The Republi-CON States' Rights Hypocrisy & Myth, Flint Edition

I've not posted many Republi-CONisms lately, but this one is too good to pass up.

"Congress has hamstrung the federal government, giving states the authority to enforce drinking-water standards and all but eliminating the EPA’s power to intervene. This is a pure expression of the conservative doctrine of federalism: States handle things better than the feds because they are closest to the people.

But then came the debacle in Flint, when Michigan authorities embraced cost-saving changes in the city’s water supply and caused mass lead poisoning. Now members of Congress are blaming the EPA for failing to stop the problem — oblivious to the irony that they and their predecessors were the ones who denied the federal government the ability to enforce drinking-water standards in the first place."

Read the Washington Post, The poisonous conservative thinking that caused the Flint crisis.

IMPORTANT Information on How to Vote For The Donald

UPDATE (03/02/16):  Like the daydreaming milkmaid, I guess I counted my chicken before the eggs hatched.

The window for stopping Donald Trump did not close completely Tuesday night, "leaving the demoralized anti-Trump forces with two weeks and no agreed-upon strategy for denying the New York billionaire the Republican presidential nomination."

Trump pulled out victories in seven of the 11 contests that made up the biggest single primary-caucus night of the nominating season. His remaining rivals — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — and their allies were left to cling to the flimsiest of hopes that a reversal of his fortunes still lies on the near horizon.

So VOTE for The Donald.

Don't wait, JUST DO IT!

Check your status as a voter with your local election's office and VOTE!! (And again, you can also find contact information for your local election office here.)

DO IT NOW!!!

Only The Donald can bring fundamental and systemic change to D.C. 

AMENDED NOTICE: this post will remain on top until March 1, 2016, Super Tuesday, because Trump appears headed to victory.

NOTICE:  this post will remain on top until March 15, 2016, after the Florida presidential primary.

To read other posts, please scroll down.

And keep reading the updates posted at Revoltion16.US (aka Revolution 2016: I am a True Trump Believer and Supporter Now)

UPDATE:  So you might wonder, am I a Republican.  Only reluctantly.

When I first registered to vote 35+ years ago, I registered as a Democrat.  Why, because everyone was a Democrat. And if you didn't register as a Democrat, then you didn't get to vote for local offices because the real election for local offices was in the Democratic primary.  But if I had know better, I never would have been a Democrat, because it was the party of Southern racists.

Beginning with the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965, but especially in the 1980s with Reagan's Southern Strategy, the Republican party willingly and eagerly welcomed racist and became the party of Southern racists.

Don't ignore the truth, read more about "[h]ow racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South". The term states’ rights was a code word for "explicitly racist policies" and the Confederate Flag was not a symbol of genteel 'Southern heritage' but a heritage of hate symbolizing and endorsing "on some level, even if secretly or subconsciously, the very rationale for the Confederacy . . and the great treason of the South in the 19th century, of its secession from the Union in defense of slavery, and its rejection of patriotism and nationalism. . . resurrected in the 1940s and 1950s as part of a massive resistance campaign against the civil rights movement. It wouldn’t exist in our national popular culture without this moment, when African Americans fought for their equality, and the battle flag was recovered and redeployed as a symbol of opposition to it. . . a very blatant, full-throated defense of white supremacy".

In any case, I resisted the temptation to change parties, but the Democratic party has abandon the South, and now, if you don't vote in the Republican party, you don't get to vote for local offices.

If you can't beat them, join them. 

So I'm a reluctant, but non-racist, Republican, and I vote.  Here is my 2016 Presidential primary election ballot:

And here's my vote for Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com):

So VOTE for The Donald.

Don't wait, JUST DO IT!

Check your status as a voter with your local election's office and VOTE!! (And again, you can also find contact information for your local election office here.)

DO IT NOW!!!

Only The Donald can bring fundamental and systemic change to D.C. 

From I am a True Trump Believer and Supporter Now, UPDATE 11:

So what can you do to help bring fundamental and systemic change to D.C.

HELP The Donald win the nomination.

Everyone should check your status as a voter with your local election's office. You can also find contact information for your local election office here.

If you are already a properly registered voter and have chosen to affiliate with the Republican party, VOTE for The Donald.

If you are already a properly registered voter and live in a state with an open presidential primary, VOTE for The Donald.  Check with your local election's office, but according to Wikipedia, those states are:

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts (open for ‘unenrolled’/unaffiliated voters only), Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

All others, register to vote as a member of, and/or change your party affiliation to, the Republican party, before the voter rolls close for the 2016 Presidential primary election.

In Florida, "Tuesday, February 16, 2016 is the last day to register to vote or change party affiliation for those who wish to cast a ballot in the March 15, 2016 Presidential Preference Primary Election."

Then VOTE for The Donald

Don't wait, JUST DO IT!

Check your status as a voter with your local election's office and VOTE!! (And again, you can also find contact information for your local election office here.)

DO IT NOW!!!

Revolution 2016: What New Hampshire Shows, And Doesn't (The Donald and Sanders Agree on the Problem, But Not on the Solution)

UPDATE IV:  I went to the movies this week and saw The Big Short.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) described the film as "a movie masquerading as an educational event, or an educational event masquerading as a movie."  It is"a half-caper, half-explanatory-journalism account of" the years leading up to housing bubble of 2008 and resulting financial crisis.  If you forgot, here is a preview:

It was an entertaining look at a topic that most people find confusing and difficult to follow. But the basic story is that the Banksters got greedy and created a system to profit from unsuspecting borrowers and investors, then turned around and got even richer during the government bailouts.

The movie is based on a book by the same name, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, a non-fiction book by Michael Lewis about the build-up of the housing and credit bubble during the 2000s.  It explains "the creation of the credit default swap market that sought to bet against the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) bubble and thus ended up profiting from the financial crisis of 2007–10."

"Most financial writers and movie critics agree that the movie nails the run-up to the crisis, and engagingly so. (Who else would use a blackjack-playing Selena Gomez to explain complex financial products?)"  There is some criciism about how the movie describes "what happens on screen after the crisis hits."

I discussed the bailouts in some detail, here and on the radio.

Nothing better proves the the problem of corrupt crony capitalism and the need for fundamental and systemic change in D.C. (and elsewhere)) than the financial crisis.

I urge you to watch the movie and/or read the book.

It will further explain the reason you must VOTE for The Donald.

 

UPDATE III:  As I've said before, you have to recognize and acknowledge a problem before change can occur. But some people can't even admit a mistake.

Jeb! can't, and although The Donald lies like any politician running for office, his wisdom sometimes shines through.

On Iraq, when The Donald "called the war in Iraq 'a big, fat mistake,' he was exactly right.  Jeb Bush, the very good brother of a very bad president," [should admit his brother made a horrible mistake and that] . . . the Republican Party has been a vast incubator of foreign policy conspiracy theories."

Trump is not afraid to tell truth to power: Bush ignored 'intelligence warnings in advance of the 911 attacks' and  "lied" [The Donald's word] about Iraq WMD's, the cost of the war, the happy outcome, etc.

That innate wisdom, and his ability to leverage the weaknesses of others, make him the first choice for reformers.

