Donald Trump Threatens the GOP with RIOTS!

Donald Trump kicked ass last night in Super Tuesday2 – easily smashing everyone else – and gaining the very real likelihood that he’ll clinch the majority of delegates. Before everyone could scoop their jaws off the ground, he drops this gem during an interview with CNN:

“I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots,” Trump said Wednesday on CNN’s “New Day.” “I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”

In effect, he gave the GOP a big fat finger and told them to suck it up. He’s coming in on a tidal wave of hate and every GOP leader and candidate that gets in his way is going to feel the pain.

Okay… so that’s not an outright threat, but it’s a strong image that most reasonable people want to avoid. But here’s the thing. The GOP/Tea Party created this monster – they can f’n clean it up. If Trump burns down the GOP, it’s their own damned fault. We need a two-party system – America has done great things with that setup, but maybe Trump is right. Maybe it’s time to kill the party so that something better will come along.

The screws are falling off the #GOPClowncar

Screws are falling off the GOP Clown car left and right. No amount of reason and rationality can explain the idiocy. No amount of understanding and comprehension can adequately clarify the purpose. Unless, of course, you admit that it’s all about power and the hell with THE PEOPLE.

Barry Goldwater Was Right

I recall my dad’s quips about Barry Goldwater – laced with profanity and superlative, he had some pretty harsh things to say about a man he though betrayed the country. My dad wasn’t what you’d call a hardcore Republican, but he definitely sympathized with “the cause.” Which is weird because my dad was also an atheist. But I digress. Imagine my surprise as I grew into adulthood to find that although Barry wasn’t the more statesmanlike of statesmen, he had some pretty insightful things to say about the Radical Right.

A set of them comes from a speech he gave in 1981, summarized in the New York Times, September 16, 1981. In this first clip, he despairs over the Radical Right’s unwillingness to compromise. Tell me if you think this sounds familiar:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.

In the same speech, he goes on to decry how they control the political dialog:

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

This is 1981, mind you; the very apex of the movement that Jerry Falwell dubbed the “Moral Majority” and that Pat Robertson tried to appropriate for his own presidential bid in 1988. Although Falwell and Robertson did not have compatible views on Christianity, they were in lock step where governance was concerned. They envisioned a CHRISTIAN United States of America. That’s probably why Goldwater rankled at the pressure he and other “old school” Republicans had to endure for political and financial support.

I’m sure that as he saw the closing years approach, Goldwater became somewhat bitter about how he was thrown aside by the Radical Right. That bitterness comes out in this well-trod, oft-cited Goldwater gem from John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience (2006):

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.

Yet, there’s a better, more prophetic view from an interview published in the Washington Post, July 29, 1994.

When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Given all of the evidence – the vitriol that has surrounded Obama since Day One of his administration, the hateful things that the Radical Right has committed against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats (and even several Republicans) that the soul of the Republican Party is no longer has the best interest of America and for Americans?

The Latest GOP Furor

I have always wondered how so many Germans could fall for Hitler’s hateful drivel. After watching GOP presidential candidates, and in particular, Herr Donald, now I understand. Now I know. It’s shocking how a highly evolved society like America can devolve into such utter hateful ideas. They can’t win on pure ideology: Trickle Down obviously does not work. The Christian divide is only making things worse (e.g., Gays, Abortion, Education). Obamacare has proven to be a better alternative over what Americans had before. The science for Global Warming and Climate Change is accepted by everyone except the GOP/Tea Party. The Hitler gambit is the only option. In Germany, they blamed the Jews. Now they want to blame Muslims.

The Unknown Unknown

I just saw the “The Unknown Unknown” – yeah. A bit delayed. But now, more than ever, I’m thinking about who we will give the keys to the front doors of the White House.

I’ve always thought that people like Donald Rumsfeld scare the lights out of a candle. Media has made him seem anti-social and driven by pure arrogance. Like his cohort Dick Cheney (who, in my opinion is a watered down version of Rumsfeld), he’s right and to hell with anyone who doesn’t agree. But with Rumsfeld, you can’t watch this film without appreciating the definite gravitas of the man.

