Republican Debate Moderators – Mental Minions

A baby is born innocent. But they are also born demanding, selfish, impatient, unloving, inclined to anger when they don’t get their way, greedy, gluttonous, and consumed with self. Over the years, it is a mother’s job to instill values and to moderate behavior, pulling it back, putting it in its proper place. And when the child ventures into the world on their own, hopefully the mother and father have taught them love, compassion, respect, patience and honor.

The commentators of the debate last night missed those lessons.

Will they be penalized? Will they be lectured for their absolute indecent behavior? Or are they all high fiving it and chugging shots behind the curtain of Oz?

Sometimes people don’t realize that when they slander another person, use bully tactics, and ignore common decency, they become the focus instead of the one they are trying to intimidate. Their behavior is so filled with venom that no matter who they were speaking to, no matter what the other person said, they are now the focus of venom.

John Harwood. Becky Quick. Both heavy duty Clintonites.

The fact that Ben Carson stepped out of the fray was possibly the best and most sane move anyone could have committed given the hatred packed fumes that were expelled from the mouths of babes. While the media is asserting that the Republican candidates are just angry because they were asked tough questions, lets take a look at some of these ‘toughies’:

  1. Should fantasy football be regulated by the government?
  2. Referencing Trump, ‘is this a comic book version of a presidential candidate’?
  3. When Carson stated that he was not affiliated with a company that had illegally placed his picture on their website, the commentator said, ‘doesn’t that speak to your vetting process’?
  4. Rubio was asked about a newspaper’s editorial calling for him to resign
  5. Asking Carson why he serves on the board of Costco which is gay friendly
  6. Asking Trump why he said Facebook founder, Zuckerberg, was wrong about immigration?

How do any of these questions address the economy? They don’t. They were created to slander and denounce the individual. Petty. Stupid.

And if that wasn’t enough, apparently Hillary was busy having her campaign managers text notes to reporters in which she chastised the candidates and their answers. Did Hillary create the questions for the commentators? Or does she just tell the media what to say?

In this topsy turvy world we have made a befuddled mess. We learned nothing from the debate because the questions posed were about nothing and deserved the befuddlement responses. The commentators were harsh, rude and ill-prepared with facts. What they did possess was a true laissez faire attitude that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they failed to grow beyond the arrogance of a babe at birth. Tch Tch.

Presidential Debate – Tears and Joy

When the host of a debate, or a television newscast for that matter, makes a jab that is so obnoxious as to be infinitely rude, I immediately side with the person being attacked and cringe at the audacity of the horrible person making the attack – even – even if I am not a fan of the person being attacked! It is a bad, bad tactic!

While Fiorina, Christie and Cruz may be ‘right’, right unfortunately, doesn’t make ‘win’. They say what is good and right and yes, I am so behind their wisdom, but is that what creates a win? If we look at history, what makes a win, is who has manipulated the vote. Sorry! But that’s the reality as much as you want to pretend. It is why we accept without question that 130% of the voters turned out in any district… Do you even understand what that means? It means that one fourth of voters voted twice.

Or it means, that the tally centers, which are routinely conducted by a firm owned by Soros – out of this country, is completely without – fraud… Personally, I find that a remote – remote possibility. In that vein, we need to accept that our elections are rigged. Completely. Totally. Which is why, Hillary girl, is not too concerned. She is not sweating.

Watching the debates I am reminded of a time when I was the lone ‘woman’ out, I was amongst a gang of female liberal attorneys and I was the lone republican. Within a few short minutes, they were leaning in, pointing fingers and screaming in my face. It was a surreal experience. They were a gang of perhaps ten or eleven – against – me. I was the lone wolf. And they went for a kill! Not in a symbolic way, they wanted a real – kill.

I didn’t handle it very well. I refused to cry in front of them, and so excused myself to a hallway of shame where I burst into tears and felt very denigrated. I called my husband and asked for support. I was so devastated, I could not go back to them and went to my room in a veil of or shroud of – solace. But I did learn something. I learned that the words of evil are sincerely vicious!

The point was – that these liberal people were incredibly ugly. They had no collaborative vein of compassion or listening or sharing, they were only about destruction and winning. And I was so naïve, I had no idea this was the agenda, this was conceivable, this was women. They had no other agenda than to destroy me from every angle of ethic, morality, compassion, value, belief, and care. And I was completely, totally, unprepared for such an inhumane attack.

And such is what I watch tonight. An inhumane attack on some parts, whereas it is a pushing of agenda on the other. Why would certain Republicans be accepted, and others attacked? I watched as the front runner is the most attacked – Carson. I suppose there is logic in that. Why would you bother attacking the ones that posed no real threat? And so, Carson has become the threat.

