Vice President Joe Biden Can Bid His Time

Run, Joe, Run Joe is leading the polls. Will Joe run? Will grief for Beau keep Joe from running? Will the third time be a charm? Joe is sucking the oxygen out of the air for the Democratic candidates, which is a mixed blessing for Secretary Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media is not paying as much attention to her foibles. No news is good news in her campaign. The media recognizes that at the present time she is a loser, but does not want to hand the election to a Republican. The media would love it if he enters the race. It would add excitement to the race. Yet, his polls would immediately drop as the public takes a closer look at the candidate. That’s been the norm for candidates in recent primary seasons. He has no reason to jump in now. If Hillary recovers from her current, self-imposed travails, then she will win the nomination. If her campaign in doomed, then he announces as the savior of the Democrats. Labor will immediately back him. Progressives will leave Senator Sanders for him, especially if he names Senator Elizabeth Warren as his Vice Presidential running mate. Trial lawyers will jump on the bandwagon. Hollywood will dump money on him. The media will line up behind him, excoriating the Republican nominee. President Obama will support his candidacy, probably raising money for him. Experienced Obama operatives will join his staff. The media will ignore his usual malapropisms unless one is especially egregious. He once claimed to have graduated in the first half of his law school class. The truth is that it was the top half of the bottom ten students. If he enters the race too early, then a drowning Clinton Campaign will run a vicious, no holds barred campaign against him. He knows this election will be his last hurrah, but he needs to win. His first two campaigns failed miserably, the first falling prey to rampant plagiarism in 1988 and the second in 2008 to less than 1% in Iowa. The potential to be a three-time loser is high. He has to realize that Vice President George H. W. Bush was the first sitting Vice President since Martin Van Buren in 1836 to win an election to the White House. It’s better for the Vice President to lay back, and wait for the right opportunity. He will wait.

The Clintons Learned the Wrong Lesson From Watergate

The Clintons Obviously Learned the Wrong Lesson From Watergate Five operatives broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office Complex on June 17, 1992. Frank Wills, an alert security guard, discovered the burglary in progress and called the police. Five operatives were arrested with the trail leading to CREEP (The Committee for the Reelection of the President), President Nixon’s reelection campaign. Several high officials were implicated in the break-in and subsequent coverup, but no evidence surfaced that showed the President was involved with the break-in or coverup. The publicity was bad for the President, but he could survive. Not even a vengeful Mark Felt, Jr., Deputy Director of the FBI, “Deep Throat,” could bring the President down. White House aide Andrew Butterfield disclosed to Senate investigators on July 13, 1973 that the White House had a voice activated recording system in several rooms. President Nixon’s legal obstruction failed and he was ultimately forced to turn over the tapes, absent a missing 18½ minutes segment on June 20, 1972. President Nixon still had time to destroy the tapes, but did not, thereby dooming his Presidency. It’s unclear if the President authorized the Watergate break-in, but his involvement is clear in the subsequent coverup. Hillary Clinton knew all about Watergate. The 27 year old Yale Law School grad was hired in 1974 as a staff member for the Presidential Impeachment Inquiry of the House Judiciary Committee., from which she was fired for unethical behavior. The general consensus is that President Nixon’s failure to destroy the tapes cost him the Presidency. Certainly, that is what Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration believe (cf. IRS). First, the former secretary of State said she did not use the State Department server for her email, but a private email account. Second, she claims that she turned over hard copy of her official emails on the server, but not her personal emails. Aides had reviewed the emails and determined which ones to destroy and save. Third, there are no classified emails as secret on her server. Fourth, any classified email on her private email account was not classified at the time. Fifth, she has denied receiving or sending any emails classified as secret. Sixth, she turned over the server to the FBI, but it has apparently been scrubbed clean. The obvious question is that if she didn’t use the State Department computer, then how did she receive classified information on her private email account? If she didn’t receive or send classified emails, then how did they end up on her server? Was it an immaculate text? A stray email? Trojan Horse Virus? “I never had emails with that server?” Are her aides who examined her emails cleared to handle classified information? The Clintons believe they can bluster their way through scandals. They believe that President Clinton succeeded with perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. He got him through eight years, but he ultimately paid a penalty and saw his law license suspended. They adhere to: “Do you believe what you saw with your own eyes, or what I’m telling you?” President Nixon was not forced to resign because of the Watergate burglary, for which he was not linked, but for orchestrating the subsequent coverup. The evidence, the “smoking gun,” was in the tapes. He was doomed when ordered to turn them over. The former Secretary of State is not repeating that mistake. She destroyed the evidence. Or so she thinks. The problem with coverups is that they get increasingly difficult to maintain. Hillary has had to engage in an infinite number of stories with each misstatement being increasingly incredulous. Her husband had charm and style in his prevarications. She does not. She doubly broke the law, first with the pirate email account with classified information, and then trying to cover it up. Her ardent supporters may stick by her to the end and blind themselves to her misconduct, but her crowds are small and the public confidence in her is plunging. She could have come clean at the beginning and admitted a mistake. But no, she had to coverup. She would have survived, but now she is not going to be the next President of the United States.

The Difference Between Birthright Citizenship and Anchor Baby

Section I of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That language is as plain and clear as you will find. It’s the basis of birthright citizenship. What did the drafters intent? Was it aimed to protect the newly emancipated slaves? Was it intended to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which held African Americans were not citizens? It doesn’t matter! The language speaks for itself. There’s no awkward comma like the Second Amendment. There’s no exceptions, “provided that,” or “insofar as.” The primary rule of statutory construction for the Supreme Court is to look to the words of the statute, unless, of course, Chief Justice Roberts is saving ObamaCare. If they are plain on their face, then there’s no need to look to legislative history. I don’t doubt the ability of clever lawyers to craft a superficially appealing argument against birthright citizenship, or even find a friendly district court judge, but th appellate courts will uphold birthrate citizenship. Thus, the cries to deport those born in the United States and strip them of the United States citizenship are the cries of demagogues, who should know better. They are setting up the American public for a fall if elected. The desire for birthright citizenship for the children led to Hispanic mothers giving birth in San Diego or other American communities along the Mexican border. The financial costs to the hospitals are great. We are now witnessing the growing industry of birthplace tourism, whereby expectant mothers, often Asian, visit the United States for several months to give birth in the U.S, receive the newborn’s birth certificate and passport, and then return home. The use of the term “anchor baby” overlaps birthright citizenship, but usually has a slightly different connotation. Several proposed statutes would give special rights to the parents, siblings, indeed extended family, based on the birthright citizenship of the child in the name of not separating children from their family, perhaps 25-30 in the extended family. The child thus becomes the anchor upon which the family members receive residency and eligibility for American social benefits. “Anchor baby” is becoming a derisive term to immigration supporters who recognize the political potency of the term with the majority of the American public, which is opposed to illegal immigration. Opponents of the term are looking for a suitable euphemism, but as Governor Jeb Bush said: “What would you call them?” The innocent babies are being used to “legally” open the porous borders. I never blogged about President Obama’s birth certificate or joined those questioning his American citizenship because I viewed them as non-issues. I similarly view birthright citizenship in itself as a non-issue. However, extending rights to relatives of anchor babies is different. It is a potent political issue. Donald Trump’s proposal is to deport them all, including the baby. That will never happen in this United States.

Meijer's Runs Afoul of Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act for Selling To Low

Milwaukee Lawyer Complains About Meijer’s Low Prices Meijer, AKA Meijer Thrifty Acres, is a hypermart chain in the Midwest. It is a pioneer in supersized retailers that seemingly sell everything. It precedes Wal-Mart’s Superstores. Meijer has survived and expanded to over 200 superstores in the Midwest despite vigorous competition from Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Sam’s Club. The Grand Rapids, Michigan chain in entrenched in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky. It is expanding into Wisconsin, and as is its practice, it does what several companies do in entering a new market: offer attention-grabbing specials to attract customers. These offers may be below cost. That grabbed the attention of Milwaukee attorney Gerardo Gonzalez, or whoever is funding him. He dusted off Wisconsin’s anti-chain store statute/relic from eight decades ago. A national fear erupted in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s over the rise of chain stores, whose purported predatory pricing and other practices were driving small merchants out of business. Sound familiar? The then large offending chains were A&P Supermarkets and Woolworth’s. Anyone todays remember the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. and F. W. Woolworth & Co.? How about S.K. Kresge & Co.? or Kress & Co.? What about Sears, Roebuck & Co. where “America used to shop?” The fears were palpable. The result was the enactment by states and the federal government of anti-chain store legislation. They purported to protect consumers, but were geared to propping up prices by protecting existing competitors. They do not exclude low-price competitors, such as Wal-Mart. Congress enacted in 1936 the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibited price discrimination; e.g. large retailers getting discounts unavailable to smaller competitors. It has rarely been used successfully in recent decades. Sixteen states, including Wisconsin, enacted minimum pricing markup laws. The 1939 Wisconsin Unfair Sales Act prohibits marketing and selling goods below the marketer’s costs Consumers are hurt by these statures. For example, Wal-Mart cannot offer its flat rate policy of $4 for generic drugs. Meijer was opening stores in Kenosha and Grafton, Wisconsin. The grand opening ads contained the chain’s slogan “higher standards lower prices,” coupled with selective low prices. Attorney Gonzalez filed four complaints with 37 products with the Illinois department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer protection, charged with enforcing the unenforcible law. Among the charges were selling bananas at $.28/pound and milk at $1.99/gallon. These come-ons are common in weekly ads by retailers. Black Fridays features scores of products that would technically violate the statute. Among the utter inanities of the statute is that it does not ban free givaways, e.g., buy $15 of cereals, and receive a gallon on milk free. One effect in Wisconsin is that attention is being paid to repealing the Wisconsin Unfair Sales Act.

"You Gotta Know the Territory:" Haggen Doesn't

Customers and Employees are paying for the Haggen Debacle. Meredith Wilson’s great line in The Music Man: “You gotta know the territory.” Haggen doesn’t. The founding family of Haggen sold out a few years ago to an investment firm who knew nothing about supermarket retailing. They shrunk Haggen by progressively shutting stores. Down to 16, they rolled the dice, shot the moon, and purchased 164 stores from Albertson’s and Vons in the Pacific Southwest. They expanded nine fold their existing, shrinking base in the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest is not the Southwest, Seattle has many similarities to San Francisco, but San Francisco is not Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire, and the Central Valley. The characteristics of each county or state in the Southwest are different, but none relate to the Pacific Northwest, Seattle or San Francisco. Albertson’s and Vons were forced by the Federal Trade Commission to spin off the stores as a condition of merging. Haggen jumped in to buy the castoffs. Haggen did not know the territory. Acting out of hubris, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance, who knows? Haggen believed that its policy of a broad product line, quality meats, fruits and vegetables, and organics at high prices would appeal to the Southwest. Haggen did an amazing turnaround of the stores, often in 24-36 hours. That was a mistake. The time was spent changing signage and the prices, usually raising the prices. Customers excitedly came in for the grand openings. They found high prices on the existing Albertson’s and Vons products. The result was “One and Done.” You can overcome an initial bad impression, but Haggen didn’t. Its weekly circulars do not attract customers. The short, by Southern California standards, ads do not contain specials that will attract customers. Business is booming at the overlapping Albertson’s, Vons, Ralphs, and Stater Brothers stores. Consumers are sophisticated. Many are willing to pay more for high quality, not mass processed foods. These consumers shop at Bristol Farms, Sprouts, Whole Foods, and Costco. They also patronize Trader’s Joe. They will not pay non-competitive prices at a standard super market. Haggen made other mistakes. The employees at the stores transferred to Haggen went with the stores. There were no longer employees of Albertson’s and Vons. One provision of the FTC settlement is that the staff at these stores (managers, assistant managers, etc.) may not be rehired by Albertson’s or Vons for two years. Haggen is reported to have cut their wages and benefits in the takeover. Haggen’s debacle is in record time. Pan Am, Borders, Radio Shack took years. Sears and Kmart are still open. Haggen closed on the stores in May and June. They announced in July personnel cutbacks at the stores, terminating part time employees, and converting full time workers to part time. They announced a few days ago, August 14, that they will be closing 27 stores over the 60 days: 16 in California, 5 in Oregon, 5 in Arizona, and one in Washington. The announcement said they were “right sizing” the operations. They said that a month ago with the cutbacks. The goal is to streamline and improve operations;” to “improve its business and strengthen its competitive position.” The chain also said more closings may follow. They will. The costs of each remaining store will rise as the corporate advertising, including ads, will be spread among fewer and fewer stores. For example, Haggen is closing five of its ten Arizona stores. The remaining five will be hard to sustain. Unless Haggen can quickly create an attractive brand for the remaining stores, they are doomed. The four stores being closed in Orange County, out of a total of eleven, tell the story. Orange County is nationally known for political conservatism, affluence and quirky TV shows, such as The OC, the Real Housewives of Orange County, Laguna Beach and Arrested Development. Orange County is highly affluent, but most of the county is solid middle class with a large economically disadvantaged segment of the population. I would in a sense analogize the OC to Westchester County, New York. We lived within a few blocks of a Albertson’s Ralphs, and Vons as well as a Sprouts and Trader Joe’s until Haggen moved in. Two Stater Brothers are within a couple of miles, as well as and an additional Ralphs and Vons and two new, large Albertsons. The two Vons were converted to Haggens and the Ralphs closed for competitive reasons. They are closing. I actually went into one of them a month ago for a few items. The prices weren’t bad, but the cashier was a young, bored man. The wonderful Vons lifers were gone, just like the customers. Haggen turned profitable stores into losers within a couple of weeks. Business schools should do a case study of Haggen. Our choices are now much more limited than before the Albertson’s-Vons merger. It is an inconvenience to us, but an economic disaster to the former Albertson’s and Vons employees.

Seven Day Update on the EPA Dam Breach: EPA Administrator Goes to the River while President Obama Goes Golfing on Martha's Vineyard

Seven days later and the EPA is still confusing the situation. It has reported that in some stretches of the river that the water quality is back to where it was before the spill. Yet, it also said that preliminary tests showed arsenic levels were 300 times the norm in the Durango area and 3,500 times the normal lead level. EPA continues to warn against drinking the water. Farmers and ranchers are looking at large economic losses. If the EPA weren’t a government agency, the class action suits would be flooding the courthouaw. The public wants straight answers, not mixed messages. That ignores the heavy metals settling in the sediments at the bottom of the streams and the orang coating on the riverbanks. EPA originally understated the extent of the contamination, just as BP with the Gulf Oil Spill. EPA said an estimated 1 million gallons escaped from the dam. The U. S. Geological Survey raised the figure to 3 million gallons. A BP employee was indicted for providing the erroneous estimate. It appears no heads will roll at the EPA. EPA delayed 24 hours in providing notification of the spill. That would be a crime if by a private enterprise. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy finally flew out to the river Wednesday, but did not go to the scene of the dam breach. She said it was too far. It was not too far for the toxins to travel 100 miles downstream. President Obama is golfing on Martha’s Vineyard. He has not interrupted his time on the links to utter a word about the EPA fiasco. He has not even issued the usual bromides about getting to the bottom of it or finding the responsible parties. The White House will not even confirm if the President has been recently briefed on the environmental disaster. Colorado Governor Jim Hickenlooper, who barely won reelection last year, was apologetic for the EPA. He said it’s not as though the EPA were a private company, which would be bad. EPA Administrator McCarthy said the EPA “was committed to a full review.” We are still awaiting the full reviews of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS. Here’s what happened in a recent environmental spill that did not involve a loss of life. A Duke Energy stormwater pipe burst on February 2, 2014, spilling 39,000 tons of sludge and slurry into North Carolina’s Dan River. Investigators found problems at five Duke Energy facilities. Duke paid guilty on May 14, 2015 on 9 criminal counts of unpermitted discharges and maintenance issues. It agreed to pay $68.2 million in fines and restoration costs and an additional $24 million community service fee to the National Fish and Wildlife Fund and $10 million for wetlands restoration. Duke further agreed to a 5 year probation period with an environmental compliance program and a court appointed monitor to ensure compliance. Companies and individuals, which have felt the sword of the EPA, are hoping the EPA receives a dose of its own medicine. The Congressional Hearings could be even more painful to the EPA. EPA and the responsible contractor, Environmental Restoration LL.C., will write out checks. The EPA’s share though will come from the taxpayers, thereby relieving the agency from major accountability. Governor Hickenlooper is right.. The government is different from a private corporation.

