Understanding Trumpism – A Noteworthy Coincidence

No doubt about it, Donald Trump is a different kind of politician.  Politics has always been a nasty business, but it is usually done quietly through delegation.  Politicians will publicly smile, speak in platitudes and niceties, and then privately turn their goons on their enemies.  They will weaponize the IRS, have your cat killed to send you a message, issue threats through third parties, or have surrogates break into your campaign office.  Never do they personally and publicly get mean.  Not Trump.  He has cut out the middleman.  He’ll publicly call you a bimbo, stupid, fat, loser, liar, weirdo, mock your disability, threaten to sue you, say everyone hates you, etc.  And his fans love it.  Why is this?  What has changed?

Most of us grew up with some form of the Golden Rule being drilled into our heads.  “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In other words, be a decent person, and don’t be a jerk.  But there was also another maxim we grew up with, “Nice guys finish last.”  Obviously, we got conflicting advice. 

Trumpism is the triumph of the latter over the former.  The Golden Rule, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, a principle found in just about every religion in the world, is dead in America today.  And it was slain by the ethic of “Nice guys finish last.”  So I got to wondering, what was the origin of “Nice guys finish last”?

It turns out that Donald J. Trump and “Nice guys finish last” were born at the same time and in the same place!  Both were born around the summer of 1946, and both in New York, NY. Interesting, no?  

Leo Durocher was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1946 when he said what eventually got boiled down to its sound-bite form as “Nice guys finish last.”  Donald Trump was born at the same time in the bordering borough of Queens and had that aphorism germinating in his brain his entire life.  Now we are reaping the fruits. 

One bit of irony and hypocrisy in all this is that many of the people who are apoplectic over Trumpism have for twenty years supported the most beloved man in the Democrat party, Bill Clinton, who did things that make Donald Trump look like a boy scout.  So to those freaking-out over Trumpism who support Clintonism I say, “You might want to put some ice on that.”  ;-)

Donald Trump - Some Perspective

Granted, Donald Trump has his flaws.  He's certainly not my choice.  At this point, a rehashing of Trump's strengths and weaknesses is useless.  It is becoming increasingly clear that he can win the GOP nomination.  So, it's time to put Donald Trump in perspective.  

By that I mean, who will he likely be up against?  It looks like Hillary Clinton will not be indicted by Barack Obama's DOJ (big surprise!), and will likely be the Democrat nominee.  So how does Trump stack up?  

Donald Trump has never:

• Been an accessory to rape
• Smeared women abused by his spouse
• Jailed a filmmaker to cover-up his own incompetence
• Attacked a country for no good reason and caused chaos on two continents
• Made billions selling U.S. Govt. favors
• Lied under oath
• Violated several U.S. laws regarding classified information
• Jeopardized U.S. national security by using an unsecured email server
• Stonewalled Freedom of Information requests
• Lied to the American people about official U.S. business
• Turned the IRS into a "gestapo"
• Looted the White House
• Sold secrets to the Chinese
• Lied about fake sniper fire in Bosnia
• Been pals with Saul Alinsky, Sidney Blumenthal, and Karl Marx (OK, I made the last one up...sort of.)
• Been fired for lying on a Watergate committee 

Sure, The Donald has his flaws, which I have touched-on here and here, but he's no Hillary on the evil scale.  Not even close.

The thing about our government that is truly sad in 2016 is that we have abandoned the founders design.  The thing that made us exceptional among nations, the thing we call "American Exceptionalism" was the founders design of a strictly limited government designed to do a few basic things and then focus on securing the natural individual rights of the people.  We long ago abandoned that model.  Like it or not we have a totalitarian democracy at this point.  Combine a totalitarian government with a jackass charismatic leader, like Barack Obama or Donald Trump, who you don't like, and it's a recipe for large scale discontent.  Presidents were never supposed to be this important or this powerful in the U.S.  

   

GOP: Is this really your guy?

Donald Trump reminds me a lot of the Al Czervik character played by Rodney Dangerfield in the classic comedy, "Caddyshack".   Both are real estate developers, golfers, over-the-top obnoxious people, and both are entertaining and oddly... lovable.  (Of course, the standards for comedic celluloid love and oval office love are... somewhat different.)