By contrast, Cheney is a pure manipulator. All that matters is that he pulls off his political machinations convincingly enough so that the core believers still believe. With Rumsfeld, I can see the manipulation, but there is a prow-like determination that slices through argument and debate with something that feels like clarity. To be sure, it is Rumsfeld’s clarity; what else should he be concerned about; bolstered by cold, steel-minded analysis.

Through the crystal eyes of the news media, we saw Rumsfeld often wholly unapologetic and wrapped in this enigmatic double-speak philosophic (e.g., the unknown unknowns). He is parroted and ridiculed as a master of confabulation. He is tagged along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz as one of the chief architects of a disastrous war in Iraq, and the principle deconstructor of the image of American civil rights, post-911.

That’s what we do with our war leaders – celebrate them and hold them aloft when they win, criminalize them and bury their image when they lose. That’s what happened to Rumsfeld, who – aside from this film and a few public appearance – has tried to stay buried. Cheney, on the other hand, is a zombie – angry hands bursting out of the grave with yet another tirade about why he was right.

There’s a part of me that admires Rumsfeld. In the sharp contrast, Rumsfeld stands above as a true believer. Pure patriotism fuels his bubbling self-confidence and steadfast determination. You must admit, this is the kind of guy that you want in the foxhole with you. This is the kind of commander you want on the front line. This is the kind of person you want making tough decisions and pulling triggers when they need pulling. But that’s the front line. The seat of governance is another matter.

By the way, the soundtrack by Danny Elfman is freaking cool. Nice music to listen to with the news channel volume turned off.

Bush Lie, People Die: A 100 Year Family Business of Death

For the record – I have never voted for a Bush in my life. When George Herbert Walker Bush ran for president, I instinctively knew that “Bush” was a bad name in American politics. Little did I know how bad.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but you can’t avoid them when researching the Bush Family legacy. There’s quite a bit of filtering needed. I filtered out the truly “superbolic” and focused on what could be corroborated by third-party sources. At best, you can call this an aggregate of many sources. It’s not perfect, but for the purpose of conversation, it’s more than adequate.

The big headline is that the Bush Family men did indeed profit from American war. The story starts back when the phrase “World War” was just entering the global vernacular.

An unholy partnership was established with the formation of the ‘War Industries Board’ (WIB). Historians and many pundits have labeled the WIB as “unholy” on account of its intent: a civilian omnibus to assist and coordinate the Federal government’s purchase of war material. Is it any surprise that it quickly morphed into an exclusive lobby group that rewarded its participants and supporters with lucrative contracts under the cloak of patriotic duty? I share the prevailing opinion that the WIB is the forerunner of what Eisenhower called the ‘military-industrial complex’. More on that later.

Before war broke in Europe, Samuel P. Bush, paternal grandfather of GHW Bush, had already made a name for himself as a successful businessman and industrialist. In 1918, Samuel was tapped by business associate and banker Bernard Baruch to sit on the board of directors of the WIB as “Chief of Ordnance” (for the procurement of small arms, rifles and ammunition).

Bush funneled much of this business to family members and associates. America became an open market for war material with millions of rifles sold to Czarist Russia and about half of all of the small arms and rifles used by the U.S. and its allies – all under due to Samuel Bush’s influence. Baruch was also active financing war; to ensure that all participants could afford to buy weapons. In one reported instance, U.S. financiers loaned Germany $27M while at the same time loaning the UK and its allies $2.3B. Together with other board members, the men of the WIB profited in excess of $200M.

Not everyone was blind to what was going on. Retired Major General Smedley D. Butler, U.S.M.C., wrote and published a book titled “War is a Racket” in 1935 wherein he detailed how business interests commercially benefited from warfare.

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Enter U.S. Senator Gerald Nye. Nye and others were appalled by General Butler’s blunt expository, made all the sharper because of his rank in the military and the high esteem he held among the military culture (he was a two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor). Nye chaired The Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry to investigate wartime profiteering activities of many commercial and industrial participants. The investigation, often known as the “Nye Committee”, uncovered many things about WIB activities and pretty much confirmed General Butler’s claims that there were many deep connections between wartime profits, banking, and munitions industries. The results of these investigations never found criminal culpability, but the members of the WIB were ultimately labeled “Merchants of Death.” Senator Nye’s investigation may have also contributed to the American “non-interventionist movement” of the 1930s.