Trump could be a service to the cause if he were to back Carson. While Christie and Rubio have incredible talents at speaking, and words, they have a connection to shadows that could prove they are more Democratic than Republican in values and ethics. And that is a viable consideration. Both of them have ties to Soros, and thus their credibility is under scrutiny!

The questions posed at the debate were hugely stacked. Sometimes in favor and sometimes to discredit. To me, it was obvious. Not good for the ones that were pandered to – the republicans that scaped. Not a good place to be – sorry.

How to answer all the idiosyncrasies of the debate without creating rux among the others? Impossible. So, the debate becomes a point of who can speak and who can’t vs, who is and who isn’t a valid – person. Sorry.

Personally, I am not a debate person, the questions are posed, the answers orchestrated, the debate is more of the answers than of the ethic. The debate is more about saying what they debater thinks the person wants to hear, than a debate about what is right or wrong. How absurd to believe that a debate is anything to do with what is one the heart and mind of the person…

So, I take them with a grain of salt, much like a commercial on television which has nothing to do with reality – in my view.

Still, the commentators hold to rudeness, and the debaters hold to voter propaganda, it has nothing to do with allegiance, so much as a desire to win.

We are so oppressed that we cannot listen to the words without forming an opinion way before the second word has formed from the mouth. THAT is not right. I wish that the attitude was levied against the Democrats. I wish that people could see what is happening… I wish that the world would awaken as though from a slumber and see what is happening. I wish… But I am just one.

Do you know what it means to be – the salt of the earth?

Maybe that will answer the question – mine and yours. WAKE UP!

Ben Carson, CAIR and David Horowitz – An Untangled Web

Ben Carson has suggested that, in his opinion, a Muslim who’s faith is Islam should not be qualified to be President of the US. The media ridicules him for his statement.

Trump is chastised roundly for not ‘defending Obama’ when a question is posed and the man refers to Obama as a Muslim.

CAIR, calls on Ben Carson to – quit.

Hillary takes jab at GOP’s.

Clinton says Trump fueling paranoia with his Muslim views.

And it’s only just begun.

CAIR claims it is the spokesperson of all US Muslims. But the percentage of Muslims in the US is less than 1%, around .8% of the total population. Not terribly noteworthy in terms of total force and hardly a force that can demand Carson to quit. Muslims have historically voted for Democrats, 72% voted for Obama while their voter turnout has been approximately 2/3 of their population – 1,700,000.

Add to the flames that CAIR has a relatively savory reputation for belonging to and or assisting terrorists, they certainly are not a great spokesperson for the religion. CAIR has been linked to Hamas. Created by The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization decreed a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and by the United Arab Emirates, they are not exactly squeaky clean.

So why do we listen to them? Why are they given media attention at all with regard to Ben Carson?

CAIR boasts a membership of …5,000. Again, hardly noteworthy. But the media would have their panties in a wad because Ben Carson made what they term as an Islamophobic statement. Really? I’d say he made a judgment call on a topic that indicts terrorists and prohibits them from governing the US. Personally, I’m not a fan of Shari’a.

So why all the fuss?

Well, it would appear that the ‘fuss’ is relegated to the media, and does not seem to be the voice of the people.   But then the government and the media ceased being the voice of the people years ago. Instead, they became the voice that wants to defraud the people. Hillary thought using the point would elevate her status, as did Sanders when they decried foul!

Who does CAIR like? Hillary, Rubio and Christie. Who does CAIR dislike? Basically anyone even remotely associated with David Horowitz Freedom Center. According to The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group funded by George Soros, David Horowitz is “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement”.   This indirectly connects Soros and CAIR as having the same ideals and principles.

David Horowitz has a fascinating background. His parents embraced communism and Stalin, and raised him in a world fed heavy doses of propaganda and censorship. It wasn’t until 1956 that his parents read Nikita Kruschevs Secret Speech and felt deeply betrayed, subsequently renouncing their stance.   David was a devout Marxist advocating his far left political views in the UK and later in the US. A proponent of The Black Panther Party, but moved away from this when confronted with the murder of Betty Van Patter, a good friend whose body was found floating in the San Francisco Bay. The Black Panthers were suspect. Sometime in 1985, David formerly voiced his shift in loyalties in his support to then Republican, Ronald Reagan.

A prolific writer, in advocating for a conservative view, Horowitz claimed our universities were being redefined to a political correctness that had one leaning and one leaning only – left. He exposed 101 professors that he feels are dangerous in their ideals and socialist views in a book entitled, The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. And despite a special investigation led by The House of Representatives in 2006 which found that students were not unfairly targeted if their views did not conform to leftist thinking, with the rise of social media, we have seen that is not true time and again.

