AMERICA NOT READY FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT

So the first woman candidate for president by a major party loses to a con man.*  As I wrote in August of 2016:
There is nothing quite like trying to con the public into voting for you for president when you have no qualifications.  Even Obama had a few.  What is the old saying: You can fool all of the people some of the time., you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  Well Donald Trump is trying.

Look on the bright side.  It could have been Ted Cruz.

I realized even in 2015 that Donald Trump tailored his campaign to appeal to the Deplorables. and it worked. Here is what I wrote in December of 2015:
ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc.  It isn't pretty folks but there it is.  You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump.  It will still be out there, as Trump is following these people, not leading them.**
Well we will find out just how much Trump believed in his message.

I do have big worries about Trump's love affair with Putin.***  I'm surprised people went along with this,  And twice he said that American labor is paid too much, but the Deplorables ignored this.

In the end, all sorts of people voted for Trump including college educated women.  Yes, Hillary got a larger vote from them, but not nearly as big as expected.  Frankly, I don't know how any woman could vote for Trump, but I conclude that being a womanizer is now off the table as an issue in running for president, just as being divorced is.  This opens the door to a lot of men for the future.

I think that Hillary ran as fine a campaign as possible.  I don't know what she could have done better.  She did loads of appearances.  She raised loads of money.   She had a great ground game. I don't know what she could have done better. She had a popular president behind her, she had celebrities for her, and she had a fine crew of surrogates, including Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden,  Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, and Tim Kaine (her running mate), among others .  She spoke well.  She had an upbeat message until she felt it necessary to get down in the mud with Trump.

My take away form this is that we have found that it is very difficult to beat a well known entertainer.  At least Ronald Reagan knew how to act presidential.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-biggest-con.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/12/donald-trump-final-comments-i-hope.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-putin-love-affair.html

TRUMP AND PUTIN

The coziness of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Russian dictator Putin really scares me to think about what might happen if Trump becomes president.

I'm confused about Trump being in Putin's pocket as Trump has carefully calculated what stances are promoted by his "base."  I don't recall any of these people that I knew being fond of Putin.  In fact, I seem to remember them accusing Obama and Hillary of being more than cozy with Putin (and still do).  Remember the Russian Reset?*
Making things worse, Podesta never fully disclosed the relationship, as the law requires. But of greater concern than Podesta is what it says about Clinton's strange and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia that led to Clinton lending a hand in helping Vladimir Putin build Skolkovo, a high-tech community meant to be "the Russian equivalent of America's Silicon Valley."
.....................................................................
In a wide-ranging interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Hillary suggested that Donald Trump "has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin, whether it's saying that NATO wouldn't come to the rescue of allies if they were invaded, talking about removing sanctions from Russian officials after they were imposed by the United States and Europe together, because of Russia's aggressiveness in Crimea and Ukraine, his praise for Putin which is I think quite remarkable."

That said, Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate you can think of.   Ted Cruz, for example is even more scary. Wait, I'll take that back,  There was a fine candidate in the Ohio governor John Kasich.  He had significant congressional experience and has been a popular governor as witnessed by his reelection victory.  He certainly is qualified to be president.  He has passed the supreme Republican litmus tests in that he is against both abortion and Obamacare.  His only sin, so far as I can see, is that he says things like we need to care for those less fortunate than us, and he accepted Federal Medicaid money.**

As I have said elsewhere, if I had to have a Republican president it would be John Kasich, but I don't know if the country can survive another Republican president so soon after George Bush.

* http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-biggest-scandal-russia-and-her-reset-pal-vladimir-putin/
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/08/expand-medicare-to-repeal-obamacare.html

CRUZ - II

In my recent post on Cruz, I have included an excerpt* of the following: In his effort to get the evangelical vote, he has appeared at one meeting where the chairman gave an impassioned rant about how the bible says gays should be killed (though not now because they should be given a chance to repent.).  Cruz gave no criticism of the pastor who did this.

And it gets worse.  Now Cruz has been endorsed by "Pastor" Mike Bickle (of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City) who says things like:  I believe that one of the main pastors, as a forerunner to the Harlot movement, it’s not the Harlot movement yet, is Oprah. and Bickle says that "the most famous [heaven-sent] hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler", and has claimed that Jews collectively are "under the discipline of God because of... perversion and sin."**  Cruz says, "Heidi and I are grateful to have his prayers and support."

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/01/cruz.html from http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/11/06/23118593/christian-pastor-calls-for-execution-of-gays-at-event-attended-by-ted-cruz
** http://www.charismanews.com/politics/54652-ihop-s-mike-bickle-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president
 http://askanatheist.tv/2011/07/13/harbinger-of-the-antichrist-thy-name-is-oprah/

WHAT IS A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN?

I think a way should be found to litigate what "natural born American" means.  You couldn't do it for Papa Romney who was born in Mexico because he didn't get the Republican nomination.  You have to have "standing" i.e. you have to be injured. Because he didn't win the nomination, no one was injured. Democrats decided not to try McCain who was born in the Panama Canal zone, but he was born in a U.S. military hospital on an American military base to two American parents; however he didn't win the presidency either so it was mute.  At any rate, I would accept McCain as a natural born American.  Goldwater was born in Arizona, but before it became a state, his credentials are suspect also, but he didn't win the presidency either so Democrats had no "standing."   If anyone was injured in these three cases it was the candidates Republican opponents in the nomination process but none have tried to take out a lawsuit over it.

Obama was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an immigrant father* (He is a natural born citizen on two counts and many Republicans (including Trump) refuse to recognize him as a legitimate American born.  Snopes has an interesting discussion as to whether Obma is a legitimate president. The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in Article II of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.**  Mitt Romney may have claimed he was injured by Obama's victory, but he too didn't take out a suit.  At any rate, I doubt he would have won.
.........................................................................
A few facets of this claim [of being a natural born American] immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sitting U.S. Senator who has already spent a good deal of time and money securing his party's nomination for the presidency would suddenly be discovered as ineligible due to an obscure provision of U.S. law; and second, that U.S. law would essentially penalize someone who would otherwise qualify for natural-born citizenship status simply because his mother was too young. The fact is, the qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there (21 August 1959 for statehood vs. 4 August 1961 for Obama's birthdate).

But Cruz was born in Canada to one American parent (mother) and even carried a Canadian passport and he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until he decided to run for president.*  I certainly hope he doesn't win because he scares the H@LL out of me, but his case is questionable.  Constitutional law Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard said that as a student, Cruz was an "originalist" who said that the constitution should be interpreted as it was originally intended.***

Here are some other possibilities.  Consider this one, suppose you are born in the U.S. to legal immigrants or even better suppose you are born in the U.S. to illegals.  Technically you are a natural-born American even if your parents are not citizens (see above quote).  Can you imagine Republicans on that one?  Or suppose you are born by C-section.  Is that "natural born?"

I think we ought to get this thing out of the way for good.  It is fine with me if the Supreme Court says born anywhere in the U.S. and/or born to an American citizen.

NOTE ADDED 01-16-2016: Houston attorney Newton Schwartz, who said he isn’t connected to any campaign, filed the lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Texas. The court is being asked to settle whether Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, meets the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawsuit-filed-over-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-2016-01-15)

* Until 1934 if your mother was American but the father wasn't, you were not considered a natural born American citizen and had to be naturalized.  In 1934 a law was passed making you a citizen not needing naturalization if it is you mother is an American citizen and your father isn't. So it is only since 1934 that you are considered an American citizen with either parent being an American citizen.
** http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
***https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/11/professor-laurence-tribe-questions-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

DONALD TRUMP - FINAL COMMENTS (I HOPE)

I only write this because the news media does not seem to understand what Donald Trump is doing (Mark Halperin is an exception).  Don't the commentators hear the applause when Trump says these outrageous things?  Make no mistake, everything Trump says is giving voice to a big percentage of the Republican party, it seems like at least 25% and could be much larger.  ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc.  It isn't pretty folks but there it is.  You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump.  It will still be out there, as Trump is following these people, not leading them..

And don't believe that all these Trump supporters are only high school graduates or dropouts.  I know one person who owned his own business and by his life style it looks like he was very successful, another was a retired Captain in the Army, and a third was a successful real estate investor.  E-mails I got from retired military officers were so bad that when 9/11 occurred, I prayed it was not some retired Air Force officers who did it until I heard otherwise.

I say at least 25% above because most followers of Ted Cruz also believe these things.  In fact Ted Cruz is said to hope that Trump supporters will follow him (Cruz) if Trump departs the race.  I don't know why anyone wants Cruz for president, but the fact that he actually did shut down the government, rather than just talk about it, is probably an attraction.