The German Connection

In 1922, there was a man named George Herbert Walker, patriarch of the Walker family and Governor Scott Walker’s grandfather who is also the maternal grandfather to George HW Bush. Walker had a friend named W. Averell Harriman. Walker was well-known and successful banker. Harriman was the son of E.H. Harriman who made a fortune as a railroad baron. Walker and Harriman linked their fortunes together to form W.A. Harriman & Co., an investment bank and brokerage firm.

One of the first significant business transactions, Walker set up a branch office in Berlin, Germany and met with Fritz Thyssen, an early financial sponsor of Adolph Hitler. Of course, no one knew what was about to happen with the nascent Hitler, but it was the beginning of what Walker called, “the Hitler Project.” Through Harriman & Co., Walker helped Thyssen establish a new German bank in downtown New York called Union Banking Corporation so that Thyssen could purchase of American commodities like steel, copper, and coal.

By 1926, Prescott Bush, father of George WH Bush (and a fellow Yale “Bonesman” to Harriman and son-in-law to George Walker), had joined the firm as its Senior Vice President. At this point, we have Prescott, George Walker, Prescott’s father (the aforementioned Samuel P. Bush), and Samuel’s fellow WIB member, Clarence Dillon, all working together at the same firm when it receives $70M from Fritz Thyssen. Several sources speculate that this money funded a new company called United Steel Works Corporation for German Steel Trust, which was at the time Germany’s largest industrial corporation. Note that several sources also name Prescott Bush and W. Averell Harriman as among seven board members of Union Banking Corp.

Were the Bush men Nazis as some theories claim? I don’t believe so. Financial opportunism makes for a poor substitute for socio-ideology. From the Bush perspective, their entire raison d’etre was economic. No one knew the future; what horrible things that the Nazis would do and what terrible things the names would come to represent: holocaust, murder, genocide. The images that these words bring are anathema to economic profit. That Hitler and his Nazis were also opportunistic is agreed, but only at this one intersection of history.

Based on available factual evidence, it is highly likely that some (if not all) of the account activities for Union Banking and United Steel Works ran through the Walker-Bush financial apparatus. Since the detailed records are lost, we’ll just leave it at that. As a footnote, there are enough surviving records that shows Union Bank holding more than half ownership of Germany’s pig iron, about 40% of universal steel plate and heavy plate, plus 35% of Germany’s explosives.

On October 20, 1942, the entire scheme comes to a screeching halt. By Executive Order 9095 (under the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917”), the Federal Government seized all banking operations under Union Banking. By then, Bush, Inc. had already made their fortunes financing and arming Hitler. As a postscript, after World War II ended, Union Banking assets were released and Prescott Bush sold his holdings for $1.5M.

Nazi conspiracists love this web of intrigue, but I believe that it is a mistake to take this link too far. There are many kinds of opportunists. In this case, we have fervent believers of a perverse and weird social ideology (the Nazis) mixing up with fervent believers of the almighty profit. Is it possible that the ideologies cross-pollenate – but nothing I have read about Samuel or Prescott suggests that they were interested in anything but the holy dollar.

The Legacy of Blood Continues

To be honest, from this point the factoids presented by Bush conspiracy theorists are difficult to verify. However, how interesting it is that the men of Bush and their close friends keep popping up at the most opportune moments.

Consider the Dulles brothers: Allan and John were both attorneys and both were deployed at various times as diplomats. They and their law firm were involved with defending Fritz Thyssen and the holdings of Union Banking and United Steel Works. Roll forward a few years and you find the Dulles involved in the weirdest U.S. diplomatic foreign flip-flop.

John Foster Dulles is said to have told South Korean President Rhee Syng-man that if his country was ready to attack the communist North, the U.S. would come to its aid.  In nearly the same beat, then U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (who was close friend of Harriman) pledged to Russia and North Korean leaders that the U.S. would not defend South Korea if attacked.

The result was a massive collision of forces and a huge loss of life. You might expect that this would have been career-ending crisis for at least one of the men, but not more than a few years later, Harriman was appointed by Truman as the Mutual Security Agency director and the chief military alliance adviser of overseas national security affairs. Then in 1953, Eisenhower appointed John Dulles as Secretary of State and Allen Dulles as Director of the CIA.

