How Bill Clinton was elected for a THIRD TERM .

How Bill Clinton was elected for a THIRD TERM .

It might be just possible that former
President Bill Clinton might
be the luckiest man just yet.

For America , this is one of the "strangest" elections of the 21st Century . It could either go either way. It's Trump , or Hillary . So lets beef up a little speculation . Think , it's 2017 . The new President Hillary R. Clinton . In the last century of the late 20th century our nation was dominated by Bush family (1)>>nepotism ,side by side we also have had Clinton-ism dominate the Democratic party . Most of us do not know much about the U.S. Constitution, but a few rules are universally understood. One is that presidents can only be elected twice. It did not say that brothers  and wives of Presidents can be elected..It's hilarious to say that our American Constitution was not designed where a former President's wife goes on a campaign trail to run for that office . Our  Founding Father's did not  as much foresee this circumstance, The Founders considered putting term limits in the Constitution, but rejected the idea. If politicians are totally corrupted by power, money and fame because they have been in office too long, that is the fault of the voters who keep returning them to office. Term limits just give the voters an excuse not to pay attention.. My bone to pick here is that there is  nothing wrong for a women to be President of the United States as long as she can do the job . My problem is,  we have a former President's wife running for office ! . It just rings of nepotism . Former President Bill Clinton could return to the White House in a completely different position if his wife, former U.S. senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, is elected in 2016.Mrs. Clinton is widely considered the Democratic Party's leading contender for president in 2016, so much so that many believe other potential candidates will likely stay out of the primaries to make way for her run for the nomination. The topic is the power of family dynasty in U.S. politics. It’s embarrassingly big, this tendency to elect people from the same families, and awkward in a country that prides itself on the idea that any (native born) American can grow up to president. Well, here's where it gets fuzzy. Let’s play it out. Here’s a scenario: For whatever reason, after winning the election Hillary steps down from the office of president six months into her first term. (2)>>Bill Clinton takes over for three-and-a-half years. The Dems are not exactly thrilled, but they don’t challenge the move. Republicans, however, go nuts and file a lawsuit, which goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, the 42nd president of the United States would be eligible to serve in his wife's cabinet, though some legal scholars might raise concerns if she were to nominate him secretary of state. Were the former president to be confirmed to secretary of state it would place him in the line of succession to the presidency, and should his wife and her vice president become unable to serve Bill Clinton would become president - an ascension some scholars believe would be in violation of the spirit of the Constitution's 22 nd Amendment prohibition on president's serving a third term. Hillary Clinton's campaign could even become the most expensive one ever in the United States. Her name and network give her a financial power that is nearly impossible to match by the other Democratic contenders. The most profound similarity between the top two democratic candidates is they are both lifelong public servants. Both have law degrees. Mr. Obama earned his from Harvard and Mrs. Clinton from Yale. Barack has accomplished many “first” as a Black person and Hillary has many “first” for a woman. The major difference is Hillary governs from the top (corporations and leaders) down and Barack from the bottom (people) up.   The supposed Achilles heel of Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) has been his reported lack of experience, which is for the direct benefit of Senator Hillary Clinton (New York) and raises her value to deserving the democratic nominee. When one looks deeper, that’s not necessarily the truth, especially since Hillary is fourteen years older than Barack, which has given her additional time to accomplish more.Voters who do not like Bill Clinton, or anything about his time as president, will be unlikely to cast a ballot for Hillary, who may be just like her husband. More importantly, however, is the concern that Hillary Clinton will, in essence, be an extension of the Obama administration (in theory) , but we know whose extension it is : Bill Clinton's .

That's the problem with high school history books. They're mostly myth or whitewash. Don't forget, Washington was offered a throne. What if he had not rejected the idea?

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>nepotism. Currently, there have been two families that have held either the position of President or Vice President of the USA for the past twenty-seven years and this has resulted in this country moving further and further away from the basic truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs..Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications. The British English expression "Bob's your uncle" is thought to have originated when Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, promoted his nephew, Arthur Balfour, to the esteemed post of Chief Secretary for Ireland, which was widely seen as an act of nepotism. (2)>>Bill Clinton. The American dynasties pretty much don't have anything new; they have become more cumbersome than ever. Clintons and Bushes have already ruled over America for 20 consecutive years — 1989-2009. If either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush wins the 2016 presidential election, their families will have occupied the White House for 24 years in a 30-year period — a nepotism that is starting to cause some cringing. Though the Constitution appears to make Bill Clinton and other two-term presidents ineligible for the office of vice president, there's never been a test case.And some political scientists have raised questions about that interpretation.Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton has acknowledged the idea of Vice President Bill Clinton is unrealistic. "He would be good, but he's not eligible, under the Constitution. He has served his two terms and I think the argument would be as vice president it would not be possible for him to ever succeed to the position," she said on the television show Extra.

Why the Republican's are losers!

Why the Republican's are losers!

Trump had the opportunity
to get the African- American
vote , and blew it.

There was a "perfect" time for (1)>>Donald Trump to get the African- American vote , but that opportunity was blasted away with all royal arrogance . Last Saturday , A (2)>>Black Lives Matter protester who disrupted a Donald Trump stump speech  was beaten and kicked by supporters of the loud-mouth candidate. Trump, without stopping his speech, dismissed the disruption.“Get him the hell out of here!” the GOP presidential candidate said to cheers. “Throw him out.”---- Here was prime time for Trump to turn the other leaf , show the nation the he rose higher than the rest of the GOP right wing nut jobs ---- instead he blew it,  getting support from ex- (3)>>KKK David Duke ( if not racist elements)  into the political game . I personally can say that Trump has sent the rest  GOP into corner , yet after spending time listening to the Kansas speechs of the likes of Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio , comparing what they are all saying ( within a bric a brac ) . Like Trump they (Cruz & Rubio ) are saying virtually the same thing . If Trump is extreme , Cruz , Rubio were throwing into the political soup : God , religion , and the right to bare arms .  Honestly I don't recognize  the current Republican party as it was in it's heyday as a party of Civil Rights , even Ronald Reagan to make mention. Hypocrisy is what is eating away the party that calls upon God given rights , but the GOP has  put a blemish to those rights.The immigration problem beside Trump's 10 billion dollar wall is but a echo of what Cruz was just proposing in Kansas . It's the same thing . The same mention : Kick the illegals out . Cruz wants to abolish the IRS , I have  to give him just one star on this proposal . My question , one flat tax rate for who & whom ? , sorry Cruz you wont get away with (4)>>eliminating IRS without dealing with tax and spend state of California. Just ridding the IRS could be bad for the nation . While I hate the IRS , I think our taxes are too high with mention of those who recently sell , or bought homes recently , while the government has a right Constitutionally to levy taxes on us .Mind you, this isn’t even a debate about spending money the government is collecting from taxpayers. It’s about money the government is borrowing from future generations of taxpayers to the tune of more than $18 trillion. Without a regulatory system like the IRS , we must see our taxes go threw the roof , that idea will get most states to find  other means to raise money . Otherwise with the Trump monster on the loose the establishment Republican leadership is afraid. They have not won the young voters , or the "minorities" etc .  They say a failed government shutdown would alienate independent voters in 2016. Apparently, they don’t mind alienating Republican voters. It doesn’t even occur to them that independents might actually be attracted to Republicans with backbone – well the Trump-ites.The Republican race had narrowed to four men: Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Gov. John Kasich. The  GOP candidates have yet to offer compelling alternatives to Obama—leaving us to languish in this political stalemate. The Republican debates, the  aspirants struggling for attention in a more pedestrian setting couldn’t rely on Obama’s rhetorical stiletto swipes. They launched verbal cruise missiles against each other and against the president. The candidates started by aiming less  at the Democrats, and eventually bashed each other, growling, clawing, elbowing and grumbling for two-and-a-half hours on themselves !

