Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Donald Trump: No Longer Number One After Losing Iowa 

Saturday, February 6th, 2016

First published February 2, 2016 on Headlines & Global News
It looks as if Iowa voters told Donald Trump, “You’re fired!” Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton may have been the night’s winners, but Donald Trump dominated the headlines once again – this time as the biggest loser.

The loud-mouthed, brash-talking GOP poll leader and headline maker, Trump came in a distant second in Iowa, 25 percent to Cruz’s 28 percent. But what was more embarrassing for Trump is that he beat Marco Rubio, who finished third with 24 percent of the vote, by only a single percentage point. For the first time in more than six months, Trump is eating lots of humble pie, and his loss was Rubio’s gain. The Florida senator looks as if he’s finally catching fire as the GOP establishment’s favored son.

What Iowa truly demonstrated was that Trump’s poll numbers didn’t catch up with his enormous self-image – and that he can be stopped. Skipping the last GOP debate and his incessant haranguing of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly probably didn’t help him. In contrast, it did help Rubio, whose strong performance in last week’s Trump-less debate won the upstart the largest share of Iowa’s undecided voters. According to the Wall Street Journal, Rubio also won 40 percent of the vote among Republicans “whose top priority was to pick a nominee who could win the general election.”

After the fat lady sang, Cruz easily cruised to victory by carrying the state’s huge evangelical Christian vote. About 64 percent of all GOP caucus voters were evangelical, an increase from 57 percent in 2012. To Trump’s credit, he won the largest share of first-time caucus voters, 45 percent, which was an increase from 38 percent in 2012.

Another upset in this year’s rocky road to 2016 ended in Hillary Clinton’s favor. She finally won Iowa, finally winning the state she lost to then- Senator Barack Obama in 2008. Back then, a teary-eyed Clinton went on to cry over her loss in Iowa, which some say helped her win New Hampshire.

This time, Hillary eked out 49.9 percent of the vote, besting Bernie Sanders’ 49.5 percent, but not without the help of a few coin tosses that went her way. The takeaway, however, is that Hillary’s very slim win isn’t a vote of confidence from Democrats. In fact, it should have her concerned that her coronation as the party’s nominee isn’t so inevitable. Moving into New Hampshire, Sanders is expected to win easily, which brings us back to Trump.

What Trump still has going for him is Iowa’s track record of picking losers in its GOP caucus. Mike Huckabee won in 2008, and Rick Santorum followed suit in 2012, but neither became the GOP’s nominee.

The pressure is certainly on Trump now. He must win New Hampshire to prove being number one in the polls can translate to being number one with voters! Otherwise, reality will begin to make his campaign look like a fantasy – a forceful disruptive one nonetheless – but a fantasy all the same.

Donald Trump: Afraid Of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Or Obsessed With Her? 

Saturday, February 6th, 2016

First published January 27, 2016 on Headlines & Global News
I liked the way Donald Trump disrupted the GOP establishment, but enough is enough of his childish attacks. Before the last debate, before Iowa has even begun, the GOP frontrunner is back to bullying Fox News anchor and debate moderator Megyn Kelly. In a disjointed, rambling rant at a press conference in Iowa, Trump backed out of Thursday’s scheduled debate. Sounding like an egomaniac, Trump accused Fox of “playing games,” blasting Kelly as “lightweight” and declared, “It’s time that somebody plays grownup” – just not him!

In an interview earlier this week with CNN, Trump told Wolf Blizter that before the first GOP debate, which Kelly also co-moderated, “no one even heard of her.” Sorry Donald, like you, Kelly was hugely famous before she moderated that first debate. You didn’t make her a star. She made herself one long ago, before you decided to run for president.

“Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?” Kelly asked Trump in last year’s first GOP debate, and it’s an even better one now.

I defended Trump after Fox’s treatment of him during the first debate. While some, including me, felt Kelly dealt with him unfairly, asking him personal questions that she didn’t ask other candidates, I now believe Trump needs to get over it and move on.

