NY Times Krugman Scrooges Trump

For the holidays, Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, is fomenting class warfare by unfairly denigrating Republicans. He believes that tearing the country apart is good for our nation. Honest disagreement is unacceptable to Krugman, so he twists facts so they are consistent with his ideology and distorted opinion of people he despises.

Krugman earns his money by dreaming up new ways to portray the “cruelty” of conservatives and Republicans. This year-end, he claims that calling president Trump and his supporters Scrooge, Dickens ’protagonist in “A Christmas Carol,” is insulting to Scrooge. The character is not innately amoral, as compared to Republicans who spend every waking moment trying to conjure up ways to steal from the poor and cut taxes for themselves.

Many in the Democratic Party have embraced Krugman’s warped perspectives by pushing further and further to the left. There is no entitlement or other giveaway for non-affluent Americans that is over the line. This is one of the reasons why liberal candidates are doing so poorly in the presidential polls, and electorate is drifting towards Republicans in spite of the horrendous antics of the Trump administration and all the inane investigations.

Some Democrats are so hard up for a moderate contender, they are willing to endorse Joe Biden, an unsteady elderly man, whose claim to fame is that he worked for a president who accomplished nothing, and a neophyte, who leads South Bend, Indiana, a metropolis with just over 100,000 residents. Really? One man can’t keep his foot out of his mouth and the other leads, and not without controversy, a handful of Hoosiers. As a graduate of Notre Dame, I can attest that South Bend is not a training ground for the presidency of this country.

Left-wing progressives, whose aim is to socialize the greatest capitalistic country in the world, have infiltrated the Democratic Party. Competition and exceptionalism have made our country an economic and military powerhouse. We don’t want to be clones that receive the same stipend every month, and who wait on long lines at hospitals to get treatment for our sore throats. History has proven many times that socialism is a failed economic institution, and that capitalism coupled with democracy are a winning combination.

Back to Krugman. If we assume that socialism is not an acceptable alternative for capitalism, then axiomatically Americans would support a system where everyone earns a compensatory wage. Our government should guarantee a job to every able-bodied citizen, not provide a check that encourages him or her to sit at home and avoid work. Why can’t Democrats accept that there are other perspectives regarding the distribution of wealth than theirs? Why don’t liberals celebrate successful Americans?

Who is Krugman, a millionaire in his own right, to tell us that being affluent is evil and amoral, and refers to us as Scrooges? Krugman, left-wing radicals along with sanctimonious critics of hard working Americans have no right to steal other people’s money or tell them how to spend their hard earned dollars.

Class warfare is what mongers like Krugman thrive upon. He clearly has no intention of giving credit where it is due. The US economy is benefitting almost every American. Even minorities are enjoying high levels of employment and greater wages. Krugman is a naysayer, a hater of successful people. He wants conservatives and liberals to be at odds. He is supposed to be an economic expert, but he can’t add. If he could, he would know that open borders, one-payer medical insurance, 70% taxes on the rich and free college tuition will ultimately be a disaster for the country.

I wish all my readers a healthy and happy holiday season.

Democrat Lies And The Impeachment Hoax

I’m disgusted and frustrated by the ongoing spectacle of impeachment that is taking place in Washington and have a strong sense that my readers are equally ashamed and disillusioned by the behavior of our elected officials.

The problem I have is based upon the underhanded, unfair and deceitful actions of House Democrats to effectively attempt a coup d’état of the US Government.

Donald Trump has contributed greatly to the current imbroglio. He’s a despicable person, and one that I didn’t vote for in 2016 and have no intention of voting for in 2020. My blog, Softball Politics, has repeatedly criticized the president’s un-statesmanlike persona, attitude, racism, self-aggrandizement and narcissism.

Our current leader is not the kind of person we should have in the White House. Nevertheless, he won the 2016 Election, in spite of all his shortcomings.

All the twisted and partisan crap relating to collusion between Trump and Russia has been debunked. Frankly, Trump’s minions didn’t, and still don’t have, the experience or the chops to orchestrate a voter fraud on a national level. There should be no concern that Trump will do anything sinister in 2020 regarding the election.

Trump has surprised Americans and the rest of the world with shrewd gambits. He’s crude in his execution, but you can’t deny that the US economy is moving ahead great guns. Trump has exposed the inequities in economic and strategic military agreements. He has no inhibition about calling out anyone who attempts to cheat our country. The president has been an unfaltering supporter of Israel. Many of his domestic policies have positively impacted the employment and lifestyles of minorities.

But disingenuous liberals are leading too many Americans down a primrose path. House Democrats have convinced each other that a sitting president is fair game for frivolous impeachment charges in the interest of partisan politics. In reality a president should only be threatened by the specter of impeachment if he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and his accusers can prove it.

The same group of Democrats who bungled every aspect of the Russian collusion fiasco has trumped up new charges that at one point or another involved bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress and other lesser accusations that, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Yet, with the majority in the House, Democrats are wasting time and money in a monstrous hoax.

In fact, the Democrats are the ones guilty of abuse of power. They have twisted hearsay and innuendo into impeachable indictments of the president. These malcontent politicians are sanctimonious liars whose mission in life is to destroy a US president who sees the world differently than they do. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have created a constitutional crisis. This was unnecessary because in a few short months Americans will have the opportunity to vote for Trump, or one of his Democratic rivals.

I’m sickened by the thought of hearing more of Trump’s hyperbole and inarticulate blathering about his greatness. Yet I’m even more disheartened that House Democrats have exceeded their constitutional authority. Deposing a president should only be possible if you can prove high crimes with real evidence according to the rule of law.

 

House Democrats Erode Our Democratic System

House Democrats have seriously damaged our democracy. Their relentless pursuit of dubious charges against the president has created a constitutional crisis. House actions to this point have blurred the lines of power between the three major branches of our government.

The founders created a mechanism to depose a president if he or she oversteps their authority. At the same time they were careful about delineating crimes of a president that might qualify him or her for impeachment. They used words like high crimes and misdemeanors that portray a guilty president as one who is detrimental to our democracy because his crimes were heinous under any circumstances. Visions of treason, sedition and murder are the crimes that come to mind.

The founders certainly didn’t envision presidents being ousted for speculative indiscretions that couldn’t be proven or were based upon hearsay without being processed under the rule of law. Keep in mind almost all of the initial testifiers in the Judiciary Committee’s investigation of Trump had second and third hand information about the president’s actions and conversations. Most of the evidence was hearsay that wouldn’t be admissible in a court of law. When the proceedings move to the Senate, the president will benefit by the usual amenities of a court of law that will include facing accusers (including the whistle-blower), representation by counsel and calling witnesses.

But the real damage by Democratic shenanigans over the past few weeks is that impeachment is now a tool readily available to any opposition-led majority in the House of Representatives. For frivolous and unpopular actions future presidents will be subjected to yet another three-ring circus, as we witnessed in recent weeks. The bar for impeachment is now on the ground as if we were prosecuting a common thief, as opposed to the leader of the free world.

The lesson about “lowering the bar” should have been obvious to liberal lawmakers in the House based upon a similar episode in the Senate a few years ago. For decades the filibuster was used to stymie appointments to federal courts by the minority. Democrats, in frustration, changed the rules of the Senate enabling senators to confirm judges with a simple majority, and not a super majority, for all judges except Supreme Court justices.

Democrats, thinking that they outwitted their rivals, disregarded the reality that they might face if control reverted back to Republicans, which it did. Republicans, upon assuming power changed the rule further to include Supreme Court justices. Democrats objected, but were drowned out by their own stupidity.

The result was confirmation of a series of young conservative justices to the highest court in the land that will affect the law and our society for many years. It was a naïve and tragic miscalculation.

Here we are at the same crossroads. Prospectively, Americans should expect a hair trigger when Republicans regain the House, which could be in 2020 even if Trump loses the presidency. If Warren is elected, perhaps Republicans will impeach her for lying about her background to the electorate and to Harvard University when she applied for a position at the law school.

