a Democrat president from getting their way; I'm more afraid of what those same Republicans would approve with a Trump presidency!
So go ahead Democrats and Republicans - nominate Clinton, Sanders or Trump. There's no way I'm wasting my vote on any of them. In fact, to use a crude saying we sometimes use where I come from, I wouldn't piss on any of them if their coats were on fire.
So don't expect me to cast a vote for them.
You can tell a Trump supporter, but you can't tell them anything.
No truer statement can be made regarding this year's presidential election cycle. There are two reasons for this. Yeah, they're angry - and rightfully so; angry at a political system which fosters a climate of back scratching and deal making based on corporate donors who want something in return for their investments. Angry at GOP leaders who won't stand up for their previously stated principles. Angry at a GOP leadership who fold faster than a cheap lawn chair.
They have a right to be angry.
But their really more afraid than angry, and it's that fear that is making their choices this election cycle so irrational. They're so afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency that they are willing to buy into the irrational banter of a con-artist real estate mogul who doesn't know the first thing about governing instead of three remaining choices who do. Most decisions in life made out of fear do not go well, and voting for Trump falls into that category.
Thursday night's debate exposed Donald Trump for who he really is - an out of touch megalomaniac. How else would you categorize his condoning of torture (and doubling down n it by saying he do more of it). How else would you explain away his answer on what his military would do if given an unlawful order ("I'm a leader, and people would follow my orders without question"). Hint to Donald - I guess you've never served in the military (I did), and we who took our oaths swore to defend the Constitution - NOT the President of the United States - and we have every right AND A DUTY to disobey an order from any superior if we deem it unlawful.
His refusal to release the tape of his "off the record" New York Times interview is laughable. Off the record is intended to protect the person being interviewed - not the New York Times. Trump has but to say the word, and that interview could be released, but he's hiding behind the "off the record" nature of the interview because he knows that his publicly stated campaign slogans of building a wall and deporting 12 million illegals are just that - campaign slogans. He's playing you immigration Nazis for suckers, and would throw you under the bus if he ever did get elected.
His refusal to release already audited tax returns from years past shows he hiding something.
When shown that his numbers didn't add up as far as saving money to reduce the budget deficit, he couldn't address a single, solitary item. NOT ONE.
He boasts that a CNN poll shows him winning 49% of Republican voters, but dismisses the same poll that shows him losing badly to Hillary Clinton. How can one poll be so accurate, yet be so inaccurate, Donald?
Fear is driving stupidity in 2016. Everybody is so quick to label this person or that person as an "outsider" or an "establishment" candidate, but nobody can defend their labeling if pressed for specifics.
There are three scenarios I see for this fall's GOP convention.
1. GOP primary voters do not wise up, Trump gets enough delegates to win on the first ballot, the GOP is euphoric for about a month and a half, and then is depressed for the next 4 years as they watch a Clinton presidency unfold.
2. GOP primary voters wise up, but nobody has enough votes to win on the first ballot. A brokered convention ensues where one of the other non-Trump candidates pools their delegates and becomes the nominee. Cruz might win a close contest against Hillary, but the smart choice would be Rubio, as he is more likable and has more views in line with American general election voters (as in immigration reform). Being the first Latino-American President wouldn't hurt his chances, either.
3. A brokered convention leads to the nomination of someone outside of the primary process. The GOP loses the general election, and the party explodes into separate factions. In the long run, this is a better solution, as the GOP has been run by a local cabal of social conservative factions for too long now - people who are well-meaning, but who are out of touch with the modern world. They want small government, except when it comes to sexual practices. They form their own party, and the muddied middle forms their own, attracting those on the Democrat side who no longer wish to be part of the rabid left fiscal policies.
But either way, this fall doesn't look good for GOP voters if they don't wise up in the next few weeks. All because they bought into the con-artist known as Donald J. Trump.
Hi! I'm Dave Richard, your host. I hope you enjoy your visit. We'll be talking about current events, politics, the occasional sports (I'm a HUGE New England Patriots fan, so get over it), and some "Get off my lawn!" issues.