Journalists have the right to ask whatever questions they choose. Candidates and elected officials aren’t always going to like them or their questions. But men and women who seek to be elected to the highest office in the nation should try to behave like leaders.

They answer questions from reporters in debates – whether they think the reporters are biased or not – to prove they can handle the heat and are worthy of the job. In Iowa, Trump said America needs a leader “to make great deals with Russia.” But if Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly, can we trust that he really knows how to stand up to world dictators and terrorists, or will he throw a tantrum?

Fox News made the same observation, albeit slightly facetious, in its published response to his threatened exit from the upcoming debate, releasing the following statement yesterday:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings,” a Fox spokesperson said.

So Trump “doesn’t like” Kelly. Yeah, we get that. But his obsession with her is starting to make him sound a little unhinged – like a rejected suitor. Could it be that Trump has a little crush on Megyn that’s not reciprocated? Or was Kelly right in the first debate that Trump has a problem when it comes to women?

Whatever the answer, it’s time for Trump to act like a leader, move on to important issues, and stop attacking Kelly.

Stacey Dash Is Right About Ending Jim Crow, BET and Black History Month 

Saturday, February 6th, 2016

First published Jan. 25, 2016 on Headlines & Global News
Stacey Dash got it exactly right when she said we need to abolish BET and Black History Month. And her critics got it dead wrong. When liberals talk to blacks, it’s endless pandering. It’s still separate but (not) equal, just like the days of segregation – as Dash pointed out.

“There is no better example of the Democrat Party’s retail racism than their successful effort to segregate blacks from whites in nearly every aspect of society. Black History Month, black spokespeople, black media, and black studies departments are just a few of the ways Democrats work assiduously to put blacks back in the back of the bus – cut off from mainstream America,” I reflected in my new book “Con Job.”

Democrats think blacks need their own media outlets, historically black colleges and universities, awards shows, commemorative month and so forth. The list is endless. Before 1964, black colleges and black-owned publications like Jet were needed in a segregated America. Today, many black colleges and black-owned newspapers are great ideas gone wrong. Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) were once the only places blacks could get a college education. Today, the schools are riddled with malfeasance and sub-par academic standards. And yet white Democrats extol these inferior schools for blacks though they would never want them for their children. It’s Jim Crow all over again.

“Either we want to have segregation or integration,” Dash said.

Before desegregation, black-owned newspapers were often the only way blacks could read about news affecting their lives, such as lynchings, murders of blacks and the Civil Rights movement. Today, what purpose is served by the proliferation of “for blacks only” outlets like Ebony, the Grio, NBC Black and The Root?

“Liberals really seem to be on mission to put blacks back in the back of the information bus. What’s next? Will modern-day Democrats bring back separate drinking fountains, restrooms, lunch counters, and schools for blacks to help us stay culturally in tune?” I ask in “Con Job.”

The segregation is so bad that Dash herself has ended up playing roles in black-only films and TV shows such as “Mo’ Money,” “Gang of Roses” and as a video girl in Rick Ross’ “Super High” and MJG’s “That Girl.”

One episode of “The Game,” a show Dash appeared in, aired on BET.

If whites had the nerve to create White Entertainment Television or White History Month, blacks and liberals “would be up in arms,” just as Dash said. And she wasn’t talking about KKK or white nationalist celebrations, as Washington Post reporter Janell Ross suggested.

Even a White History Month when people celebrate America’s white heroes like we do black ones in Black History Month would be viewed as racist. Yet BET and black history month are perfectly OK. Black liberals expressed outrage at the Academy for failing to nominate a single black actor for an Oscar the second year in a row but laud the BET Awards for its black-only yearly awards. The hypocrisy.

We’re all Americans. Black history month is another example of modern-day Jim Crow. It needs to be included in American history classes 365 days a year, not relegated to 28 days in February. Black History Month “has become nothing more than a commercialized excuse for companies and organizations to make money off white guilt and black marginalization,” as I wrote in Con Job.

