Donald And Bernie: The Frontrunners Who Aren't (Really) Running

Donald Trump And Bernie Sanders: Why They Are Really Running For President, On Today's POLITICAL RANT!! 

At the moment, the Republican frontrunner for President is business tycoon Donald Trump, while his Democratic counterpart remains former First Lady/U.S. Senator/Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton....with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at her heels. Should Mrs. Clinton's campaign disintegrate from the weight of increasing scandals, Sanders could well become the frontrunner for the Democrats.

What's interesting is that neither Mr. Trump nor Senator Sanders have any illusions about actually winning the Presidency.  Each has his own agenda. In fact, should either man get close to winning his party's respective nomination, they may regret this course of action.

Donald Trump has no reason to want to be President. He is the head of one of America's largest empires, with an ego to match. As President, he would be required to put all his investments in a blind trust. It's very hard to imagine a man like Mr. Trump trusting others with the fate of his vast wealth, let alone deny himself the sheer fun he has of charting that course on his own.


Trump is well versed in politics. Unlike his world, where he can hire and fire department heads at will, he would need congressional approval to hire the membership of his Cabinet. Unlike his world, in which he negotiates with others for the mutual advantage and profit of both, he would now be negotiating with parties whose agendas involve harm to the United States. If folks he nominates (and get confirmation) to the Supreme Court issues judgments he wasn't expecting, he can't fire them at all.

So why run? When he first announced his intentions, my thought was he simply wanted attention during a news cycle where people like him don't get much.  I was wrong.

When it became apparent he wasn't bluffing about running as a third-party candidate should the GOP reject him, another, more troubling reason emerged. It now seems Mr. Trump is trying to sabotage the Republican's chances of taking the White House next year.

Remember Ross Perot? He's a billionaire from Texas who did the same thing in 1992. Years earlier, Mr. Perot petitioned the Reagan administration to be included in projects the administration was working on. Vice-President George H.W. Bush advised President Reagan to say no, and he did. Perot never forgave Bush, and started work on what would become the Reform Party. A few years later, when now-President Bush was running for re-election, Perot showed up out of seemingly nowhere with his bogus Reform Party to run as an alternative to President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.  Running on a platform similar to the Republican Party's, Perot syphoned away enough votes from Bush to ensure a Clinton victory.

This, I fear, is  Mr. Trump's true objective.  He has a record of donating to Mrs. Clinton's causes, more than he has to Republican ones. This was the "unfair" subject Megan Kelly of Fox News asked him about during the recent GOP debate that made headlines for Trump's reaction alone. We in the Republican Party have good reason to be suspicious of Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders is another candidate who has no intention of actually winning. His reasons are slightly more honorable than Mr. Trump's, though he's still being dishonest by pretending to mount a serious campaign.

Senator Sanders is registered as an Independent, but never fails to remind everyone he's a committed Socialist.  He recently tweeted that he plans to "dethrone God and destroy capitalism." The man doesn't leave much room on where he stands. And he's smart enough to know his views won't get him elected.

So why run? His views might not be accepted now, but they might later...IF he can get a large enough platform to preach on them. The biggest stage for the next year is the Presidential Nomination one. If he can show the Democratic Party and their nominee--whether it's Mrs. Clinton or someone else--that his message has a significant following, he'll probably merit a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention next year. And maybe even a place of prominence in the next administration, should the Democrats hold on to the White House.

Two very different men, with very different political views....both highly intelligent, and both using dishonest tactics to achieve their objectives.  Sadly, politics as usual....and unusual.

That's my POLITICAL RANT for Sunday, August 16 2015. Agree with it or live in wrongness.


Click here to return to The Geeky Conservative's Homepage!

POLITICAL RANT:: Gays, Christians, And Discrimination

Discrimination is alive and well in America today...and where it's directed is the topic of today's POLITICAL RANT!

