Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Donald Trump’s Presidency in Jeopardy
Impeachment Now on the Horizon

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
Donald Trump’s approval rating is at a 70-year low; it is now at 36 percent. In the months ahead there is a high probability that the presidency of Donald Trump will come to an end in impeachment or resignation. It will be the culmination of an intensive investigation by the Special Prosecutor and intelligence committees in both the House and Senate.
When it comes to criminal charges (and this is my best guess) many people in the Trump Administration, including Donald Trump himself, will be charged with criminal offenses or violations of constitutional law or other federal laws. Without boring my audience and re-hashing all of the things that have led to a failed Trump presidency, I think this Blog would better serve an audience by going over the impeachment process that will be carried out, factors related to the motivation of the Russians to hack our election, and something rather unique in all this, i.e., the concept of “life imitating art” or “art imitating life.” This latter concept will be explained against the backdrop of the strange, often bizarre relationship between the reality of a Trump presidency and the fantasy of the entertainment industry of which he was a part. Explanation will follow shortly.
In addition, it will be important to describe what this author believes was the real underlying motivation of Vladimir Putin to direct a cyber-attack against the United States during and preceding the American presidential election of 2016.
I doubt that President Trump will be removed from office because of treason because the United States is not currently in a “declared war.” However, sharing classified information (top secret, secret, or confidential) with officials of a foreign (albeit enemy) country is a federal crime tantamount to espionage. In addition, the following crimes may come into play during the impeachment process of Donald Trump. These crimes include:
• Obstruction of Justice
• Abuse of Power
• Violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Emolument Clause
• Espionage
• Violation of federal laws related to financial or political corruption including illegal campaign finance laws and regulations

The following is an article by Charlie Savage for the New York Times, dated May 17, 2017 and describes how the impeachment process works.

How the Impeachment Process Works
Background
“WASHINGTON — The account from the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey of President Trump pressing him to drop an investigation into Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, has escalated talk among the president’s critics that his actions may amount to obstruction of justice and grounds for impeachment.
Asking F.B.I. to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice, Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. ‘Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.’
But several legal specialists across party lines cautioned that talk of impeachment was premature while the facts remained unclear; the White House has denied that Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Comey to drop the case.
Still, the early chatter has heightened interest in how the impeachment process works. Here’s what you need to know:
What is impeachment?
The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Only three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Two were impeached but acquitted and stayed in office: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. A third, Richard M. Nixon in 1974, resigned to avoid being impeached.
What is the process?
First, the House of Representatives votes on one or more articles of impeachment. If at least one gets a majority vote, the president is impeached — which essentially means being indicted. (In both the Nixon and the Clinton cases, the House Judiciary Committee considered the matter first.)
Next, the proceedings move to the Senate, which holds a trial overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
A team of lawmakers from the House, known as managers, play the role of prosecutors. The president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the jury.
If at least two-thirds of the senators find the president guilty, he is removed, and the vice president takes over as president.”
What are the rules?
There are no standard rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.
‘When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,’ said Greg Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama.
For example, Mr. Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave four days to the Republican managers to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him — essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.
The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.
‘Impeachment is a creature unto itself,’ Mr. Barr said. ‘The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t.’
What are the standards?
The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.
In the case of Mr. Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury but that removing him from office was a bad idea.
‘To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,’ he said. ‘Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.’
Mr. Clinton was impeached by a Congress in which the opposition party controlled both the House and the Senate. In Mr. Trump’s case, his party controls both chambers, making it more politically unappealing for them to vote to impeach him.
What about the 25th Amendment?
Adopted in 1967, the 25th Amendment provides another mechanism for removing a president. It is geared toward dealing with a president who becomes too disabled to carry out the duties of the office, as opposed to presidential lawbreaking.
Under its procedures, if the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet tell Congress that the president is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,’ the vice president immediately becomes the acting president. If the president contests that finding, but two-thirds of both chambers of Congress side with the vice president, the vice president remains the acting president for the rest of the term.”
What really is the underlying motivation of Russia’s Interference in U.S. Elections?
Donald Trump’s financial dealings that relate to the Emolument Clause of the United States Constitution may transcend the country of Russia. Payments may be coming into the coffers of Donald Trump financial holdings from many countries.
However, it is clear that Russia is the pivotal country when it comes to hacking into a democratic country’s election, and whose motivation to engage in collusion with the Trump campaign not only occurred but was spearheaded by the Kremlin’s top man: Vladimir Putin.
If you’re not familiar with the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. law, here is the most important thing to understand: Russian President Vladimir Putin and everyone in his orbit hate it.
“A purely political, unfriendly act,” Putin called it at the time, and he has been railing against it ever since.
Congress wanted to punish Russian human rights abusers by barring them from entering the U.S. This followed the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died at age 37 in a Moscow prison where he was held — and allegedly beaten — after accusing Russian officials of massive tax fraud.
The law symbolized the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia. Days after Congress passed it, the Russian parliament responded by banning American citizens from adopting Russian orphans.
In a bizarre 2013 trial, a Russian court went even further, convicting Magnitsky of tax fraud — four years after he died.

Politics
Donald Trump Jr. Meeting Included Russian Lobbyist:
The Magnitsky Act re-emerged as a front-burner topic this week in connection with the investigations surrounding President Trump’s campaign and possible links to Russian meddling in last year’s presidential race.
Russia has lobbied hard for repeal of the act. That’s what Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya said she was doing when she met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York.

Politics
Trump Says He Would Invite Putin to White House ‘At the Right Time:’
News broke Friday that she was accompanied at that meeting by Russian-American Rinat Akhmetshin. He is known as a skilled political operator who has worked in both the former Soviet Union and the United States on behalf of his clients, according to a U.S. journalist who has known him for two decades.
Akhmetshin has also spoke freely about his past in Soviet military intelligence, according to the journalist, Steve Levine, who works for Axios in Washington.

Politics
5 Questions Raised By Donald Trump Jr.’s Emails:
However, in remarks to The Associated Press, Akhmetshin said he served in a military unit that was part of counterintelligence but was not trained as a spy.
Levine first encountered Akhmetshin in Kazakhstan. There, in 1998, he provided Levine with confidential banking and legal documents pointing to financial corruption by the country’s president.

Politics
Donald Trump Jr.’s Emails about Meeting with Russian Lawyer: Annotated
“His signature is to be able to drill very, very deeply in the former Soviet Union, in a very knowing way,” Levine said. “Here in Washington, he’s this very unusual character, who may be the most skilled lobbyist I’ve met.”
Akhmetshin is, he added, “someone who can ingratiate himself with members of Congress and their staffs, power figures here, and make things happen.”
Levine said they’ve been in touch periodically over the years, including in brief email exchanges in recent days as Akhmetshin’s name began to surface in media reports.
Akhmetshin, who has become a U.S. citizen, has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act. Just a few days after his meeting with Trump Jr. in New York last year, Akhmetshin was in Washington to promote a movie called The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes.
The film was shown at the Newseum in Washington on June 13, 2016. It offers the Russian government’s version of events and claims that Magnitsky was not mistreated by Russian authorities.
Trump Jr. has also said that — to his disappointment — last year’s meeting with the Russians focused on the Magnitsky Act. Trump Jr. was told in advance the meeting would produce critical material on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. When the topic turned out to be the U.S. law, he considered it a waste of time.
Analysts have offered many theories on why Russia wanted to meddle in the U.S. presidential election: to undermine the credibility of the U.S. vote or to harm Hillary Clinton, whom Putin blamed for the protests leading up the Russian presidential election in 2012.
Rarely mentioned is the Magnitsky Act, a relatively obscure matter inside the U.S. but a major frustration for Russia’s leadership.

Life Imitates Art and Vice-Versa
Here we are in the summer of 2017, six months into the presidency of Donald Trump. As I think back over the last two years of this nightmare with Donald Trump, I am convinced he lives in a childish fantasy of his own creation, ego-driven, and propped up by those around him in his close circle of “want to-be” important people.
Nationally, his supporters have dwindled to only 36% as of July 17, 2017. With the failure of his administration to repeal and replace Obamacare even his remaining supporters will never benefit from a low-cost comprehensive health care plan. This is unfortunate since a disproportionate number of his supporters are in dire need of good health care, particularly psychiatric mental health services.
It is both beguiling and perplexing to know that a degenerate womanizer and misogynist, white nationalist racist, crude, anti-intellectual buffoon could ever be elected president of the United States. And yet, here we are! Doesn’t say much for the intelligence and moral fiber of a sizeable portion of the American electorate— now does it?
He has tarnished the status of the highest office in the land and that, my friends, is unforgivable. He has taken a great American institution and turned it into garbage. I cannot help but see the quixotic (foolishly impractical, unrealistic, or capricious) parallel between the real life Donald Trump and the fantasy world he lives in.
There is an old expression that “art imitates life.” Ironically, sometimes the reverse is true, i.e., life imitates art. But in the make-believe world of art we often watch on television or in the movies, fantasy often parallels what’s going on in the real world. And television or movies often draw on material from the real world. It’s almost symbiotic in nature. Oscar Wilde seemed to believe however that this observable parallel was not equal.
Oscar Wilde Statement in 1889
Life imitating art. Anti-mimesis is a philosophical position that holds the direct opposite of Aristotelian mimesis. Its most notable proponent is Oscar Wilde, who opined in his 1889 essay The Decay of Lying that, “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life.”
Sometimes the symbiotic relationship between life and art is fortuitous, at other times it seems like it is planned. For example script writing drew from current day events some of its planned material in the award winning TV drama series House of Cards (Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright).
The U.S. version of this series gives us an inside look at the greed and corruption in American Politics. Recently Vanity Fair looked at the similarity between Donald Trump and House of Cards president Frank Underwood (initials F.U.).
On May 30th Yohana Desta wrote the article. Titled “Trump vs. Underwood: 7 Times House of Cards Hit a Little Too Close to Reality.
Trump vs. Underwood: 7 Times House of Cards Hit a Little Too Close to Reality
Season 5 of the hit political series mirrored the Trump administration in a number of eerie ways.
Spoiler alert: This post contains spoilers about Season 5 of House of Cards.
House of Cards has always pulled from the headlines. The political Netflix series, starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, thrives on mirroring the more conniving side of U.S. statecraft, combing through American history to find story lines that feed and shape its White House narrative. The new season debuted Tuesday morning at a time when the country’s current president, Donald Trump, is besieged by allegations of obstructing justice and colluding with Russia, among other claims. Numerous moments in this latest installment of House of Cards reflected this moment in history perhaps a little too well. From Senate investigations to startling political tactics, here’s all the times this season might have hit too close to home.