The roots of the month of blackness date back to 1926 when Carter G. Woodson founded Black History Week to encourage public schools to teach blacks’ contribution to American history in history classes. Today it has become a month for organizations and businesses to “honor, celebrate and salute blacks,” basically to prove they’re not racist and shamelessly make money off of blacks.

In 2015, Nike celebrated Black History Month by selling “black sneakers” priced from $120 to $300. I wonder if Nike would celebrate White History Month by selling white sneakers?

Perhaps blacks who are outraged by Dash’s comments should take a moment and think about what she said. Maybe blacks are the ones who are “clueless,” being played as fools by the liberal double standard and conned back into segregation.

Charlotte Rampling: Welcome to Hollywood hypocrisy

Monday, January 25th, 2016

First published on CNN.com January 22, 2016

What’s old, white and male?

No, the answer is not Santa Claus. Or the Republican Party. The answer is Hollywood. Yes, that big industry that prides itself on diversity — claiming to embrace gays, blacks and women — is anything but diverse. And no, Charlotte Rampling, talking about this doesn’t have anything to do with being anti-white. (But I’ll get to that in a moment).

For the second year in a row, Hollywood — and its white, liberal celebrities who throw their millions behind getting President Barack Obama elected — has shown Black Actors Don’t Matter. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences again nominated 20 white actors for Oscars in the major categories. Even worse, two films featuring black plots, “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton,” received one Oscar nomination each — that went to white people involved in the films. This year, like last year, one thing is for certain: Oscars won’t go to any black actors!

Curiously, Rampling, the Oscar nominated (white) British actress, appears to think the opposite, suggesting that calls from black actors and others for Oscar diversity might be “anti-white racism.” “Perhaps the black actors do not deserve to make the final list,” she was quoted as saying.

Really?

Many film critics have mused aloud whether already two-time Oscar winner Jennifer Laurence gets nominated in part just because Hollywood likes her. Lawrence — still only 25 — received her fourth nomination this year for best actress in her role in “Joy.” Regardless, black actors don’t seem invited to this chummy little club — in the past six years, they have only received four nominations IN TOTAL in the best actor and actress categories.

Will Smith, his wife Jada Pinkett, and Spike Lee are among several black actors who have announced they won’t attend this year’s Oscars. But what about white actors who claim to be champions of diversity? It’s interesting that industry favorites like Quentin Tarantino are so quick to stoke racial tensions, call cops racist, and support the Black Lives Matter movement, but when it comes to Hollywood’s own bigotry they are much quieter.

Oscar looks like it is stuck in an ugly, racist, segregated American time warp.

Perhaps in an effort to assuage their guilt, the Academy has again tapped Chris Rock to be the token minority host of the Oscars. But instead of tweeting that the Oscars were “The White BET Awards!” shouldn’t Rock be boycotting his hosting duties if he doesn’t want to appear complicit in Democrat-loving Hollywood racism? Reinforcing how tone-deaf the industry is on diversity, the Academy scheduled the awards show on February 28, 2016, at the end of Black History Month. The irony.

Yes, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the Academy’s black president, said: “This is a difficult but important conversation, and it’s time for big changes. The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership. In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.”

But that would be more reassuring if Isaacs hadn’t promised the same thing last year. And adding three new governor seats to a board of 51, as was announced by the Academy on Friday, feels like too little and way too late.

Each year, blacks make about 195 million visits to movie theaters, spending an estimated $6.3 billion.

Maybe if we started boycotting movies that aren’t diverse enough in their casting and storyline, Hollywood would feel the hit at the box office and start producing more movies featuring strong more positive black characters.

Sadly, in the past 87 years, less than 10% of Oscars for acting have been won by minorities. According to a 2012 study conducted by the Los Angeles Times, 94% of the Academy’s over 6,000 voting members were white, and 77% of them were white men, with an average age of 62.

Republican-dominated industries would not be allowed to get away with this. But Hollywood, known for lecturing benighted Republicans about their supposed bigotry and racism, is standing on a diversity sandcastle. Meanwhile, the Republican Party presidential field had more racial diversity — an Indian, an Africa-American and two Hispanics — than Hollywood managed in its acting nominees.

Just because Hollywood markets itself as a beacon of diversity doesn’t make it so. Like the Democrats who campaign as fighters for issues affecting black Americans, Hollywood’s true prejudice is obvious. Liberal Hollywood seems happy to make huge profits from blacks, but doesn’t want to invite us to the party.

When will blacks be fed up enough to change things? Angry complaints won’t fix a thing. Actions speak louder than words. Hollywood has shown it isn’t changing its ways, not by a long shot. It might be time to start hitting Hollywood in a place where it really cares — its wallet.

Cruz the Matador Takes on Trump the Bull

Monday, January 18th, 2016

Trump isn’t king of the GOP hill anymore–at least not on the debate stage. Like an expert matador, Ted Cruz wasted no time goring the frontrunner bull Donald Trump. After the first commercial break of the evening, Cruz was asked to address Trump’s birther charge that he’s not a “natural” born citizen because he was born in Canada to an American mother, therefore, unqualified to be president.

Without pause, Cruz hit Trump between the horns.

“I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.”

And he wasn’t finished, Cruz elaborated with gusto “that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on — some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil.

Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.

“Because — because Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized.”

Loud Applause filled the auditorium, emboldening Cruz with confidence. Trump looked shocked and dismayed that one of his challengers had found the balls to stand up to him.

Brushing off the jab, Trump fell back on his favorite line that he’s “beating” Cruz in the polls, which is true. Trump insisted, “very, very fine constitutional attorneys, that feel that because he was not born on the land, he cannot run for office.”

And the frontrunner added:

“Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty.”

Not backing down, like a matador taunting the bull with his cape, Cruz responded to raucous applause from the crowd.

“Well, listen, I’ve spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I’ll tell you, I’m not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump.”

From that moment on, Cruz owned the night and danced circles around Trump, taunting the bullish frontrunner, waiting for the kill.

When asked to explain what he meant by saying Trump “embodies New York values,” Cruz replied, “everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.”

Describing an interview Trump did with Tim Russert. Cruz noted Trump had flipped his positions on the issues and in that interview he said Trump told Russert “look, I’m from New York, that’s what we believe in New York. Those aren’t Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York.”

“And — and I guess I can — can frame it another way. Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying,” finished Cruz.

Trump quipped that lots of conservatives come from Manhattan, “including William F. Buckley and others.” While the night was still young, it was clear from the first 30 minutes the debate or rather bullfight had comfortably settled between Trump and the matador Cruz.

Trying to break up the Cruz-Trump fight, Senator Marco Rubio though he gave a strong performance punctuated by yelling, seemed like he was playing the role of Robin to Cruz’s Batman. Rubio accused Cruz of flip-flopping his position on immigration and being for guest workers, birthright citizenship and doubling the number of green cards.

But while it was a good retort, Cruz had already gored Rubio in his earlier response on the threat our weak immigration laws pose to national security. Cruz reminded the crowd Rubio led the Gang of Eight fight in the Senate with Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer to grant amnesty to illegals.

Cruz pointed out that Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill expanded President Barack Obama’s power to let in Syrian refugees without mandating background checks.

“I voted yes to suspend that. Marco voted on the other side. So you don’t get to say we need to secure the borders, and at the same time try to give Barack Obama more authority to allow Middle Eastern refugees coming in, when the head of the FBI tells us they cannot vet them to determine if they are ISIS terrorists.”

The night belonged to Cruz. But Trump still loomed large, as the party’s frontrunner giving a strong performance, particularly in his defense of a Muslim ban and his astute knowledge of China’s trade policies and currency manipulation that harms American economy and jobs.

“I’m sorry, you lost me,” said Fox Business moderator Neil Cavuto to Trump’s proposal to impose a US tariff on Chinese goods.”

“It’s not that complicated actually,” Trump responded.