This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled gay couples may, indeed, be married in all fifty states.  This is, of course, a huge win for the gay community.  It's what they've been fighting years for.  The question of gay marriage has been answered.  The genie is not going back in the bottle.  For conservatives, evangelical Christians,  and others opposed to gay marriage, it's time to move to the next issue. And we need to do that right now.


The ruling is also a victory for anti-Christian bigots who will waste no time in using this to take legal action against churches and ministers.  This is the next issue conservatives and evangelical Christians need to focus on.


Ever since some states legalized gay marriage within their borders, we've seen stories of gay couples--usually financed by well heeled anti-Christian hate groups--successfully sue small time florists, caterers and bakeries with Christian owners. The owners, most of whom would have (and did) provide services for birthday parties and the like for gays, declined to service their gay weddings, due to religious convictions.  In almost every case, the business was forced to either close their doors, pay steep fines, or both.  We have little reason to believe these same groups won't now go after small churches and pastors with no money to mount a legal defense.  Given the Court ruling this past week, even a top legal team would find winning a case against these groups to be challenging at best.


Chief Justice Roberts himself--who voted with the minority, against legalizing gay marriage--said churches which refuse to host same-sex weddings risked losing their tax exempt status.  So we can see where the first shot will be fired in this new battle.


One may wonder why gays--or anyone else, for that matter--would want to hire someone to preform a service for their wedding who made it clear they oppose said wedding.  The only reasonable answer is the couple--or, more likely the hate group funding the legal action--has as their primary goal to forcing of the business to close, or forcing the owners to violate their faith. 


And thus, we have a new (as of the last couple years) target of discrimination. Not gays, but Christians.  If you own a business, says the courts, and the business deals with weddings, and you're a Christian, you must violate your faith.  This is bigotry.


Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of the leading presidential candidates,  was asked recently where he stood on the issue. He said if a gay man asked for a birthday cake for his same-sex partner, the baker should make it.  If it was a wedding cake, the baker should be free to decline, as it was for an event his faith doesn't let him be involved in.  Rubio's stance is the right one.


There was never any serious interest in passing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between an man and a woman back when it was brought up.  I'm wondering if there would be serious interest in passing a Constitutional Amendment protecting the religious liberty of Americans not wanting to service events their faith forbids.


I hope so.


That's my POLITICAL RANT for Saturday, June 27, 2015. Agree with it or live in wrongness.


--Mighty Steve--


Back to The Geeky Conservative's Homepage!

POLITICAL RANT: The Syrian Situation

                                                  Bashir Assad, Professional Monster

The Syrian situation, what it means, and what we should do are the topics covered for the September 11 edition of The Political Rant.

You know the situation. For over two years, Syria has been involved in a bloody civil war, with the government of barbaric President Bashir al-Assad on one side, and rebel forces--many sympathetic to al-Qaeda --on the other. Although the United States has remained neutral during this time, that changed after, on August 21,  Assad used chemical weapons on his enemies, killing over a thousand in one attack.  Last year, President Obama said chemical weapons were a "red line" that if Assad crossed, would demand a response by the United States. After that line was violated, the world waited to see if Obama would keep his word and make good on his threat.

 

After much discussion, and even an attempt by the President to say he didn't actually use the red line phrase (which is on tape) he made the decision that Assad had to go.

 

The United Nations promptly said no.

 

So he said we would go anyway.

 

This kind of cowboy approach, which he himself condemned in his predecessor, made for some strange bedfellows. The aforementioned George W Bush has indicated support for military intervention. His former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is against it, as are right wing commentators Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton support it. The left wing anti-GOP hate group Move On is opposed.

 

Two days ago, it looked like President Obama was going to ask a distrustful nation, on national television, to support such action, while also asking a skeptical Congress to formally grant him authorization to use force. Things looked bad for Mr. Obama--most everyone gave him little hope to change minds. To come away from the public and  the Congress empty handed would, said all the pundits, have left him with a fatally wounded presidency.

 

Then John Kerry stumbled his way into a win for Obama, much like Wilber Parmenter in the opening credits to the old sitcom "F-Troop".