1. Everything is a “distraction”
In Episode 1, Washington Herald editor Tom Hammerschmidt dismisses one of Frank Underwood’s political tactics as merely a “distraction” to the underlying issues at play. In most circumstances, that would be a fairly benign thing to say, but it’s a pointed choice of words that’s hard to ignore in an age when Trump’s critics have urged people not to get “distracted” by the president’s tweets or outlandish comments, and his Trump’s supporters have argued that all the chaotic “distraction” is actually part of his master plan.
Of course, the season ends with Underwood revealing that a large amount of the chaos that takes place actually is part of his master plan—but that’s a rather Machiavellian feat that Trump himself will likely not achieve.

2. All the executive orders!
Presidents throwing their weight around with executive orders are nothing new, but the incessant signing of new orders (some of them incendiary and arguably unconstitutional) is now a hallmark of Trump’s first 100 days. There are shades of his bullishness in Episode 2, when Frank Underwood declares an executive order for protecting “voting centers” and enforcing strict border restrictions, invoking “Section Blah Blah of the Blah Blah Act and Section Blah Blah of Title Blah Blah, Paragraph Bullshit Bullshit.”
The episode is bookended with Underwood secretly manufacturing a fake hack by terrorist group I.C.O., using it to prod the government to make a declaration of war. Hacks, terrorist attacks, and war talks! Where have we heard this all before . . . ?

3. A suspicious election
No TV drama about a presidential election would be complete without absurd twists and turns. This season of HoC crafts a presidential race filled to the brim with scandal, illicit behavior, and shocking results, premiering just a few months after the U.S.’s own wild election in which Trump came out the victor over expected winner Hillary Clinton. In the show, Underwood prevails over projected winner Will Conway, who wins the popular vote, but, of course, Underwood wins the race by rigging the election in vital Electoral College states and engaging in voter suppression. In the real world, the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress are investigating potential Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and improper contact with members of Trump’s campaign, with new reports surfacing about their alleged collusion. (And voter suppression tactics figured in U.S. history long before Trump.)
The next episode shows how American citizens are reacting to the election, featuring a group of protesters banding together outside the White House and chanting “Not my president!” and holding signs that read “Never Underwood.” Both actions mimic the actual chants and signs seen during anti-Trump protests.
Later in the season, as Conway sinks deeper into a petulant downward spiral after losing the election, his adviser tries to cheer him up by saying, “You lost—but more than half the country still considers you their president.” Though Conway’s post-election temperament is miles away from Clinton’s reflective grace, it’s tough to imagine that people haven’t bolstered her spirits with the same kind of encouragement.
4. Acts of Russian aggression
House of Cards has already done a Russia-obsessed season, which would have been too on the nose had it premiered now. But it’s not done with Viktor Petrov, its version of Vladimir Putin, just yet. He turns up in the second half of the show as Russia approaches an American research facility stationed in Antarctica, poking around for oil. “It’s a brazen act of aggression,” Secretary of State Catherine Durant says in the episode. Her quote brings to mind actual acts of Russian aggression, such as recent reports of Russian fighter jets doing barrel rolls over U.S. planes, and flying close to a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft.
This event also leads to a long line of backdoor negotiations with Russia, which might make some folks in the current administration (cough, Jared Kushner, cough) a bit uncomfortable.
5. A president under investigation
In Episode 9, scorned Congressman Romero decides to relaunch the committee investigating Underwood’s potentially impeachable offenses. With the Trump administration under its own investigation—and talk of impeachment fluttering around, just as they do for Underwood—it’s hard not to compare the two.
The investigation in the show also leads to the questioning of F.B.I. deputy director Nathan Green, who’s deeply entangled in the Underwood administration and has done a number of illegal things. Hey, does anyone remember if there’s anything crazy going on with the real world F.B.I. right now?
6. A gas attack in Syria
Episode 10 features a devastating gas attack in Syria, which the Underwood’s try to use to their political advantage. The attack eerily mirrors the recent chemical attack in Syria, which was one of the worst in the country’s history. Season 5 was already wrapped by the time the attack happened, so the show didn’t directly pluck from the headlines for that. However, it’s still a surprising (and incredibly sad) example of how the show veers dangerously close to real life.
7. “Welcome to the death of the age of reason.”
Those are the intimidating words Underwood snarls to the camera in this season’s penultimate episode during his committee testimony. “There is no right or wrong, not anymore. There’s only being in and then being out,” he says. His words, sadly, invoke the current age of “alternative facts.” Underwood’s message rings particularly true when held up against Trump’s own behavior. The current president is prone to making outlandish, verifiably false or simply unfounded remarks in interviews and on Twitter, while also waging a war against the media (#FakeNews), leaving his team to scramble and smooth out his claims. Meanwhile, the rest of the country anxiously watches and waits for whatever fresh hell is coming next.
Final Comments
The colossal failure of the country to elect a real president in 2016 will continue to dishonor and haunt us long after the last stench of Donald Trump is removed from the White House. With the mid-term elections around the corner, it is time for democrats around the country to gear up for a good fight against republicans who, besides Donald Trump, have also let the country down.
Needless to say the role of the new DNC head will be critically important in trying not just to elect more democrats, but to convince people of the United States that their interests come first in this sometimes chaotic world we all live in.
A final moment of reverie for this author, please. The character of Donald Trump we’ve all seen many times in our lives. It is like “art imitating life.” A daydream I had has kept re-occurring over the last two years. But my original stimulus for this daydream occurred more than 60 years ago.
In 1957 I was a freshman in high school. One important movie made in 1957 was an academy award-winning movie (Best picture, Best Director, Best Actor) known as Witness for the Prosecution.
It starred the great English actor Charles Laughton, along with Marlene Dietrich and Tyrone Power. I won’t sidetrack my readers by going into a detailed recounting of the plot. It was based on a very clever book by the much esteemed Agatha Christie originally written in 1925.
I connect this movie’s most dramatic court room scenes to Donald Trump. Imagine if you will Donald Trump (the Prevaricator-in- Chief as President) was being grilled by a Sir Wilfred Robarts (Charles Laughton). What a field-day that would be if, like the movie, when Sir Wilfred says to Trump in Laughton’s surly special voice, “ Were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual Liar? In the movie Charles Laughton screaming the word liar—was absolutely deafening.

Read Full Post »

The Winds of War Are Growing Restless

War is fast approaching our national doorstep

     One threat begs for action right now without delay. It is by a country bent on starting a war with the United States and our Asian allies. Who is it? You guessed right—it’s North Korea.

Background

The threat from North Korea has been hovering over the United States like the Sword of Damocles for decades. Not one, but four American generals, now believe North Korea already has the ability to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile that can hit the mainland of the United States. As most people know, there is an early warning system that provides some guidance as to our level of preparedness to deal with a nuclear threat. It is called Def con.

Def Con is “Defense Condition” and it indicates the level of preparedness of United States Military Forces.

Definitions of Def Con

Def Con 5 – Normal peacetime operations.

 

Def Con 4 – Still considered “peacetime”, but intelligence gathering is increased and national security measures are tightened. The U.S. was at Def Con 4 for most of the Cold War.

Def Con 3 – Military assets are readied. “Call signs” for deployed assets change from publicly-known signals to classified ones. The U.S. has been at this level 3 times, most recently after the events of September 11th.

Def Con 2 – Further increase of military readiness. All forces not already in position are placed on “stand by” alert. Def Con 2 was used once, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Def Con 1 – Maximum military readiness. All forces are active. Def Con 1 is considered to be the “total war” level and may only refer to a nuclear attack scenario since it has never been used to date.

From my perspective the United States needs to raise the Def con level immediately to Def con 3. Determination as to when to initiate Def Con 2 will come later as conditions warrant.

Understanding Imminent Threats

In reality, immigration as an issue is only tangentially related to national security. Too much attention is being paid to immigration as a potential risk while the real, more tangible imminent dangers to national security seem to be flying under the radar of public awareness.

We really do need to be vigilant at this time. The United States must be ready to counter the build-up of North Korea’s nuclear program. In addition, there is the American involvement in fighting ISIS worldwide as well as currently retaking of cities earlier lost to ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. To the credit of Barack Obama, nearly 40%-50% of ISIS troops were killed between 2014 and 2016 due to his strategic efforts. Nevertheless, the bulk of American military power at this point in time must be put together strategically. Our main focus must be on North Korea and the possibility that war between our countries is just a few North Korean aggressive acts away.

