Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim

Finally, A Dose of Reality

Someone smart enough to put it all into words anyone, including those living under a rock, can understand. Mr. Massie has nailed it, he is absolutely correct, and regardless of your aisle leanings you have to admit to yourself he’s correct. Trump is neither a conservative nor a liberal. Great article Mychal! I salute you sir!

Mychal MasseMychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015.  RPC advocates for a colorblind society.  He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.”   He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Trump is not a Liberal or Conservative, He’s a Pragmatist.
(Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.)

“We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.  At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative, nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative.

It was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a Republican problem – it isn’t a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America.  It demands a pragmatic  approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn’t a liberal or conservative problem; it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work; they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work, you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 per hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: (1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; (2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who owe them vis-a-vis donations; (3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and (4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us?  Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it’s better to still have an “issue(s) to be solved,” so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success.

Donald Trump has his total financial empire at risk in running for president; that says it all.  “Success for the U.S.A.!”

2 thoughts on “Finally, A Dose of Reality”

Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim

2 thoughts on “Stop Listening to the Pundits”

  1. I read the article and the first thing that came to mind was announcing our troop movement on national tv so the enemy will know in advance what we intend to do. It’s a good and hopeful article but it also lets the enemy know where to attack. Enough already with giving them ideas. Even Trump knew enough to tell O’Reilly that he wouldn’t tell him his plans for the debates even if he knew for sure. They should shut up already! Let seniors or anyone else do a sneak attack at the poles.

Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim

Our “Free” Press

nyp_logo_230x32

From Michael Goodwin of the New York Post

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of “evenhandedness” in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.

You Can’t Subsidize Freedom

A Cato Institute study finds that New York is the least free of the 50 states because of its high tax burden, huge debt and regulatory stranglehold. Another factor is business subsidies, which are almost four times the national average.

At first blush, that one might sound like a good thing. Don’t we want businesses to create jobs, and shouldn’t the state help by subsidizing employers?

Yes, and no. A current housing example proves the point.

A program called 421-a provided a property-tax break to developers in exchange for lower rents on some apartments. It lapsed last January, and a bid to revive it has the state adding another layer of incentives.

The measure reportedly proposes that laborers get at least $50 an hour in wages and benefits, with the state paying 30 percent of it in less ritzy parts of the city.

Here’s the catch: Where does the state subsidy money come from? Other taxpayers — that’s where.

With the state already projecting a budget deficit, other tax hikes might follow, which would make living here even less affordable.

In essence, then, the state and city already have such high taxes that, to get affordable housing, they must take money from other people to subsidize both developers and workers.

What does any of this have to do with free markets and capitalism? Nothing. Which is why Cato is exactly right that New York has a freedom deficit.

Clinton and Bratton’s Political Play

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton emerged from a meeting with Hillary Clinton gushing about her “ideas” and “experience,” as dutifully noted by numerous news organizations. But most failed to note that Bratton is leaving the NYPD for a job with Teneo, a corporate cousin of Clinton Inc.

It’s probably also just a coincidence that Bratton is cozy with the candidate that his current boss, the mayor, has endorsed.

Imagine the howling if a police com­missioner showered praise on someone the mayor opposed.

Good reasons why active law enforcement should butt out of politics.

Tokin’ gesture

Headline: “Obama rips daughter Malia for smoking pot”

So even the president is subject to the parent trap: 

Do as I say, not as I did.

Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim

I Don’t know

How to define it. Need some help here. I am just an old retired Grunt. Several have emailed me asking what the hell is “Lactation Support,” and while I have tried my best to figure out exactly what that fool of a general meant, I am lost for words. If you know, please comment. I “think” I know what he meant, but like I said, I can’t be sure. Love to have your thoughtful definitions. Here’s the real definition, but for the life of me, I do not understand how or why commanders and soldiers need to balance it with readiness. Has this fool lost the bubble or what?

Lactation describes the secretion of milk from the mammary glands and the period of time that a mother lactates to feed her young. The process can occur with all post-pregnancy female mammals, although it predates mammals.[1] In humans the process of feeding milk is also called breastfeeding or nursing.

I joked for years using the terms, underwater mess kit repairman or  “combat gynecologist.” Now I am certain there are medical personnel training for the latter assignment.

2 thoughts on “I Don’t know”

  1. I do believe it means giving special dispensation for time to go off to collect milk or feed a baby. Same as muslims want time out of work to go off and pray during work hours. I’m not military but I have the sinking feeling that this is what the military means. Getting off from duty to collect milk. I think I just threw up in my mouth—

    1. I was afraid that’s what “lactation support” was, but did not want to have to type the words. I think I just threw up as well. Unbelievable. OMG, what is happening to our military right before our eyes?

Please leave a comment on this post or on any subject; all are appreciated. Thank you and Semper Fi, Jim

One Marine's Journey From Private to Colonel

%d bloggers like this: