Today's Main Event - The Second Republican Debate

Attention is focused on the main Event, the debate between the ten top polling Republican candidates. The main question is what will the Donald do? Will he be negative or positive? Will his thin skin emerge? Why is the media still letting him suck the oxygen out of the Republican race? Donald trump is currently a bright comet speaking truth to power, but he will fade, like all comets. Voters, when it comes time to vote, cannot see him as the next President. They are currently sending a message to the Republican establishment. They don’t like what the President is doing, and they’re not that enamored with Boehner and McConnell either. Here’s the standard themes with each candidate presenting their standard talking points: Anti-Obama – on everything. The Iran deal Immigration ObamaCare ISIS and national security The economy Perhaps Common Core (Bush) Perhaps Medicaid expansion (Kasich) Perhaps minimum wage Perhaps inequality Perhaps police brutality and All Lives Matter Hillary Benghazi and Fast and Furious probably won't emerge. THey have never received traction with the public. There’s not much any candidate can say in ten minutes so my assumption is that most of the ten will play it safe, worried about a gaffe that could sink their campaign. They look three years ago to Texas Governor Rick Perry, who, if the polls are to believed, still hasn’t recovered in the eyes of the American people. Jeb Bush has to be especially careful what he says in light of recent misstatements. There’s currently not much room for error in this race. Few remember, but President Gerald Ford never recovered fro his statement in the Ford-Carter debate that “There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe.” My prediction is that Chris Christy, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckalbee, will stand out because of their innate debating ability. Governors Scott Walker and John Kasich will be themselves, quiet spoken, poised, articulate, and competent, as successful Midwest governors. Marco Rubio will also come across as similarly poised, thoughtful and competent, but could face a question on his shifting immigration views. Rand Paul has the ability to sink himself on national security. Ben Carson represents the common American. He has the best personal story of all the candidates. Perhaps some one-line, seemingly spontaneous, zingers will come out, but if they fall flat, as most do, then the candidate looks bad. The undercard, about to begin as I type this, could be the most interesting. Seven Republican candidates who narrowly missed out on the Top Ten- so close are many of the candidates in the polls. One sitting governor, Jindal of Louisiana, three former governors, Perry of Texas. Pataki of New York and Gilmore of Virginia, one sitting Senator, Graham of South Carolina, a former Senator, Santorum, who won Iowa four years ago, and a business woman, Fiorina, are all worthy candidates The seven have nothing to lose. Therefore, the odds are they will be the most outspoken, trying to emerge from the scrum of candidates. Expect more histrionics from the Undercard candidates. The only flake in the 17 is The Donald.

The Obama War on Coal Continues

Senator Obama said at a January 2008 editorial board meeting of the San Francisco Chronicle: “So if someone wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt hem because they are going to be charged a high sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” He said at the University of Missouri at Columbia five days before his inauguration that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He is succeeding in fundamentally transforming America. In his eyes, America succeeded as an unequal society by exploiting the world’s resources. The military has been used to extend America’s rule around the world. A reset, starting with Russia, will extend to the traditional enemies of the United States. Our special relationship with Great Britain will be abandoned. Similarly, Israel has been an oppressor of the Palestinian people, although he carefully couched it as a bad relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He will pivot America’s support to Iran as the source of stability in the Mideast. One of his first acts was to unilaterally scrap the anti-missile systems being installed in Poland and the Czech Republic as a sign of goodwill to Russia. As usual, he got nothing in exchange. He’s made peace with Iran, the Munich peace of appeasement. He recognized Cuba. He let Russia invade Ukraine, offering the Ukrainians MRE’s to fight tanks. He substantially shrunk the military, essentially neutering it with a weak Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He abandoned Iraq, giving rise to ISIL His domestic policy would be to implement the Liberation Theology of reverend Jeremiah Wright coupled with protecting the core constituencies of the Democratic coalition. He will support the teachers unions and other public sector unions (The Stimulus Bill). His NLRB, nominally an independent agency, will do everything to support unions and penalize management. His Federal Communications Commission, again a nominally independent agency, will regulate the internet. The nation’s police, viewed as oppressing African Americans, will be neutered through “oversight” by his Justice department. He will consult with the Reverend Al Sharpton. He will impose high taxes on Americans, corporations, and the cost of capital because none of them made it on their own. They made it with the help of government on the backs of the poor. He quasi-nationalized healthcare, 1/6 of the nation’s economy. He will convert America’s energy base to a green economy, funded by the Stimulus Act funds not going to the unions. Solyndra was but one of scores of failing green energy companies receiving Stimulus funding. He believes green energy will create millions of jobs, the proof in Spain to the contrary notwithstanding. High taxes, high healthcare expenses, and high energy costs are squeezing America’s economy, especially small business, the creator of jobs in America. He has substantially increased the number of Americans receiving government assistance, thereby increasing American dependence on the government rather than themselves and the private sector. His economic ignorance is shown by thinking that healthcare and green energy will be the economic stimulus of the new American economy, eventhough they do not add to American productivity. They add costs to the economy. That brings us to the War on Coal. The Supreme Court in the 2007 5-4 decision in Massachusetts versus Environmental Protection Agency gave the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. His EPA, which is not an independent agency, does not therefore need a new act of Congress to regulate coal power plants. It is doing it under the proposed rules issued last Monday. Its earlier attempt to regulate the power plants by restricting their mercury emissions was struck down this term for lack of an adequate cost-benefit study. In his mind climate change is the greatest threat to Americans. He addressed the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit: “For all the immediate challenges we gather to address this week – terrorism, instability, inequality, disease, there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.” He addressed the graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy on May 19, 2015. He said: “Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service.” He stated “climate change is one of the most severe threats” and that it is ‘dereliction of duty” to deny climate change. His, the EPA, plan will require power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 32% from the 2005 levels by 2030. The draft plan was 30%, partially met by a shift to natural gas and only 22% from renewables. The new rule requires at least 28% from renewables, which have shown themselves so far to be expensive, often unreliable, and damaging to the environment, as well as meeting local opposition, such as with the wind farm off Martha’s Vineyard. The War on Coal is a proxy for the War on Fossil Fuels. The EPA is setting specific emissions levels for each state to meet, in theory giving the states flexibility in doing so. It appears at this point a large number, if not majority, of states will refuse to cooperate with the EPA. It remains to be seen if under our state sovereignty the EPA can set state standards when its power under the Clean Air Act is to regulate emissions from individual plants. Of course, this Supreme Court can arbitrarily rewrite the statute to accommodate the Administration, as it has done twice with ObamaCare. All the while, the BRIC Nations, China, India, Brazil, and Russia are plunging ahead with coal power.

Planned Parenthood's Feeble Response is to Kill the Messenger

Let’s start with some premises. First is the precept that a woman controls her body and has a right to choose. This right is in no way dependent upon the ability of Planned Parenthood to sell the body parts of fetuses. Second, this Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Third, Planned Parenthood may or may not have the legal right to sell the baby parts. They claim not to profit from the sale, but if they sold them, then they are making money off the fetuses. Whether or not they are making money could be a matter of their accounting. Planned Parenthood may be acting legally or legally, but the appearance is one of amorality. Fourth, Planned Parenthood is a major player in the Democratic coalition. Democratic legislators are in a conundrum. The videos are a modern sting operation by the “Center for Medical Progress,” a non-profit created for the purpose of the sting, reminiscent of the ACORN sting a half decade ago. The released videos are disgusting. The first is Dr. Deborah Nucatola,, Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, nonchalantly telling how she kills the fetus to preserve the critical body parts while drinking wine and eating salad over lunch is repugnant. She’s so cavalier in describing the medical procedures. She said: “We’re being good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that.” She explained that “I’m basically going to cut below, I’m going to cut above, and I’m going to see that I can get it all intact.” Then we have the second tape in which another Planned Parenthood official, Dr. Mary Gatter, President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council said “We’re not in it for the money,” which sounds good. However, she continued: “Still the payment has to be big enough that’s it worthwhile to me.” She said about $100/specimen is the norm. She also joked about a Lamborghini. The third tape has an employee describing her emotions as she retrieves the organs from the fetus. The fourth, and most recent video, features Dr. Savita Ginde, once medical director of Planned Parenthood in Denver. She explained that a fetus can emerge intact. She emphasized sales should be labeled as “research:” “I know putting it under the research gives us a little bit of, a little sort of a overhang over the whole thing.” Dr. Ginde added: “Yeah, and in public it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein, than I’d say the business venture vein.” I believe a majority of Americans, especially women, believe I a woman’s tight to choose. I also believe though that the majority of Americans to not want to be exposed to the gory details of the procedures and the apparent sale of aborted body parts for money. They know the tapes are damaging. Yet, they also know better than to cross Planned Parenthood. They know the Susan B. Komen Foundation suffered a major backlash a few years ago when it announced it was pulling some funds from Planned Parenthood. They also know that the release of the first tape promised more to follow. Four are now out with at least eight to follow. Most have stayed quiet. They do not want to support Planned Parenthood without knowing while waiting for the next shoes to drop. They have to suck it up and vote against defunding Planned Parenthood, but they are not happy about it. They want to stand out of the way if Planned Parenthood goes the way of ACORN. Even worse for the Democrats. They will have to take a recorded vote in the House and Senate. Harry Reid is no longer the Senate Majority Leader who will block votes. The vote will be used against them in general elections. Even the loquacious President Obama on social issues was strangely silent for a long while on Planned Parenthood. He will veto, he has to veto, any defunding statute that comes to his desk. His Administration first referred to the Center for Medical Progress as “Extremists on the right.” If that’s the best talking point they can come up with, then they are desperate. Josh Earnest, the press secretary, then labeled the videos as “fraudulent,” without ever viewing them. When questioned, he admitted he was echoing or parroting (my terms) Planned Parenthood. In other words, he was speaking out of ignorance Planned Parenthood knows the videos are damaging. They know the videos are offensive and repulsive. The organization also knows that $528 million of last year’s $1.3 billion budget came from taxpayers. They are scrambling. They claim the videos are edited. They are, but the Center for Medical Progress posts the full, unedited videos on line. Viewers can decide for themselves if this is selective editing, cutting and pasting, or the accurate statements of Planned parenthood employees. One Democrat is sticking her neck out for Planned Parenthood. California’s Attorney General and Senate candidate Kamala Harris announced a week ago her office is investigating the Center for Medical Progress to determine if the organization violated the law as a non-profit. She is attempting to shoot the messenger. It won’t work. The message speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquiter as the legal phrase goes. Two organizations in the videos, but not Planned Parenthood, have obtained injunctions against future releases applicable to them. The attempt is to silence the messenger through the courts while Planned Parenthood attempts to silence them in the media. The state organizations warned the media that they will be at risk if they publish the Council for Medical Progress’s stories. So much for the First Amendment.

Deflategate Deflated: How Roger Goodell Suckered Punched Tom Brady and the Patriots

We think we know the basic story of Deflategate. New England Patriots employees deflate their game balls below NFL requirements because that’s how Tom wants his balls. The Indianapolis Colts complained to officials in a playoff game that they had intercepted a deflated ball. NFL officials then inspected the New England balls and found most of them deflated. The score was 17-7 Patriots at halftime. The Patriots then outscored Indianapolis 28-0 in the second half with properly inflated balls for a final score of 45-7. Brady started the second half 8 for 8 in passing. Quarterbacks with under or over inflated footballs are common in the NFL. Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers says he likes his overinflated. The NFL unleashed an investigation by Ted Wells and his outside law firm. Millions were spent on cold air while hot air was blowing through the media. After millions spent, video footage micro-analyzed, suspected culprits and scientific experts interviewed, Ted Wells, the special prosecutor, issued a 243 page, mostly inconclusive, report. The Report had no definitive evidence or even smoking gun. He found that it was “more probable than not that New England personnel participated in violation of the playing rules ….” As to Tom Brady, the report concluded “It is also our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady … was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.” Not a definitive statement that the personnel did or did not, or that Brady knew or did not. Indeed, the evidence shows that Brady made sure the Patriots personnel inform the officials pre-game that Brady liked his balls deflated to the lowest permissible level. The cold weather could have then taken under the prescribed pressure setting. Tom Brady informed the investigators that he would not turn his phone over to them. It was his practice to destroy the old phones and sim cards when he bought a new phone. The NFL demanded from Tom Brady that he turn over his personal messages on his cell phone. The collective bargaining agreement between the players union and the NFL does not give the league that power. The union is not going to let the NFL seize a player’s cell phone. Tom Brady is a union man. The lawsuit filed by the NFL Players Association in 2011 against the NFL for their lockout had Tom Brady as the lead plaintiff, followed by Payton Manning and Drew Brees. Second, the assumption is that Tom Brady did not turn over the phone because he had something to hide, to wit, incriminating texts about deflating the footballs. Perhaps an alternative theory exists. He wished to preserve his privacy to the extent that any celebrity of his stature can preserve their privacy. There may have been personal matters about his family. Tom Brady provided the investigators with a seven month printout of his phone records. They could obtain the texts from the phones of McNally and Jastremski, The investigators had their phones. Roger Goodell responded that would be “impractical.” The NFL had the phones! The Commissioner’s decision was to suspend Tom Brady for 4 games, based on no precedence, fine the Patriots $1 million, and strip them of 2 draft picks. Robert Kraft decided not to appeal the team’s sanctions. The NFL Players Association appealed on behalf of Tom Brady. The NFL apparently offered to cut the suspension in half if Brady admitted guilt. He said No, whereupon Roger Goodell upheld the 4 game suspension. Roger Goodell explained Brady “engaged in conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football.” The mortal sin in Goodell’s eyes was that Brady failed to cooperate because he destroyed his cellphone, plainly leaving the inference that Brady was covering up. It was a sucker pinch. The grounds for the initial suspension did not include the destruction of the phone. Perhaps the real problem is that Brady did not kowtow to Commissioner, who is no Pete Rozelle. Roger Goodell, the epitome of integrity and probity! The Commissioner - who followed the lead of the Baltimore Ravens owner in covering up and soft peddling Ray Rice’s domestic abuse case until the horrific elevator video was leaked. The NFL denied all knowledge of the video prior to Goodell’s two game suspension of Ray Rice eventhough the video was delivered to, and received by, the League. Goodell then issued an indefinite suspension to Ray Rice, which was overturned by the courts. The Commissioner is trying to redeem his reputation in the public eye. He tried suspending the Vikings Adrian Peterson for an indefinite period for disciplining his son with a switch. That too was overruled by the courts. Tom Brady is his latest foil. Commentators, especially in cities with NFL teams routinely losing to the Patriots, have risen to the bait. Bloggers now compare Tom Brady to that other Boston sports paragon of virtue, Roger Clemons. The Patriots are fighting mad. Robert Kraft, the normally gentle-mannered owner, was anything but. He was visibly angry. He apologized to the Patriots Nation for not appealing the League’s sanctions: “I have come to the conclusion that this was never about doing what was fair and just….I truly believe that what I did in may … would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady. Unfortunately I was wrong.” He added: “I was wrong to put my faith in the league.” Those are ominous words from one of the most respected NFL owners. He said he couldn’t understand why the “League continues to disparage one of its all-time great players….” It’s not inexplicable. It’s not about the NFL and integrity. Roger Goodell is an increasingly shrinking man trying to save his $35 million salary.

Is President Obama Presenting Jonathan Pollard to Israel as a Peace Offering?