Two of my sons were witness/victim of these politically correct agenda’s while on campus. Within the college community, it is well known, and routine.

Having turned his sights on Islam, Horowitz wrote of the ‘unholy alliance’, and became a target of CAIR. The book was a bestseller and sold millions of copies. He has been on numerous speaking engagements within various universities and each time shows the explicit anti-Jewish view of the Muslim students, their embrace of Hamas, and their inability to debate with any merit.

Perhaps, he would like to endorse Ben Carson.

2015 Presidential Debate – Tabloid Entertainment

Falling into Alice in Wonderland’s Rabbit Hole, the debate became a reality show for Hollywood:

Uggh – the debates. So many candidates leaves little time for individual shine. Full disclosure, I didn’t want to watch but my husband asked and I relented … for a while.

From the horse’s gate, the style was one that I abhor. The topics were entertainment style, tabloid, petty insults, personal insults, derogatory rhetoric and within minutes I wanted to turn it off, walk away, sit outside and enjoy the evening breeze. But, alas, I didn’t.

When all was said and done, I didn’t much care enough for anyone, for the most part they succumbed to the histrionic attack and the self lauding that really makes me wonder if this will once again be an election in which we vote for the lesser of two evils rather than a true shining warrior winner for the people.

Setting aside my own personal views on the issues, which is very hard, I didn’t learn a whole lot about theirs:

  1. I think they all agreed on a solid wall between Mexico and the US as a starting point to curb illegal immigration.
  2. I think most agreed on defunding Planned Parenthood from a Federal level.
  3. Most agreed that the deal with Iran was messy and wimpy.
  4. Syria and Russia were a point of division – no one seemed to know that the US has already engaged Russia to help with ISIS in Syria… so you can’t exactly vilify and sanction Russia for doing your bidding.
  5. China was also a point of division with some naively stating that snubbing the President of China at the White House dinner was a good policy – albeit immature and childish, while others felt isolating China would be good for the US, given that China is our biggest trade partner and holder of T-bills, that would be a fall on your face political and business short sidedness mess!
  6. Vaccines – I don’t believe they should be a political decision.
  7. Raising Minimum Wage – divided. The worst rhetoric on this front was the candidate who stated that he wanted to raise education levels so no one was working minimum wage… Slight problem, who then is performing those jobs? No one? Script!

The resounding debate seemed more of a self-promotion campaign to tell everyone all your successes, ad nauseum. The “I” statements flew with such force, they were good moments to refresh my cup of coffee. And while I do understand that a candidates track record is of value, most people really don’t care, just look at Obama’s track record… he had none, nothing, zilch. When Trump attacked Carly’s track record and her response, he then defended his own failures with similar points thereby substantiating her points.  High school debate lesson 101; ‘don’t attack someone’s failure with the same challenge that you failed in’ (pardon the preposition).

The overall attempt was to outshine, to find a stage on which the candidate could perform Othello. And while they all have intellect, who among them has wisdom?

The ‘blow them to bits’ mentality of destroying nations has gone way too far. Throwing Russia and China into the mix of hostility would be suicide. Sanctioning Russia and China is a Socialist move, it eliminates competition and hence raises corruption, fraud and ‘prices’. We don’t have the capacity or ability to eliminate China from our markets. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you!

And while I have been a fan of Carly, she is a spot on orator, she was a bit too Hillaryish last night. Angry.  By contrast, Ben Carson and Huckabee didn’t interrupt enough to get air time. Christie was admirable for trying to redirect the animosity away from each other. Trump was Trump. Rand Paul too quiet. Bush too defensive. Kasich elaborated exponentially on self. Rubio was poignant but I don’t care for his politics, Cruz and Walker didn’t offer anything special. I felt I was watching a reality show and began to fantasize that it wasn’t that much different than the portrayal of government in The Hunger Games or some other science fiction flick. But given I don’t watch reality shows, this one had no more appeal to me than any other and I soon flipped the channel to watch Frasier.

Interestingly, even the way in which the media determines winners and losers is remarkably viewed from a perspective of entertainment in evaluating performance rather than substance, in declaring victory for being outspoken without content, in making it a Donald Trump ‘show’, in succumbing to the very childish stance of bullying and victimizing, and in making it a defensive personality show.

I imagine we could have had anyone on stage and they could have performed for the audience – but is that what we need, want and crave? Or do we want someone who is ardently, fervently a defender of our country, of morality, of cohesiveness, and of compassion working in unity to better our economy, our political fraud, our internal government corruption, our budgets and spending fraud, our reputation, someone who truly believes in the words they speak, and we have no doubt will follow to achieve those goals.

Instead we saw our candidates pulled down Alice In Wonderland’s rabbit hole by a media bent on ridiculing the entire party.