The Obama administration continues to advance its music. Most of it is song and dance, just a show to draw a reaction from the crowds. Much of it can be ignored or circumvented. Everything can be undone with the stroke of a pen via the next President’s executive order. Many are offended—many of whom think Obama’s policies have more weight than they actually do.
The situation raises many questions. Why does Obama push agendas that he does?
Almost everything Obama is doing through executive action can be outright ignored, even Obamacare. Other things could be disputed at State and local levels. Yet, few dissidents push for those options as they focus on trying to put Trump in office, mostly ignoring the Obama policies. Does Obama think that the lack of State and local action against his policies imply support? Does he think the people are too weak to stand up to him? Does he simply want to provoke his dissidents to get excited and angry, even though his policies are mostly bark with little bite? Or, is he like Plankton in SpongeBob SquarePants who doesn’t know how little he is?
At the same time, the people are getting excited about policies that really can’t be enforced. Are they late bloomers? Why didn’t they get angry when Hannity and O’Reilly tried to warn Americans about Obama’s ties to Rev. Wright? Maybe Obama’s noisy song and dance is just waking up drunk America from her slumber.
Issues are stacking up. TSA wait time seems longer than estimated at Airports. Of course, having one’s stuff together can make those times faster. TSA agents might accommodate passengers at risk of missing flights if asked nicely, with all liquids removed from baggage. But a mother with children running around who doesn’t know where her passport is may have some trouble gaining trust of the security agents. Who is to blame? Everyone needs to get their stuff together better. Those who do have fewer problems, TSA and passengers alike. Israel’s security methods have always been preferable and effective, yet, for some reasons, Israel gets little consideration in general from Obama.
Facebook seems to be censoring Conservative stories. Russia complains about US defense in Europe. And many people are having to review their personal beliefs and worldviews, largely on account of needing a better set of arguments to either support or oppose Trump and Hillary.
The Ted Cruz campaign tells much. It was the epitome of establishment Churchianity and establishment politics. In the week before he suspended his campaign, even his own father was calling for a religious-based vote. The dirty political games from his campaign are more like Sunday morning fiefdom clan wars than Clintonian dishonesty. His campaign’s epitaph will read that it is the place all liars go who tell the same lies.
The Sunday morning card can’t be played to bloc up votes ever again. Nor will establishment political parties fool the people with their games. Cruz’s campaign laid out exactly how the Republican and Democratic parties will also collapse over the next two presidential cycles. They may not be viable parties by 2024. It’s already happening with Paul Ryan. Cruz’s campaign tells much.
Cruz drew fire and hatred because he overstayed his welcome. He tried to use any and every lever he could find, probably from a genuine love for his country; only God knows Ted’s heart. During the process, he never broke rules. But, championships are not won on technical fouls alone; he never had a path to win in a democracy through actual democracy. In retrospect, he learned that those games don’t pay off.
Now, just because he played dirty politics doesn’t mean that he supported them. He will likely become one of the greatest opponents of “dirty rules” politics. Those rules didn’t help him, after all.
Cruz still manages to keep a powerful career as a loser. He doesn’t lose easily. The entire nation got a good look at what it was like to fight against him in the Senate. And he got an up-close-and-personal view of the political process from top to bottom.
By dropping out of the race when he did, he atoned for any former wrongdoing. He is clearly a fighter and a man of logic. The math told him it was over and he listened.
It is always good to recognize the right person in the wrong position. Usually, that “wrong” position helps prepare and educate that “right” person for a greater task. With Cruz’s brilliant mind, love for the values that keep nations from falling, combined with his legal, Constitutional, and political background, it is clear that Cruz can and should sit on the Supreme Court. Only a man with Cruz’s intellect could replace that of the late Justice Scalia. On the Supreme Court, Cruz would continue his amazing career, even as a loser, but he would finally lose less.
Cruz’s campaign tells much. Even when the Republican and Democratic establishments fall—even their soon-to-be-former members may have useful purposes elsewhere, Paul Ryan notwithstanding.
Paul Ryan shot his foot off by preemptively denouncing the RNC frontrunner. Now, Palin will campaign against Ryan by helping his Republican challenger, Paul Nehlen.
And, so it begins: Trump lights into Clinton—both of them. He will likely lite into the FBI if they don’t indite her soon. Trump knows how to fire people. Dragging their feet on Hillary could be what some call a “career decision”. We’ll see.
Ted Cruz is not doing “what is necessary to win” the election; he’s doing what it takes to divide. Watch carefully and remember.
Dividing may not be his goal. Damage is rarely a goal; it rarely needs to be. If you want to know just how “establishment” he is look at his establishment methods. By our deeds do we align ourselves.
Cruz’s strategy of winning second ballot votes seems squirmish, attempting an unrightful victory based on technicality—not only against the spirit of the rules, but the spirit of the country he alienates in the process. But, more importantly, by presuming a defeat on the first RNC ballot, he presumes defeat.
He has clearly stated that VP is no option for him. This, combined with his attempt to get late-game votes from his opponent’s delegates, has burned all bridges of having his name on the 2016 ballot. Had Cruz every intention to win, he would not have done that.
Cruz seems to have a loser complex much akin to that of Sunday morning culture: “Us four and no more—against the world.” It is as if he wakes up in the morning expecting to be hated, then schemes a way to rule a nation that hates his actions more every day.
He claims victory, then loses. He claims Christianity, yet deals his neighbor injury without repair. He says what focus groups tell him to, while claiming to be trusted.
Not only his boilerplate consultant establishment methods, but also Cruz’ presumption of losing as his career path, proves him to be the best personification of an establishment candidate our nation has seen thus far.
His epitaph should read, “Here lies Ted Cruz, king of all establishmentarians, and the place all liars go when they tell the same lies every liar tells.”
In court, there are three main types of arguments: evidence, law, and procedure. Evidence is strongest; procedure is weakest; law, its intent, and its finer details float somewhere between.
A smoking gun accompanied by fingerprints and a video and three witnesses of a crime being committed is pretty solid evidence. Without so much evidence, a law making it illegal for the defendant to be where he was can also incrominate. Procedures of whether the police made the arrest properly could have an entire case dismissed.
Lawyers, attorneys, police, plaintifs, defendants—they all argue which ever of the three is strongest in their favor: evidence first, law second, procedure last.
As of Tuesday, Cruz began a campaign of procedure. This means that he knows he’s losing. And, a continuing loser implies much more.
Senator Ted Cruz—possibly soon-to-be-former, if he continues continuing—, having no mathematical path to a nomination by the people, at most, hopes to win the presidency by collaborating many technical procedures leaning against the popular vote or, at least, plans only to campaign to deny the most popular candidate the nomination. In either case, his intentions do not involve serving the will of the people.
“Lyin'” Ted Cruz shows his true colors more and more with each primary. He hopes to keep the Republican party as divided as the most segregated hour of the week: Sunday morning. Interestingly, Sunday morning was where he got most of his early votes.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me like America today—shame on us all for not being our brothers’ keepers.
How long can America stammer on about the very value of being “United” that her people contradict every day, every week, and every election? We’ll see. But it can’t go on forever.
Somewhere, just beyond a not-too-distant horizon, the people will stop blaming the politicians and publicly-traded companies—and start blaming their own spite against their fellow contrymen.
Drama and theatrics! Trump and friends complain about the Colorado results long after those results were foretold—August. Generally, Americans have only responded to problems after the fact, never when those problems clearly loomed on the horizon. Trump at Colorado was no exception. Either Trump is incompetent or only complaining after the inevitable results was a brilliant staging of theatrics.