UPDATE II: Want to better understand what millions of American workers have learned through personal experience, that the rigged economy is cheating the American middle class out of good paying American job, then watch 1,400 US workers learn their jobs are moving to Mexico.

UPDATE:  Here is a thought, since they recognize and understand the nature of the problem, which would require a multifaceted solution, after being nominated to represent their parties, they should form an alliance to clean up D.C.

The Donald should be the front man (President), and Sanders, if capable, should be the VP working the legislative changes required to beak the system.

They might even bring in Palin, who as I've noted before and despite her many faults,  also recognizes and understands the problem with the status quo.

What New Hampshire shows is that only Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com) and that Socialist Guy understand and recognize the problem many voters have learned through personal experience.

"On Morning Joe Wednesday morning, Donald Trump explained his — and Bernie Sanders’s — big wins in New Hampshire this way:

“We’re being ripped off by everybody. And I guess that’s the thing that Bernie Sanders and myself have in common. We know about the trade. But unfortunately he can’t do anything to fix it, whereas I will. I have the best people in the world. We’re losing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And we will fix it. And we’ll make it good. And we’ll bring our jobs back. Bernie Sanders can’t even think in terms of that. The only thing he does know, and he’s right about, is that we’re being ripped off; he says that constantly; and I guess he and I are the only two that really say that.”

We’re being ripped off, and Trump and Sanders are the only two candidates who are really saying that. They are speaking to people’s sense that our economic and political systems are cheating them, that they are being failed because the underlying rules of those systems have themselves been rigged. . .

Here’s what Sanders said in his victory speech Tuesday night:

    “Tonight, we served notice to the political and economic establishment of this country that the American people will not continue to accept a corrupt campaign finance system that is undermining American democracy, and we will not accept a rigged economy in which ordinary Americans work longer hours for lower wages, while almost all new income and wealth goes to the top one percent.”

In one sentence, Sanders blamed flat wages and soaring inequality on an economy whose rules have been written to benefit a tiny elite at the expense of everyone else, and tied this directly to a political system whose rules have been written to dis-empower the American people from doing anything about it.

There are crucial differences between Trump’s and Sanders’s solutions to the problems they’ve identified, of course. Trump says our elites are weak, stupid, and corrupt. Sanders says our elites are being corrupted. The difference between those two things is subtle, but important. Trump says the elites are cheating ordinary Americans by helping illegals, major corporations, and China, and vows to break this corrupt system over his knee and get it working again, because he’s not one of those elites. This is what Trump really means when he says he 'can’t be bought'; Trump is not making a sustained argument for political and campaign finance reform; he’s just saying he’s not a member of the class that is cheating you, and he will come in and bust up that class’s party.

Sanders, by contrast, is making a sustained argument for political and campaign finance reform. For him, the culprit is not an elite that is actively trying to help illegals and China and allowing the country to slide into ruin out of national security weakness and ineffectiveness. Rather, it’s an oligarchy that has enriched itself by rigging the economy to effect a massive transfer of wealth upwards and to paralyze our political system from doing anything about it, thus corrupting our political classes. Sanders’s whole policy agenda is framed around this idea. While Clinton tends to focus on incremental solutions aimed at boosting wages and opportunity, and mitigating people’s economic difficulties on the margins, Sanders wants to rid the system entirely of its dependence on big money in order to actively reverse the upward redistribution of wealth that, he says, poses an existential threat to our economy and middle class.

Read the Washington Post, Donald Trump explains American politics in a single sentence.

Obama the Socialist Failure, More Proof

UPDATE:  I figured it out. First he tried to destroy America with high gas prices Republi-cons claimed would soon be $5-10, even $15/gallon.

Now he's trying to destroy America with low oil prices.  "Forget $2 gas. Gas is getting close to the $1 mark in some parts of the country. "

Read CNN, Gas is near $1 a gallon in some places.

He's a sneaky you-know-what (use your favorite term to describe Obama).

Another representation of Obama's failure to fulfill Republi-con delusions, on December 11, 2015:

Read also:

Obama the Socialist Failure: Lower Unemployment, Deficits, Gas Prices and Inflation (What More Could He Do To Destroy America) and

Obama's Failure to Fulfill Republi-CON Predictions.

Cruz: Crony Capalist, and LIAR! (Satan Follower) (And Masterdebator)

UPDATE VI:  You must read this take down of The Lying Canadian (© NoBullU.com) at the Washington Post, Ted Cruz needs an intervention, which notes how despised Cruz is:

"If Cruz does not make it to the presidency, he will no doubt blame the “establishment.” But whether he recognizes it or not, his wife and political advisers surely understand that alumni, roommates, law clerks, former staffers in the George W. Bush campaign and White House (and the president himself), members of Congress and others who have known Cruz — lots and lots of people — consider him socially awkward, nasty, dishonest, a blatant apple-polisher and all-around creepy guy. You can write off a few of these critics as jealous of his success, or liberal antagonists, but all of them? There is something badly amiss here. Cruz, who so obviously lacks emotional intelligence, cannot recognize it, but those closest to him surely must see that something is awry. . .

Politics is about building alliances and trust, having your team’s back and refusing to grandstand to your side’s detriment. It’s also an additive exercise. Drawing bold lines is fine, but you lose unless you can bring people over to your side. Simply inveighing against others will not do it, nor will playing the persecuted victim. . .

[I]f all you have is ambition, the burning desire to climb over others, it becomes evident to voters and colleagues alike. You know the type — the guy always looking over your shoulder to scan for a more important person in the room to engage; the fellow convinced whatever job he has is not big enough for him; and the person so intellectually dishonest, he is willing to rewrite history, deny his own statements and look you in the eye to say “Black is white” and “Up is down.” (Even when apologizing to Dr. Ben Carson for his team spreading a rumor on caucus night that Carson was dropping out, Cruz felt compelled to lie, claiming CNN initially reported Carson was dropping out. CNN blasted back: “What Senator Cruz said tonight in the debate is categorically false. CNN never corrected its reporting because CNN never had anything to correct. The Cruz campaign’s actions the night of the Iowa caucuses had nothing to do with CNN’s reporting. The fact that Senator Cruz continues to knowingly mislead the voters about this is astonishing.”) These behaviors do not sit well with people, who soon catch on that you are using them for selfish ends. Superiors see you are an annoying kiss-up, and other see you as desperate or phony.

Cruz’s shortcomings make it hard to build a winning coalition — or to function in the Senate. The great irony is his ambition may be the biggest barrier to obtain what he thirsts for and has schemed so long to obtain."

UPDATE V:  CNN "never, ever reported that Carson was suspending his campaign. . .

In a statement issued mid-debate, CNN proclaimed:

'What Senator Cruz said tonight in the debate is categorically false. CNN never corrected its reporting because CNN never had anything to correct. The Cruz campaign’s actions the night of the Iowa caucuses had nothing to do with CNN’s reporting. The fact that Senator Cruz continues to knowingly mislead the voters about this is astonishing.'"

Read the Washington Post, Ted Cruz just smeared CNN on national television, and the network struck back.

UPDATE IV:  "I followed both Cruz and Trump this week at multiple campaign events across New Hampshire. It was, in a sense, a pleasure to see them use their prodigious skills of character assassination against each other. It was demagogue against demagogue: lie vs. lie. Both men riled their supporters with fantasies and straw men.

But there were discernible differences. Trump owned anger. Cruz, by contrast, had a lock on nastiness. Trump is belligerent and hyperbolic, with an authoritarian style. But while Trump fires up the masses with his nonstop epithets, Cruz has Joe McCarthy’s knack for false insinuation and underhandedness. What sets Cruz apart is the malice he exudes. 

Cruz jokes that “the whole point of the campaign” is that “the Washington elites despise” him. But Cruz’s problem is that going back to his college days at Princeton, those who know him best seem to despise him most. Not a single Senate colleague has endorsed his candidacy, and Iowa’s Republican governor urged Cruz’s defeat, then called his campaign 'unethical.' . .

In a single speech in Nashua last week, (Cruz) mischaracterized things said by, among others, Jimmy Carter, Chris Wallace, guests on Sean Hannity’s show, Atlanta’s mayor, Rubio and, of course, President Obama.

I asked the Cruz campaign Thursday evening to substantiate several of these claims. After this column was published online Friday afternoon, the campaign provided citations that didn’t back up what Cruz had alleged. Unsurprising: Cruz’s purpose is not to inform but to insinuate."

Read the Washington Post, The utter nastiness of Ted Cruz.

Read also the Washington Post, Why the Cruz campaign’s 'dirty tricks' matter, which notes that "Cruz’s own words may come back to haunt him. In comparing the IRS scandal to President Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks and decrying attacks on political opponents, he made clear that the person at the top of an organization bears responsibility. ('No politician has the right to use the machinery of the Executive Branch to target their political enemies. When Richard Nixon did it, it was wrong and he rightly resigned from the presidency in disgrace for his abuse of power.')"

UPDATE III:  Cruz lied to win the Iowa caucuses, then lied about the lying.

Read Mediate, Yes, Cruz Campaign Did Lie About CNN Starting Ben Carson Rumor.

Republicans lose the general election if they nominate The Lying Canadian (© NoBullU.com). (Except if Dems are so stupid as to nominate Sanders.)

UPDATE II: It may be over, but It Was A May-To-December Bromance while it lasted, between "Official Trump-Brand Trump, Donald Trump", and Cruz, a "Masterdebator":

UPDATE:  Haley was given an illegal 16 years prison sentence after stealing a calculator from Walmart, "a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. . .

[Cruz, as solicitor general of Texas, defended the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.]

Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.

Traditionally, candidates who have attracted strong evangelical support have in part emphasized the need to lend a helping hand to the economically stressed and the least fortunate among us. Such candidates include George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

But Cruz’s speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear. America is heading off 'the cliff to oblivion.' After one Democratic debate he said, 'We’re seeing our freedoms taken away every day, and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously.'

As the Republican strategist Curt Anderson observed in Politico, there’s no variation in Cruz’s rhetorical tone. As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everything is described as a maximum existential threat.

The fact is this apocalyptic diagnosis is ridiculous. . .

But Cruz manufactures an atmosphere of menace in which there is no room for compassion, for moderation, for anything but dismantling and counterattack. And that is what he offers. Cruz’s programmatic agenda, to the extent that it exists in his speeches, is to destroy things . . ."

Cruz exploits and exaggerates . . . fear. . .

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind."

Read The New York Times, The Brutalism of Ted Cruz.

Read also the Washington Post, David Brooks’s choice words on Cruz — ‘satanic’, ‘pagan’ — draw fire and a little brimstone.

Former Canadian citizen Ted Cruz got an insider loan from THE bank the government saved during the bailouts, Goldman Sachs, then hide the loan and lied about it, all while pretending to be "a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. . .

As a GOP Senate staffer put it, 'It’s amazing that this guy can rail against crony capitalism when he is one of its biggest beneficiaries.' . .

This is precisely the sort of slick, dishonest conduct he accuses professional politicians of undertaking."

Read the Washington Post, 10 reasons that Goldman Sachs loan is a nightmare for Ted Cruz. 

FREE MATTRESSES, Get Them While You Can at Amazon

UPDATE II:  Still no update, somebody didn't like my review.

I hope Jeff understands that I was just trying to be helpful.

As Costco found out, some people take advantage of return policies.

And I do love Amazon, usually, so I don't want them to go out of business as the result of  dishonest customers, who would abuse Amazon's friendly policy.

I'm still happy to pay for the mattress which I sold to my neighbor. Although to avoid the trouble of trying to box wrap the mattress for return, I did give him a slight discount. 

Maybe Amazon would agree to refund the difference between the price I paid and what my neighbor paid.

How about it Jeff?

UPDATE:  Update II was never published for my review.

Wonder why?  Does someone not want you to get a free mattress? ;-)

So I tried again, making slight changes. This was my original post, beginning at 'Pros':

My actual Amazon mattress review (see it here)

(FYI, Update II hasn't been posed yet):

Best Price Mattress 10-Inch Memory Foam Mattress, Queen

First post (01/26/16)

Pros:

I really like the concept, order a mattress and it is delivered. And it was, in less than two days, just before Christmas.  It was raining, and the box had been sitting on an open trailer for a time (it was UPS I think, and during the holidays they were delivering boxes using a golf cart and the open trailer).  But the compressed mattress was wrapped in layers of plastic, well protected and perfectly dry.

Other reviews describe the process pretty well, open it up, let it sit for two days, voilà, a full size 10" queen mattress.  The slight smell was gone also.

Cons:  This is my personal opinion, shared by my wife, the mattress was too firm.

We wanted a mattress with medium firmness, not too hard, not too soft, but Goldilocks just right.  The Product Information didn't address the mattress firmness, but the reviews seem to indicate it was medium firm.  We don't agree.

Amazon, I love ya, so I suggest the following:  develop some sort of standardized firmness scale.

TBD:  Amazon accepted the return, with a UPS pickup.  Can't wait to see how this goes.


UPDATE (01/29/16):

So, after much effort to find a page to send an email to a person, on 01/26/16 I wrote Amazon:

"I am returning the mattress.  It was shipped to me  compressed. Please be advised that I can't return it in that manner.  Does the return shipper, UPS, know what to do?"

Before I got an answer, UPS was at my door to pickup the mattress. The driver was nice but said that the mattress could be damaged if it was not properly prepared for shipment. He did not know how the mattress could be returned in the box it was shipped in because of course it couldn't be.  The driver said in another case the buyer wrapped the mattress with cardboard from various small boxes using duct tape.  It must have taken a lot of boxes and duct tape.

The reply from Amazon was a non-answer:

"I'm sorry your item didn't work out.  To return the item, go to our Online Returns Center: www.amazon.com/returns  The Online Returns Center will guide you through the process and give you a printable return mailing label. If a pre-paid label isn't available for your return, the Online Returns Center will provide other options for getting the item back to us.  For more information on returns, please go to our Help pages:  http://www.amazon.com/help/returns  I hope this helps! We look forward to seeing you again soon.  We'd appreciate your feedback. Please use the links below to tell us about your experience today."

The reply did not help.

So always looking for an easier way to achieve the best possible outcome, I thought, who would pay me for the mattress. (FYI, most thrift store won't even take a mattress given to them, bedbug and stuff I guess.)