Donald Trump Would Have Been the Tea Party candid in 2010 or 2012

Who is Donald Trump? Who Supports him? Why? The Tea Party came about in 2009 in the aftermath of President Obama’s inauguration. Anger arose over his fiscal and immigration policies. The indebtedness incurred by reckless and feckless spending scared these Americans. TARP, the Stimulus Bill, ObamaCare upset them. The foreign policy of rejecting American Exceptionalism is repugnant to them. The Tea Party pioneers are Americans who adhere to the traditional values that made America great. Their anger was directed at the Obama Administration and Republicans who appeared to be co-existing with the Democrats. They wanted fighters for their values. They see lacking in House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority McConnell the strong leadership they want in Congress to fight for Republican/American principles. The Republican leaders seem too imbued with their duty to govern responsibly rather than stand on principle. The Tea Party lost faith with the Republican establishment. The Tea Party is not a formal party unlike the Democrats and Republicans. It is a loose confederation of volunteers in local groups. The Silent Majority of Richard Nixon is the Tea Party of today. They expressed their zeal in Republican primaries by nominating their candidates to run in the general elections, even when it tossing aside incumbents and party favorites. They elected Ted Cruz (Texas), Deb Fischer Nebraska), Mike Lee (Utah), Marco Rubio (Florida) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) to the Senate in 2010 and 2012 as well as Ted Scott to a House seat in South Carolina and Nikki Haley to South Carolina’s governorship. Congressman Tim Scott was subsequently elected to the Senate. The mostly White middle class Tea Partiers voted on the basis of expressed beliefs – not religion, race, ethnicity or sex. They also though did not vote based on electability. They nominated some real losers, who cost Republicans 4-5 Senate seats in the general elections: Todd Akins in Missouri, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado (He subsequently won a House seat in 2014), Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, and Richard Murdock in Indiana. Todd Akins and Richard Murdock uttered absurd statements about rape and abortion, insulting the intelligence of voters, especially women. Sharron Angle and Ken Buck had anti-Hispanic/illegal immigration rhetoric that doomed their campaigns. Sharron Angle was also accused of being tight (my phrase) with Scientology. Christine O’Donnell’s most famous campaign statement was “I’m not a witch.” Donald Trump’s extreme rhetoric wins favor with some of the ardent Tea Partiers. They want a candidate who calls it like it is rather than the double-talk common for many politicians. They like his outspokenness and directness. They like that he speaks truth to power. They are smitten with him. They are in the early stage of infatuation. He is the greatest. He can neither say nor do anything wrong. They believe they see in Donald trump the boisterous, ferocious fighter for America. They fail to realize they are witnessing a narcissistic bully. They also support Senator Ted Cruz as the backup. He too speaks truth to power. Another Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey is what they want. Donald Trump is not that person. He will be totally unable to govern. He is though a symptom of their discontent. Until a more electable candidate arises! If Donald Trump cannot handle the fair questions asked by Megyn Kelly, how will he respond in the general election to the ensuing down and dirty campaign? The vast American populace is repulsed by him. The Democrats and media love it. They see in Donald Trump the worse caricature of Republicans. Most Tea Party members now understand that they cannot prevail with a split government. Even control of Congress with the power of the purse is limited. Deep down, they know Donald Trump cannot win the Presidency and could well drag the Congressional Republicans down with him. Most of the Tea party will not go down with Donald Trump