Eisenhower may have been aware of at least some of these events. He at least harbored some ill will to what was happening to his America. On his departure, he brushed over these ill feelings in his farewell address of 1961 (excerpt):

…three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Of Pigs, Loops and WMDs

It was around that time that Prescott Bush brought his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, into the CIA. Here are the relevant details about GHW’s early career at the CIA:

  • April 12, 1961 – Up to this point, CIA Agent GHW Bush had spent the prior year recruiting and training right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami for the invasion. He worked for 2 years with Felix Rodriguez, the CIA operative who had hunted down and murdered Che Guevara. Allen Dulles clears the operation to deliver ships to Bush for use in the invasion.
  • April 14, 1961 – Merchant ships carrying a paramilitary force of 1,400 Cuban Florida exiles arrived at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. The landing went badly and two ships carrying most of the equipment and supplies had sunk. When two planes providing air cover were shot down, CIA agents pleaded with President Kennedy to authorize more planes and military reinforcements. Kennedy refused and the invasion ended as tragic defeat. The CIA lost 15 agents and more than 1,100 Cuban exiles were captured and imprisoned.

Kennedy stopped an unauthorized conflict and probably prevented a raging war which could have dragged the U.S. and Soviet Russia into another world war. However, CIA operatives and extremist hawks were bitterly angry with Kennedy.  GHW Bush, who stood at the epicenter of the disaster, brewed his own bitter hatred of Kennedy.

Fast forward past Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia (because there’s only so much I can cover), and you run smack into GHW Bush’s short stint as Director of Central Intelligence (1976) under President Ford, then as Vice President of the U.S. with Ronald Reagan. And here’s where we find the Iran-Contra affair.

Iran-Contra was a big scandal during Reagan’s second term. The story broke in 1986 about secret arrangements to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The press and critics of Ronald Reagan’s administration claim that Iran-contra affair was the product of three distinct initiatives. One was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The other was an effort to placate “moderates” within the Iranian government so that Reagan could secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups. A third initiative was to bypass the Boland Amendments which prohibited military aid to the contras.

When the story broke to the press, Bush famously said he was “out of the loop” and unaware of the operation, which seems incredible given his background. Then, rather infamously, he later revealed, “I’m one of the few people that know fully the details.”

That leaves us to George W Bush’s rationale for the Iraq War. This history is still pretty fresh. Conservatives may spin recent discoveries about the WMD issue, but the fact remains – the Iraq engagement was ill-timed and badly conceived. Just as many Middle East experts (e.g., people FROM Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) predicted, the Iraqi war was so badly managed that the worse has happened. Iraq is a broken country – barely able to manage areas that it controls let alone combat insurgencies like ISIS. There’s even doubt that Iraq will ever recover as a country. Whose fault is this?

I’ve heard conservatives suggest that GW Bush’s successor is chiefly to blame for the present situation in Iraq. Jeb Bush even went so far as to say that Obama is responsible for creating ISIS. That’s like the man who knocked down a glass doll, blaming the guy who had to sweep up the debris. Moreover, we should remember that Obama had to withdraw troops because the terms of withdraw were already set by the Bush Administration. Could Obama have changed the terms of withdraw? Sure. But were Americans willing? Were the Iraqis willing? We need only to re-read the news reports and senate testimony from 2005 to 2007 to find these answers. And for all intents and purposes, Bush had lied about Saddam Hussein, WMDs and the potential for success in Iraq. The result: a great great many people died. Seems par for the course, doesn’t it?

Parting Shots

You can draw your own conclusions about how angry and opportunistic men can sometimes be driven to do terrible things. Some of the conspiracy theories seem terrible and implausible. But like some folktales – there’s just enough truth embroidered into the yarn to make you wonder.

Repeated investigations into Bush/Walker family dealings have uncovered little actionable evidence of actual wrong-doing. While I was poking around, I wasn’t at all surprised to read that many records including reports and correspondence relating to the WIB and  Samuel Bush’s arms dealings were disposed and burned, “to save space” in the National Archives. Many key records concerning the Bush-Walker link to Union Banking Corporation and United Steel Works have also been lost. Losing and destroying records relating to the People’s business should alarm all citizens, but doesn’t this reveal something deeper about our real problem? While there are a great many people who are willing to hide, obfuscate, and spin in favor of the Bush-Walker legacy, there’s just enough evidence left to make you want to worry about what you’ll never know.

I reread Eisenhower’s farewell message to the American people:

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

For those of us with independent minds, we must resist natural cynicism from taking over our ability to think clearly. I have long since joined the ranks of those who reject the notion that only the powerful are qualified to govern. We can do what the powerful hate most: read for ourselves and think hard when it comes time to vote.

Final note. I tried to avoid making this yet another conspiracy tome. It was difficult to stay that course on account of the time span covered (nearly 100 years) and the relevant information uncovered. The spotty nature of the resources made it doubly difficult to verify certain parts of the story, but I did the best I could. To anyone who is interested in carrying on, I used the obvious conspiracy sites to point the way, but I used Wikipedia and other sources to light the path:

  • Members of the War Industries Board Organization, U.S. War Industries Board, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1919
  • Dwight D Eisenhower, Farewell Speech Transcripts, Eisenhower Archives.
  • Bernard M. Baruch, My Own Story (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1957), pp. 138-39.
  • Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2013).
  • Alden Hatch, Remington Arms: An American History, 1956, copyright by the Remington Arms Co., pp. 224-25

The Crime of the Election Year

The present electoral climate is like walking past a shadowy alley – it repulses us, but we can’t put a finger on why.

We sense that there’s a crime, everybody is suspect, but nobody agrees what happened. How does one begin an investigation? “Follow the money,” said Deep Throat. That, I did. And the startling thing is that the answers are right there in plain sight.

I’m talking about Obamacare, the Republicans, the Democrats, and all the rich guys paving the road to election day with their dollars. What I’ve concluded is that Obama is a sideshow. Being POTUS is one of the best-paying jobs Obama has ever had. His ideas are not all that original. The public policies he has pursued have been on EVERYBODY’s platform since FDR. He’s black. That’s the biggest difference, and it is a convenient distraction. But from what?

Consider the recently revealed bit of news that Koch brothers really don’t care much about Obamacare – well, maybe not as much as they care about Keystone XL. That’s the real strategy – they want the billions that they might earn from a big straw that’ll carry oil product from Canada to the Gulf. So… just like it was during Bush II, it’s all about oil. That’s all. Healthcare be damned.

Koch are the true boogeymen of America. Rich. Arrogant. Aloof. They run the John Birch Society. They run the Tea Party. They run Fox News. They run the propagandists who telegraph every lie about everyone they don’t like – smear campaigns against Democrats and Republicans alike. These are the guys I see when I have nightmares.

Most conservative supporters (and many liberals) are not listening to the real threat. If all politicians lie (I hope this isn’t a big surprise) then the real metric should be the personal gain of the actors. Consider the personal gain that Obama gets from Obamacare. Arguably, that’s a zero. Well, maybe a mark in history for being the president who successfully started meaningful health care reform, but there’s no factual evidence of him getting rich from the thing. 

Not so with Koch. Not only do they have an “invested” interest in oil – they have a HUGE invested interest. Billions of dollars in extracting, transporting and reselling oil. Question: what would you do if you want to get a controversial pipeline through the middle of the country? A nice feel good ad campaign? Or would spend big on ‘like-minded’ candidates whom you could later control and influence? Wouldn’t you like at least one or two political distractions? 

I’m convinced that Obamacare is the sideshow – and so is every last one of the other little distractions that the Tea Party has created. Anything with Obama’s name is like meat on a hook to the hyenas of superbole. That’s how publicity works. I should know. I write that kind of crap.

The really big show is going on in plain sight. And believe it or not, the Koch brothers themselves are just the vanguards. There’s a whole petrochemical industry out there just snapping its jaws for Keystone XL. And they’ll do anything to distract us from their business. Even ruin this country.

Time to wake up. The candle was lit long before the meal was cooked.

Post Election Perspective

Source: Yahoo
Source: Yahoo

I held off making any remarks about the various political races because – well, to be honest – there was enough opinion floating about on both sides, it just seemed unnecessary.

But now that the election is over with – the yard signs are coming down, the banners are being rolled up – I have new concerns and observations.