To make a long story short, one of my neighbor was thinking of buying a new mattress, and he preferred a firm one.  He gave it a try and I sold it at cost.  He has since told me it is an "incredibly comfortable mattress." (Actual quote from a text message.)  His girlfriend could not believe the cost, she thought it would have cost $1-2k.  (Maybe I'll open a mattress store.)  In any case, happy ending.

And, on behalf of my neighbor, I now give it 5-stars, if you like a firm mattress.

P.S.

I asked Amazon:  "Do I get a commission for saving the sale for, and the cost of returning an item that could probably not be resold by, Amazon?"

I'll let you know if I get one.  (If there is no update, you know the answer.)


UPDATE II (02/02/16):  Surprise, surprise, surprise.  Amazon gave me the mattress. Here was their response [my comments will be in brackets]:

"I'm sorry to hear about the condition in which your 'Best Price Mattress' arrived. [Did I complain about the condition of the mattress on delivery?  The box was wet, but the mattress was fine.]

Upon checking, I can confirm that a refund of $277.34 was issued to your (credit) card for order #xxx-xxxxxxx-xxxxxxx  on January 28, 2016. The refund is processing and should complete within three business days. [The mattress was delivered on December 22, just two days after I ordered it.  During the Christmas retail frenzy, I was amazed. Maybe Jeff should change the name to Amazing.] . . .

[Two immaterial sentences deleted.]

Further, there's no need to return the mattress. Please dispose of it at your convenience.  [I did, I sold it to my neighbor, who loves it.  See above.]

Rest assured, you'll not be charged any amount towards this mattress.  [That's not what I asked for, but Jeff has more money than I, so thanks Jeff.]

Your patience and understanding in this regard is highly appreciated. We look forward to seeing you again soon. [You will, I could become rich running a scam and selling mattresses.  Easier yet, I think I'll set up a donate page and explain how others can get a free mattress.]

We'd appreciate your feedback. [Please sent me more mattresses to sell.]  Please use the links below to tell us about your experience today. . .


Did I solve your problem?
Yes No [No comment.]

Your feedback is helping us build Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company. [You may be a 'Customer-Centric Company' but you'll never make a profit if this gets out.]
Thank you. [No, let me thank Jeff for the free mattress.]"

I post this comment because while I appreciate the concept of free mattresses, I love Amazon and I'd hate to see them go bankrupt.

Jeff, I just thought you'd like to know.

[Listen to the Johnny Cash song of the same title, my new ode, as amended, to Amazon:
I just thought you'd like to know
Since you'd made your plans to go (bankrupt)
It's gonna hurt me so to see you go (bankrupt).]

FREE MATTRESSES, get them while you can.

Who's Your White Daddy?

UPDATE:  Michael Reese Coffman, 57, was no sweet, young, innocent choir boy.

From Escambia County, LA (OK, legally it's FL, but practically it's Lower Alabama, believe me, I know).

2001 CF 004158 A

2001 CF 004159 A

2004 MM 020380 A

2004 CF 001442 A

If the links don't work, check the clerk's website here, and if you find no records, somebody important, with something to hide, read this post before you.

I'll check Santa Rosa County, LA (you know what I mean) later. 

"Michael Reese Coffman, 57, of Milton was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005 after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine."

Obama recently granted him 'early release.'

Read the Pensacola News Journal, Obama grants 2 local men early release.

Guess who Coffman's daddy is/was?

Hint: see Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office, SRSO History.

Some in the local community think the early release was granted for a reason other than merit.

What do you think?

Which One Was White?

One young man in South Florida 'violated a municipal code for drinking beer in a park after hours, was never taken into custody, never hired a lawyer and never appeared in court.'

One young man in NW Florida, rode a bicycle through an empty construction site.  Pensacola Police Officer Jerald Ard saw the young man and pursued the bike rider in his police cruiser, attempted to fire a Taser weapon from the window of the moving cruiser, and drove the cruiser on the side walk, and against traffic, trying to knock rider off the bicycle.  Eventually, the bike rider was crushed to death under the police cruiser.

Read the Washington Post, Rubio’s summer of ’90: An arrest, then newfound purpose.

Then read No Justice For Victor Steen.

Guess which one was white.

No Bon Appétit -- What Happens When a Busness Man Run Government

The " Flint disaster, three years in the making, is not a failure of government generally. It’s the failure of a specific governing philosophy: Snyder’s belief that government works better if run more like a business."

Read the Washington Post, The Flint disaster is Rick Snyder’s fault.

And have a taste:

From DemocracyNow.org, Poisoned Democracy: How an Unelected Official Contaminated Flint's Water to Save Money. 

Why is the Republi-CON Party Trying to Hide the Real Dr. Donald-Mr. Trump (AKA Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com))?

UPDATE:  "It's like something out of a Marvel movie. Rich Lowry, the editor of the conservative National Review, assembles a squadron of writers from all over the world of conservatism -- religious figures, radio personalities, President Reagan's former aides. True, they might have had their differences in the past, but this time, they have all come together in one final effort to stop a powerful villain from destroying liberty and freedom before the Iowa caucuses in just over a week.

That villain, of course, is Donald Trump, the favorite to win the GOP presidential primary.

A good comic-book villain has a weakness. For Trump, many people think it's that he is far too extreme to run as the nominee of a major political party -- his opponents have called him a fascist, for example. And many think he is certainly too extreme to win a general election. They compare him to a stalwart conservative such as Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee whom President Johnson trounced in 1964.

Our heroes in the National Review don't attack Trump by trying to exploit his extremism. On the contrary, in their view, Trump's flaw is that he doesn't go far enough. The refrain of the special issue that Lowry published this week is that Trump is not ideological, that he is willing to compromise, that he is not a true conservative.

'Is Trump a liberal? Who knows?' asks Mona Charen, one of Lowry's contributors.

In other words, this special issue emphasizes an important but underappreciated fact about Trump. He might be brash. He might be eccentric. Substantively, though, he is a moderate by the standards of the Republican Party."

Read the Washington Post,  Top Republicans say Donald Trump’s real problem is that he’s too moderate.

National Review, "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion", writes:

“Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones . . .

Trump is an egotist; Trump is not a real conservative; Trump doesn’t know much about terrorism; Trump is a populist, not a conservative . . 'Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.'"

So the Republi-con party decided to engage in a little "thought control", it disqualified the magazine as an upcoming debate moderator.

Read the Washington Post, The RNC has lost its mind on GOP debates.  

Look What 'Hysterics Have Wrought': The Half-Term Gov Endorses the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com)

UPDATE V:  "At first it seemed too weirdly awful to be true, but there she was: Sarah Palin standing next to Donald Trump on Tuesday and endorsing him for president.

Like previously conjoined twins who had shared a brain before Ben Carson separated them, these two anti-everything, post-lamestream media instigators presented themselves as political doppelgangers, a he/she, yin-yang, sis-boom-bah political marriage of the carnival barker and the bearded lady.

Step right up! Get your tickets! Bring the whole family! Bring your anger, bring your spleen, don’t let logic intervene!