Trump Is Not Anti-Semitic

There were conflicting articles this week in the New York Times pertaining to the relationship of Donald Trump and Jews.

Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the Times, dredged up a distasteful, public comment made by Trump in his piece on Tuesday. Krugman believes it substantiates that the president is anti-Semitic. Specifically, in a speech to the Israeli American Counsel, Trump said, “that many in his audience were not nice people at all, but that [they] have to vote for him because Democrats would raise taxes.”

Krugman indicated that the president was “peddling an anti-Semitic stereotype, portraying Jews as money-grubbing types who only care about their wealth.” Actually, the observation that some Americans (including Jews) will vote for Trump because he is committed to decreasing taxes is factual. The money-grubbing reference is typical Krugam left wing rhetoric.

It’s undeniable that the president frequently makes stupid, inane and untrue statements, especially on social media. He’s not a role model for aspiring statesmen; that’s for sure. But he appears to be very sympathetic to the plight of Jews as they continue their never-ending fight against bigotry.

In fact, the Times reported on Thursday that Trump plans to issue an executive order that addresses anti-Semitism on college campuses. Federal money will be withheld from educational institutions that “fail to combat discrimination.”

Judaism will be defined as a race or nationality, not just a religion, so that colleges and universities will be sanctioned if they don’t meet their responsibility “to foster an open climate for minority students [such as Jews]”

Opponents of this policy say it could be used to “stifle free speech and legitimate protest of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.” Of course, this is an overstatement by those unhappy with Israel’s righteous obsession with security.

This action by Trump hardly portrays a person who is biased against Jews. And, Trump has taken other actions that further solidify his efforts to protect Jews and the Israeli state. He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, supported settlements in the West Bank and recognized seizure of the Golan Heights. Trump even attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar when she said support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins,” a reference to money.

Anti-Semitism continues to flourish around the world and in the US. America must stand behind Israel as we have done since the birth of the Jewish nation after World War II. To justify our efforts overseas for the benefit of Israel, we must ensure that bigotry directed at Jews in the US is an illegal act.

Democrat Candidates Are The Pits

Some members of the left are beside themselves because Kamala Harris has given up her dream to becoming the first black female to win the presidency, for now. Just like Clinton, she and her crybaby followers are screaming misogyny and racism. Everyone is to blame except the candidate herself for her terrible performance.

Who are Harris and her minions pointing their fingers at? The electorate, Democrat leaders and, believe it or not, the “liberal media” are a few of the targets.

The electorate is culpable because it doesn’t want a female, black president. Really? I would remind the reader that half the people who vote, or more, are women. Most people believe liberals would die to have a black woman in the White House, as president. In fact several black, female celebrities have been mentioned during the past year or so. Of note are Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. But neither was amenable to compete, thank heavens.

Democrat leaders supposedly didn’t give Harris the support she needed. With 20+ individuals vying for the nomination, the Democrat higher-ups decided to see who distinguished themselves before backing anyone. This makes perfect sense. And what did Harris fail to do during her campaign? She was inept at justifying her actions as a fierce prosecutor of drug dealers and users, and she attacked Joe Biden for his perspectives and actions 20, 30 and 40 years ago. The irony is that blacks are very fond of Biden, more so than for Harris and Booker.

Harris supporters say the press has been unfair to the candidate. The only thing the press is guilty of is reporting the facts about Harris lousy campaign, and inability to get campaign funding to stay in the race.

Compared to the incredible venomous treatment Trump has received from the press, Harris’ was tame. No president has been assaulted to the extent that Trump has been. It appears that future presidents will have to be prepared to be sliced and diced by the media on a daily basis. Kamala is not. Social media will make politician’s lives intolerable in the future.

From the Democratic perspective there is little bias in politics against people of color or women. Obama proved that blacks can endear themselves to expansive swathes of the electorate. Hillary Clinton proved that women are acceptable candidates when she received the majority of votes in 2016. And Nikki Haley will soon prove that a woman can become president in 2024.

