Hispanics not happy, Ted’s ‘NY Values’ commend backlashes (NY Daily News)
100 mile dust storm in TX panhandle (NBC – DFW5)
Priest or KKK? Hooshier history kicks-up confusion at IU-Bloomington (Breitbart)
Showing all posts tagged cruz
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Encore of Revival: America, April 4, 2016
Wisconsin’s primary will set the tone for the remainder of the election and even the transition into the next president. The principal question of this primary is about the people’s ability to see through deception. This year’s second-place candidates don’t seem to know when they are losing. Perhaps, they actually don’t care, since winning may not be their goal. Their supporters don’t seem to see any of this.
Cruz supporters say that Trump is also a hypocrite, having changed his views, but they don’t seem to see the difference between a civilian having a change of heart, then running for office vs an elected politician contradicting his campaign promises with his past voting record in Congress. The Sunday morning subculture really can’t recognize that difference any more than they can recognize when they are losing. This is because most of their history as Sunday morning Christians is filled with unfulfilled hopes and daily forgiveness of broken promises from pathological apologizers in church leadership.
Cruz’s well-rehearsed facade of the phony Sunday morning genre has hypnotized that Sunday morning subculture into ignoring Cruz’s money from lobbyists, voting for what they hate and he says he hates, and strikingly similar track record of high-effort failure. Walker oversaw an increase in State debt, then endorsed Cruz. When people spend large amounts of money on negative results, such as Sunday morning—declining as it is costly—they have to pull the wool over their own eyes and keep telling themselves they aren’t not doing the right thing. So, Cruz’ failures and Walker’s debt fit their definition of “good results”.
Put in simple terms, neither Cruz nor Churchianity know when they are losing. They always go down swinging, never winning. Churchianity can’t not trust Cruz, a fake who only has credibility from his ability to impersonate their Sunday morning show.
Trump, by contrast, visited St. Norbert College and spoke more about the students’ future. He told his story of encountering the famous William Levitt—of the Levitt towns—and shared what the then bankrupt William told him: He failed because he lost momentum. This is something that Cruz and Walker have neither the likelihood nor the experience to speak about. They are focused on campaign games while Trump speaks to the need of his audience, even in the closest and most critical primary yet and yet to come.
As goes Wisconsin’s wind, so will go the nation’s. The polls could change after Wisconsin, but the atmosphere won’t. The 2016 question asks whether Americans can see the difference between phony smoke, mirrors, puppets, and flip-flops and the real McCoy of results, leadership, and repentance unto hope. And, the answer will be foreshadowed in Wisconsin, tomorrow.
Thursday, March 31, 2015
Ben Innes’ terrorist selfie on EgyptAir (Guardian)
40k petition: Carry guns at GOP convention (Quartz)
FBI Comey to interview Hillary (WA Times)
Video: Cruz comedy, which car pedal for Trump? (The Hill – Jimmy Kimmel)
Japan-bound plane goes back to Hawaii, violent passenger, yoga (San Diego Union-Tribune)
Encore of Revival: America, March 28, 2016
With what happened between Cruz and Trump in Louisiana, it’s becoming less deniable why Cruz maintains a hopeless race. Isn’t it interesting how few things have helped the establishment like Cruz’s whopping failures? And, isn’t it more interesting that Cruz’s anti-establishment supporters can’t figure out how interesting that is?
American Churchianity seems to be looking for the candidate that they won’t need to hold accountable every day. They want someone they can elect and forget about. Remember all that rotgut we hear from clergy about the ongoing need for “Christian accountability”? Does Churchianity believe its own message about so-called “accountability”? Or does that apply to everyone except Cruz?
Maybe “accountability” only applies where money flows. Or, maybe not. But Cruz does seem to be the exception. His Christian supporters really seem to believe that he will need less accountability than any of the others. And that makes him the most dangerous man in America—not because of what he does, but because of what his supporters have turned him into. The same argument could be made for Trump, except that his supporters don’t seem to think he is the ideal messiah, just that he is best for this job. And, Trump supporters don’t seem to have plans for relaxation after the election.
Trump is already doing a great job of eliminating establishment waste. His candidacy has already proven that many “good old boy” jobs just aren’t needed. He is a Christian who is rarely seen on Sunday morning—something Christian “Cruzers” call a contradiction. But, Barna observed the same phenomenon: Millions of Christians left Sunday morning to know Jesus more. Now, it seems they support Trump. He also runs his campaign without a consultant, researcher, or speechwriter instructing him on which lies to tell to get elected this season. If we follow the money, we see that Trump’s loud-establishment opponents are most likely trying to keep the delusion that their own jobs aren’t unnecessary, not because they oppose his specific policies and values—they just oppose their own extinction.
Bernie hopes that superdelegates will change their vote. That would be like asking a political consultant to advice against having a political consultant. Yeah, right!
The election establishment views an election campaign speech as nothing more than a delphi technique meeting. They talk, pretend to listen and care about what people have to say, then give the people’s own conclusion to them. Whatever they say is what they think you ought to think, mixed with enough sweet-sounding nonsense so that you let the medicine go down. In their view, the public is not being very obedient. And, their Marie Antoinette complex is becoming ever more obvious.
Encore of Revival: America, March 21, 2016
For better or worse, America is experiencing a change of heart. People are leaving Democratic candidates and Establishment, DC-favored Rubio, to vote Trump. Cruz is up. Kasich is up. Rubio is way down, and Trump is up even more. What does the math tell us? Other Republicans in total are getting more support than Rubio is losing. Democrats are switching. Right or wrong, a change of heart involves progress of conscience.
Danger looms on every horizon and good diagnosis is in high demand. The big dangerous thing about Trump is that we need him. We need his economic history of overcoming his own debt, work specialty of construction, and his low-budget operating to go to work for America. Needing anything is dangerous. The two dangerous things about Cruz are that his supporters think he is less corruptible than Trump and that his supporters are largely sectarian—Christians from bickering denominations, who misrepresent nearly everyone of the many people they take issue with.
Trump dissidents largely fall into two categories, one of them the Cruz supporters, the other, Democratic Socialists. Neither have a history of properly understanding their opponents. Both are offended that Trump fails their litmus test of character—tone of voice; Churchianity thinks that everyone who doesn’t talk like a beat-down looser is “prideful”; Liberals think that no one should be condescending and braggadocios except Liberals. Both critics say that he doesn’t have much money, but are angry at him for having a lot of money. This contradiction indicates someone grasping and drowning, rather than clear, reasoned thinking. Neither appreciates the power of rules—Churchianity because they have rules without power and Liberals because they have power without rules. Thinkers from both groups are largely unaccomplished theoreticians funded by donations from money-makers, employed by real job-creators, rarely the entrepreneurs who pay everyone else’s bills. They mainly critique what he says and how he says it. And, with all the real problems that Trump has, objections from these critics are all that we hear.
All men can be corrupted by power. America seems to forget that the bigger factors in any election don’t exist until two years afterward, and, the biggest, six. Our country is in ruin because, every change of term, we elect the next messiah, then go back to sleep. Only a true Messiah sleeps in the boat and, until Jesus arrives, We the people need to be our own messiah.
We can’t know who will be a good president before the fact, only whether we keep him good long after the election. China also tries to vet Hong Kong’s leaders in advance, rather than controlling the leaders’ decisions, whether the leaders are “good” or “bad”. No politician is above breaking promises, and no voter is above forgetting the emptiness of words. Nonetheless, all critiques, both pro and con, of all remaining presidential candidates focus on what the candidates say, not which mule can be harnessed to haul the load.
As for work mules, Trump is ideal, partially because he knows the work of infrastructure and firing people—arguably America’s two greatest needs—, but, more importantly, he has most of the country on high and healthy alert, just how the country always should be. As a work mule, Cruz is most dangerous because, while people would oppose him, the country would not be on alert much at all where a Cruz White House is concerned. And, Cruz is an ideal RINO: always failing valiantly while the opposition gains ground. Danger is most immanent, not when people warn of danger, but when people don’t. Sleeping watchmen is the problem. When Cruz talks, people go to sleep, either from daydreams of infatuation or because his tone encompasses all the boredom of Sunday morning. America’s best choice any day will have the diplomatic style of an alarm clock.
Complaints against Donald Trump are based on rhetorical style and distorted reports. He appears to have a tender heart behind a gruff voice, and the gruff voice puts off those whose only substance seems to be tone. And the people who call him a “racist” do so against evidence as strong as it is accessible. As objective as this Editor in Chief tries to be, the lack of sound dissent against Trump, coupled with the plethora of nonsense, almost has this editor convinced to endorse the man. But, the Times is holding out, insisting on being no more than just and observer.
As long as America looks for a messiah other than Jesus, she is doomed. We need to think about how to keep “We the people” in control, no matter who wins this November, and how to defeat both political parties for the election in 2024.