Daily Musings 3/31/2016 The Trump v Everyone controversies

I have gotten tired of responding to the taunts, word parsing, and snide tweets of the "Never Trump Group."
I found, through a tweet, the following interview with  Ann Coulter interview at PJ Media. Her point and mine overlap significantly.
1. Trump is not a politician: Politician's hide behind carefully reviewed statements often tested in front of sympathetic and unsympathetic groups for impact.
2. Politicians never deviate from these scripts unless they make a mistake.  This leaves pundits to review meaningless minutiae.
For example how many low yield tactical nukes are in Germany, as if that number was significant and couldn't be tripled or halved by next Monday.
For example discussing the position of the Chinese who now want people to tone down the rhetoric over North Korea, but is unwilling to do anything about NK.  As if there was an argument over tone and not one over a crazy man controlling Nukes and our impotence=unwillingness to do anything about us. It seems a few kilotons puts them in a position of superiority over SK and Japan and US.
3. Trump answers questions, is transparent, even when it costs him.  He puts his foot in his mouth sometimes by misunderstanding barrages of questions aimed at tripping him up, and he answers foolishly sometimes instead of changing the subject.
Of course, when this happens, people whose entire life was parsing tiny mistakes of expression mad by professionals who never deviate from prepared positions, have a Ball.  They can paint Trump anyway they want since is language is direct and understandable, but not tight and expertly crafted to prevent them.
4. Trump live a life of honesty, a bit more libido than most, and as a counter puncher. Sometimes upper cuts miss, and then he is pilloried for them. Most of the time, they hit their mark, so he is pilloried for them to begin with (word parsing) and eventually they get the point since his target audience does get the point almost immediately.
This is what happened with the wall. They got the point.
This is what happened with immigrants who are Muslims. They got the point.
This is what happened with trade deals. They got the point.
This is what happened with the deal with Iran. They got the point.
This is not what happened over a hypothetical Trump had clearly not considered, but answered anyhow. He went to MSNBC of all places and to Chris Matthews the master of rapid fire, and a rabid pro Hilary supporter. He was asked whether it would be a crime if Roe v Wade was overthrown. He said yes. He was asked who is to be punished, and pressed to say it would be the abortion seeker.
A sleeker politician would never have gone there, you don't answer hypotheticals. He was criticised for that which is laughable, after all he's Trump.
A sleeker politician would have had the "right" answer ready. It is not the mother who is trying to kill her baby that is the criminal, it is the doctor who facilitates it! You moron!
So his advisers "clarified" it within minutes and Trump admitted a day later on O'Reilly to have stepped in it. He has been criticized for admitting error.
Again everyone uses misinterpretations of what he said, or his errors, and apply it to his character, his ability to meet presidential functions, and even his humanity.

We always claim we wanted transparency. With Trump we have it, and, for political reasons, the RNC, the Rep Puppet Masters behind the super Packs, and the pundits, all want to destroy him.

What are the political reasons?
1. He is uncontrollable, he believes in himself (most Pres do),
2. He is independently wealthy to the point of not needing backers, and this means backers can't gain access to him through cash, or influence him through cash.
3. He is a moderate Republican. He'd probably compromise on abortion and permit it in the first Trimester. He would seek to overturn RvW, and he would select reasonably conservative judges to SCOTUS.
4. He is a populist, so he would do his best for the little people who elect him.
5. He keeps his promises. He would set up the wall (injuring the wealth of  many who depend on ilegal labor), he would close the influx of Muslims into the country (injuring Saudi Princes who support ISIS and other radical groups to keep their agreements with their religious communities.)
6. He would made unprofitable the earnings of Puppet Masters outside of the US by curbing countries agreements when they manipulate the currentcies.

So there you have why I am for Trump. Whether he succeeds or not, I am proud of his attempt to bring reason and rationality into politics.

The Republican debate, no Trump.

I did not particularly like the format where there were lists of questions, and even clips for specific candidates which jumped subject matter and provided only limited and antagonistically focused responses by the participants.

The moderators inserted their own opinions as well: They called Climate Change a Science? Its now separated from long term weather prediction? If so why, what is the difference. Clearly a look for PC responses and an attack on those who do not respond properly.