These threats are real folks! It’s time to get our head out of the sand. While I have confidence in the preparedness of the American military, I have absolutely no confidence in Trump Administration’s ability to handle dangers to our national  security. A Russian spy ship has been conducting operations to collect information on our submarine bases on the east coast and basically he has ignored this threat. If security wasn’t bad enough, just consider the incredibly misguided Trump budget proposal to cut huge amounts of money in the 2017-18 budget for the U.S. Coast Guard. “President Donald Trump’s proposed budget guidance is asking for $1.3 billion in funding cuts to the U.S. Coast Guard at a time when the service is doing more than ever, and is already severely under-resourced.”

North Korea: Confronting the Threat

The generals may be right, or may be over-estimating North Korea’s readiness for nuclear war involving long-range missiles. Either way, we must be prepared.     People may be blind to this, but the greatest threat from North Korea may not come necessarily from long-range missiles in pursuit of an American target.  Why you ask? Here is why: the best way for any country to have the element of surprise is to expand greatly their submarine service. Submarines can run silently and undetected, with stealth, and can stay close off shorelines. They can fire a nuclear warhead that will reach its target in less than 3-5 minutes.

What do we currently know about North Korea’s navy and submarine service?

The annual report of North Korea’s military capabilities by the U.S. Department of Defense, released in early 2014, identified the North Korean Navy’s strength at 60,000 personnel, 70 submarines, 420 gun boats, 260 amphibious landing craft, 30 mine warfare vessels, and 30 support ships.

Given the highly belligerent and threatening nature of North Korea to its Asian neighbors, the United States needs to expand its own Navy and especially our submarine service.

I’d rather see federal taxpayer money spent on 20 new nuclear submarines and several technologically-advanced reconnaissance planes that can detect submarines below the surface, than some mindlessly-conceived wall that won’t achieve its goal- preventing people from entering our southern border.

One Scenario Approach to Neutralizing North Korea

First off, we do not need to incinerate North Korea with nuclear bombs. The radiation alone will drift toward China and South Korea causing extreme chaos, misery, and mass exodus of refugees heading toward the borders of China and South Korea from North Korea.

The United States is in possession of missiles that can carry and bomb the equivalent of 11,000 pounds of TNT. When this MOAB (Mother of all bombs) is detonated, it will flatten and destroy an area one mile in every direction. These kinds of non-nuclear bombs would take out a city like Pyongyang in an instant. North Korean army, air force, and naval bases would suffer a similar fate.

I am not an expert on military strategies nor do I advocate one approach over any other. However, it is my belief that from now on war should be prosecuted based on the newest elements in a war. That is, the newest concept involves launching a “Hybrid War.”

Final Comments

During the House Intelligence meeting on March, 20, 2017 I heard the term Hybrid War for the first time. I credit Jackie Speiers of California for explaining it to the American public via those hearings. So what is Hybrid Warfare?

“Hybrid warfare is a military strategy that blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyberwarfare. In addition, hybrid warfare is used to describe attacks by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, improvised explosive devices and information warfare. This approach to conflicts is a potent, complex variation of warfare.”

It has long been the policy of the United States not to initiate hostilities but to let other countries make the first move. That policy was okay in prior generations where the U.S. was dealing with countries that predominantly possessed only conventional weapons. But times have changed.

Consequently, whoever the next president is, or the one thereafter (2020), an ultimatum needs to be given to North Korea. Either they dismantle their nuclear facilities or we will. If they violate the ultimatum both their nuclear facilities and their entire military must be obliterated, if not completely incinerated.    

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Psycho in the White House

Donald Trump is a lot like P.T. Barnum, a politician, showman and businessmen of the 19th Century. With Trump supporters genuflecting and fawning all over him, and Trump Administration lackeys acting like “Bagdad Bob,” is it any wonder that Donald Trump, the Prevaricator-in Chief, would strongly believe in the quote often attributed to P.T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute?”

Background

It has been almost 50 years since Barry McGuire’s song, Eve of Destruction played on every radio station and television network nationwide. His song signaled to the young of that era a new awakening about social injustice, racism, and the scourge of the Vietnam War.

The world seemed like it was falling apart in the 1960s, yet it affirmed a new determination to stand up for one’s rights and to challenge society and change its many antiquated cultural values and socially conservative attitudes.

Barry McGuire captured and articulated the essence of that feeling of determination. Nevertheless, make no mistake about it. The non-progressive cultural backwardness is still with us in the 21st Century. After all, how do you think Donald Trump got elected? Part of the answer is sociological/ psychological in nature. Beneath the surface of misdirected, fact-free assumptions and the banality of platitudes among Trump supporters, it was an underlying, deeply felt—“White Fright/White Flight.”

Nothing reflects this socially-driven backwardness more in 2017 than the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Since January 20, 2017, Donald Trump has been leading the United States toward implosion and compromising our international reputation worldwide. His travel ban on Muslims underscores his prejudice of immigrants from other countries as well as other various racial, ethnic and religious minorities. Singling out Muslims for a ban showed his true colors as a white nationalist. His kind of behavior was not a recent phenomenon. Remember, Trump was sued in court for racial discrimination by the federal government for violation of the Fair Housing Act. In an episode early in Donald Trump’s career, his New York real estate company was sued by the federal government for discriminating against potential black renters. After a lengthy legal battle, his company ultimately agreed to wide-ranging steps to offer rentals to nonwhites. The history and details of this case are very revealing.

Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was, unlike his son, a self-made man. He made his fortune by building thousands of units of middle-class housing in Brooklyn and Queens. But in the early 1970s, Donald was made president of the family company.  One of Donald’s first challenges came in October 1973, when the Justice Department hit the Trump Organization with a major discrimination suit for violating the Fair Housing Act.

The Times reported at the time that the Government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color.” It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.

In more recent years Trump accused President Barack Obama of not being born in America. The accusation was totally false. He now accuses him of committing a felony crime by bugging Trump Tower. He made both these charges by lying. Donald Trump has never backed up his accusations with any evidence at all.

Predicting the Future

 

No one can foretell the future, but I am willing to venture an educated guess that Donald Trump will be impeached in his first year of the presidency. It will likely be for committing treason (high crimes and misdemeanors) by trying to alter the election by conspiring with the Russians to rig and compromise the election in his favor. If he gives or has already given American top secrets to the Russians, he will be the first U.S. President in history to ever be sentenced to prison as a traitor.

There is also the possibility he may violate the emolument clause of the U.S. Constitution (prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts), commit a sexual offense, or violate the Logan Act (United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States).

 

Eve of Destruction: Evidence is piling up every day

 

Just watch the major networks every day. As we all say—“The Plot Thickens.”

 

“WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.”

The journalistic investigative reporting work of Woodward and Bernstein during the 1970s Watergate Nixon Scandal asked two critical questions, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” What happened to Donald Trump and his advisors interacting with Russian operatives to conspire to rig the election? If evidence eventually reveals complicity with the Russians, I would choose to call this “Russia-Gate.”

     I just want to say that Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States. The people who voted him in, reluctantly or not, should take responsibility for their error in judgment and start a campaign for Donald Trump to be removed from office. This will help his prior supporters earn vindication and extricate themselves from the shame and dishonor they have bestowed upon themselves and this great nation of ours.

What the Trump supporters thought was that a plain-talking guy with business experience, and no prior office or governmental experience (including no military experience either), was all that was required to be President of the United States. These collective opinions about qualifications trivialized the Office of the President. It was incredibly short-sighted and naive to have thought that way.

Consequently, the nation now has to undo allowing a mentally ill conman to remain in office. If Trump supporters wanted change, they should have changed parties and voted for Bernie Sanders during the primaries. That would have been the smart move.

     I support helping the mentally ill in this country. However, decisions affecting our nation are just too important to leave it to someone without their mental faculties intact.

Psychological Profile of Donald Trump

Confidence in Donald Trump to meet the needs of the nation is at a historically low point compared to all previous presidents in the post 1900 era. Donald Trump has many deficits in his personality. Two of the most important deficits observed are his lack of integrity and honesty.

As I said earlier, before Trump ran for president, he was promoting the idea that president Obama was not born in the United States. He maintained this lie for 5 years or more.

During the campaign he said Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination, which was untrue. Upon Trump’s November election he claimed that millions voted illegally, all because his inadequate personality couldn’t handle the fact that almost 3 million more popular votes were cast for Hilary Clinton rather than him.

Following his inauguration, he claimed he had more supporters on the malls surrounding the Capital Building than Obama. The photographic evidence showed otherwise. Trump lives in a “Fact-free Bubble,” especially when he claimed that 2016 showed the highest murder rate, more so than in the previous 40 years.

As a prior criminologist and administrator in charge of a large agency statistical data center I can tell you his statistics on the highs and lows in the national murder rate are blatantly untrue.

A week ago Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of placing a wiretap in Trump Tower. Lying is a central core to Donald Trump’s personality; he is our Prevaricator-in-Chief.

Donald’s crush on Vladimir Putin is very troubling. I think the government’s investigation into Russia’s hacking and interference with the 2016 presidential election, in all its ramifications, will soon bear evidentiary fruit.

Other nations think Trump is a paper tiger. We need a president who is willing to preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities and military installations before they become an imminent threat to the United States. Most con men like Trump don’t have a backbone. He’s most likely a coward at heart. For the first time in our history we really do look weak and are an embarrassment before the world.

With his constant use of his twitter account to bully foreign leaders as well as anyone he sees fit to do so in the United States, he has proven that before, and since he has taken office that he is indeed, like a few of his supporters, unhinged, mentally disturbed and unstable. Time and time again he has shown himself to be a misogynist, racist, degenerate, thuggish, iconoclast.