Well, it is nice that various Republicans have expressed outrage over Trump's latest comments of barring Muslims from entering the country, including American citizens who happen to be abroad and also returning members of our armed forces.  But a number of the other candidates have expressed somewhat similar anti-Muslim views, but in more guarded ways (e.g. Only let Christians from Syria emigrate here).*  Trump gives these views to you raw.  I have called adherents to these ideas as red meat Republicans.

So how, some have asked, do you identify a Muslim?  Well the ancient Japanese showed the way.  In the battle of a Christian stronghold in Japan called the Great White Castle of Shimabara, the Shogun hired the Dutch fleet to come in and bombard the castle to help break it.  Thus the Japanese were able to break the stronghold.  Then they had the Christians step on a picture of the Cross (replicas of this can be purchased in the trinket shop).  If they refused, off with their heads.  If they stepped on the Cross, the Shogun figured they weren't good enough Christians to worry about.**  So Mr. Trump, you can have everyone who wants to enter the U.S,. to stomp on a copy of the Koran.  If they won't do it, no entry.  If they do it, they aren't good enough Muslims to worry about.  Now I suppose that many Christians, Jews and others will refuse to stomp on the Koran too, but I guess they can't enter and are just collateral damage

* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-syrian-refugees-christian-muslim_5648b98de4b045bf3def84df
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-tea-cup-seismograph-biographical.html
http://japanschristianheritage.com/2010/04/shimabara-rebellion/

TRUMP OR CRUZ?

Donald Trump or Ted Cruz?  Now there is a choice for you, but Cruz has risen to the number two spot in the national polls so we must face this possibility.

After considerable thought on how to differentiate between these two candidates, I've decided to pick Trump.  Why?  Well Trump is a liar so all the bombast he is spewing may not be how he would actually govern.  He is probably saying all these things to appeal to the Republican base, but Cruz seems to mean what he says, at least most of the time.  After all he was willing to do things like shut down the government* over the ACA (AKA Obamacare) in a futile attempt that wasted a lot of money.  Cruz doesn't seem to have any compassion for heath care for the poor.**  He seems to favor unrestricted access to guns by everyone in the U.S. which would include the mentally unstable and even terrorists.  He attended a meeting where the chairman gave an impassioned rant about how the bible says gays should be killed (though not now because they should be given a chance to repent.).***  Cruz gave no criticism of the pastor who did this.  In general, Cruz seems to mean what he says so I find him scary.  Where he stands on the issues a can be seen at: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Texas/Ted_Cruz/Views/ (somewhat dated)and http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Ted_Cruz.htm.****

*  In doing this, we found out just how important people feel the national parks and monuments are, a pleasant surprise for me.
** Cruz favors a market based system, but actually ACA is supposed to be a market based system with competition among insurance companies.  He does not say in eliminating the ACA how poor people would be covered in health care.
*** http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/11/06/23118593/christian-pastor-calls-for-execution-of-gays-at-event-attended-by-ted-cruz
**** One of my favorite original sayings is, "Politicians are skilled at the art of getting the votes of the people they plan to fleece."

IS INEXPERIENCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY?

As I hear criticism of Hillary and Jeb as being too "old school" or whatever the words, it seems that being president requires that the successful candidate be inexperienced.  Consider George W. Bush (Bush-43) and Barack Obama who really had very little experience in the various aspects of the presidency, especially foreign policy, before becoming president.  And Bush-43 managed to not only get us into the quagmire of Iraq but preside over the greatest economic collapse of the country since 1929.*

Now look at the Republican candidates for president.  A number of them won't even have survived a whole term as Senator by 2016 (Marco Rudio-elected 2011, Rand Paul-2011, Ted Cruz-2013).  None of these will have completed even one term as Senator by the time of the 2016 election.

And then there is Tom Cotton, though not a presidential candidate yet, who has been a Senator for barely more than 2 mo. who managed to stampede 46 of his colleagues into sending a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah and create an international incident.  Even senile John McCain now has reservations about doing this.

Though I feel Bobby Jindal has no chance to obtaining the Republican nomination, he seems to want to be a candidate and is somewhat more experienced than those mentioned above having served two terms in Congress and now as governor of Louisiana.

I don't know how good a president either of Hillary or Jeb will be (You won't know until they do it if elected.), but at least they have experience relevant to running things.

* Many assume that everything in Iraq would be all right if only Obama had left 10 or 15 thousand troops there (presumably under Sharia law).  We did leave 10-20 thousand troops in Afghanistan after running the Taliban into Pakistan, however, and they came back stronger than ever.  So I have my doubts.  We'll never know.