The challenge for those of us in the observation business is to illuminate what’s plainly obvious without offending those who prefer not to see. But there’s no winning once passions are engaged, and hating the messenger is a time-honored tradition. Even though it was, in fact, obvious in 2008 that Palin was out of her league, as I pointed out in a column, her fans wouldn’t hear of it. About 20,000 of them took time out of their busy schedules to send me emails expressing their displeasure. (I’ve kept them all for nursing-home share time.) The whole episode was instructive in multiple ways, but most important, it foretold a dumbing down of the GOP that eight years later may prove irreversible.

Into a blizzard of irony gallops National Review with a “symposium” of opinions from noted conservative writers saying what must be said: Trump is terrible for conservatism (because he isn’t a conservative) and that populist demagoguery and vulgarity have no place in the party. You don’t say!

The irony, which is so delicious I may skip the chocolate sauce and forgo the cherry, is that this same publication dropped my syndicated column not long after it ran my Palin column. Hoopla and all that. And now suddenly, the editors, one of whom all but telepathically dated Palin, are blind to the former governor’s charms, opposing her choice for president in the strongest terms.

One wonders only what took them so long to say what has been plainly obvious for months.

It must be difficult for some of these writers to go out on a limb like this and recognize in Trump what they were unable to see in Palin in 2008. Trump, to his credit, has managed to clarify matters for them.

Although Palin is a latecomer to this particular circus and thus not a likely factor in the magazine’s symposium edition, she does add fresh flair to Trump’s “I’m so great” monologues."

I could quote more, but read the Washington Post, With Trump and Palin, Republicans get what they deserve.

UPDATE IV:  "The arrival of Sarah Palin brings a special something to the 2016 campaign, like a little LSD added to the punch bowl. Are we watching C-SPAN, or a reality TV show, or a “Saturday Night Live” skit? It is impossible to tell without consulting the channel guide.

Ted Cruz may have secured the coveted 'Duck Dynasty' blessing. But Palin is the original and best representative of Kardashian conservatism. Her endorsement of Donald Trump was entirely devoid of policy content — a speech that did not even aspire to shallowness. It is enough that Trump is 'going rogue' and 'ticking people off' and 'media heads are spinning.'

Palin has been entirely consumed and replaced by her own bitterness against a Republican establishment she feels betrayed her and against a media that mocked her. More than anything else, she clings to resentment and rage. And her revolution, over time, has become comprehensive; not just a revolt against elites, but a revolt against syntax and taste and preparation and reason.

The phenomenon of Palin raises the question: Does populism need to be anti-intellectual? . .

In this vacuity, Palin and Trump are a perfect match. They both embrace a politics of personality, a politics at war with reason. Who would go to either for advice on Medicare reform or Syria policy? In the two-dimensional politics of Palin and Trump, depth is not even a category. There is only establishment vs. anti-establishment, weakness vs. strength.

The danger of an anti-intellectual politics is that it quickly becomes unmoored from real problems and real answers. In U.S. history, anti-intellectual populism has often become conspiratorial, focusing anger against powerful and imaginary enemies: the Masons, the international bankers, the Jesuits, the munitions-makers. “How can we account for our present situation,” asked Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) in 1951, “unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.”

Trump rose to political prominence through the power of birtherism — a movement in which every disproof was regarded as evidence of an even broader conspiracy. But Trump also made a mark connecting vaccinations to autism. The idea is 'completely discredited' by scientific studies (according to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and dangerous to children. But Trump refuses to back down, asserting “the doctors lied” and the studies have been 'fudged up.'

The same is true on other issues. . .

Trump is not proposing obnoxious solutions to real challenges; he is promoting obnoxious solutions to fake or wildly exaggerated challenges. His anti-intellectualism is severing the ties between the GOP and reality. If Republicans choose to inhabit the Trump-Palin world, they will offer little of value to our own."

Read the Washington Post, Trump and Palin join forces in the war against reason. 

UPDATE III:  "I love poetic justice. This wild and wacky Republican presidential campaign deserved Sarah Palin, and now it’s got her.

Palin’s endorsement of front-runner Donald Trump at an Iowa rally this week was a master class in surrealist poetry. Geniuses of the Dada movement would have been humbled by her deconstruction of the language and her obliteration of the bourgeois concept we call logic.

The GOP candidates have been competing to see who can spew the most nonsense, but they’ll never top Palin. Not when she offers gems such as this: 'Believe me on this. And the proof of this? Look what’s happening today. Our own GOP machine, the establishment, they who would assemble the political landscape, they’re attacking their own front-runner. .?.?. They are so busted, the way that this thing works.'

Or this further excoriation of the party leadership:  [see the article for the nonsensical quote] . .

Or this elaboration of the same theme: [ditto] . .

Actually, I think the wailing from Republican grandees is more of a wordless primal scream. Palin claimed that 'media heads are spinning' at her decision to campaign for Trump, but it would be more accurate to say that 'media feet are dancing' at having such a rich source of new material.

I could quote Palin all day, but there are two substantive points about her dazzling intervention that I feel duty-bound to make. The first is political: Someday we might look back and say she was the one who pushed Trump over the top to win the nomination.

That’s not a promise, just a possibility. But Trump’s campaign draws strength from its own momentum. If he can somehow manage to sweep the early primary states, “outsider” support may coalesce behind him — and the establishment candidates may be too shellshocked to effectively respond. . .

The other substantive point I have to make about Palin has to do with a campaign speech she gave in Oklahoma for Trump the day after her endorsement. She was talking about the arrest of her son, Track, on domestic abuse charges after he allegedly fought with his girlfriend and threatened suicide by holding an assault rifle to his head.

'My son, a combat veteran .?.?. was fighting for you all, America, in the war zone,' Palin said. 'My son, like so many others, came back a bit different, they come back hardened.'

Palin said not enough was done to treat the 'woundedness' of returning veterans and charged that this failing 'comes from our own President [Obama].'

Never mind that Track Palin served in Iraq and came home while George W. Bush was president. His mother was speaking for the large segment of the GOP base that brays against high taxes and big government, yet demands more services and opposes cuts in entitlements — which doesn’t add up.

I’ve said it before: With years of foolish rhetoric, the Republican establishment got itself into this mess. There may be no way out."

Read the Washington Post, Sarah Palin takes the GOP campaign to a new low.

UPDATE II:  H/T to the Washington Post, Stephen Colbert delivers his own speech in Palin-ese. And it’s spot-on:



Colbert once again proves he's the king of satire.

And thank our lucky stars -- The Half-Term Gov and the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com) together in 2016, could it get any better?

UPDATE:  A must read, the Washington Post, The monumental fall of the Republican Party, which state in part:

Today’s Republican crisis was . . . engineered by the party leadership’s step-by-step capitulation to a politics of unreason, a policy of silence toward the most extreme and wild charges against Obama, and a lifting up of resentment and anger over policy and ideas as the party’s lodestars.

Many Republicans are now alarmed that their choice may come down to Trump, the candidate of a reality-show populism that tries to look like the real thing, and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), an ideologue whom they fear would lead their cause to a devastating defeat. There is an honorable pushback against this outcome from champions of a genuinely more moderate and tolerant brand of conservatism — the columnists Michael Gerson and David Brooks among them.

But this is a battle that needed to be joined long ago (which, I should say, is a central theme of my new book, 'Why the Right Went Wrong'). A showdown was required before the steady, large-scale defection of moderate voters from the party. Now that opponents of Trump and Cruz need the moderates, they are no longer there — except, perhaps, in states where independents might cross into the party’s primaries to save it from itself.