     He has the mentality of a five year old; he is such a loose cannon—he has even bad-mouthed those who put him in office.      

As the late Howard Cosell used to say on Monday Night Football, “tell it….like…. it is!” People soon forget factual details, and people who voted for Trump made only value judgments rather than let facts guide them. And, to no one’s surprise Trump supporters are now beginning to experience “buyer’s remorse.” 

One of the underlying mistakes Trump voters made was to naively believe Trump represented change that would benefit them. Trump is not in favor of increasing the minimum wage that would’ve helped low income families; he is mute on helping college debt problems for many students and their families, and wants to spend unbelievably vast amounts of money for a useless wall rather than spend money to improve the lives of his supporters, or those who are elderly, or those considered below the poverty line or the working-poor.

Nowhere do you find Trump issuing executive orders to promote educational programs for youth and adults in the inner cities, as well as those troubled people found in the rust belt who desperately sought any kind of help to improve their lives. He does this keeping a straight-face while he lines his cabinet with the well-heeled and, in many cases, with people who are millionaires and billionaires. Having Trump as president is like “placing the fox in charge of the hen house.”

But thinking Donald Trump is clever as a fox gives him too much credit. The other day I heard a very insightful medical theory that might better explain all of a 70-year old Donald Trump’s very erratic behavior. I suggest that Donald Trump may be experiencing the early signs of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. What is the evidence: his paranoia, inability to remember things, not being able to remember what he has said (by making extremely contradicting statements) and his chronic self-serving tantrum-oriented 5 year old emotional out-bursts.

For Trump, in addition to forgetting he also shows an inability to recognize certain people; it has wider ramifications as well. He has not been able to recognize the true bigots in our country. They were mixed in with other Trump voters and were not troubled economically in quite the same way.

These were the white nationalists with white party affiliations whose core racist values repulsed everyone else including liberal progressives, moderate conservatives and well-meaning independents everywhere.

Conservative Legacy in America    

The legacy of the conservative movement in this country including the far right has never historically been anything to be proud of. It was progressive values, not conservative values that led the way to civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, LBGT rights, health care as a universal right, and the honest recognition today that 90% of the wealth in this country is held by the top 1-2 % of the population.

Conservatism has never been anything but an obstacle to forward-looking people everywhere. Conservatism is a moral and political stance that is anything but moral. It is a movement, much like a bowel movement, that craps all over the poor and disenfranchised with every breath they take. They are selfish, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, arrogant buffoons from every age group.

There are many reasons some people wish to live in the past. But the main reason is a fear of change, despite the fact that many who hold this view want government to change, but they ultimately cower and lack the courage to change them.

In other words, they blame everyone else for their lot in life, but never take responsibility for their own lives. They would have benefitted early in life had they read Paul Tillich’s famous work, The Courage to be.” Although these observations apply to a lot of people across the entire political spectrum, fear of change seems to have a more paralyzing and crippling effect on those citizens who consider themselves conservative.

Not everyone can become Horatio Alger but everyone can improve their own situation if they have the willingness (and courage) to do so. This is neither a liberal nor conservative idea. It is an American idea. We are in America after all— “the land of opportunity.”

Final Thoughts

It must be remembered that Donald Trump, like many of his close advisors who are his apologists in the White House, share much in common: (1) they tend to have a mind like a steel trap—nothing gets in and nothing gets out, and (2) they prove every day the alleged saying of the late P.T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

     P.T. Barnum was successful in life; Donald Trump, by comparison, is simply a flim-flam man who conned a very naïve voting public into thinking he had their interests at heart.  

Read Full Post »

The Upcoming 2016 Presidential Election:

Implications from the Primary Season Just Finished

The United States has just gone through the primary season for both Republicans and Democrats. One can think of the approximately 29,408,240 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as an extremely large sample of voters who have already made their choice between the two candidates. More votes were cast of course in the primaries and  caucuses but favored other non-successful candidates from both parties. But Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are now the presumptive candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties.

While the turnout in the general election will hopefully be larger (in excess of 130 million votes), the primaries and caucuses data are showing a definite trend or pattern as to who might be elected in 2016.

Underlying this pattern is the knowledge that favorability ratings of the candidates have already been accounted for or factored in among those who voted during the primary season. Unless something unusual happens between now and November, choices already made during primary season may mimic what is ahead in the general election. While many independents may or may not have voted during the primaries, historically independents in general elections tend to split the vote, some leaning left and some leaning right.

One must remember that the Electoral College determines who wins. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

Reality Check

The number of Electoral College votes is tied to the size of the population in each respective state based on the last census. But the awarding of Electoral College votes are themselves based on who wins the most votes by registered voters in a particular state. The candidate who will win this election in 2016 will win in the larger states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Florida. Why? Because these states have larger populations and thus a larger number of Electoral College votes.

The candidate who will win in 2016 will probably win a fair number of mid-range sized states in the South. Less populated more rural states will have little effect on the presidential outcome in 2016.

Obviously, the candidate who pulls more popular votes than his rival in each state will likely win that state in the general election. Some shifting of the vote may occur (changing party loyalties, changing candidate loyalties, higher or lower favorability ratings between now and November) but, by and large, voters are not likely to change their vote once their initial gut-level reaction takes place be it early or late in the election cycle. But since people seldom change their core values after the age of 25, it is unlikely that voter assessment of individual candidate favorability will likely change either.

Voter Composition

In the United States in 2016 there are 201.5 million people who are 18 years of age or older. I will tell you up front that there will be 169 million registered voters in the upcoming election. Of these approximately 55 million are Republicans likely to vote in the general election; however, there are 72 million Democrats likely to cast a vote in the general election. There are also approximately 42 million independents. However, not all registered voters in fact vote, i.e., some stay home on election day.

The shortfall of the Republican Party to the Democratic Party is 17,000,000 voters. What this means on average is that each state will have approximately 340,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the voting tally on Election Day.

However, candidate votes will vary by state giving rise to the previous political discussion about “red states” versus “dark blue states.” The pink, light blue states lean more toward one party than another. However, such leaning states are basically irrelevant as a predictor since primary voters in all leaning states already casted their votes for who they wanted.

What this means is that a republican candidate will succeed in some states while a democratic candidate will win in other states. This is why Electoral College votes are so important to analyze on a state-by-state basis. Taking into consideration the above information I will analyze the data as presented below.

The Approach to Analysis

I have compiled all of the raw votes in the primary/caucus states and compared the votes given to two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I will then tally the votes and determine who had the most during the primary season overall, and by state.

I will then tally the number of Electoral College votes by state, and by a particular candidate, to determine who will win the 2016 election. Despite how close the popular vote is, the Electoral College votes may be quite different from the popular vote based on differing populations from state to state.

For example, during the 2012 presidential election President Obama garnered 51.1percent (65,915,796) of the vote compared to Romney’s 47.2 percent (60,933,500).

However, based on which state each candidate won, President Obama ended up with 332 Electoral College votes compared to Romney’s 206. President Obama received 61.1 percent more Electoral College votes than Romney but received just a 3.9 percent greater number of popular votes. Why? President Obama captured the bigger populated states. This pattern just described is the most likely scenario for the 2016 election (candidate who takes the larger states wins). You have to know that, in general, conservatives tend to capture small rural states while liberals/progressives tend to capture large liberal/progressive states. The real influence in an election is demographic; meaning population size by state really matters.

The Results

                                          Hillary Clinton                                 Donald Trump

                   Raw Votes/Elec Coll Votes   

Alabama

 309,928  0 371,735

 9

Alaska

 2,146  0  7,346

 3

Arizona

 235,697  0  249,916

 11

Arkansas

 144,580  6  133,144  0
California  1,940,580  55  1,174,829

 0

Colorado

 2,784 9  1,542  0
Connecticut  170,085 7  123,367

 0

Delaware

 55,956 3  42,472

 0

Florida

1,097,400  29  1,077,221  0

Georgia

 543,008  16  501,707  0

Hawaii

 10, 125  4  5,677

 0

Idaho  5,065  0  62,425

 4

Illinois  1,017,066  20  556,916

0

Indiana

 303,202 0 590,460

 11

Iowa  *

 *

   

Kansas

 12,593  0  17,062

6

Kentucky 212, 550  8  82,493

0

Louisiana

221,615  8  124,518 0
Maine  1,232  0  6,070

4

Maryland

533,247  11 236,623 0
Massachusetts  603,784  11  311,313

0

Michigan

 576,795  16  483,751 0
Minnesota 118,135  10  24,684

0

Mississippi

 182,447  0 192,755  6
Missouri  310,602  0 382,093

10

Montana

55,194  0 114,056 3
Nebraska 14,340  0  121,287

 5

Nevada

 6,309  0  34,531  6
New Hampshire  95,252  0  100,406

 4

New Jersey

 554,237  14  356,697  0
New Mexico  110,451    5 73,530

 0

New York

 1,054,083  29  524, 932  0
North Carolina 616,383  15 458,151

 0

North Dakota

 **  **    
Ohio 679,266  0  727,585

 18

Oklahoma

 174,054  7  130,141  0
Oregon  251,739  7  240, 804

 0

Pennsylvania

 918, 689  20  892, 702 0
Rhode Island  54,887 4 40, 020

0

South Carolina

271, 514 9 239, 851 0
South Dakota 27,046  0  44,866

 3

Tennessee

245,304  0  332,702  11
Texas  935, 080  38 757,618

 0

Utah

 15,666  0  24,864  6
Vermont 18,335  0  19,968

3

Virginia

 503,358  13 355,960  0
Washington 380,760 0 403,603

 12

West Virginia

85,351  0 156,245 5
Wisconsin  432, 767 10 386,370

 0

Wyoming

 124  3  70  0
District of Columbia***  *** ***  

 

Grand Totals  

387

 

140

*Not a valid comparison—Iowa Caucus process different for Republicans and Democrats

** Not a valid comparison—North Dakota Republicans don’t hold a presidential primary vote. All 28 delegates remain unpledged.

***Not a valid comparison. Republicans had a convention within one precinct voting (like a caucus) while the democrats had 143 precincts voting, (more like a primary).

 

Results of the Analysis

Based on the popular vote Hillary Clinton received 16,110,811 votes; by comparison, Donald Trump received 13,297,429 primary and caucus votes. Among these two presumptive nominees some 29.4 million votes were cast. It must be remembered that her actual votes were less than they might have been expected because she was running against a very strong competitor—Bernie Sanders. He took a very high percentage of the popular vote beating her, in fact, in 23 states (she won 27 states). He was very close in the vote count even in states she won.

Donald Trump, by comparison, ran much stronger all the time than his competitors, sometimes with percentages of the vote that were more than all of the others combined. Yet, despite this difference in who her competitor was, Hillary Clinton still managed to receive nearly 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump in the primaries and caucuses. People who voted during the primary season of 2016 already factored in the favorability/un-favorability of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many different factors go into an individual’s choice for president, but common sense should indicate likeability is crucial.

Importance of Electoral College

This election is shaping up to be what one might consider to be an Electoral College slaughter. I evaluated how each presumptive nominee did in the primaries and caucuses against one another as to whom will likely win in each of the 50 states. What will be important more than anything else are the Electoral College votes for each candidate who wins a particular state. I added up all the Electoral College votes in states where Hillary won in the primary over Donald Trump, and vice-versa. As we know it takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

People might suspect that what happens in a general election is fundamentally different from what takes place in the primaries. However, the primaries do more than simply help one candidate over another to win their party’s nomination. The voters in each party, in whatever state they reside, are expressing their personal opinion and assessment of who they like. Such mindsets and preferences seldom change from primary to the general election. What does change following the primaries are the number of voters who didn’t vote earlier. One cannot know for sure but only estimate the number of people, who will show up at the polls in November, 2016. Anecdotal evidence from the media suggests that the voter turnout this presidential year will be “huge.”

Two things remain in this Blog to answer: (1) who will win the election and (2) why.

Who Will Win the Election and Why

Based on my analysis of the 2016 primary and caucus voting just concluded I predict and estimate that Hillary Clinton will become President of the United States on Election Day November 8, 2016. The Electoral College shoot-out will result in 387 Electoral College votes for Hillary Clinton and 140 for Donald Trump.

If Hillary Clinton takes a lot of Bernie Sanders voters, I suspect she will, contrary to the primary data, take Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes making her total on November 8 some 405 Electoral College votes. Correspondingly, Donald Trump will end the night downtrodden with only 122 Electoral College votes. Hillary Clinton will emerge on Election night as an exhilarated winner (not a loser with low energy). And, indeed, her win will be, as you guessed it—“Huge.”

There is irony here. Remember, Donald Trump engaged in Ad Hominin arguments criticizing Mitt Romney as a loser because he lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama. But if Donald Trump only garners 122 Electoral College votes on Election Day 2016, Donald Trump will be an even bigger loser. Why?  Because Mitt Romney, although losing the 2012 election, will still surpass Donald Trump by having 69% more Electoral College votes than Donald Trump is likely to have in 2016.

Final Comments

Let’s not forget the Trump voter. Their anger is real and partially justified. The Republican Party has had a facelift since the 2010 mid-term elections. That election ushered in the era of ultra-conservative Tea Party members.

In the 2014 mid-term election the Congress acquired republican majorities in both houses. The Republicans at that point became the “Do Nothing” party leaving all their own voters out in the cold to fend for own interests. Such republican voters took note of this and chose in 2016 to support an outsider like Donald Trump.  The republican politicians both before and after the 2014 mid-term elections engaged in a never-ending uncompromising, recalcitrant posture of congressional gridlock. By voting for Tea Party members back then, Trump supporters had basically shot themselves in the foot by creating the political environment in the first place which caused them to be “screwed” in the end. They created their own misfortunes in the first place by voting Tea Party members back into Congress in 2014. This was, of course, incredibly naïve.

If Trump supporters want to have their economic needs looked after in the future, they need to vote for non-Tea Party congressional and senatorial candidates during election, 2016.

Given a recent poll showing Donald Trump is beginning to lose support from white-male voters, it is not outside the realm of possibility that political history will be made in 2016. That is, zero states will go republican this fall.

 

Read Full Post »

Donald Trump

the American Fuehrer, The New George Lincoln Rockwell of our Time

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while truth is putting on its shoes.”

Haddon Spurgen (1834-1892) a quote often attributed to Mark Twain

 

Introduction

 

Fear can be a paralyzing stimulus. Just witness the public’s recent reaction following the attacks in Paris, Mali, Lebanon, Beirut, and the Sinai Desert by ISIS and Al Qaida.

But there are really three types of fear: (1) an immediate threat like a lion or tiger, who eyes one as a tasty morsel, (2) an imminent threat that is right around the corner—but yet unseen (like a tsunami heading toward the coast), and (3) an irrational fear generated within the individual by emotion and imagination that has no real basis in fact.

While generally psychiatrically-induced fears often relate to internal stimuli based on early childhood experiences, irrational fears in an adult can often come from stimuli in the environment, not necessarily based on any form of individual pathology. Currently, we have political demagogues and media engaging in fear mongering on television or on the campaign trail of speeches, town hall meetings, and fundraising events. So what is a demagogue?

In this day and age a demagogue is a political leader who uses popular prejudices, and false claims and promises, in order to gain power. He or she is a leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational thought. He or she is a rabble-rouser and an agitator. Facts and data are anathema to this type of leader.

Normally during an election cycle, candidates for office often paint a bleak picture (the country is heading to hell in a hand-basket theme or scenario) in order to curry favor with the voting public. This kind of particular way of persuading people on the surface is not all that unusual.

But candidates for the 2016 presidential election are doing more than that. The pitch and tone of today’s political speeches, and jockeying for favor, smacks of exploiting the public to the greatest degree possible through fear and haranguing (in this election cycle I’d characterize it as childish ranting masquerading as adult rhetoric) against the current party opposition presidential candidates. The Democrat candidates for president appear to hang closer to facts, data, and proposed programs or policy positions in many areas of public interest. There seems to be a higher degree of civility in the way they have conducted themselves, minimizing any character assassinations or glib rhetoric. However, Republican candidates have operated more consistently with promoting character assassination as their primary modus operandi of campaigning.

Leading the Republican pack in fear mongering is Donald Trump along with many of his other candidate compatriots. The barrage and onslaught of insults, innuendoes, and demagogic diatribes in every speech has set a new standard in manipulation of the public.

Trump’s approach  to getting attention for his campaign is to play to the prejudices and fears of the public, often without one scintilla of evidence on a topic, much less a proper recitation of facts to support his position on any issue.

His type of pandering is stubborn and supports a program that disrespects all foreigners. Correspondingly, it has also supported an unintelligible disrespect in general of all minorities (particularly Hispanics), hate for Islamic groups and individuals (the idea to keep track of American citizens who happen to follow the religion of Islam. What next, a President Trump rounding them up and placing them in internment camps?).

Trump has said we did not intern any American Germans in World War II. Not true! I refer my cyberspace audience to, “The Train to Chrystal City,” by Jan Jarboe Russel, and “ Undue Process—The Untold Story of America’s German Alien Internees,” by Arnold Krammer, and lastly,” Enemies: World War II Alien Internment,” by John Christgau.). And, his answer to disagreeing with his other Republican rival candidates is not to refute their ideas in an intelligent way, but rather he prefers to show them all sorts of respect by name-calling them as having no energy, weak, stupid and “loooosers.” Another interesting fact: Donald Trump’s early family shows they were German immigrants or refugees. It is important to understand what exactly he is doing in his campaign rhetoric. Let me say that he is engaging constantly through the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Here is precisely what an ad Hominem argument is all about.

 

ad hominem

 

An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character (character assassination), motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

All of us are guilty at some time in our lives of doing this. Just realize that it is a fallacy of reasoning, a short cut to thinking things through in a careful and thoughtful manner.

The fallacy of ad Hominem is that it does not attack the reasoning underlying another person’s argument or position with facts and data. Value judgments seem to displace logic and thoughtful analysis with ad Hominem arguments. Listen next time to any political speech, democrats or Republicans, and see if you can detect this type of fallacious argument. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and the other Republicans make an almost daily use of this fallacious type of argument.

 

That’s what makes the American public so vulnerable to manipulation by political entities from any political party. The underlying motivation for doing so is to exploit the public’s irrational fear(s) for their own benefit.

 

A Quick History Lesson from the 1960s

     For those of you who are too young to remember George Lincoln Rockwell, here is a brief description:

George Lincoln Rockwell founded the American Nazi Party in 1958. He was a major figure in the neo-Nazi movement in the United States, and his beliefs and writings have continued to be influential among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.      His hatred of minorities and Jews reflected his values and other members of the American Nazi Party.

There is a very chilling likeness between Donald Trump and George Lincoln    Rockwell. Trump’s public statements and disdain for political correctness, and the beliefs and quotes of the infamous George Lincoln Rockwell, are very similar in content and nature.