“I’m saying, absolutely, we don’t have to continue to lose 505 billion dollars as a trade deficit for the privilege of dealing with China,” he added

What’s clear from last night’s bullfight is that Cruz disrupted Trump. And the battle for the nomination is far from settled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The message from Oregon is clear: black men with guns are thugs, while whites are patriots

Wednesday, January 6th, 2016

First published January 4, 2016 in the Telegraph

How can the “armed militiamen” who occupied the federal government’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon be engaging in a “peaceful protest”? If they’re white men doing the occupying they can be called anything but thugs, criminals or terrorists, according to the Associated Press.

This weekend white ranchers Ammon Bundy and his brother Ryan Bundy, along with a dozen others, stormed the building to protest the federal government’s ownership of public land that ranchers are restricted from using. Ranchers like the Bundys believe this is unconstitutional. The white militiamen’s rage was triggered by rancher Dwight Hammond and his son Steven Hammond’s five year prison sentence for committing arson on public land.

But AP wasn’t alone in the American news medias racist coverage of the white ranchers. The New York Times dismissed them as an “armed group” while Fox News blandly called them “armed protesters.” In its January 4, 2015 print edition, The Washington Post printed the following milquetoast headline: “Occupiers in Oregon pledge long standoff”.

What a difference race makes in news coverage and law enforcement response to men (or boys) with guns. When blacks rioted, looted and burned down buildings in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, the media, myself included, referred to them as rioters and thugs, not peaceful protesters – because that’s what they were.

US law enforcement is just as complicit as the press in this racial double standard. The National Guard was called into Baltimore to control the 2015 riots. But in Oregon, the government is sitting in wait and see mode, standing down in the face of white armed militiamen who are threatening violence if police try to arrest them.

In 2014, the federal government acted the same way with the Bundy brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy. A Nevada rancher, Cliven refused to stop his cattle from illegally grazing off federal land. He and a gang of supporters engaged in an armed stand off with federal law enforcement agents and threatened to shoot them if they stepped on the government property that Cliven was using illegally (he owed over $1 million in 20 years of grazing fees to the government). At the time Republicans rallied around Bundy, a lawless tax evader, and the government gave into this white criminal’s demands.

In 2014, the federal government acted the same way with the Bundy brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy. A Nevada rancher, Cliven refused to stop his cattle from illegally grazing off federal land. He and a gang of supporters engaged in an armed stand off with federal law enforcement agents and threatened to shoot them if they stepped on the government property that Cliven was using illegally (he owed over $1 million in 20 years of grazing fees to the government). At the time Republicans rallied around Bundy, a lawless tax evader, and the government gave into this white criminal’s demands.

The message in America seems to be clear: white men with guns aren’t a threat, but black men are.

Some people compared the gunmen’s siege of the Oregon building to the Black Lives Matter movement protests. While I’m not a fan of the later, there’s no comparison. To date, the Black Lives Matter groups have been mostly peaceful protests conducted by students and others not armed takeovers of buildings, threatening to shoot people who are only trying to enforce the law.

While the armed Bundys flagrantly violated multiple laws, the media, law enforcement and conservatives condone their lawlessness under the umbrella of “unconstitutional government overreach”. But when the unarmed Black Lives Matter folks protested against the perception that blacks’ constitutional rights are being violated by police killing young black men, the media calls them “a hate group”.

Thank goodness that in America, our constitution affords us the right to protest. It also explicitly states under the second amendment that: “the right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But the right to own a gun is for legal protection and the defense of one’s person or private property from harm, not to terrorize or commit crimes against others. In fact, the first amendment protects the right of Americans “to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Peaceful protests don’t involved loaded guns at the ready to shoot position.

What our constitution doesn’t give us is the right of sedition, no matter what the colour of our skin is. The Bundy brothers, like their father Cliven, are just as much thugs and criminals as the black looters were in Baltimore and Ferguson. America needs to stop this racial bigotry in how it deal with guns. A white man with a gun should not be immune from being called a terrorist, thug or criminal.