And instead of battling the impulses now engulfing the party, GOP honchos exploited them. They fanned nativist feeling by claiming that illegal immigrants were flooding across our borders, even when net immigration from Mexico had fallen below zero.

They promised radical reductions in the size of government, knowing no Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, could pull this off. They pledged to “take the country back,” leaving vague the identity of the people (other than Obama) from whom it was to be reclaimed. Their audiences filled in the blank. They denounced Obamacare as socialist, something, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is pointing out, it decidedly is not. Indeed, it’s rooted in proposals Republicans once made themselves.

Politicians whose rhetoric brought the right’s loyalists to a boiling point now complain that they don’t much like the result. But it’s a little late for that. Why shouldn’t the party’s ultra-conservatives and its economically distressed working-class supporters feel betrayed? At least with Trump, Cruz and Palin, they have reason to think they know what they’re getting. 'We are mad, and we’ve been had,' Palin declared on Tuesday. 'They need to get used to it.'"

"Sarah Palin, in a zany, rambling endorsement announcement filled with garbled syntax and malapropisms, endorsed presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday in Iowa. . .

In some ways the Donald Trump-Sarah Palin team is the perfect comeuppance to the far-right — including the loudest talk show hosts, the anti-immigrant propagandists, the inside-the-Beltway groups that make money from political chaos and the pols who take advantage of all of those voices, politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). The far-right did all in their power to undermine compromise, to promote know-nothingism on immigration and to root for government failure (as in the 2013 shutdown). Beltway groups, armed with score cards and vitriol, demeaned anyone but those like the Freedom Caucus, those who had no responsibility for governance and no risk of electoral defeat. . .

Palin, long after she revealed herself to be an unserious populist and the 2008 election was in the rear-view mirror, was still heralded by the far-right as the warrior against the MSM and liberal elites more generally. She was the queen bee at gatherings like CPAC. Her admirers insisted she, not Republican lawmakers trying to govern, had the pulse of the public.. .

It seems the far-right noise machine, which lacks a conservative temperament and adherence to thoughtful positions, has met its enemies — its own creations in the persons of Trump and Palin and in voters and listeners so unmoored to reality and inured to reason that Cruz’s attempt to dissect Trump’s proposals falls on deaf ears. So which is it — is Palin a know-nothing nut with no grasp of conservative principles or the Joan of Arc of the right wing? How can Cruz be preferable to Trump if so many of these voices had argued for months that Trump was right on China, the Iraq War and so much more? Oh my, what talk radio hysterics have wrought!

Read the Washington Post, Trump and Palin: Just deserts for the right-wing racket.

Read also the Washington Post, In Oklahoma, the Trump and Palin tornadoes collide.

What Do Hitler and Big Daddy Donald Have In Common?

UPDATE:  Read also the Washington Post, The gospel according to Donald Trump, and hear Trump discuss "Two Corinthians" and other gospel favorites "according to Trump."

 
"So you say you want a daddy for your president?

Okay, so maybe you didn’t say it, but on a subliminal level, you may have felt it, especially if you’re a Republican primary voter leaning toward Donald Trump.

Such is the finding of a recent national poll unveiled in the current issue of Politico Magazine. The survey’s author, political consultant Matthew MacWilliams, found that Trump supporters tend to be primarily 'authoritarians.'

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since 'authority' sums up the content of both Trump’s persona and his campaign. How many times have you heard him say, 'Believe me,' usually following some sweeping promise that has virtually no basis in reality?
But Big Daddy’s the boss. What he says goes. Case closed.

For many Republicans, this trope apparently offers comfort. Fathers, after all, are brave, strong and filled with correctitude. They lay down the law; you follow it. Easy peasy. So much for Republican allegiance to independence and self-sufficiency. When it comes to government authority, the only difference between a daddy state and a mommy state is the number of bullets in the magazine.

The problems Trump cites, whether China’s currency manipulation or illegal immigration, are real enough. It’s his build-it and ban-’em solutions that are overbroad and draconian.

Doesn’t matter.

What voters hear when Trump speaks is validation of their anger, resentment, fear and loathing. This folie à deux between demagogue and populace (the leader and the led) is nothing new, but a substantial percentage of GOP voters are managing to overlook Trump’s parallels to history’s other authoritarian figures. They, too, invariably appealed to nationalistic, nativist pride and made enemies of 'the others.' . .

So exactly what does it mean to be 'authoritarian' in MacWilliams’s parlance? In a word, it means you obey — and that you value obedience.

Authoritarians also are attracted to strong leaders and react strongly to outsiders when they feel threatened. These qualities aren’t necessarily an indictment of either Trump or his supporters. It is natural to want to protect one’s home (land) when intruders are reportedly about. And who in her right mind wants a weak leader? Been there, haven’t we?

Trouble is in the details, or, in Trump’s case, the lack thereof. His plans and policies are amateurish to pretend-ish, certainly as compared with those of someone such as Jeb Bush, who has offered detailed plans for tackling complicated issues. Not that voters are going to read them. . .

Today’s voters are so mad they can’t see — or think — straight. They want simple solutions and simplistic slogans. With Trump, they get both, as well as a furious father figure, who, snapping off his belt for a good whuppin’, will build a wall, bomb the hell out of ’em, and bravely defend 'Merry Christmas.'"

Read the Washington Post, Who are Trump’s supporters in America? Authoritarians.

The 2016 Election: Showcasing Republi-CON (Satan's) Fear, Anger, and Hatred

UPDATE V:  "'I will gladly accept the mantle of anger.'

Thus did Donald Trump react this week to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who in her Republican response to the State of the Union address bravely called on Americans to resist the temptation 'to follow the siren call of the angriest voices.'

And nobody wears the mantle of anger as well as Trump. The rest of the Republican presidential contenders, acolytes in anger all, seem happy to help him on with the cloak, to hem the sleeves and let out the waist until the fury fits perfectly.

Republicans like to blame Trump for hijacking the party, but equally to blame are the others in the race for letting it happen — and continuing to do so, now just two weeks from the Iowa caucuses. Thursday night’s debate was another depressing development: Any of four men on the stage — Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or John Kasich — could have been a viable alternative to the fear and demagoguery offered by Trump and Ted Cruz. Instead, they cluttered the stage and quarreled among themselves, offering little beyond faint echoes of Trump’s rage. . .

The GOP race is typically described as a struggle between the outsiders and the establishment. Really it’s a battle between the demagogic (Cruz and Trump) and the selfish (Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich). The latter candidates, blinded by certainty in their own magnificence, refuse to clear the field so that one of them can take on the demagogues. (Ben Carson, the other man on the stage, appeared to have wandered, bewildered, into the debate.)

The polling shows the dilemma: Trump averages about a third of the GOP vote, Cruz a fifth. The four others together are about a quarter – enough to give voters a viable alternative to Trump and Cruz, if only they could put country before self.

Worse, they seem content to echo and imitate Trump. Haley, in the audience for Thursday’s debate in South Carolina, got little support for her noble call this week for tolerance. . .

So if Trump’s other rivals are only going to ape his paranoia and rage, why would voters accept an imitation if they can have the original?"

Read the Washington Post, Trump’s rivals help him hijack the GOP.  

UPDATE IV:  "It’s still very possible that Donald Trump won’t win the GOP nomination. His GOP rivals — particularly Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — will obviously fight him to the bitter end. If a clear establishment alternative — such as Rubio — emerges, senior Republicans will unite behind him, particularly if Trump continues to roll along.

But last night’s GOP debate suggests that in one important way, Republicans have already surrendered to Trump: they have mostly given up on trying to resist the terms of the debate as he has set them, and have mostly accepted that the battle will be fought on his turf."

Read the Washington Post, Republicans have surrendered to Donald Trump.

UPDATE III:  "President Obama suggested Tuesday that the United States may not, in fact, be on the verge of total collapse. The Republican presidential candidates responded in Thursday’s GOP debate by painting an even more dismal and dangerous picture than they had in the past. The president is a traitor. The military is a shell of a fighting force. The economy is a shambles. Average families are in grave danger. If Democrats win, the country is lost.

With only a few weeks left before the first primary contests, the GOP race has devolved into a competition for who can squeeze the most political advantage out of voter fear, no matter how over-the-top they sound and no matter how much damage they do by darkening the national mood. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) 'won' the latest round of this increasingly disgusting show, with Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) coming in second. But being the most effective at exaggerating the dangers the country faces and preying on voter anger is not an achievement; it is a moral failure."

Read the Washington Post, The dismal, dark, traitor-filled world Republican candidates inhabit, where you can read "the world according to" Republi-CONs. 

UPDATE II:  Now Republi-CONs are worried that party members are "follow[ing] the siren call of the angriest voices."

This after years of the same message:  "Be afraid. That fear and the anger from the GOP establishment’s apparent complacency are the reasons behind the strength of Trump, Cruz and others. Platitudes from Nikki Haley and others won’t stop that fear as long as they keep feeding it."

Read the Washington Post, Nikki Haley shows how the GOP establishment has fueled Trump’s rise. 

UPDATE:  "Cruz’s speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear. America is heading off 'the cliff to oblivion.'. .

As the Republican strategist Curt Anderson observed in Politico, there’s no variation in Cruz’s rhetorical tone. As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everything is described as a maximum existential threat.

The fact is this apocalyptic diagnosis is ridiculous. The Obama administration has done things people like me strongly disagree with. But America is in better economic shape than any other major nation on earth. Crime is down. Abortion rates are down. Fourteen million new jobs have been created in five years. . .

But Cruz manufactures an atmosphere of menace in which there is no room for compassion, for moderation, for anything but dismantling and counterattack. And that is what he offers. Cruz’s programmatic agenda, to the extent that it exists in his speeches, is to destroy things: destroy the I.R.S., crush the 'jackals' of the E.P.A., end funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Obama’s executive orders, make the desert glow in Syria, destroy the Iran nuclear accord. . .

Cruz exploits and exaggerates that fear. . .

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that."

Read The New York Times, The Brutalism of Ted Cruz.

Read also the Washington Post, David Brooks’s choice words on Cruz — ‘satanic’, ‘pagan’ — draw fire and a little brimstone, in which Brooks notes that other candidates are "'adopting some of the dark and satanic tones that Cruz has . . if you watch a Cruz speech, it’s like, we have got this enemy, we have got that enemy, we’re going to stomp on this person, we’re going to crush that person, we’re going to destroy that person.  It is an ugly world in Ted Cruz’s world. And it’s combative. And it’s angry, and it’s apocalyptic.'"

From the Washington Post, White Americans are boiling mad:

"Trump, Carson, or Cruz" (Now "Cruz, Trump or Rubio")

UPDATE VII:  Pastor Truthiness (aka Huckster and Con Man Gullible-Gallups) endorses the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com). 

Read Rick's Blog, Who endorsed Trump yesterday.

Of course, The Donald is quite the Godly man, so who else would Satan's Pastor pick ;-).

UPDATE VI: "Many legal scholars say Cruz supports an approach to constitutional law in which modern readers try to understand what the words in the Constitution would have meant to the people who wrote them and voted to ratify them more than two centuries ago. It's a concept known as originalism, and it's especially popular with conservatives. . .

On this straightforward, intuitive, and deeply conservative reasoning, several prominent legal scholars have argued Cruz is arguably not a natural-born citizen. As the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries probably would have understood that phrase, the argument goes, Cruz is ineligible for the presidency — not because he was born in Canada, but because he was born in Canada to a Cuban father. . .

'He should disqualify himself,' said Thomas Lee, a legal scholar at Fordham University, adding that Cruz should 'just be consistent.'

Lee explains that in medieval English law, the term "natural born" originally referred to subjects of the crown who were born in English territory.

Under King Edward III, who reigned from 1327 to 1377, England expanded this definition to include the children of ambassadors and soldiers who were serving the monarch overseas. In the centuries to come, Parliament modified the definition further to include the children of private English subjects who happened to be abroad.

In the late 18th century, though, that definition did not include English mothers who were traveling. If they conceived children with foreign men, it was assumed those children would not be loyal English subjects and were not considered 'natural born.' . .

[A]t the time [the Constitution] was ratified in 1788, Lee has argued that the phrase 'natural born' would have carried a specific legal meaning. Natural-born citizens would have been those born in the United States, or born abroad to fathers who were U.S. citizens. On that interpretation, Cruz would not have qualified because his mother was a citizen and his father was not. If Cruz takes an originalist approach to constitutional law, then by this logic, he should come to the conclusion that he is not natural born."

Read the Washington Post, Why the subtle sexism of the Founding Fathers might disqualify Ted Cruz for president.

UPDATE V:  Of course, there is always Jeb! Who.

Read the Washington Post, Lowered expectations are a blessing in disguise for Jeb Bush.  

UPDATE IV:  The problem with the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com) is that he's "a xenophobic showman who has been spreading fear and anger across the land toward immigrants, minorities, women, the disabled and, particularly, Muslims."

Read the Washington Post, Obama answers Trump’s dangerous demagoguery.

 

UPDATE III:  Of course, Birthers would say that Rubio is not a natural-born citizen because he was born (albeit in the United States) to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

And as noted before, Ted Cruz is undoubtedly not a natural-born citizen.  Ted Cruz "was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to a 'U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father', giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship." Cruz only recently "renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014."

Read also the Washington Post, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, which notes: "President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference."

So for a truly sincere non-racist Birther, the only choice is the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© NoBullU.com).

UPDATE II:  The question now is "Cruz, Trump or Rubio".

And before you answer, read the Washington Post, 3 very real warning signs for Donald Trump in Iowa:, which notes:

"One of the things that becomes important as the election approaches is the confidence voters have that their chosen candidate can defeat the opposing party in the general election. Most signs point to that opponent being Hillary Clinton, and Iowa voters are less convinced than they were last month that Trump is the right guy to pit against her. (Which is probably true.)

In fact, Iowans think Cruz and Rubio would both be about as successful against Clinton as Trump — suggesting that Cruz or Rubio might gain more support as voters make up their minds.

Trump's support is also higher among voters that have never participated in a caucus before. He sees this as a good thing — that he's energizing people to come to the polls. Maybe he is. But people who've never voted before have a 0 percent track record of getting to the polls, making relying on them to turn out awfully risky. (Notice below that Rubio gets a lot more support from would-be first-timers, too.)

Third, more than a quarter of Iowans say they'd never back Trump. That's the same as wouldn't back Jeb Bush, for what it's worth. But it's far higher than any of the other leading candidates."

UPDATE: "One simple mental exercise when considering electability is: Would you feel at least barely safe with this person running the affairs of state for even a day? A week? Though a couple of Cruz’s legislative policy proposals are far to the right of Trump’s, you could at least see Cruz sitting in the Oval Office for 24 hours without destroying the world. You can’t be as sure with someone as spontaneous as Trump. . .

Debating whether Trump or Cruz is more electable in the general election is like debating whether Trump or Cruz is more likely to be the MVP in the next Super Bowl. Each is a very poor prospect for separate reasons: One has extremely conservative politics, while the other is a visibly insane person. This is why party leaders are still desperately hoping that Christie, Rubio, Bush, or Kasich can make something happen."

Read Slate, Why the GOP Establishment Would Prefer Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.

"Pretend they were your only choices for president."

Who would you pick?

Read Slate, Let’s Play “Trump, Carson, or Cruz”.

Are Birthers (Including Huckster and Con Man Gullible-Gallups) Racists Hypocrites?

UPDATE II:  "A new study shows that negative ads targeting President Obama in 2008 depicted him with very dark skin, and that these images would have appealed to some viewers’ racial biases.

The finding reinforces charges that some Republican politicians seek to win votes by implying support for racist views and ethnic hierarchies, without voicing those prejudices explicitly. The purported tactic is often called “dog-whistle politics” — just as only canines can hear a dog whistle, only prejudiced voters are aware of the racist connotations of a politician’s statement, according to the theory."

Read the Washington Post, Obama’s skin looks a little different in these GOP campaign ads.

Birtherism is also a racist dog-whistle.

UPDATE:  "[W]e’re entitled to savor some schadenfreude now as Cruz himself gets caught in the birther web. Donald Trump’s questioning of Cruz’s status as a natural-born American and, therefore, his eligibility to be president is rough justice. Cruz, like Trump, has stoked the fires of resentment and xenophobia, so it’s entirely fitting that he gets burned. . .

[T]he birther movement, led by Trump, which . . . to portray the first African American president as a foreigner. Now Trump is, with his characteristic disregard for truth, attempting to turn the same nativist forces against his nearest competitor in the Republican primary."

Read the Washington Post, Ted Cruz gets burned by the birther fires he stoked.  

Here's the chance to see if Sheriff Joe 'Scooby-Doo' Arpaio and his gang -- (including the incredibly inept Cold Case Posterior-man Zullo and Pastor Truthiness (aka Huckster and Con Man Gullible-Gallups), Arpaio’s enablers and co-conspirators --  are sincerely 'concerned citizens', or just plain racist.

Ted Cruz "was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to a 'U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father', giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship." Cruz only recently "renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014."

Ergo, Ted Cruz is undoubtedly not a natural-born citizen.
 
The Donald agrees.

"Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a 'very precarious' issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee."

Read the Washington Post, Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be ‘very precarious’ for GOP.

So will Zullo investigate Cruz?

Will Huckster and Con Man Gullible-Gallups regularly and vigorously denounce and condemn Cruz?

And will Sheriff Scooby-Doo arrest Cruz at his next AZ campaign stop?

Or are the three just racist hypocrites?

Red State Hypocrisy

Sometime a picture is worth a thousand words.

From the Washington Post, Some of the most conservative states rely most on federal government aid:

Read also The Republi-CON "Hardscrabble, Up-By-Your-Bootstraps Ethos" Myth.

More proof that God hates the South.

Message or Messenger?

From the Washington Post, Is the 2016 GOP problem the message or the messenger?:

Are You a Hedgehog or a Fox?

UPDATE II:  "How do you spot a hedgehog? [Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has spent decades studying how people make predictions,] says to listen to their arguments and watch out for 'the experts who say 'moreover' more often than they say 'however'' — i.e., people who double down on their arguments without qualifying them with contrasting information — as well as those who declare things 'impossible' or 'certain.'

You can probably guess that Tetlock's superforecasters are not 'hedgehogs.' Instead, they are the kind of person that Tetlock dubs 'foxes.'

According to Tetlock, foxes are more pragmatic and open-minded, aggregating information from a wide variety of sources. They talk in terms of probability and possibility, rather than certainty, and they tend to use words like 'however,' 'but,' 'although' and 'on the other hand' when speaking.

When it comes to prediction, the foxes outfox the hedgehogs. While the hedgehogs managed to do slightly worse than random chance, the foxes had real foresight. The foxes weren’t just more cautious in their predictions, they were a lot more accurate.

Unlike hedgehogs, foxes also had a desire to keep reviewing their assumptions, updating their estimates, and improving their understanding — a kind of attitude that Tetlock calls 'perpetual beta.' Tetlock says that this approach is the single most important ingredient for learning to make accurate predictions. 'For superforecasters, beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be guarded,' Tetlock and Gardner write.

Read the Washington Post, The secrets the world’s top experts use to make really good predictions.

UPDATE: Humble, perceptive and self-reflective leaders seem to outshine their more brash and charismatic counterparts. Read The New York Times, The Humble Hound.

Are you a humble hound?

Don't know what I mean, then read The New York Times, Learning How to Think.

Hint: "The Hedgehog and the Fox" was the title of an essay by Isaiah Berlin about Russian author Leo Tolstoy's theory of history.

So I ask again, are you a hedgehog, or a fox?

The Republi-CON "Western Moral Superiority" Myth

"Guests at a Jewish wedding in Jerusalem in December 2015 celebrated and mocked "the death of 18-month-old Ali Dawabsheh. 

One guest danced while a holding a knife through picture of the young boy.

The toddler and his parents died after an arson attack on their home in July."

Read the Daily Mail Shocking footage from Israeli Jewish wedding shows guests celebrating the death of a Palestinian baby burned alive in an arson attack.

Read also the story of a Northwest Florida Muslim family "confronted in a grocery store [that same week]. A man threw bacon in [their] cart and said 'Merry Christmas.' It was an unmistakable slur, as Muslims don't eat pork, it's considered unclean in their religion."
Read WEAR ABC 3, Local Muslim stands up for dad after offensive incident at a grocery store.

And don't forget America's own sordid history, including "The Scalp Industry".

"For example, Confederate guerrillas led by Bloody Bill Anderson were well known for decorating their saddles with the scalps of Union soldiers they had killed."

The Republi-CON "Must Have" New Year's Present

"Brace yourself for the Putin 2016 calendar.

Famous for his topless horse riding, shirtless fishing and bare-chested shooting, Russian president Vladimir Putin has been celebrated in the Putin 2016 calendar, produced by Russia's 'Stars and Advice' magazine.

The twelve shots reveal both the president's tough and sensitive sides, although he is resolutely covered up (for the most part).

But while he keeps his clothes on, the posed pictures are no less bizarre.

Each picture sets the Russian supremo in natural settings and are accompanied by nationalistic quotes."

Read the Daily Mail, Now you can spend all year with Vladimir Putin!