Cruz’s theatrics took their own form this week. In a display that many still can’t digest, once dinner was served, Cruz gave a boilerplate speech for any occasion, after Trump and Kasich gave NY-specific speeches before dinner. His mic kept working at the event, but the live video switched to a house mic, making him difficult to hear. Later, more sound cut out. Yet, not even Cruz’s own campaign chairman pointed out what happened. “Some mic problems” was his dismissive concession when he should have objected. All the brilliant experts had the same false analysis—rather than reporting that the dinner plans and microphone disrupted Cruz, the as-if-choreographed coordinated-like response of the media is that Cruz was wilfully ignored by the dinner audience.
Again, Americans don’t complain at foresight, only in hindsight. Trump and Colorado’s rules, Cruz and dinner being served—everyone acts as if the obvious results were a total surprise. If truly surprised, these news pundits and personalities should resign to make room for better men than they. Conspiracy theories fly, but there is always more going on.
Consider the other conspiracy theory favorites: a staged 9/11 attack, the false Obama birth certificate… While reports of controlled demolition-style explosions and reported evidence of Thermite at Ground Zero seem convincing, the alleged pre-reporting of the second impact by Sky News and the trail of JPEG artifacts behind a plane in the video make it look more like the conspiracy was that a conspiracy be perceived. If Obama’s PDF birth certificate is valid evidence, then the IRS won’t need paper prints for tax audits anymore—unlikely as much as suspicious. But, the presence of PDF layers makes it seem as if someone at the White House wanted it to look like a fake. Once a conspiracy theory includes such obvious blunders, it is no longer valid. Either the alleged conspirators are totally incompetent—and therefore need not be so feared as theorists propose—or there was no conspiracy, only the appearance of one to serve as a rouse.
So, with Cruz and with Trump, such obvious games beg the question: What is everyone up to? Why did Cruz prepare a bland speech for an event where he wouldn’t be heard, where he was reported as being ignored as if he could be heard? Why did Trump act as if what everyone knew from August would happen in Colorado wouldn’t happen?
Consider Paul Ryan: Cruz worked to oust John Boehner. Former VP nominee Paul Ryan “didn’t want” to be Speaker, but is anyway. Now, Boehner recommends Ryan, who “doesn’t want” to be President… and the only reason people are talking about it is because Cruz won’t quit when he’s losing.
The only sure conclusion thus far is: Trump is a master at winning by losing while Cruz continues to be a master at winning by losing while pretending to try to win. That qualifies Trump amongst the most brilliant Commanders in Chief, right up there with wartime presidents W and FDR, who also roused the nation to war after their respective foreseeable attacks. As for Cruz, he is perfect to stay in the Senate. It seems that’s what he wants, whether as Ryan’s VP or as a Senator who continues to help Ryan by losing more battles during a Trump administration.
Polls aren’t lying. The divisive wind from Wisconsin blows through Indiana. The State GOP is already stacking anti-Trump delegates in hopes of a contested convention; this, despite the fact that polls—which aren’t lying—show 1/3 of Republican voters will turn on the party if Trump leads, but isn’t nominated. The Boston Globe borders on faux news over the border, in an unabashed snowball of anti-Trump efforts. It all perfectly mirrors stage three of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, negotiating, depression, acceptance.
How should we make sense of it all? Of all States, militia-friendly Indiana should be fond of the say-it-in-yer-face Donald. The dissents, however, parallel those of the Bible.
To review: The Bible has over 42,000 documented manuscripts supporting that the original writings are as they were. The only peer that comes close is Homer’s Iliad, with about 500 documented manuscripts. Surmountable archaeological evidence collaborates, enumerates, and elaborates the events of the Bible without contradiction. Jesus’s death and resurrection could not be faked or misreported given the documented witnesses, cohesive accounting of events, and the events as they are reportedly agreed to have happened. All these can be researched as the information is widely available to the public. If the Bible is not real, then novelists should find out how fiction became perfectly cohesive with history without a single footprint of tampering. How many authors do that?
