The headline on Drudge right now says: “Butler Has Trump’s Back.” Curious as to whether ‘Butler’ was a name or a job title, I followed the link to a RCP article entitled, “Trump Butler: “Incredibly Generous,” “Just A Nice Man”” It seems that 84-year-old Tony Senecal, Trump’s loyal butler for 16 years before his retirement, was interviewed on CNN this morning:
“He’s an incredibly generous person. He’s been generous to his employees. He’s generous to strangers. He’s an entirely a nice guy. He’s not the gruff person that people make him out to be. Sure, you attack him, he’s going to fight back. But most of the time he’s just a nice man. I lasted with him for 20 years, he had to be pretty good,” Senecal said.
Senecal defended Trump as a patriot who wants what is best for the country.
“His interest in the American people. His patriotism. The man was born on Flag Day. He’s a very patriotic person — ahem, excuse me — and he wants what’s best for this country,” he told CNN.
The video of the entire CNN interview is embedded in the article.
…to me. I always celebrate March 9th, because on this date in 1973, was the last time I ever wore a silly necktie. 🙂
Forty-three years ago today, I abandoned my reasonably successful high-tech corporate career in Silicon Valley, to become an entrepreneur. During my farewell speech at my going-away luncheon, I removed my necktie and gave it to a colleague, promising to never again put such a ridiculous thing around my neck. I have faithfully kept that vow to this day, even though I have occasionally been turned away at fancy restaurants and night clubs. To me, one’s principles are inviolable. 😀 ◄Dave►
I spent this past weekend watching 2 grandsons compete in baseball tournaments. As is normal in present America, all the emphasis was on winning. Indeed, apparently winning is all that counts these days.
In the case of total war, I cannot help but agree. In most other cases, I am increasingly skeptical.
As my grandsons “won” some games and “lost” others, I could not help but study the obvious effects these two outcomes had on the young people playing and, to a lesser extent, on the parents watching… almost insanely euphoric in the first case and a hang-dog, give up attitude in the second.
This is the problem with a win/lose dichotomy. While it produces some winners, it always produces an equal or greater number of losers. And this in a game where NOTHING is actually won or lost except one’s very temporary pride, esteem and self confidence. Might it be better to put the emphasis on performing the best one can? Then, all who put forth a good effort can finish the day feeling good about themselves – while those who did not try would know who they are without some artificial win/lose structure.
I am reading article after article making a fuss over the fact that Trump supporters tend to be ‘less-educated,’ and how ‘college-educated’ voters tend to support more moderate or progressive candidates. The tone of most of them clearly shows an elitist bias, against lesser unfortunates lacking a degree. Surely, had we gone to college, we wouldn’t be so dumb as to support Trump.
To me, there is nothing remarkable at all about this statistic. Who do they think is doing the ‘higher education?’ Most college professors haven’t a lick of common sense or real world experience, and are collectivist ideologues. What are the chances that very many of their graduates, manage to escape their corrosive environment as right thinking individualists?
I suspect that most of these articles are written by younger journalists, who haven’t a clue that those of us who got our high school diplomas back in the ’60s or earlier, acquired a far better education in 12 years, than now is achieved in 16. Then, we spent a lifetime learning even more, and accumulating wisdom. When reading such, the best way to contemplate their data, is to substitute the term ‘indoctrinated’ for every occurrence of the word ‘educated.’ 😉 ◄Dave►
I don’t know why this Daily Caller editorial, “Who Is The Real Ted Cruz?” is just now showing up on Drudge; but it is devastating:
Vladimir Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
I can’t think of a better description of Ted Cruz’s relationship with the DC-Wall Street Establishment – Cruz being the scoundrel of course. Cruz’s claim of not being a tool of the political elite is like Bill Clinton telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.
Ouch… and that is just the beginning of the number the author does on the man he calls “Calgary Ted” and his wife:
I’ll let the Judge explain it herself:
It just isn’t prudent to cross da judge. Methinks she has a tender spot for her old friend Donald. 😀 ◄Dave►
Michelle Malkin unplugged:
Is the GOPe listening? Do they care? Why should conservatives ever again pay them the slightest attention, if they don’t? ◄Dave►
Those from my generation, who may not have had their ears inoculated by a drill sergeant in their youth, might wish to skip this:
…but one is unlikely to find a better indictment of the status quo, and explanation of Trump’s appeal to frustrated and pissed-off Jacksonians, all done in just four minutes. Count on this going viral. If trump could use it as a commercial, he would win in an unprecedented landslide. 😉 ◄Dave►
As the candidate field narrows, things get no better. Just consider a few (to me) obvious aspects of the unfolding story:
On the Democrat side, an appalling number of people are supporting an avowed socialist who promises a utopia that is so obviously impossible that one would think this is some manner of national joke. Except that he actually means it. And many well educated people who, of all people, should know better, are supporting his nonsense. I have no expectation that he will win but the simple fact that he has garnered significant support speaks very poorly of we-the-sheeple.
Of course, the Dems do offer an alternative in the form of one of the most dangerous political criminals in recent history. Even though she is being “investigated”, we can rest assured she has the political clout to remain free, dangerous, and very possibly, our next president.
The title of Robert Ringer’s latest article is, “Fox News Achieves Mainstream Status,” which is a serious indictment all by itself. He makes a good case for it, which I find myself in substantial agreement with:
When I first discovered Fox News back in the late nineties, it was like finding a long, lost friend. Fair and balanced — what a great motto. But I was led to believe that “fair and balanced” meant Fox would be a conservative counterbalance to the corrupt, left-wing media that shills for the Dirty Dems.
I drank the Fox Kool-Aid for years, but along the way I had to eliminate one commentator after another and mute out an increasing number of “contributors.” I refer to them collectively as The Unwatchables — people I simply cannot bring myself to watch. They include such obnoxious (and, in some cases, stupid) folks as Bernie Goldberg, Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, Steve Hayes, and Greta, to name but a few.
He goes on to discuss his opinion of several more Fox personalities, which is worth the time to read. Then, he shocked me:
I just had an interesting conversation with my younger sister. You may recall me mentioning in the past, that she was born in an off-base civilian hospital, in occupied Germany in 1947, and thus is not a natural born citizen (NBC), even though our parents were themselves both NBCs. Before I get into our conversation, let me explain what instigated it.
I was once a fairly regular reader of J.B. Williams, and was nearly always impressed by his work. Recently I stumbled across a 2-month-old article by him entitled, “TED CRUZ IS IN THE US SENATE ILLEGALLY?” Let me begin with its conclusion:
On the basis of all available evidence today, Ted Cruz is in fact holding a seat in the U.S. Senate illegally, with no documented proof of legal U.S. citizenship whatsoever, and proof of Canadian citizenship between the years of birth in 1970 and May 2014.
It is unfortunate that a person so many have placed their political faith in has proven willing to defraud his supporters for both votes and millions in campaign donations. But it is better we know now, than after he wins the GOP nomination only to be destroyed by Democrats later, using the same facts and evidence presented here.
What will the people do with this knowledge? Are they really motivated by restoration of Constitutional compliance, or mere political expediency?
Embarrassing as it should be to those patriotic Constitutionalists supporting Cruz, it appears that for the most part, the answer is political expediency.
As I have mentioned before, I was appalled by the ridiculous statement by Jerry Falwell explaining 9/11 to Pat Robertson. He stated that obviously God had removed his divine protection from our country, because of our increasing tolerance of homosexuals and the gay lifestyle. I was so disgusted that I swore I would never listen to another thing he ever said. From then on, every time I saw his pudgy face on TV, I immediately either turned it off or changed the channel, and kept my vow for the rest of his miserable life.
As long-time readers know, I was once was an avid Glenn Beck fan and supporter. I was an ‘Insider’ member of his radio program long before he ever got the gig on Fox News. I loved his TV program, which I must admit had a major impact on my thinking regarding Islam and Middle East politics. I bought and read all of his books. I was an early adopter of his ‘Blaze’ news site. I even subscribed to his new internet TV program, for the first couple of years after he left Fox.
I was as tolerant as I could be, of the increasing religious nature of his endeavors, until such insufferably became the primary focus of his existence. Now I only bother to visit the Blaze when following a link to a news item there, which has nothing to do with Beck himself. Several months ago, I even unsubscribed to his free newsletter, which I had received daily for many years.
While driving yesterday, I happened to hear a press conference with the Obamanation.
Sometimes, it is impossible to know when to laugh and when to cry.
For instance, the Obamanation, referring to the upcoming crapfest concerning justice Scalia’s replacement, made at least 3 references to “our democracy”. This bozo is an alleged constitutional scholar and he doesn’t know that we are a republic, not a democracy?
Then, he went on to bemoan at length how Republicans are “reading the constitution and finding things that are not there”.
This is exactly what progressives, like Obama and Clinton, have done for over 100 years now and to the measurable detriment of our republic.
It still amazes me how people like Obama and both Clintons can stand before the American people and tell the most obvious and outrageous lies – while the MSM pretends not to notice. And while a seeming majority of Americans seem not to give a hoot.
The Republicans should have impeached this guy the day after winning back the Senate. They fact that they were (are) too cowardly to do so has left the door open to unimaginable damage yet to be done over the next 9 months.
Makes me want to puke.