 

Kerry, our current Secretary of State, made an offhand comment  Monday that if Assad gave up his weapons of mass destruction immediately, then sure war could be averted, but hey, Assad's not going to do THAT.....

 

Immediately, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, sprang into action. He endorsed the idea of an international group taking control of the Syrian chemical weapons, in exchange for an American promise not to take military action against Syria. And Syria immediately accepted.

 

Sounds great, right? Not so fast.....

 

Putin is a mentor to Assad. Nothing happens in Syria that Putin forbids. A fair amount of 'normal' weapons in the hands of Syrian forces comes from Putin's Russia.  The most likely scenario is that as soon as Kerry made his off the cuff comment about Syria surrendering weapons, the wheels started turning in Putin's head, and he saw a way to:

 

A) save Assad; 

 

 B) Make him, Putin,  a hero in parts of the Middle East;

 

C) Diminish the influence of the United States in the Middle East, and increase the influence of Russia.

 

Which will now probably happen.

 

Note I said 'probably'. A lot can still happen.  It will be months before any plausible commission, group, whatever, can go to Syria and account for all the chemical weapons Assad has.  Assad could try and hide some. All the diplomacy we're now trying--and we should use all diplomatic channels available--could disintegrate. And then we'll be back to where we are now.

 

And if that does happen...we should help put down Assad. He is a Hitler-like pawn of Putin, and will therefore work against us if so ordered.  The world needs to know we're not taking dictators who wish us ill lightly. They need to lose sleep over us.

 

As for the rebels, they get to make a decision if we help them take down Assad. Will they continue to support al-Qaeda, or will they show loyalty to those who saved them (yes, I do mean more loyalty than we've seen from the people of Iraq and Afghanistan)? If they choose the former, they need to know that plotting against us, or attacking Israel  means they get Assad's fate.

 

Whatever action we take, it's important the world knows we aren't afraid to use military force to crush any government, any movement, that wants to threaten us.

 

As I write this, it's only a few minutes before September 11, 2013.

 

9/11. 

 

 

 

Back to The Geeky Conservative's Home Page!

 

 

email me at geekyconservative@gmail.com

 

 

 

Say What You Will...And Pay The Price

Paula Deen, free speech, and appropriate consequences for words we don't like are all on the menu for today's POLITICAL RANT!

 

You know the story. Popular chef Paula Deen used the 'N' word (you know what it is) in a private conversation recently.  For some reason, this became public due to a lawsuit brought against her by a former employee (who is white) of restaurants Deen owns with her brother.  In nanoseconds, the Food Network cancelled her TV show, and some of her many business partners (including Smithfield) denounced her and ended their relationships.

 

She tells us she's not a racist, and based on the context of her use of the word, and her noting that she was raised to believe, and still believes, all God's children are created equal, I believe her.  

 

Her original comments were incredibly stupid.  Obviously, this kind of language is going to be offensive to blacks.  The fact no blacks, apparently, were in earshot is irrelevant, as they could have been. Given her celebrity status, she should have had enough common sense to know this could get out, as it did.  You're a celebrity, you say something like this, there's going to be consequences.

 

However, it seems to me the price she's being forced to pay is over the top.  She apologized for her comments.  Her offensive language, stupid as it was, was part of a private conversation.  I'm not seeing why we can't forgive her, and let her keep her career.  I'm not black. I don't have the frame of reference a black American has concerning how hurtful that word is.  Deen, by her words, apparently had even less of an understanding that I do of how hurtful that word is.  Now, though,  I'm sure she does.  I would hope most Americans, regardless of race, would accept her apology and not seek some kind of punishment for her.  The same comments she made that were so hurtful also made her look like a fool, and damaged her image. That should be enough justice. Being fired from her show, and having her most prominent business partners throw her under the bus shows a lack of courage on the parts of the Food Network and the businesses that dropped her.

 

As I write this, word is getting out that left wing bomb thrower Alec Baldwin is taking flak for anti-gay language he made in a series of "tweets" on the Twitter network. Baldwin, like Deen, has apologized. Unlike Deen, Baldwin's comments were for public consumption.  I wonder  if Capital One, for which he does commercials, will cast him aside.