Though dissidents overlook the evidence in their academic-sounding explanations for the Bible as having been allegedly fabricated, they seem to overlook one thing: If the Bible is the first perfectly fake document, shouldn’t academics also focus on uncovering whatever brilliant methods led to a manuscript that can’t be proven false?
Usually, when competent people give high-grade arguments against an idea, but don’t pursue the brilliance their own arguments imply, this indicates that they know their arguments are phony. And usually, this indicates stages three and four of the grief process. It’s like a mother saying to her five year old, “The dog did this? Then we need to call American Idol and audition the first dog who can draw stick figures on the wall.”
The reason people provide convincing arguments against the Bible—even though they don’t pursue those ideas as they would if their arguments were true—is simple. People refuse to believe the Bible, despite the evidence, because, like five-year-olds who don’t know they will get caught blaming their mischief on the dog, they don’t want to change how they live.
The Bible teaches that we should forgive our enemies, remembering that we need no grudges since God is sovereign. It tells us to look after our neighbors just as we look after ourselves. It teaches against breaking wedding vows. And the entire debate on sexual orientation is eclipsed by the Bible’s teaching that we should love God more than anyone else—usually “Christian homosexuals” give arguments that talk more about their desire for human love than their abounding love for God, rendering their “Christian-homosexual” argument irrelevant before it can receive a fair debate. Christians love God first—or did they forget that part?
The Bible is only one example. People reject many ideas and virtues, not because they disagree, but because they don’t want to change their unvirtuous behavior.
What is Indiana hiding? Why is the should-be pro-Trump State so set against the Donald? Consider the agricultural numbers published by the Indiana State government.
According to the report in 2012 from the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, 19.4M of Indiana’s 23.3M acres is farm and forest land, 83%. Indiana’s population at the time was 6,537,344; 245,000 worked in the $11.2B agriculture industry. The industry stacks up to $4B in corn, $2.9B in soybeans, $1.2B in pigs, $1.1B in chickens, and $660M in dairy. Each farm averaged 245 acres. According to Statista, Indiana’s GDP that year was $280.49B; according to Indiana University, only about half of the population was working (est. approx. 3.3M in the labor force). Indiana’s produce ranked well in the nation, their staple products often in the top ten.
Do those numbers make sense?
That’s a lot of land and money. If true, 7.4% of Indiana’s labor force contributed to only 3.9% of the economy on 83% of the land, each person bringing $45,700 in revenue. That’s labor union bargaining power! The Democratic lobbyists should be all over Indiana agriculture like fire ants on a sandwich. Yet, according to this, Indiana farming is half as efficient per person as the rest of the State, but makes a lot of money. The remaining jobs in Indiana should bring in an average of $88K per capita per year, on only 17% of the remaining land! Everyone in the USA should be scrambling to work in Indiana where non-farming jobs are worth an average of almost $90K to each employer. So, why aren’t they?
Remember, the reported agriculture jobs were rounded to the nearest thousand while the population figures measure to the ones’ place. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, 40% of Wisconsin dairy farms are Latino workers. Were Indiana farm jobs an estimate? Could numbers given to the State Department of Agriculture been somehow incomplete or difficult to verify?
Let’s re-work some numbers. Let’s say that half of the agricultural labor force is from out of State, not being counted in the stats. And, lets say that farm labor is actually half a million. That would mean that each person brings under $22K in revenue each year, which seems more realistic. Now, each worker costs less money to the big farms. Accordingly, the rest of the unions, lobbyists, and work force doesn’t want to flock to Indiana—except for people from a country with a lower cost of living than the US. 12% of Indiana’s work force contributing to 3.9% of the economy—try putting that in the next State of the Union Address—easy to believe, difficult to prove, unlikely to report.
At least two farming States and the Boston Globe are all in a tizzy about losing the illegals. But, no one seems to be able to figure out why farming States don’t like Trump.
Will the IRS investigate? Probably not. That whole taxation and representation part of history seems to be making an encore, along with America’s next and fast-approaching Bible study renaissance.