Troy L Robinson
The French term ‘laissez faire’ doesn’t just apply to economics. Literally, it translates to ‘let the people do as they wish,’ or a refusal to interfere in other people’s affairs. E.g. I take a laissez faire attitude toward other’s religious proclivities. As long as they don’t pester me about them, or try to get government to impose their dogma on others, what they believe and how they worship is their business, and none of mine.
It also makes a great synonym for the basic original meaning of anarchy – the absence of control by rulers of any sort, would be a laissez faire society. Since the term ‘anarchy’ has been corrupted in the minds of most, to now be synonymous with ‘chaos,’ perhaps I could find readers more willing to consider a government-free society, if I employed the French term, which is considered a positive attribute, by most who are at all familiar with it.
I have found there to be ample valid arguments, to counter all the trepidation usually expressed, by those arguing that at least a minimal government is required to maintain a civil society. Yet, unfortunately, as soon as the word anarchy comes up, most minds snap shut, as they envision ruthless brutes and gangs taking over their communities. The degree to which most sheeple are willing to forego Liberty, for the promise of a little security, is downright shameful.
If I thought that there was the slightest hope that the Federal government could ever again be downsized, and constrained by the intent of the original Constitution, I could live with that hope and work toward those ends. Alas, any rational person would have to agree that will never be. Thus, hereafter, when I use the term laissez faire, it will be my ‘dog whistle’ for expressing my blatant desire to completely abolish the Federal government in America, and replace it with nothing… i.e. anarchy. 🙂 ◄Dave►
Little is being noted in the MSM over something I find too obvious to ignore. That is the fact that Chelsea Clinton is the “spitting image” of her daddy Webb Hubbell.
Makes one wonder if Bill and Hill ever had an actual physical relationship. It has been clear for years that they have a political and financial partnership rather than a marriage in the true sense of the word, but, could it be this extreme?
And what of poor Chelsea? Does the child have no feelings whatever? Do her parents (real and pretended) have any compassion whatever for the child? I cannot imagine the strain she must have been under for all these years, growing up in the public spotlight with parents (real and pretended) who make little or no attempt to hide their manifold crimes and misdeeds.
On the other hand, this obvious situation (Hubbell being Chelsea’s dad) and the probability of a fling with Vince Foster would indicate that, if Hillary is indeed lesbian, she can swing both ways.
What a sorry mess of a “family”. Before any of you ask, NO, this is NOT typical of Arkansans. Nor do they reach the standards we SHOULD have for political leaders.
Troy L Robinson
Suddenly, with the death of Justice Scalia, things have gotten far more interesting. Assuming the GOP Senate successfully blocks Obama from getting a nominee seated before the next POTUS takes office, then the outcome of the presidential contest takes on a much greater importance.
IMHO, this new wrinkle makes it imperative that the next POTUS favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Troy L Robinson
The visual is rather incongruent with the image that normally comes to my mind when I hear this ’60s classic:
…but for a bunch of Brits in tuxes with ukuleles, they sure do a fantastic job of it! Enjoy… 😀 ◄Dave►
Here is a change of subject from politics. For those who thought I might have been joking about it being time to get my tomato plants in the ground the other day, here is a picture I took yesterday. The fresh strawberry stand beside this field has a sign saying it won’t open until March, but look closely at the already ripening berries in the foreground. 🙂
I thought about adding the Beatles song playing in the background; but after Chris’ complement about my clean low-bandwidth site, I didn’t want to disappoint him. 🙂 ◄Dave►
Today, I venture to opine on a subject this has been over opined about by people far more qualified to offer opinions than yours truly.
Still, I will offer my own opinions with the hope that my use of simplification and common language might be more palatable than that typically used by the over educated.
In theory, a Free Market, operated in an environment of laissez-faire, is the best, most reliable and most equitable economic model available. So, how could such a system possibly fail? IMHO, partly due to its own accumulated success.
What could I possibly mean by such a silly statement? How can accumulated success lead to systematic failure? Simple, it does so when the economic model (the Free Market) attempts to operate in a vacuum. Said differently, when the economic model operates as if it alone is responsible for long term societal prosperity.
Secondly, this socioeconomic model fails when it is overburdened from without.
Thirdly, a state of “general prosperity” is anathema to those among us who, seemingly unable to control themselves, seek to control everyone else instead.
Still sounds a bit silly, does it not? Not to me.
In the case of the United States of America, a mostly free market economy (what I see as a “free enough” market economy) took a fledgling nation from a condition of national non-entity to super-power status so quickly that it gave us all a mild form of collective whiplash. It also gave us a level of general prosperity never before seen in the world and, by many, thought to be impossible to attain.
Then, almost suddenly, it all seems to be unraveling at the seams.
I have suggested 3 basic reasons for this:
→ Accumulated success
→ Overburdening from without
→ The desire to control acerbated by unbounded greed
Let us now discuss these individually, in simple terms and using common sense language: