Bernie Sanders really needs to win on Super Tuesday.

I really hope that Bernie Sanders comes through on Super Tuesday.  After not the greatest showings in Nevada and South Carolina, I am concerned for his campaign.

I think Massachusetts and Vermont will come through for Sanders, but a lot of the states voting on Super Tuesday are southern states, and because the Clintons are from the South, Hillary may have the advantage there.

I was surprised that a lot of Sanders's supporters are twenty-somethings.  They are probably recent college graduates who see very little employment opportunities using the skill-set that they learned in college.  They are probably unemployed or underemployed and they are the first generation to get the full brunt of country destroying policies of Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes.  They see a not very bright future ahead for this country as I do, and Bernie Sanders is the only candidate really promising to do something about it.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her , but her husband has done some lasting damage to this country as well.  NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under his administration has also weakened this country's economy, therefore I worry that Hillary is also a wolf in sheep's clothing.  

I know Barack Obama ran on a platform of change and didn't deliver, but it doesn't mean that Sanders will be the same way.  I think he will at least make the effort.  If Clinton gets into office the Republicans will hem and haw about her, but I think ultimately she will do there bidding and not make any more change than Obama did in his two terms.

It is very important for Sanders supporters to participate on Super Tuesday if is campaign is going to continue to have momentum, so please get out to vote on March 1.

Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union and the death of the middle class. Or mandatory union dues do not limit free speech and here is why.

Destroying organized labor, in the form of labor unions, has always been one of the  ultimate goals of rich Americans and the radical right-wingers that dominate today's Republican party.   To achieve this goal, they have moved almost all manufacturing overseas (when practical) and are in the process of off -shoring as many service jobs as possible, and, of course, with each passing year new technologies are designed to take away more and more jobs.

Pesky labor unions are still around for many state's civil service employees because those jobs are harder to offshore.  But the wealthy right-wingers have been slowly working on taking away the collective bargaining rights of workers.  The ironically named "right-to-work" legislation passed in several states takes away the ability for unions to charge dues and some states to not allow civil service employees to unionize at all (which in my opinion should also be unconstitutional.)  It should be called "right-to-work for low wages and in poor conditions"

The Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union case which was heard before the United States Supreme Court in January would take away all unions' rights to charge mandatory dues to all employees regardless of whether or not they want to participate in the union.  This would weaken any remaining unions in the United States.  Fortunately before the decision could be written up, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia died,  This leaves the case in limbo, and I am not certain if a decision will ever be official.  The lower court had ruled in favor of the Teacher's Union which would maintain unions for now, if the Justices hold the ruling to only the surviving members of the Supreme Court.  However if this attack fails, I am sure there are other lawsuits either in progress or ready to launch trying to do the same thing.

The argument against the California Teachers' Union's right to charge dues to all members, states that mandatory dues take away the right to free speech.  I would agree with that however, unionized employers are now few and far between, therefore workers have a right not to choose to work for a unionized business or organization or not.  Their free speech is protected by them not working for a unionized school district.  I am sure there are union free school districts in California as well as non-union private schools,  Ms. Friedrichs  could have utilized her free speech by choosing to work for one of those districts or schools.  I think free speech should only come into question if all employers in the United States had unions and the worker had no choice as to whether or not to work for a unionized employer.

As the right-wingers constantly push their agenda through, you have progressives like Elizabeth Warren trying to get legislation passed that will force employers to give worker sufficient notice about shift changes and working overtime.  She sponsored the "Schedules that Work Act" which basically regulates how employers can change schedules.  This is something that unions would normally do, but since unions are being eliminated you know have to have laws modify labor practices nationwide.

If the unions are completely wiped-out the American middle-class will eventually be wiped-out as well.  I do not know who Rachel Friedrichs is but if you Google her, you get a picture of someone who has wry smile on her face, a look that says, "I am getting a big payday for doing this, and you stupid unionized workers are all going all be out of jobs or working for minimum wage very soon, heh, heh, heh,"  I am not sure if this was the intention, but that's what the photo looks like to me.

Whether you worked for a unionized employer or not, it is important to support labor unions, if we want to continue to have a middle class, but if the wealthy right-wingers get their way labor unions will quickly become a thing of the past.

Donald Trump's road to the Republican presidential candidate nomination is going as I predicted.

Instead of the ultra-conservative right-wingers trying capitalize on Donald Trump's appeal, they are, of course, flat-out denouncing him as a viable candidate for President.  A recent issue of the conservative magazine "The National Review" has the front cover dedicated to a multi-author feature entitled "Conservatives Against Trump."   The feature's authors go down a laundry list of how Trump is not aligned with conservative movement and therefore not a viable Republican candidate.

Trump is of course winning most of his primaries and caucuses and most likely will continue to do so, because what he says, no matter how nastily he says it, is more in line with what Americans want to hear.

The conservative movement is really for the top 1 percent of earners and magazines like "The National Review," "The Weekly Standard" and news organizations like Fox are out to market it to the masses.  They refuse to see that Trump's success shows that their message is no longer getting through to the American people.  They cannot keep saying that, "white is black" (or in an economic sense "red is black") and get away with it.

I still think that the top 1 percenters and the Tea Partiers are going to continue to denounce Trump every chance they get, and when the time comes for the Republican convention, they will push delegates into voting for the number two candidate instead of Trump.  Whether or not this actually happens, at some point Trump will get disgusted and run as a third-party independent candidate.

I do not think Trump is a serious candidate for United States and he may only be there to help ensure Clinton gets voted into the White House. I can't imagine he says the things he says in such a tactless manner and expects to be taken seriously.   I am willing to bet if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination Trump will drop out of the race altogether.  We can just wait and see what happens.

And to make things worse, billionaire and former NYC Mayor, is also considering running for President as an independent.   I think his candidacy will be more about the hot button issue of gun control, and upset conservatives even further by ensuring a Republican loss.  Whatever happens it is going to be a very interesting election year.

Ted Cruz is Canadian. And he scares me.

Ted Cruz is in my opinion Canadian.  At one point he had dual citizenship.  He has renounced his Canadian citizenship, but this means nothing.  Americans are not allowed to have dual citizenship, period.  Go try to become a citizen of another country and try to remain United States citizen, just try to do it and see what happens  This means that Cruz is Canadian and he should not be allowed to run for United States President.  Yet he seems to have quite a great deal of financial backing to skirt the law.

It is just like the rich elite to want show off how the law does not apply to them.  They are special and they want to get a Canadian in as President just to show how powerful they really are.  

Another thing that bothers me about Ted Cruz aside from this ultra-right-wing agenda is that he is very disturbing to look at.  He is very uncharismatic in my opinion.  While running for President is not a beauty contest, a Presidential candidate should have a certain commanding yet comforting presence.  Cruz just gives me the heebie jeebies.  I cannot see how right-wing supporters can look at him and say, oh this is the guy I want running this country, but I guess he is telling them what they want to here in order to get their financial support.  The appeal is there for them, but I just don't see it.

There are lawsuits against Cruz trying to stop him from running because of his past Canadian citizenship, he should not have the right to.  I am just amazed that this would not scare financial backers away, because he may not be a viable candidate.  Trump has the right to sue him, but hasn't done it yet.  Perhaps he is afraid it will backfire and make Cruz some sore of right-wing martyr.

Ironically, if Cruz becomes President, I think a lot of Americans are going to want move to Canada, but I doubt the Canadians will want to let us in. I hope someone will stop Ted Cruz, because I think that even if Trump wins the Republican party will not let the delegates vote for him at the Republican convention.  And if my theory is correct, Trump will only run as an independent if Hilary wins the Democratic nomination.  

I hope in the end the lawsuits challenging Cruz's right to run for President will eventually do him in as a viable candidate.  

  

My Speculation: Is Donald Trump a shill for Hillary Clinton or could America turn into the United States of Trump?

I know I have all but abandoned this blog.  Who has the time these days?  The recent news of Donald Trump throwing his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for United States President is too hysterical not to comment on.  Below is just all my speculation and opinion.

As other people have speculated, I believe that Trump is not making a serious bid for the White House and if Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, does not get the Democratic nomination, Donald Trump will withdraw from the race altogether.

Have you noticed Donald Trump has been way ahead in polls for the Republican primary? He has really been telling the middle class what they want to hear.  Close the borders, cut taxes on the Middle Class and raise taxes on the wealthy.  This is not what wealthy Republicans want to hear, they want to keep the borders wide open to flood the United States with cheap labor, they want the shrinking Middle Class to pay for everything with through their taxes, and they want their own taxes reduced to nothing.  It doesn't look like Trump will be getting any donations from the wealthy ultra-conservatives. but he doesn't care because he has plenty of his own money.  And if he doesn't get the nomination, he has then threatened to run as third party candidate.  I think here is where things get interesting.

Mr. Trump is a little too crass and blunt for the Republican party style and he knows it.  At some point either top GOP officials will tell him to take a hike, or perhaps at some point he will pretend to get fed up dealing with the GOP and then run as a third party candidate.

Here Mr. Trump is acting  like H. Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton.  In  1992, Perot ran as a Third Party candidate and pretty much divided the Republican vote which helped Clinton to win.   I do not believe Perot was in cahoots with the Clintons, I think he at least made a sincere bid for the White House.   For the 1996 campaign, seeing Perot as a spoiler for the Republican party, the corporate controlled media helped squash Perot's second attempt by not selling him any airtime on their networks and helping with a smear campaign.

The Clintons so desperately want to be back in the White House again and I am not sure why, but I feel that it is most likely that hey are in cahoots with Trump.  I could be wrong and Trump is really making a sincere bid for the White House,  I have to say he does tell the American public what they want to hear.  And he did have his own TV show for a while which may have added to his appeal.   Well if  my speculations are wrong,  America better get ready to change its name to "The United States of Trump."

On a side note, I recently read a book about narcissism and Trump and Charlie Sheen were given as two celebrity examples, oh boy.

Staples closing stores: That was easy!

Bloomberg News Service reported that Staples plans to close 225 stores!  That was easy! But it will be hard on all of those people who will loose their jobs.


Bloomberg reported that fifty-percent of Staples' business now comes from the Internet.  Closing stores is major cost cutting move that will save them $500,000 they reported. 


The major loss of retail jobs is the scariest thing about e-commerce.


And you've got nut-jobs like Jeff Bezos looking to automate all aspects of his online retailing giant Amazon, which includes delivery drones.  Which leads to the question, "When no one has job, whose going to be able to buy all that crap from Amazon or any other retailer?"

One might argue that perhaps that in towns that loose their "Staples" stores, that the mom-and-pop stationary store might make a comeback, but what is more likely to happen is that the Wal-marts and the Targets in the area will just increase their stationary offerings. 


It is stories like these that give me the feeling that another major economic collapse is coming.  Perhaps President Obama should get one of those "Easy Buttons" to make our economic problems go away.

Recommened viewing: The Queen of Versailles

I recently saw this movie about this rich guy named David A. Siegel whose timeshare business, Westgate Resorts was very badly impacted by the 2008 economic collapse.

Near the beginning of the movie Mr. Siegel mentions that he had a hand in George W. Bush  winning the 2000 Presidential election.  The same President whose economic policies that led to the "Great Recession" at the end of his second term in office.  Based on what he said in the movie, I think Mr. Siegel should be subject to a criminal investigation, but I doubt anyone would take up that cause thirteen years after the alleged fact.

Now Mr. Siegel  is a guy that in my opinion should wake-up and realize the importance of Keynesian economics, which basically states that the masses need to be employed and have enough money to feel confident enough to make purchases in order to pump more money into the economy which allows the economy to then in turn grow.  When they do not have money, they cannot afford to invest in things like timeshare resorts and no bank will give them a loan no matter how desperately they want to do so.

Mr. Siegel and the other heads of businesses and industries that depend on the fact that the masses need money to spend in order for their businesses to be profitable should be lobbying the American government to return to Keynesian economics to keep people employed and ready to spend money.  Instead they are just riding things out and hoping that the governments usual supply-side response (or non-response in some cases) will rectify things.  Well, it hasn't in five years and most likely won't any time soon.

According to his wife Mr.Siegel's wife, Jackie, in an August 27, 2013 Orlando Sentinel article written by Hal Boedeker, Siegel was able to salvage his business by selling one of his properties, therefore he was able to come out if this with only some damage to his business and the mega-mansion that he is building will continue to be built in spite of the minor setback depicted in the film.  Therefore I am very doubtful that Mr. Seigel or any person of means will come out on the side of Keynesian economics anytime soon.

If you have a Netflix streaming subscription, at the time of this posting, the movie is currently available for streaming.

You can also buy it from Amazon.com here:




or the physical DVD from Amazon here:



Really worth checking out, if you are interested in finding out more about what is really wrong with this country.