A round robin of Democratic candidates reveals the following. Mayor Pete is the apparent winner in Iowa. He has no support from blacks, so his performance should slide off greatly in South Carolina.

Biden is still running on Obama’s “non-accomplishments,” but without Barrack’s endorsement. Biden’s staff is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for his next gaffe. Joe has a tendency of saying stupid and untoward things. And he still needs to tell America about his son’s (and his) exploits in Ukraine. He will likely kill it in South Carolina given the size of the black vote.

Warren is freaking out Americans who have any idea about what it takes to effectively manage our economy. Her proposed giveaways are dangerous and have no chance of enactment.

Sanders is old and too fragile to continue much longer. Young people love his anti-establishment credentials, but will they even show up at the polls?

And who knows whether Bloomberg will be able to buy the nomination in this day and age?

The rest of the field is moot.

Take away: Trump wins the election easily.

Why The Heck Is Bloomberg Running For President?

What is Michael Bloomberg trying to accomplish? Why did he decide to jump into the 2020 Democratic Primary so late in the game? Can he compete even if he’s not participating in the first few state contests?

The most obvious issue inspiring Bloomberg has to be the lack of quality of the current field of Democrats. He must not believe Sanders, Warren or Biden, much less Buttigieg and Harris, have a chance in hell to beat Donald Trump.

Democrats are not finding traction for a few reasons. For one, they pivoted hard left. Most are trying to convince the electorate that they are more left wing than the others. This is expected in primaries (where most hard liners fare better than middle of the road candidates). But efforts to be more populist are turning off quite a few moderate Democrats and independents. Moreover, conservatives are really spooked, and mobilized, by the socialistic proposals by the Democrat side of the aisle.

Proposals like one payer medical insurance, free tuition, forgiving college debt and a plethora of other giveaway entitlements will hurt the country financially. The voters are beginning to recognize this reality with each passing day.

Bloomberg would be a true moderate option to the existing slate of presidential contenders.

Democrats are running for president by impeaching Trump, not by offering new initiatives. Proposed policies are being overshadowed by bogus hearings that will not lead to Trump’s demise. Voters are asking why Congress, in particular Democrats, are wasting so much time, energy and resources trying to conjure up reasons to unseat a sitting president, rather than taking care of the nation’s business.

So, it’s no wonder that Bloomberg has been motivated. But does he have a chance to defeat members of the Democratic establishment? And, is Bloomberg recognizable across the country in the states between New York and California?

The main reasons why Bloomberg will not win the Democratic nomination are, he’s a male, he’s super rich and he’s old. Democrats are hell bent on finding a truly politically correct candidate who is a female, someone who seemingly can relate to the middle class and someone who doesn’t fly around in his or her own private jet. Bloomberg doesn’t fair well in any of these categories.

Another issue for Bloomberg is that he did things when he was mayor of New York City that really pissed off various special interest groups. At the top, was his stop and frisk policy that courts judged to be unfair to blacks. Bloomberg has defended his stop and frisk policy vigorously up until recently, when he decided to seek the Democratic nomination.

Bloomberg has been a great supporter of grand causes including climate change. He has thrown millions of dollars into a number of efforts to improve schools and the welfare of children, encourage gun safety and increase healthcare benefits to the poor. He is an extraordinarily generous and caring person. But will the electorate respond to his good intentions, and gargantuan ambition.

Why Bloomberg, who is 77, would want to be president is a mystery. If he wants to save the world from Trump, I suppose his candidacy makes some sense. However he will dilute the efforts of the liberals opposing him whether he wins or loses (consider Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush).

But if he wants to just save the world, Bloomberg could continue to support his many causes. He really doesn’t need the bully pulpit to get great things done. In fact he would have more freedom to support audacious projects by not being an elected official.

Considering everything, Michael Bloomberg is far superior to any person contending for the presidency. The only problem is he’s not well known, and so the odds of him winning the primary are slim.