By the way, political correctness is a good thing, not a bad thing. Why, because it shows respect for the majority of currently held laws and norms in society. The underlying basis for liking or disliking either political correctness or incorrectness, are values an individual possesses. The vast majority of Americans possess values very consistent with political correctness. I believe Donald Trump promotes non-conformity (disdain for political correctness) only when it promotes or serves him.

 

The political differences one sees in society can always be traced back to the values one holds. Most values reflect our ideals; other statements of value reflect a past that was riddled with destructive actions against forming a country with inclusive values. An historical example of destructive nonexclusive values was the lynching and murder of hundreds if not thousands of blacks in the south following Reconstruction.

Comparison of Donald Trump with George Lincoln Rockwell

 

The following is a comparison between Donald Trump and the attitudes of the late Neo-Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell. First, read the following quotes of George Lincoln Rockwell. Then make your own decision as to whether the comparison is a perfect match with Trump.

I will say that Donald Trump is not an evil person. By comparison, George Lincoln Rockwell was an evil person. In 1967 I spend one year at Sonoma State University. At the time, Rockwell was making $2,000 a week on the public speaking circuit. He gave a speech at the University. To the credit of students at Sonoma State University, six foot six pipe-smoking Rockwell was not well received at the school.

 

George Lincoln Rockwell’s Personal Quotes

 

  • We must put an end to both economic freeloading and economic exploitation in America. There must be no place for parasites that draw their sustenance from society without giving anything in return.

 

  • I don’t believe in democracy. In the second place, neither did our white forefathers. I believe, as they did, in a republican authoritarian republic with a limited electorate — just like the one the writers of our Constitution meant this country to be. When these white Christian patriots sat down to write the Declaration of Independence, there were no black citizens for them to worry about.

 

  • A leopard doesn’t change his spots just because you bring him in from the jungle and try to housebreak him and turn him into a pet. He may learn to sheathe his claws in order to beg a few scraps off the dinner table, and you may teach him to be a beast of burden, but it doesn’t pay to forget that he’ll always be what he was born: a wild animal.

 

  • We must never again let America be led into a fratricidal war like the last two world wars, for the sake of alien, minority interests.

 

  • Being prepared to die is one of the great secrets of living.

 

Given his last quote, I hope he was prepared to die. He was assassinated at the age of 49 by one of his henchmen (John Patler—who had become alienated from the man who was known as “The American Fuehrer or American Hitler”). Patler was excommunicated by Rockwell because he was accused of putting Marxist propaganda into the American Nazi Party’s newsletter, Stormtrooper.

 

The Beliefs and Values of Donald Trump

A Slap at America’s Veterans

One of the most disgusting things Donald Trump did was to take a slap at veterans. Donald Trump, who never served his country and was a dropout from military school in his youth, had the unmitigated gall to malign former prisoner-of-war Navy veteran, Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican, who endured five years of torture and abuse at the hands of the North Vietnamese at the Hanoi Hilton.

 

Torture

 

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Monday he not only would bring back waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique discontinued by the Obama administration (that originated in the Bush Administration), but also would “approve more than that,” even if such tactics prove ineffective. This suggests an underlying sadistic impulse in Trump’s personality.

 

Donald’s attitude toward Blacks and Hispanics

 

Donald Trump is respected for his business acumen, but his political commentary leaves much to be desired.  He is also accused by political opponents of being a racist and tends to make remarks that confirm, rather than refute, these allegations.

 

Donald Trump’s attitude toward the Black Lives Matter Movement

     The Black Lives Matter Movement is “trouble.” Trump mocks Democratic candidates like Martin O’Malley for apologizing to members of the protest movement against police brutality, and casts himself as a pro-law enforcement candidate. “I think they’re looking for trouble,” he once said of the activist group. He also tweeted a controversial graphic purporting to show that African Americans kill whites and blacks at a far higher rates than do whites or police officers. However, the graphic cites a fictitious “Crime Statistics Bureau” for its numbers, and has been widely debunked using real FBI data. Fabricating false data shows the extent that Donald Trump is an unmitigated liar.

 

Donald Trump’s attitude toward Women

Donald Trump is unquestionably a misogynist. The disparaging remarks he has said about Megan Kelly, Rosie O’Donnell, Cher, Ariana Huffington, and Angelina Jolie is proof that he is one.

 

Donald Trump—attitudes toward people of the Islamic faith.

On November 19, 2015 a leading Muslim civil rights group pushed back on Thursday against what it considers inflammatory language from Republican presidential candidates, and condemning Ben Carson’s comparison of Syrian refugees to rabid dogs as well as Donald J. Trump’s support for requiring special identification for American followers of Islam.

Lawmakers and candidates have been wrestling with how to address a growing terrorism threat and an influx of refugees fleeing Syria. In recent days the debate has turned increasingly partisan and in some cases, heated.

Mr. Trump was asked this Thanksgiving week in an interview with Yahoo News if he would consider requiring Muslims to register in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. Not ruling that out, he said: “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques.”

Remarks by Mr. Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who, like Mr. Trump, has been leading several polls of Republican candidates, inflamed the situation. Addressing the issue of Syrian refugees on Thursday, he said that people who were against welcoming them to the United States were using their heads.

“If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, “Mr. Carson said in calling for stricter measures to screen refugees. And you’re probably going to put your children out of the way.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the remarks by the two candidates, saying that they had worsened an already “toxic environment.”

“By mainstreaming Islamophobia and unconstitutional policies, Donald Trump and Ben Carson are contributing to an already toxic environment that may be difficult to correct once their political ambitions have been satisfied,” said Robert McCaw, the Council’s government affairs manager. “Such extremist rhetoric is unbecoming of anyone who seeks our nation’s highest office and must be strongly repudiated by leaders from across the political spectrum.”

This was not the first time that Mr. Carson and Mr. Trump have angered Muslims this election cycle. Mr. Trump has expressed a willingness to close mosques where violence is being promoted, and Mr. Carson has said that he does not think a Muslim should be President of the United States.

Final Comments

          Donald Trump, who has never held public office, is considered an entertainer who wants the keys to his kingdom (White House). If the American public wants to put him in the White House, so be it. Letting him anywhere near the White House where he gains access to the red phone and the codes to our own destruction is nothing less than pure insanity. The American people can’t be that naïve to elect Donald Trump, or can they?

 

Given his use of ad Hominem arguments to insult both Republicans and Democrats, do you really think he could ever get any legislation passed that would benefit the American people? You think gridlock is bad now; think again. Anything Donald Trump proposed would be shot down faster than a Russian jet over Turkey.

 

In less than 120 days following his inauguration, both parties in Congress will find a way to impeach him. But, more importantly such a provocateur possesses beliefs and values that run counter to the vast majority of Americans. He also imitates the belief system of a George Lincoln Rockwell, who was a notorious degenerate of the worst order. But Republicans and others still have a chance to remedy the situation and save their own political party from disaster and utter self-destruction.

 

The election is a year away and they still have many choices. I’m not a Republican and never will be, although I liked many moderate Republicans in local California elections back in the 1960s. But one candidate I think is right for the Republican Party. A better choice and diametrically opposite to Trump is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He has a genuine fine intellect, and more importantly, he is a decent human being. I also think John Kasich would make a very good running mate for Graham.

 

However, as I’ve said before in my last Blog Hispanics, blacks, educated whites and the vast majority of the Millennial Generation are going to vote for the democratic choice in 2016. Given Trump’s recent comments and disparaging remarks on people who are overweight, or disabled, he has just guaranteed he will lose their vote as well.

 

My final comment is this. The United States has a long history of electing qualified exceptional people to the White House whether they were Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservative. All presidents of the past had their strengths and personal weaknesses. If one is human, one will always have flaws of some kind. Both Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) had their flaws, but nonetheless were two of our greatest presidents. Kennedy was forward looking; a pioneer who set the stage that would propel our space program well into the future, able to send astronauts to the moon six years after his untimely death.

 

Is Donald Trump more interested in himself than you? You bet he is! I generally like wealthy individuals and super-achievers; they can and do contribute a great deal beyond themselves. Unfortunately, there is in this country such a thing as “rich trash.”

 

Is Donald Trump a Neo-Nazi like George Lincoln Rockwell? In many ways he is. This is because he thinks like George Lincoln Rockwell with many non-inclusive statements. In spewing hatred for all who not white, Trump reveals an extremist right wing radical view. His comments, beliefs and values are patently un-American and have no place in a liberal democracy like the United States.

 

Trump supporters often say they like him because he is candid and won’t adhere to political correctness. The value of being audaciously candid and not being politically correct is in the eyes of the beholder. Such support becomes dis-service to the country once Donald Trump is put under a microscope of public scrutiny. To his supporters I say this: Look deeper into Donald Trump beyond his candid rhetoric. I guarantee you won’t like what you see.

 

Supporting a truly offensive extremely bigoted candidate for President of the United States does not auger well for the American people. In essence it disgraces the memory of former great presidents and minimizes their importance to our country. A true, a patriotic American is one who values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. It is one who believes in the Bill of Rights and the concept of equal justice for all. Also, being unhappy with congressional gridlock is no excuse to vote for a man who ultimately will make a fool out of you if you vote for him. Like I said, there are plenty of other choices out there.

 

I am reminded of a quote by the famous humorist and entertainer, Will Rogers. He was once quoted as saying, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” Well, Will Rogers never met Donald Trump!

 

I strongly suggest you consider other candidates for President before our country becomes the laughing stock of the nation, if not the world.

Read Full Post »

The 2016 Election, the Media, Favorability Ratings, and the Shifting American Electorate

 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

 

The cornerstone of all science is observation. Lately I’ve made some interesting observations that raise a lot of questions about the 2016 election, the media and the shifting American electorate.

     The Status of the Republican Party

A good question to consider is why more than 50% of Republican voters seem to prefer outsiders rather than professional politicians, for example (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). By comparison, on the Democratic side, Democrats mostly seem to prefer tried and true democratic professional politicians like Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley. I do not have a guiding theory to explain these peculiar political party differences in preference. Although Democrats too have different preferences among their candidates, they appear nonetheless to be more at ease with their choices than do the Republicans.

This is a fair question to ask—why it is Republicans are so dissatisfied, and why it is the Republican Party is in such disarray due to in-fighting.

With respect to these questions, I do have some ideas that relate to congressional gridlock, and favorability of the candidates as seen by demographically different voters.

Congressional Gridlock and Demographic Preferences

Many Republican voters who now express contempt for professional politicians are the same voters who willingly sent professional Republican politicians to Congress during the 2014 mid-term elections. It was a Republican landslide just a year ago. This may mean that Republican voters since 2014 have no one to blame but themselves for their own dissatisfaction.

And it’s true. Although the Republican Party since the 2014 mid-term elections has controlled both the House and the Senate, virtually nothing has been achieved due to recalcitrant ultra-conservatives and other malcontents who desired to commit mischief with gridlock and threatening to shut down the United States government.

During the last year, and more recently, Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. The results: their efforts failed. They also wanted to nix the Iran nuclear diplomatic agreement. The results: their efforts failed. They wanted to deep-six Obamacare and they failed (several times I might add). They wanted to shut down the government over the fiscal budget (in 2013). Except for a few days, the result was abject failure again and condemnation and scorn by the American people against the Republicans. All the President had to do was threaten a veto and they caved in like a very bad West Virginia mining accident. With Republicans in the majority, why couldn’t they control and overturn a presidential veto?

In addition, it is clear that Republican ultra conservatives from the Benghazi Committee have been wasting millions of taxpayer dollars money in order to vilify and tarnish the reputation of Hilary Clinton. Please observe the “smokescreen of doubt” that was created from these hearings; also note that no charges of any kind have yet been filed against Hilary Clinton. Polls showed that even Republican voters understand what was really happening in those hearings.

The Media and Republican Presidential Candidates

There is one area where I am in complete agreement with Republican presidential candidates. It is their anger at the media. There are liberal media and there are conservative media, and they are just as biased as any politician. It’s a common belief that the media are able to sift through truth and falsity and always have the public’s interest in mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many hide behind the smokescreen of the First Amendment in order to keep hidden their real intentions. Head-hunting and biased questions (and got-you questions) are still the goal of many reporters around the country. When watching them work, as in the debate in Colorado recently, I felt that the public’s interest in learning a candidate’s real view on many important issues was left out. Consequently, the media had their own agenda that night. Our interests were totally ignored.

Gone are the days of superior reporters like Edward R. Murrow, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and the great Walter Cronkite. Today, we’re more likely to get Heckle or Jeckle as “talking heads” news journalists or commentators. There are some exceptions to what I’m saying.

In fairness, today there are some really good people in the media such as Don Lemon, Erin Burnett, Rachel Maddow and one of the very best news reporters, Lester Holt. What I like about these journalists is that, although some opinion creeps into their shows, they nevertheless make a real sincere effort to bring out the facts for the public.

I do have some personal experience with this issue. Back in 1996 I wrote a very positive editorial for the Sacramento Bee on the Chief of Naval Operations who had committed suicide. I had worked directly as a gunnery yeoman for the Admiral when he was just an Ltjg/Lt. onboard the U.S.S. John R. Craig (DD-885) during the Vietnam War.

Subsequent to my editorial, I was contacted by a reporter from The Washington Post. He too was writing a story about the Admiral. However, he lied to me about what he was really up to. When his article came out in the Washington Post a week or two later, it was a lousy chop piece denigrating the reputation of the Admiral. This Admiral was the first ever enlisted man in United States Navy to rise from seaman recruit to top officer in the U.S. Navy with four stars (as Chief of Naval Operations). The hard lesson I learned was never ever trust a reporter.

When the public is looking for facts about a presidential candidate, always remember it is your responsibility to sift out truth from falsity. You can never depend on the media.

Favorability Ratings

Another important significant factor is favorability ratings. This may be the closest thing to looking inside the heart of the voter, where their sense of who is best for the White House is a gut level reaction to that candidate. Are they liked, or not?

     Research by the Pew Research Center indicates the Republican Party may be in deep trouble next year with the electorate.

The Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January. The Democratic Party continues to have mixed ratings (48% favorable, 47% unfavorable).

The Democratic Party has often held an edge over the GOP in favorability in recent years, but its advantage had narrowed following the Republicans’ midterm victory last fall. Today, the gap is as wide as it has been in more than two years.

Republicans in particular are now more critical of their own party than they were a few months ago. About two-thirds (68%) express a favorable opinion of their party, the lowest share in more than two years. Six months ago, 86% of Republicans viewed the GOP positively.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted July 14-20, 2015 among 2,002 adults, finds little change in more specific perceptions of the two parties.

As has been the case over the past four years, the Republican Party is viewed as more extreme in its positions than the Democratic Party. Currently, 52% say the GOP is more extreme, compared with 35% who say this better describes the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party continues to hold wide advantages over the Republicans on empathy and honesty. By 53% to 31%, the Democratic Party is viewed as “more concerned with the needs of people like me.” And the Democrats hold a 16-point lead on governing in an honest and ethical way (45% to 29%).

Neither party has an edge in perceptions about which could better manage the Federal government: 40% say the Republican Party, while an identical percentage prefers the Democrats.

On issues, the Democratic Party holds double-digit advantages as better able to handle the environment (by a margin of 53% to 27%), abortion and contraception policies (50% to 31%), education (46% to 34%) and health care (46% to 36%).  The Republican Party has wide leads for better reflecting people’s views on gun control (48% to 36%) and dealing with the terrorist threat at home (44% to 34%).

In some cases, such as terrorism and foreign policy, the Republicans have lost ground since January. There has been little change in views of the parties on other major issues, including the economy and immigration. Neither party holds a significant advantage on these issues.

The survey finds little change in Barack Obama’s job approval: 48% approve of the way he is handling his job as president while 45% disapprove. Obama’s rating fell into negative territory at the end of last year, but has been mixed since January.

Recent Pew Research Center surveys have found signs of dissatisfaction with the GOP among Republicans. In May, just 41% of Republicans said they approved of the job performance of the leaders of the GOP-led Congress. In 2011, after Republicans had won control of the House, 60% of Republicans approved of the job being done by their party’s leaders in Congress.

     The current survey finds that positive views of the GOP among Republicans have declined 18 percentage points since January, from 86% to 68%. Independents also view the Republican Party less favorably; 29% today, compared with 37% six months ago.

Democrats by contrast continue to express highly positive opinions of their party: 86% view the party favorably, little changed from 84% in January. Independents’ views of the Democratic Party remain at 38%, unchanged since January.

The advantage the Republican Party had on a number of major issues has eroded since earlier this year. The Democratic Party has improved its position on foreign policy, taxes, policies about abortion and contraception, and terrorism since February.

The Democratic Party’s advantage on abortion and contraception has increased 16 points since February; currently 50% say Democrats could do the better job dealing with policies on abortion and contraception, while just 31% say the GOP could. Though these ratings reflect a shift from February (when the parties ran even on this issue), the edge Democrats now hold is similar to its advantage in October 2014.

Five months ago Republicans were seen by more Americans as the party better able to handle foreign policy (48% said Republicans, 35% Democrats); today, the public is equally likely to say Republicans (38%) as Democrats (41%) could better handle foreign policy. And while the GOP maintains a 10-point advantage as the party better able to address the terrorist threat at home (44% vs. 34%), that edge has narrowed since earlier this year.

Over the last two years, the Republican Party has opened a gap over the Democratic Party when it comes to views about which party better reflects American views about gun control. In May 2013, following months of debate about gun policy, the public was divided over which party could better deal with gun control. Today, the GOP holds a 13-point edge on this issue.

Democrats Hold Edge on Health Care, Neither Party Has Advantage on Economy, Immigration

Health care remains an issue that favors the Democratic Party. Currently 46% prefer the Democratic Party on health care, while 36% prefer the GOP. The Democratic Party has maintained an advantage on this issue for much of the last several years.

Democrats also enjoy a 12-point edge on education policy (46% vs. 34%). And on the environment, the public favors Democrats by about two-to-one (53% say the Democratic Party could do the better job, 27% say the GOP).

Americans continue to be divided over which party would do a better job handling the economy. Today, 44% say Democrats could do the better job, while nearly as many (41%) say Republicans could do the better job. Neither party has held a significant edge on this issue over the last year. Last July the Republicans held an eight-point advantage (47% vs. 39%) on the economy.

The parties also run even on the budget deficit and immigration, little changed since October of last year. The public has been split over which party is better able to handle immigration for the last several years.

There remain substantial divides by age and race over which party is better on immigration. The Democratic Party holds the edge on this issue among Americans under fifty, 48% of whom say it could do the better job on immigration, while just 36% say the GOP does. In contrast, the GOP performs better among those over fifty on immigration: 44% say it would do the better job, while 35% say the Democratic Party.

Whites favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party by a 10-point margin on immigration, while both African-Americans (by 36 points) and Hispanics (by 29 points) are more likely to say the Democratic Party is better able to handle this issue.

Yet there are substantial divides within whites. While white women are roughly evenly split over which party can better address immigration (39% say Democrats, 40% Republicans), white men favor the GOP by a 20-point margin (51% vs. 31%).