 

The companies have every right to do what they did to Deen.  She can be seen as a reflection of them. But could they not have disavowed her comments, scolded her in private, and let her continue in their employ?  Surely we're all bright enough to know the owners of these large companies just might not--and probably don't-- use or approve of the "N" word.

 

I hope we're not so over sensitive that we have to destroy celebrities--whether they're celebrity cooks, actors, or politicians--whenever they say something particularly stupid or offensive.

 

I also hope such people keep in mind one of the drawbacks to living a life of fame and (usually false) glory is that they have no privacy. Very little they say that can be used for scandal will stay secret.

 

That's a lesson Paula Deen is learning the hard way.

 

That's my Political Rant for Saturday, June 29, 2013.  Agree with it or live in wrongness.

 

                            --Uncle Steve--

                 --The Geeky Conservative--
Email The Geeky Conservative at geekyconservative@gmail.com

Return to The Geeky Conservative's Homepage!
 

POLITICAL RANT: Mr. President, Can You Hear Me Now?

 

 

 

 

The Government going through our phone records, Dishonesty in government....and Uncle Steve supporting Obama???? All will be explained in this edition of my POLITICAL RANT!

 

Much has been said of late concerning the revelation that since (at least) 2007, the government has been collecting phone records of all wireless customers of the Verizon phone service. Ironically, conservatives who supported the Patriot Act when Congress passed it, and President George W. Bush signed it into law are now condemning the collection. This includes  Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) who wrote the provision in question, saying this isn't what was intended. And some (though not many) liberals who screeched like banshees when the Patriot Act became law are fine with this collection.

 

I'm not fine with this at all. But I support it.

 

Maybe.

 

Verizon, we're told, routinely disposes of wireless phone records after a certain amount of time has passed. For this reason--we're told--the government wanted to get all the records before they were destroyed, to study it for possible terrorist plans. The administration claims these records have, indeed foiled at least one terrorist plot. We're also told all that is looked at is who talked to whom and for how long. No conversations were eavesdropped on.

 

If the cost of keeping someone from slitting my throat while I'm asleep and while they're shouting "Allah Is Great!" is to allow the government to know who I talk to on my cheapo cell phone (and yes, I do have Verizon), then I'll live with it (no pun intended). I won't like it, I don't like it, but this is the world we live in. Al-Qaeda is real. There are folks who want to kill us. They are making plans. They are willing to die in the attempt. Obviously, I want the government to be able to protect me and the people I love.

 

The "Maybe" above comes in my lack of faith in the word of this Administration.  We've caught the Attorney General, Eric Holder, in falsehoods regarding his testimony in the 'Fast and Furious' gun scandal. We know we were lied to by our Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  Or (then) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Or President Obama himself. Or one or both of those ladies, as well as President Obama, was lied to by folks whose names are unknown to us.  Or any number of the just mentioned combinations.  And, of course, we've learned the IRS has been targeting conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status.  Honesty does not seem to count for much in the Obama White House.

 

One of the first lessons I learned as a child was how important honesty is. The reverse--how crippling a reputation of dishonesty is--was part of that lesson.  Even before last November's election, we were given evidence the President and his team weren't always being truthful. Since the election, they seem to almost revel in deceitful tactics.

 

So, yes, I say I reluctantly support the government's looking at phone records in hunting terrorists...maybe. If I could trust President Obama's word, I would support this measure.

 

But I can't trust his word. I can only hope he was, for once, being honest. I do want him to be successful in keeping us safe from terrorists. And to be fair, he has done a better job than I thought he would. I'm grateful for that.

 

For now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume this is just his having our backs, hunting for terrorists...and not Tea Party meetings or events of that nature.

 

Maybe.

 

That's my Political Rant for Friday, June 7, 2013! Agree with it or live in wrongness.

Back to THE GEEKY CONSERVATIVE'S homepage!