Also of note:  In Caddyshack, the brash real-estate developer disrupts the status quo at the "establishment" country club, which has the prophetic name, "BUSHwood".  They say that art imitates life.  Sometimes it's the other way around, with about 36 years in between.

So, watch my short Trump overdub of this famous scene from "Caddyshack", and tell me, seriously GOP, if this is your guy...          

Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar

I love hearing Barack Obama spout off on the U.S. Constitution.  His latest invocation was on the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  "The constitution is clear...", he lectured.  Then went on to righteously proclaim that anything less than senate confirmation of a radical liberal justice like Elena Kagan or Sonya Sotomayor would be tantamount to an unprecedented breach of his constitutional rights.  This from the man who as a U.S. Senator joined a Democrat filibuster of Samuel Alito.  Neither of his two nominations were filibustered by Republicans.  You can cut Obama's hypocrisy with a knife.  His own party once passed a resolution barring Supreme Court appointments in a presidential election year!  Now they are all suffering amnesia.  Ever hear the verb "Borking"?  

But, let's forget about all that nonsense.  Barack Obama did once serve as a college lecturer on the subject of the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, he has publicly aired his disdain for that document on numerous occasions.  So why study it?  Why teach it?  Same reason a thief studies security.  You need to know the weaknesses, the defenses, the loopholes, the strengths if you want to crack a safe or rob a bank.

So yes, Barack Obama became a constitutional scholar the same way bank robbers become bank security scholars.  They are all just casing the joint.

Ted Cruz is Awesome! XII

What no one seems to know about Ted Cruz's time at the FTC:         (From: PJ Media)  

At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman. 

Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.” 

Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats. 

Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.

RIP Antonin Scalia, and the U.S. Constitution

RIP Antonin Scalia, who died today.  So did the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution, however, has been sick for many years.  Here's what I wrote back in 2010:      

In 2008, the Supreme Court barely upheld the second amendment by a narrow 5-4 decision in DC v. Heller. The second amendment is all of ONE SENTENCE LONG and we’ve been debating its meaning for 220 years. It couldn’t be simpler. Yet it barely squeaked by with nary a vote to spare. A similar case, McDonald v. Chicago, is in the court right now and as usual, all bets are off despite that one, single, simple, clear, sentence. 

Now we have a new “right to healthcare”.  This week the president rewired 17% of the US economy with the stroke of a pen and a new 3000 page law.  Remember, the second amendment is one sentence long! How are we going to interpret our new 3000 page right to healthcare? Of course, unlike the right to bear arms, which hangs from a thread, the right to healthcare is not in the constitution. 

Nor is the “right” to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare, but the court has never done anything about them either. These programs are like “deem and pass” amendments, unofficial changes to the constitution that we have selfishly agreed to allow because, hey, we like free stuff. All the while, we shamelessly stick our kids and grandkids with the bill, but we’re worth it, right? 

Roe v. Wade is based on another non-existent right, the so-called “right to privacy”. This right was based on a “penumbra” or weak shadow, cast by the bill of rights. Seriously, that’s how they justified it. The imaginary right to privacy was conjured-up by lawyers looking to find exactly what they needed in the constitution.  It is made-up. Yet that hasn’t stopped this law from surviving for some 26 years. 

We just watched the spectacle of the President berating the Supreme Court in his State of the Union Speech because they had the temerity to uphold the first amendment in Citizens United v. FEC.  Again, that was a narrow 5-4 decision on the really complicated first amendment, which is another behemoth at one sentence long! 

In short, rights that really are there, in clear language, must fight to within an inch of their lives, while imaginary rights, like the latest one, are cheered through with parades and marching bands. 

So I ask: If the constitution can mean anything, is it not really meaningless? Picture an orchestra warming up. There is no rhythm, no melody, no key, no limits, and no beauty. Just avant-garde progressive noise. That is the music of our modern US constitution.

Trump does Caddyshack!

Ready for Hillary!

There is zero chance Barack Obama will allow his DOJ to indict Hillary Clinton.  No, punishments for jeopardizing national security are for opponents only.  The rule of law under Barack Obama is that there is no rule or law that applies to his political allies.  But we can pretend... 