And among whites with college degrees, the Democratic Party holds a slim edge (46% to 38%), while those without college degrees and those who have not attended college favor the GOP on immigration: 50% vs. 26%. Among those with some college experience the percentages are 46% vs. 34%.

Overall, Independents are divided over which party could do the better job addressing immigration (38% say each party). As with most issues, partisans overwhelmingly say their own party could do the better job on this issue.

Democratic Party Viewed More Positively Than GOP on Key Traits

The Democratic Party continues to enjoy an advantage on a number of key traits and qualities, and these views are little changed since last fall. By a 22-point margin, more say the Democratic Party is “more concerned with the needs of people like me.” The Democratic Party has held a similar-sized lead on this trait since 2011, and at least a double-digit edge going back to when this question was first asked more than 25 years ago in 1988.

The Democratic Party also leads the Republican Party as the party that governs in a more honest and ethical way (45% vs. 29%). This balance of opinion is also little changed over the last few years.

As it has been since 2013, the public is divided over which party can best manage the federal government: 41% say the Democratic Party, while 40% say the GOP.

And more Americans identify the Republican Party as “more extreme in its positions” (52% say this, while 35% say the Democratic Party). This view is little changed since 2011.

Congressional Evaluations Remain Highly Negative

     Views of Congress continue to hover near record lows: Just 25% of Americans view Congress favorably, while 69% says they have an unfavorable opinion.

Although the GOP now controls both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats hold similar views of Congress: 29% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans rate it favorably. By comparison, Democratic ratings of Congress were consistently higher than Republicans’ ratings when Democrats controlled both chambers from 2007 to 2010.

Republican ratings of Congress are little changed since last summer, but Democratic ratings – which had grown more negative following the 2014 election – have rebounded somewhat (up seven percentage points since March).

Independents’ opinions of Congress are more negative than those in either party. Just 22% say they have a favorable view of Congress, relatively unchanged in recent months.

Views of Barack Obama

Obama’s job approval rating is little changed over the first half of 2015, with Americans about equally likely to say they approve of his performance (48%) as disapprove (45%).

Currently, about eight-in-ten Republicans (82%) disapprove of Obama’s performance, while views among independents remain mixed (48% disapprove, 44% approve). Obama continues to receive positive ratings from about eight-in-ten Democrats (79% approve, 16% disapprove). Ratings of Obama among partisans and independents are relatively unchanged over the last year.

Obama’s approval ratings continue to differ by generation, with younger generations more likely to view his job performance positively. Currently 55% of Millennials (those now ages 18-34) approve of his job performance, as do half of Generation Xers (those 35 to 50). By comparison, 44% of Baby Boomers (51 to 69 year olds) approve of Obama, along with just 37% of those in the Silent Generation (currently ages 70 to 87).

On five issues included in the survey, Obama gets a positive net rating on one: race relations. About half (48%) approve of his handling of race relations, while 43% disapprove. The public holds mixed views on Obama’s handling of health care policy (46% approve, 50% disapprove), the economy (45% approve, 51% disapprove) and global climate change (41% approve, 39% disapprove).

Obama’s performance on foreign policy remains in negative territory, and is little changed over the past few years: Just 38% now approve of how Obama is handling the nation’s foreign policy, while 52% say they disapprove.

While there has been little change in Obama’s approval ratings on many issues in the last year, his rating on health care policy has improved since December: Today, 46% approve of his handling of health care, up from 39%.

Obama’s rating on health care policy has improved across many political and demographic groups, but the change is particularly pronounced among those under 30: In December, 37% of 18-29 year olds approved of Obama’s handling of health care policy; currently 52% approve.

Obama on Foreign Policy: ‘Not Tough Enough’ for Many Americans

Just over half of Americans (53%) continue to say that Barack Obama’s approach to foreign policy and national security is “not tough enough”; 37% say he handles these matters about right, while just 4% say he is too tough. These attitudes are virtually unchanged since November 2013.

Republicans are far more critical of Obama’s approach to foreign policy than Democrats or independents. Eight-in-ten Republicans (80%) say he is not tough enough, compared with 54% of independents and just 32% of Democrats. Most Democrats (58%), along with about a third of independents (34%) say his approach is about right.

The 2016 Election

Let’s take a look now at the overall picture that is unfolding for the 2016 presidential election.

By the Numbers

In November of 2016 the United States will elect a new President. It is estimated that approximately 207,643,594 voters will show up at the polls and cast their ballots. Approximately 55 million will be Republicans, 72 million will be Democrats, and 42 million will be Independents who’ll split the vote.

Whoever the Democrat’s choice to run for president in 2016, it is evident that person is going to become our next President.

The reasons are fivefold: (1) the Republicans are once again out of favor with the American electorate, (2) most Americans blame Republicans for the gridlock in Washington D.C., (3) most young Millennial voters look askance at, and do not identify with, the values of conservatives in this new progressive modern era, (4) the Democrats outnumber republicans by 17 million potential voters in a general election, and (5) the powerful AFL/CIO has a block of 12 million voters who will vote for the candidate who policies favor the working man and woman. From the longshoreman to the steel worker, including assembly line automotive workers, this powerful voting group has determined many elections since the beginning of the industrial age. Democrats or Republicans who ignore the needs of these voters do so at their own peril.

Traditionally, labor unions feel more at ease with Democrats than Republicans, the latter of which tend to favor big business and Wall Street over labor unions.

 

Final Comments

A big question looms over the Republican electorate: If the Republicans control the House and the Senate, why didn’t they satisfy Republican voters who sent them to Washington in the first place? It appears the Republican Party tends not to be progressive or forward-looking.

It may very well be that dissatisfaction among Republican voters has been simmering for some time, going back to the mid-term elections of 1994 when they were promised a “Contract with America.” It was proposed by the Republican Party. Once again the result of Contract with America was utter failure. They achieved virtually nothing that was proposed or promised.

President Bill Clinton jokingly said at the time, “the Contract with America was really a Contract on America.”

To this author it is really not surprising that extremist, obstreperous and recalcitrant Tea Party members of Congress, as well as other irresponsible right wing demagogic conservatives, drove an irredeemable ideological wedge between most Republican lawmakers (moderate Republicans versus conservative Republicans) This is the mess the Republican Party finds itself in 2015.

Such a quixotic and largely self-serving approach to governing the people has been, and will continue to be, a political disaster.

One will recall that within days after the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama, Republicans in Congress wanted to evaluate, not only what went wrong, but the very values of the Republican Party that led to their defeat.

That moment of self-reflection didn’t last long. Within weeks they were picking fights and engaging in congressional bickering, troublemaking with gridlock at every turn. Although some Republican voters approved of the watchdog approach over the Obama administration, most Republicans still expected there was something in it for them, namely legislation that would lower taxes and reduce the national budget and deficit, reduce the size of government and generally get things done. What happened was the Republicans in office forget why they were elected in the first place?

Consequently, most Republican voters today are pissed off at professional politicians in the Republican Party because of prior elected official’s failure to pass legislation helpful to Republican voters. As a result, the silent majority of Republicans may not be so silent anymore.

My original observation is important. Consequently, you’ll notice that on the Republican side, Republican voters are now more interested in outsiders, or those outside of Washington. Specifically, the polls are now showing widespread support for Republican non-professional politicians like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. It should be pointed out that historically being a non-politician running for President of the United States is not all that unusual.

For example, Dwight David Eisenhower did not hold elected public office prior to becoming President. Neither did Zackery Taylor, John Adams or Ulysses S. Grant. Therefore it would not be unprecedented if an outsider running for president in 2016 became president of the United States. But, as the old expression goes “that was then and this is now.”

I made my prediction a while ago. That is, the Republican Party has as much chance of winning the presidency in 2016—as a snowball in hell. With all the Republican in-fighting, and the fact they were primarily blamed for all of the post-2008 gridlock, it’s clear they will fail to regain the White House in 2016.

While I could spend days articulating why Republican values miss the mark because of a modern and ever changing progressive American electorate, one important factor as to how the country will vote—is the factor of favorability. It will likely predict the election outcome in 2016. And, not surprisingly, demographics differentiate specific favorability ratings of the candidates. And, of course, Democrat Party voters outnumber Republican Party voters. Given that blacks and Hispanics and educated whites, along with younger voters do not favor the Republican Party, it’s time Republican voters once again reassess its values and what it means to be a conservative with non-inclusive values in a diverse culture.

All of this said—one factor may trump (no pun intended) the economy as a presidential issue. That is the issue of foreign policy since the horrific attacks in Paris.

On the surface one might think that the Republican hardliners would have an advantage as terrorism gains traction on the international scene. This is a complex issue given the humanitarian concerns of “collateral damage.”

Republican presidential candidate Senator Lindsay Graham has some good ideas about putting together a regional army to destroy ISIS. But his numbers in surveys are still hovering slightly below 1% of the Republican vote. The other Republican candidates, like everything else they do, are all talk and no action. More bluster than anything else.

Remember, the good citizens of this country don’t elect the president—The Electoral College does.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency. There currently are 538 total Electoral College votes (435 House, 100, Senate, and 3 from the District of Columbia). It is important that both political parties work to get out the vote in 2016. State majorities matter except in Maine and Nebraska (congressional district method).

If the Democrat presidential candidate turns out to be Hilary Clinton, she will need to have either retired General Wesley Clark or former Florida Governor Charlie Crist run as her running mate. If she does the ticket will be unbeatable and I predict she will win the presidency in 2016 with 304 Electoral College votes. The Republicans would therefore win only 234 Electoral College votes, and thus lose the 2016 election.

 

Read Full Post »