POLITICAL RANT: Defending Fox News

Is Fox News "fair and balanced" as they claim--or is the cable channel a mouthpiece for the right wing? That's the question we explore in this edition of my POLITICAL RANT!

    James Rosen, a reporter for Fox, has been accused by the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, of being a 'co-conspirator' for his part in publishing classified information. More on that in a future post. This charge again brings up the notion that Fox slants heavily to the right and has it in for liberals in general, President Obama in particular. Given this idea is discussed as a matter of fact, not opinion, by other networks and prominent politicians and celebrities on a daily basis, it's worth examining.

     Fox has now, and did have in the past, conservative personalities anchoring and otherwise participating on panels on political discussion programs. They do not have, at least as far as I can tell, anyone of equal stature on the left hosting such shows. So, no, there isn't a 50-50 ratio of liberals to conservatives.
     
      However, Fox does have a generous assortment of liberal personalities on those programs. No anchors, but plenty of panelists. They have their say. They aren't silenced. The liberal point of view is heard, and clearly.

       In addition, the regular news programs--the morning "Fox and Friends" (Fox's version of the "Today" show), late afternoon's "Fox Report" and early evening's "Special Report" are all straight news. No slanting. The final 25 minutes or so of "Special Report" is a panel discussion, led by anchor Bret Baier; however, both the liberal and the conservative perspective are covered. And Baier himself? He brings up, calmly and politely, challenges to whoever just offered an analysis Seems pretty fair to me.

        The three hours of prime time each night are, indeed, political commentary. Yes, the right wing has a strong voice. But the left wing isn't left out in the cold as the left claims.  Bill O'Reilly's show, "The O'Reilly Factor" is about as even handed as you can get. Yes, O'Reilly does hammer President Obama. He also praises Mr. Obama when he thinks the President gets something right. No, it's not often. But it is more often then he praises the Republicans in Congress.

         "Hannity", which follows "The O'Reilly Factor" is indeed a hard right wing show. Host Sean Hannity gives no pass to liberals, though he does invite them on his show. Again, they have a voice. The grilling is tough.

          Finally, Greta Van Susteren's "On The Record" rounds out the evening. As the name implies, she interviews newsmakers of the day, usually in a more friendly tone then her aforementioned male colleagues. But if the subject is serious, the questions are tough. She's a lawyer by trade. She's also good friends with the Clintons. Yes, those Clintons. It was Van Susteren who former President Bill Clinton invited on a tour of his presidential library shortly before it opened. She was also reportedly Hillary Clinton's first choice to serve as press spokesperson when she ran for President in 2008. 

            The best evidence to convict or acquit Fox News of gross bias is to give it a fair viewing. In the years I've been watching, I've seen virtually no bias from the start of the day (with 'Fox and Friends", and now an early edition of the program) up until "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8PM EST. There is a strong bias during Hannity's one hour. Then...none.  From what I can tell, at present, in the 168 hours Fox broadcasts during the week, there are ten hours that is hard right ("Hannity" repeats at midnight EST), and another hour of 'slanted right' on Saturday night, with "Huckabee" hosted by former Arkansas governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. That's pretty much it.
    
      At the end of the day, Fox seems to be the only news network anywhere close to being 'fair and balanced'. CNN and most severely, MSNBC, still seem obsessed with reminding viewers how much they loathe former President George W. Bush.

       It's also interesting to note Fox carries the day in ratings compared to those other two networks. If Fox is a right wing shrilling machine, why are so many moderates watching?  Moderate Mitt Romney, not right wingers Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich won the GOP Presidential nomination last year. If only conservatives watched, Fox wouldn't be nearly successful as it is.

         With this evidence, my verdict is Not Guilty.  "Fair and Balanced"? Not quite, but pretty close. Close enough we know we're getting honest reporting.

And isn't that why we're watching?

That's my Political Rant for Monday, May 20, 2013. Agree with it or live in wrongness.
                                        ---Uncle Steve--

Back to THE GEEKY CONSERVATIVE's homepage!