Until Obama, no party – democrat OR republican – shouted “You lie!” during a State of the Union Speech. Until Obama, no party used more filibusters during a single Congress than during the previous 100 years. Until Obama, no party ever threatened to refuse to extend the debt ceiling – regardless of which party the president belonged to.

One of the problems that the Republicans had with criticizing Obama for his previous 4 years is that the American people KNEW that the GOP/Tea Party resisted working with him on ANYTHING. We remember what Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said, even before Obama took office, that the number one goal of the GOP was to prevent Obama from getting a second term.

What did we end up with? Fixes for the economy came slowly. We failed to lower the deficit – in fact, it got worse and that (in my book) is due to GOP foot dragging that retarded economic growth, thus federal tax revenues. The consequence of these failures resulted in moribund employment growth, more foreclosures, more misery. The tactic to keep Obama to one term caused more pain on the American people – especially minorities.

The fact that we are now recovering is a testament to how much Obama actually accomplished in spite of the concerted GOP/Tea Party resistance. And boy, did they put up a fight. But here’s the thing – despite the billions that the GOP/Tea Party spent, despite the steams of ads, punditry, and posturing – they lost. And they lost big. Obama not only soundly won the electoral college, he also won the popular vote. Moreover, the democrats are stronger in both Senate and House. Here’s something though that the GOP strategists must be shocked about: Democrats won solid majorities in both houses of the California Assembly – in fact, at the time of this writing – it appears that the Dems are going to end up with supermajorities in both houses. The last time a single party held a supermajority in both houses of the California legislature was in 1933, when the Republicans controlled the legislature. Democrats held a supermajority in both houses back in 1883.

Maybe had the GOP tried to work with Obama, the economy would be buzzing along and most Americans wouldn’t be blaming them for all the pain they caused.

Just sayin. By the way, “Hooray, for our side!”


Suspicious voter registration forms found in 10 Florida counties –

Source: Yahoo
Source: Yahoo

Suspicious voter registration forms found in 10 Florida

And whilst they cry foul against others. My father – a lifelong and proud Republican – is rolling in his grave. I see members in my church – also life long and ardent supporters of the GOP, wincing and shaking their sad grey heads. Alas, imitation begets the reality.

Perhaps they thought they were “evening the score” – just in case AARP and the NAACP ran their own fraudulent voter schemes. Were I the GOP leadership, this is one maneuver I would have never imagined doing. Not only did they try to stack the voter roles with FAKE GOP voters, but they deliberately disenfranchise other voters. The question now isn’t whether Romney and the GOP will lose this November, but how badly.

Romney’s 47%

There’s already a horde of commentary that tries to compare Mitt Romney’s now infamous words to Barack Obama’s equally dumb remark: how in bad economic times, “people get bitter, they cling to their guns and religion.”

Okay, let’s cut through the superbole of gotcha and get one thing straight. These words were said to ardent donors – to inform the wallet warriors about policy ideas, but more important, to learn more about the candidate’s intimate notions, underlying motives, and true agendas. In both cases, Romney and Obama are merely chalking out the outlines that define followers versus detractors.

But I think the problem for Romney is that he played to the fences a bit overmuch. Did he really have to cast nearly HALF of the population as wonton freeloaders? I’m a liberal voting for Obama, and if I wasn’t supposed to be paying taxes, I’d better give my accountant a call. The fact is, Romney’s “47%” includes retirees. Like Ol’ Kemp – 87 years old with a face like crabgrass. He was a former USAF operative during Vietnam who later busted his ass to earn an engineering degree and worked for about 30 years for Hughes Aircraft as a ground systems analyst and trainer. He’s an old Texan Democrat (if you know what I mean). I’m sure that ‘ol’ bag o’bones’ will give me an earful about Romney’s blunder. I hope Mittens isn’t planning to hold a rally around Amarillo, TX any time soon. Thurman might go “second amendment” on him, if you know what I mean. But I digress.

Personally, I want to cut Romney some slack. He has the right to define his followers and cheer his donors. You must admit that the post-gaffe period is a lot less messy than it could have been. He gains buko respect points for sticking to his guns today. And here’s the bonus for the rest of us moochers and lazy liberals, the chalk lines were never more clearer; the mission never more urgent.

Barack Obama 2012