Ted Cruz is Awesome! XI

saw this tonight and had to repost:

  

DON SURBER: Thank You, Ted Cruz, For Helping Flint Out. How many bottles of water did Bernie Sanders send?
Well, none, but he has a new ad with Simon and Garfunkel music.
Posted at 11:22 pm by Glenn Reynolds   (from Glenn Reynolds www.instapundit.com)
Here's the Don Surber piece below:  
Thank you, Cruz, for helping out Flint

Having spent much time in January 2014 trying to score bottled water when the local water system went down, my heart is with those in Flint, Michigan, who are without safe water. Ours was from an industrial alcohol that smelled like licorice and within weeks it disappeared. They have lead in theirs, so the problem is a real nightmare.

Ted Cruz came to the rescue with 600 gallons of water. That does not sound like much, until you consider that is 600 people who got a gallon of water when their water was out.

From WJRT:

Senator Ted Cruz's Michigan office spent the day handing out gallons of water to the Flint community.

We caught up with them as they dropped off gallons of water at Carriage Town Ministries.

They dropped off around 600 gallons and cases of water throughout the area, delivering to expectant mothers at crisis centers.

Volunteers say it's the least they can do to help out residents in need of clean water.

"Senator Cruz has already made a very strong statement on this issue in support of the people of Flint, in acknowledging what's happened with the government failure on basically every level. And we believe it's our civic duty to reach out. We have to be willing to step up. And here we are putting our money and time where our mouth is," said Wendy Day, state director for the Ted Cruz campaign.

Cruz talked about Flint's water emergency on the campaign trail. While in New Hampshire, he said, "What has happened in Flint, Michigan is an absolute travesty. The men and women have been betrayed. Every one of us is entitled to have clean water. And to all the children who have been poisoned...by government officials, by their negligence, their ineptitude, there needs to be accountability as to why dirty water, poisoned water was given to a community that did not deserve this. Need to ensure there is accountability, clean water and clean air. Prayers for people of Flint, Michigan that health affects aren't as long-lasting as many think they will be. Needs to be accountability from the city government all the way up."

The EPA knew about this problem and did nothing.

And Washington pundits wonder why the people are against everything Washington stands for?

By the way, where was Bernie? Hillary? O'Malley? Any of the staffs of the other Republicans?

Hell, where was Barack Obama?

Socialists, Progressives, Communists, and Democrats; What are the differences?

Bernie Sanders is a socialist.  Hillary swears she's no socialist, she's a progressive democrat. Barack Obama swears he's no socialist either.  No one openly admits to being a communist.  What are the differences between these philosophies?

I maintain the above question is the wrong question.  The correct question is, "what unites these philosophies?"  The differences all relate to tactics and emphasis, not philosophy.  The underlying philosophy is the same in all cases.

Socialists, progressives, communists, and modern democrats in the U.S. are all Marxists.  They all believe as their foundational tenet in government coerced egalitarianism (equality of stuff).  The Marxist slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.", applies in all cases.  This is not organic egalitarianism.  It is imposed by the government through force.

Democrats and progressives want to impose this Marxist utopia gradually and nominally through the political process, but they cannot reveal their intentions.  Socialists want exactly the same thing, only they are willing to reveal their intentions.  Communists are different only in that not only are they willing to reveal their intentions, they hope to achieve their utopia through revolution.

But in all cases utopia is the goal and it is the same vision despite some differences in detail.  Never is there a limiting principle.  In other words, how would a progressive know when the work is done? How would they know when the utopian dream has been achieved?  They cannot tell us.  

Progressivism and progressive democrats in the U.S. are unique.  That's because those terms relate specifically to our constitution.  The constitution is a formidable roadblock to Marxism.  Therefore, it must be relegated to the dustbin of history.  Progressivism means progressively dismantling the constitution.  Where will this progress end? Only when the constitution is completely dead.  It must be destroyed because it alone stands in the way of the Marxist utopia.

What makes America exceptional are the ideas on which it was founded.   Primary among them are the ideas that we are all equal in our rights, our relationship to the law, and the governments job is to protect the rights of the individual.  Marxism turns those ideas upside-down and puts the government over the individual in order to impose equality of outcomes.

So this is what it means when you hear a politician claim, "I'm no socialist/communist/Marxist, etc. I'm a progressive democrat!"  There is no difference.