They brought a Muslim America whose question implied ISIS was caused by America, and no one picked it up: "Muslim American- Hate crimes tripled, many attacks, "culture of hatred has only driving ISIS to radicalize..."  Bush missed it completely. Immediate change of subject prevented anyone else to respond. ISIS is not radicalized by anything we do, but the statement was accepted as if that is the case.

The moderators had clear control of the proceedings which were not a debate, were not focuses on issues, and really seem to lack coherence. Not a very good performance.

Cruz began as usual in excellent fashion preening himself as the most conservative Republican since Lincoln, and lambasting Trump comically in pretty impressive fashion.

He was specific on Obama Care specifying his plans as:
1. Permit buying of insurance across state lines.
2. Increase the availability and the tax exemptions to medical savings accounts
3. Separate employment from medical insurance without specific how.
On Immigration there was a donnybrook with Rubio as to who supported what when with the moderators placing inflammatory  clips in front of both participants.  Why the "Why don't you and him kill each other" approach?
Cruz convincingly showed that he was opposed to normalization of illegal aliens. That he was for controlling both the borders and the ability of illegals to work and get benefits within the country. That has been his position and I may be reading into it what I know from the past since the moderators where directing the conversation instead of promoting it.
On ISIS: He has an insufficient grasp of what is needed, explained carpet bombing as 1000 sorties or 2000 sorties a day not 30. Never promised ground troops. Will provide for growth in the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Ethanol - Cruz only: Pursue all of the above, gas, oil, wind, ethanol. Washington should have no mandates or support for everyone. No subsides for oil and gas, or ethanol.  The EPA's blend wall is to be deleted, which makes ethanol much more enticing. A flat tax law which eliminates all exemptions.

Rubio: engaging and with good ripostes, was at least once beaten by Bush to the punch. He accused Bush of changing his mind, and the replied, correctly, "So did you" He then made it worse by insisting he hadn't and both were clobbered by Rand.

Obama Care: don't recall what he said

Immigration: He denied what was obviously the case. He sold his voters out by being one of the "Gang of Eight".

On ISIS: Really the same as Cruz, both differing from Kasich only in K's reliance on other Sunni powers.  They (Rubio and Cruz) stress it less. The agree  about the use of Guantanamo (not sure Cruz was asked). They have taken over the position of Trump, using softer language.

Rand: as usual, excellent at protecting our freedoms, ignores our needs for a strong army and recommending we never stray from our borders.  He is the only one totally committed to fiscal responsibility.


Governor Christie, I have been evaluated by democrats and achieved with them some conservative goals. Whoopee! These two bozos killing each other over the meaning of words show you need a Governor, not a Senator.

On Terror: Let law enforcement decide if what you saw is significant or not, but if you don't talk, or if you denigrate the law enforcement you can't get there.
On Obama Care: An example of waste in Obama care, supporting Planned Parenthood, give me something more substantial, answer: than not killing thousands of humans? Beautiful response with a total change of subject hidden in it. Not a fiscal conservative!
On Hillary: Great points on Benghazi, she won't be indicted by Obama, I'll indict here during the campaign: The days of the Clintons in public housing are over!

Bush: Impressive in his affect when talking about veterans. He clearly wants to help them, and to clean up the Vet Administration.

Then switch to Puerto Rico? Why the scripted reading of questions instead of a debate on the large items in detail. Cover less, in more depth, show the positions of all the participants.

Daily Roundup - Jan 17, 2016

WAPO: Brazilians panic as mosquito-borne virus is linked to brain damage in thousands of babies Dom Philips

The Zika Virus causes microcephalic Babies, how long till our porous border brings this plague to us?
The map shows it is already in most of the countries that feed us illegal immigrants.  How long before our babies fall under this mosquito borne virus?  Since the Zika virus can be sexually transmitted, it is possibly quite easy to transmit.
==============================================

NYT: 14 Testy Months Behind U.S. Prisoner Swap With Iran - Peter Baker and Davide E. Sanger

"In Washington, the Obama administration engaged in a vigorous debate about whether to trade Iranian prisoners and, if so, which ones, with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch objecting to a deal that equated innocent Americans seized for political gains with Iranian criminals indicted or convicted under western legal traditions.

In the end, officials said President Obama decided that to spare the Americans years — if not life — in an Iranian prison, he would make what he called a “one-time gesture” by releasing Iranians who had been accused or convicted of violating sanctions that he was lifting anyway as part of the nuclear agreement."

Israel is well acquainted with these "one time gestures"  they happen whenever an Israeli is taken captive by a terrorist group, and ends up costing the Israelis many murderers which go out to repeat their attacks on Israel.  Paying ransom, whether monetary on in personnel is a bad idea.

As far back as 1785, the Barbary Pirates (Muslims it turns out) capture an American Ship and held them for ransom for years demanding and getting ransom until after the war with the British, America fought the Barbary Coast Pirates and defeated them.

Israel has paid for its political stupidity by training their soldiers in "anti capture" techniques, in making detailed plans of how to respond to an abduction to recover the abductee before he is spirited away. All of this costing lives, and treasure to the country.

Let's not go down the same road of allowing extortion to be a normal part of asymmetric warfare.

What was Cruz position on legalizing illegal immigrant status?

My cursory review of Cruz's own speech in the Senate, the content of his amendment lead me to the conclusion that he tried to torpedo the gang of eight.  His proposal to prevent illegals from ever becoming Americans was placed there after the Hispanic Caucus made it known it would not accept this under any circumstances.
I don't believe he ever thought to support a bill which had been changed in accordance to the amendment he proposed. He certainly opened the door to that when he proposed it, but I see little to indicate he meant it.
The following are abstracts from the NYT, the Texas Tribune, and Cruz's Senate speech in support for his amendment. Those were the principal sources of my conclusions.
================================
NYT: Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration -- Jay Root and Julian Aguilar

This article, published in September 2013, seems to have an even handed review of Cruz. I wish it did not come from such a compromised paper as the NYT.

"Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Mr. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component."

1. “The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said
2.Mr. Cruz said the Obama administration and partisan Democrats would not yield on the citizenship requirement, which they know would kill the entire effort because of a lack of support in the House.
3. “If your objective is actually to pass a bill insisting on a path to citizenship, it is in both intent and effect a poison pill,”
==================================================
TexasTribune: Cruz files border security anti amnesty amendments - Juan Aguilar
1. Forbid doling out entitlement benefits to illegals,
2. Mandate the Dept. of Homeland Security to triple the number of Border Patrol agents, quadruple equipment (cameras, drones and helicopters) before any certifications are accepted,
3. If the goals are not met within 3 years, 20% of HS budget gets slashed by 20% which is give as a block grant to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico for border security.

Response from pro ilegal group "America's Voice": “An amendment from Senator Ted Cruz would prohibit anyone who had been undocumented for any period of time ever from becoming a United States citizen in the future,” Frank Sharry, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill — the popular heart of an immigration reform solution — but also turn its back on one hundred years of precedent in immigration policy.”
===============================================
Cruz, Speech in support of his Ammendments

The gang of 8's bill will:
1. It handcuffs law enforcement.
2. Allows illegal re-entries to be naturalized
3. In 86 we amnestied 3M promising border security, the first part was correct, the 2nd time never happened. What comes first? Legalization or Border Security?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is security first, fencing first, biometric entry systems first none of which are in the gang of 8's bill.
4. My amendments does all of the above. (see Texas Tribune)
5. They assault them sexually and physically and often leave them to die in the desert.

The Attack on Trump and some problems with it

Washington Post Today:

Donald Trump: The Islamic State’s secret weapon? Kathleen Parker
Donald Trump, America’s modern Mussolini --  Dana Milbank

Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry -- Ruth Marcus

Other newspapers, most of the Republican Candidates (even Cruz this time), all Democratic Candidates and the President consider Donald Trump as totally outside possible consideration for President.

As I pointed out in my previous Blog, the New York Times did publish a legal analysis showing Trump to be within the  normal bounds of immigration law. The Wall Street Journal today offers another view supportive of Trump's position legality, and suggesting it might be a wining argument in the election.

It contains the results of surveys at home and abroad documenting the widespread Muslim position that Jihad is permissible, and that Sharia law should be world law.

Trumps ban on Muslims might survive a court challenge Charles Savage, NY Times.

While I wouldn't have expected it from the times, this is a fairly balanced article which matches my memory and cursory research on the matter today.

The US Constitution gives all power over immigration and Visas to Congress, Congress has delegated sufficient discretion to the President to make President Trump capable, on his first hour in office to impose such a ban.

There is an international treaty which would not permit such a ban, but Congress never ratified it and made it national law, therefore it is irrelevant.

There are sufficient historical pronouncements by the Supreme Court to make it established law that the President has this power.  Similarly, acts of comparable severity, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibiting any Chinese immigration to the States (1898 US v Wong Kim Ark) makes it difficult to see why the Courts would not upheld it.  These repressive laws were extended until the early 1900 and were not repealed until WWII.  Only in the late 60s and 70s did ethnic Chinese arrive in the States in quantity.

Significant events in 20th Century:

1. "In 1932 President Roosevelt and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression as immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933. This was accompanied by voluntary repatriation to Europe and Mexico, and coerced repatriation and deportation of between 500,000 and 2 million Mexican Americans, mostly citizens, in the Mexican Repatriation. Total immigration in the decade of 1931 to 1940 was 528,000 averaging less than 53,000 a year."
2. "The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) abolished.." national quotas and circumscribed Eastern block countries to miniscule immigration quotas. Ted Kennedy created the bill in question
3. In the 80s we set refugee targets to 50K per year, and immigration to 270K. We added penalties to employers using illegal (which were largely ignored) and accepted 3M illegal.
4. "The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) vastly increased the categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported and imposed mandatory detention for certain types of deportation cases. As a result, well over 2 million individuals have been deported since 1996.^[7]"
5. Although a lot of bills have been proposed, some passed one house or the other, no major Immigration bill has been brought forth by Congress for Presidential signature.

----------------------------------------------------

TRUMP

So Trump is fairly mainstream in his proposal, although typically too straight forward and not Politically correct for the establishment the media, or the administration.

The screaming and tearing of hair we see are from those who despair of beating him in the polls, and seek of something that will lower the esteem his followers have for him.

While I still don't support him, I am tempted by the contempt I feel for those who instead of discussing the merits of his proposal insist in dissecting words, ascribing evil intent and besmirching his character.  It is almost too delicious not to join him in his contempt for the ruling Republican, Democratic, and Media classes.

Response to JASON RUSSELL: The Christian Case for taking in Syrian Refugees.

The case for taking in Syrian Refugees

This is a good, solid case made from faith and conviction.

It is wrong when it claims no act of terrorism was committed by a refugee in the US. The Boston Bombers were refugees from Chechnya (Wikipedia)

Not being a Christian I find similar reasons for Compassion and pity in the old testaments, since we were once slaves in the land of Egypt and have over 2000 years of history being a displaced people.

We must save women and children, and permit their husbands or unattached men to fight for freedom in their own countries.

From experience we know most extremists are males between the ages of 15 and 35, so we need to use this information and:

1. Accept as temporary residence (without possibility of permanency) all women and male children under 14 or male adults over 60.

2. Provide those we do not accept with weaponst and other means to fight for their homes and families.

3. Provide for those unfortunates among as as we provide for others within our society who are not refugees.

Inmigration from Middle East

We have the parameters for a humanitarian immigration policy from the ME.
1. Christians, minority sects (like the Druze) who have been oppressed by both Shiite and Sunil Arabs should be allowed in, if they know their religion enough to convince experts.
2. Arab men (Sunni or Shiite) and teen boys between 15 and 55 should be excluded from consideration. This will prevent family heads from being established here while providing sanctuary to those preventing the men to fight for their country.  Boys 15 and 18, unfortunately have already been shown to be frequent perpetrators of minor offenses (stonings) and quite often of more dangerous activities (stabbing and the use of firearms).
3. Women and children not covered by 2 can be allowed into the country within limits established by our wish to maintain our social mix.

These parameters are common sense and congruent with our national experience and our world experience. They apply equally to refugees and to economic migrants, although refugees should be protected within the country with the conflict.