President Obama is effectively giving the Bomb to Iran. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter flies to Israel to make peace. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter does not offer Israel any new arms. Some way of making peace! The Appendix III to the Iran agreement requires the parties to take all steps to prevent others from interfering with Iran. Secretary of State Kerry admitted in testimony to Congress that it will help protect Iran’s nuclear activities against nuclear threats and cyber warfare. The text covers more than that. The Administration is rumored to have threatened Israel in the past about attacking Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported today the rumors that the President will make a peace offering to Israel by releasing the convicted spy Jonathon Pollard. Jonathan Pollard was arrested for espionage in 1985 and is serving a life sentence. Prime Minister Netanyahu has asked for Pollard’s release from the beginning. Israel wants him. All he did was give some of the country’s top secrets to Israel. For money! He loves Israel, but sold his country out for money. He says he did it out of an affinity for Israel, but took the money. Some of the secrets may have reached the Soviet Union. America’s intelligence and military community vigorously oppose his release. President Obama is offering his release. A worn out spy to Israel in exchange for the Bomb to Iran. What a deal! Israel is facing an existential threat and Obama offers Israel a worn out spy. Such a deal! President Obama’s not offering Israel anything of substance. Jonathan Pollard is up for parole November 1, 2015 President Obama is not offering much of anything. Does the President think the Jewish Nation is that stupid? Senator Lindsay Graham is quoted in the Journal: It’s “nothing more than a pathetic attempt by a weak administration to curry favor with our Israeli allies who across the board reject this dangerous deal with Iran.” President Obama denies Israel the super bunker buster bombs, but is offering Jonathan Pollard.

Haggen is Flailing and Failing in Southern California

Haggen is Losing It in California What is Haggen? That’s what Southern Californian are asking. What is Haggen? The company claims “Higher quality products at low price.” What is Haggen? It’s high prices and poor sales in California. What is Haggen? Employee layoffs and reductions in hours from full time to part time. What is Haggen? Poor employee morale What is Haggen? Haggen is a failing experiment in Southern California supermarkets in only three months. Haggen agreed to acquire 146 Albertsons, Pavilion, Safeway, and Vons Supermarkets in California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon. The government allowed Albertsons and Safeway, two of the three largest supermarket chains in the United States, to merge. The two dominate the West. The condition was that the companies spin off overlapping stores. The last major consolidation in Southern California was Albertsons acquiring Lucky Stores in 1998. It had to sell off 117 stores in California. A strong regional competitor in Southern California, Stater brothers, acquired 43 of them, boosting its presence in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino County. Stater Brothers is the dominant chain in the “inland Empire,” Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. It doubled its presence in Orange County. The divestiture to Stater Brothers was a winner for Southern California consumers. This time Albertsons had to spin off 168 overlapping stores. This time Haggen, an unknown small chain in the Pacific Northwest, rolled the dice and agreed to acquire 146 stores in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Arizona Haggen was rolling the dice and swinging for the fences Haggen had 18 stores at the time of the acquisition. It now has 164, including 83 in California. The bland, unattractive ads say “Hello Haggen Goodbye Hassle” Hassles are lacking because the stores are devoid of customers. The bland ads don’t offer specials on everyday products that will attract customers. Those who enter the stores encounter high prices. For that, customers are willing to go to Whole Foods, Sprouts, or Trader Joes. For lower prices, Stater Brothers remains the leader. Albertsons, and even Ralph’s, undercut Haggen. And then there’s Walmart, Target, and Costco. Haagen claims to be a premium grocer at low prices. It claims to offer fresh food and a large variety of organic food. It claims local sourcing, genuine service, and homemade quality. It offers high prices across the board. Haggen is not competitive in this market. It is uncompetitive at the high end. It is uncompetitive at the low end. It is uncompetitive in the middle. Haggen misjudged the market. Four decades ago a luxury department store opened its first store outside Washington and Oregon. The store was Nordstrom’s. The location was South Coast Plaza. We know it was a success. Nordstrom’s has expanded into affluent shopping centers. Haggen, aspiring to be upscale, has taken over stores generally appealing to the mass market, which it does not understand. The Albertson's and Vons customers are not used to paying Whole Food prices for mostly food staples. Haggen had even been flailing in recent years in the Pacific Northwest. The founding family sold a majority of its shares in 2011 to Comvest Group, a diversified Florida company with no experience in grocery retailing. Haggen closed almost half of its stores since the takeover: Everett, Tanasbourne, Murray Hill, Wenatchee, Tacoma, Lacey, Federal Way, Bellevue, Shoreline, Kent, Auburn, Yakima, Edmond, and Arlington. It had not entered Seattle because it felt unable to compete with Albertson's, QFC, and Safeway. Haggen acquired 146 inferior stores in California. Whenever there was an overlap resulting in the need to divest a store, Albertson's would always keep the best location for itself, looking to sales, posits, location, size, and age. Haggen acquired the hand-me-downs, some of which were excellent stores in good locations. Most, but not all, of the new Haggen stores were profitable under previous ownership. Haggen could have, should have taken the opportunity with a new start with a new name with a new owner to turn things around with these stores. They failed. The corporate successors to the Haggen Family are out of their league. Reality caught up to Haggen this past week. It is laying off workers at each store and converting others from full-time to part-time as it faces “unprecedented competition.” The company claims it is acting “to ensure we’re operating as efficiently as possible, we have made the difficult decision to temporarily cut back our staffing at our stores, with specific reductions varying by store.” The Union is livid, claiming these cuts violate the contract. He justifiably blames Haggen’s failure on a poor pricing strategy. The remaining employees are dispirited. Service is suffering. Haggen has only a short time left to turn it around.

Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez is the Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Why did he do it? What was his motive? What motivated him? How do you explain it? What did we do to cause it? The president knows. The FBI knows it. The media knows it. But none dare say the name. Sudden Jihad Syndrome! It is not Islamaphobia to speak out against radical Islamic terrorism. It is not anti-Muslim bias to call out virulent extreme Islam outside the mainstream of the Islamic Religion. The Sudden Jihadist believes he can solve his problems by serving Allah. He may be instigated by a radical Iman, other Muslims, or social media. He may be a recent convert or have recently rediscovered his Islamic religion. The Tsarnaev Brothers at the Boston Marathon suffered from the Sudden Jihad Syndrome. Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, suffered from the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, but the Obama Administration called it an act of workplace violence. Alton Alexander Nolan, a recent convert, beheaded a co-worker last September in Moore, Oklahoma and was attacking a second co-worker when an off duty police officer shot him. Nolan was unsuccessful in attempting to convert the two women to Islam. Another recent convert, Carlos Bledsoe, killed one soldier and wounded another at an Army recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009. Sulejman Taluvk came to America in 1998 from Bosnia. He shot up the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City on February 2, 2007, killing 5 and wounding four before the police fatally shot him. Mohammad Rezi Taheri-Azar drove into a crown on the University of North Carolina on March 5, 2006, injuring six. October 2002 witnessed John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, better known as The D.C. Sniper. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian limo driver in Orange County, drove up to LAX on July 4, 2002 and started shooting up the El Al ticket counter. He killed two and wounded four. Palestinian Ali Hassan Abu Kamal shot up the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building on February 24, 1997, killing one tourist and wounding others. Rashid Baz shot at a van of Jewish students on the Brooklyn Bridge on March 1, 1994, killing one and wounding three. Mir Aimal Kasi shot up CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia on January 25, 1993, killing two and wounding three. It’s not limited to the United States. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot a Canadian soldier in the back on October 22, 2014 at the Canadian National War memorial in Ottawa. After killing the soldier, he proceeded into Parliament with the intent to kill others. Fortunately the Sergeant-at-Arms intercepted him and shot him before more homicides were committed. Alen Rizvanovic, a Bosnian refugee, rammed his car at 90MPH into a crowd in Graz, Austria a month ago, killing three and injuring 34. He got out of the car and started knifing bystanders. Sudden Jihad Syndrome. If you won’t even recognize it, then you will be unable to fight it.