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>Donald Trump. The Republican leadership, such as it is, has shrugged off these slurs. Romney, who now spurns Trump, embraced the birther in chief during his 2012 presidential campaign. Cruz and Rubio have echoed Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric. Cruz, casting aside the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, is attacking Trump as a squish because, after deporting undocumented immigrants, Trump would let them apply to re-enter the country legally. (2)>>Black Lives Matter . Yes, Black Lives do matter . As much as Trump's " all lives matter...". Ignoring  the American genocide of Native Americans , yes Black males via gang shooting , police race profiling , shootings again . However, as the Black Lives Matter movement seeks a greater role in shaping the conversation around a justice system that disproportionately affects African Americans, candidates are reacting in decidedly different ways on the campaign trail.How each party responds both rhetorically and substantively to such activists, who have taken to the streets across the country in protest of police brutality and racial profiling, could shape turnout among black voters in November next year. (3)>>KKK David Duke. Having previously blamed a faulty earpiece for failing to condemn KKK, Trump said he couldn't just come out and condemn groups generically because

—Let us dispel with the notion that Donald Trump doesn’t know who David Duke and the KKK are. In 2000, Trump briefly flirted with running for president on the Reform Party ticket, but concluded that the party was too full of extremists.Trump’s complete mendacity coexists with a twisted sort of honesty about his own motives. He doesn’t pretend to be anything but a bigot and a bully. Sunday, a few hours before refusing to condemn white supremacists, he retweeted. Even in the unlikely event Trump had never heard the term “white supremacist,'” “white” coupled with “supremacist” is kind of self-explanatory. Donald Trump declined repeated invitations Sunday to disavow the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke — even though he did just that on Friday."I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump said on CNN's State of the Union. "I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know."After the broadcast, amid a torrent of criticism, Trump tweeted out his answer to a similar question during a Friday news conference — he said then he didn't know about Duke's endorsement, but "I disavow, OK?" Trump was condemned over the weekend by Democrats and many Republicans for seeming to stumble over disavowing Duke and other so-called white activists who have been supporting him. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., has given an interview with white nationalist radio host James Edwards, who once wrote that slavery was the best thing to happen to African-Americans, Politico reported Wednesday. Amid the fears of association with racists, Trump captured victories in seven of the 11 primaries and caucuses held on Super Tuesday and is poised for more victories in coming contests.David Duke, a white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, is urging the listeners of his radio program to volunteer and vote for Donald Trump.“Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program Wednesday, referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. “I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”. (4)>>eliminating IRS. Cruz may not be able to get rid of the IRS, but apparently he got rid off all the schedules on his returns. The sad thing, is people will actually believe Cruz and Rubio are being transparent here. But Cruz also thinks he can eliminate the IRS. Or, in any case, "the IRS as we know it." Has anyone asked him just why he thinks this? His tax plan still has a 10 percent income tax. It has a standard deduction. It has a child tax credit. It has an EITC. It includes a charitable deduction. It includes a home mortgage deduction. And there's a business VAT to replace the corporate income tax. So who's going to oversee and collect and audit all this stuff? It is true that the problems with our tax code are legion. It is also true that for most people, most of the stuff you list has no impact on their federal tax return.Most of the complexity of our tax code is there to provide benefits to the rich, the upper middle class, and businesses. Some of it is also there to provide benefits for the poor and lower middle class because starting with Clinton it just became so much easier to implement benefits via tax credits than more direct methods.The agency has other critical duties, too, above and beyond collecting taxes. Congress requires the IRS to oversee key economic subsidies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families, the mortgage interest deduction and charitable contributions.

Super Tuesday

I can just hear the screams With a string of victories on Tuesday, Trump would advance his strong lead over Cruz, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Ohio Governor John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.. (1)>>SUPER-TUESDAY. Billionaire Donald Trump appears poised to take full control of the Republican presidential race Tuesday evening as results come in from GOP contests in 11 “Super Tuesday” states stretching from New England to the Deep South to Alaska. It's all over for the GOP . The New York Times came out with a useful map this week showing when voting ends in Super Tuesday states. The first polls to close—at 7 p.m. ET—are in Vermont, Virginia, and Georgia.In the Democratic race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would go a long way toward cementing her path to the nomination if she scores big victories of her own over democratic socialist Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday.In the end, Sanders’ chances in the 11 states that vote on Tuesday hinge on demographics. The higher the African-American share of the electorate — the group with which Sanders has most struggled to make inroads, even as he gained popularity within the Democratic Party over the past year — the lower the odds of a Sanders victory.Hillary has brought them to heel. Many of the Arfican-American supporters interviwed in SC said they didn't want to bother to research an alternative candidate.  For the rest of the Republicans in the race , playing the "anti-Trump" game only exposes the reality of this political race. With the exception of Trump the rest of the candidates are stand in stooges . (2)>>My opinion the Republicans really -really want Trump , I'm beginning to think the media is just throwing around Trump's name so people will read their stories.The media has failed to realize that the more they demonize Trump the more popular he becomes. It's great because they can now see that people have had enough with the corruption from both the politicians and the media and mad would be an understatement. I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Hillary will be the Democrat nominee and Trump (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha) will be the GOP nominee (better start figuring out how you guys are going to hold onto your Senate seats). This shock and dismay is exacerbated by the realization that Clinton and Trump are the very best presidential candidates that the once-great USA can put forward at this critical juncture.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>SUPER-TUESDAY. Super Tuesday is a big deal for presidential hopefuls as they continue to campaign and vie for the highest office in the land. The massive series of caucuses and primaries that occur in one day affect both the Democratic and Republican parties. Candidates have been avidly campaigning around the country. The big event affects far more than the contiguous United States as well.  (2)>>My opinion.  Despite Trump’s widespread support across demographics in the Republican primary electorate, GOP leadership is desperately searching for a strategy to stop him from winning the nomination. The blustering New York businessman has vowed to build a wall on the country’s southern border; ban all foreign-born Muslims from entering the US; and, on Sunday, avoided condemnation of Ku Klux Klan leadership, which has largely endorsed his campaign.

From Arnold to Donald. A fair warning !

Euphoria among some voters over the Donald Trump presidential campaign should come as no surprise to anyone closely familiar with California politics. Schwarzenegger and Trump  have a lot of similar characteristics. How they both got / will get elected. You have to blame the political mob : the voter. Although Trump was born in the U.S. of German-Scottish heritage and (1)>>Schwarzenegger immigrated here from Austria at age 21, they share strikingly similar backgrounds, styles and outlooks. I guess people are tired of the same old political establishments  There are troubling "resemblances" between Donald and Arnold   .It was absurdly obvious we had forgotten outright. Donald Trump already happened in California. It was  way back , Oct. 7, 12 years ago that California made history. For the first time, voters in the state went to the polls in a special election to oust the sitting governor and replace him. Not for the first time, Californians chose a former Hollywood actor for that privilege. Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to govern the state until January 2011.With the advent of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, a lot of comparisons have been made to 2003. If a celebrity like Arnold can upend the establishment, the thinking seems to go, why not Donald? So take some fair warning .That year, California's incumbent (2)>>Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, was pulled from office in a recall election. It was a time of disillusionment and cynicism toward the governor and government, amidst a poor economy and rising energy prices.Schwarzenegger had long held political aspirations. He was a wealthy man from his career as a bodybuilding celebrity, film star and businessman. He saw this as his opportunity and ran for the Republican nomination.He fell back on his movie persona as "The Terminator" to pitch California voters that, despite no political experience, he could go to Sacramento and kick "butts" and get the government in order.The ironic thing about Schwarzenegger's time in office is that he never bested any of the indicators Gray Davis was kicked out for. Every single metric Davis was criticized for, Schwarzenegger's numbers were worse. He blustered his way into office, and then failed to live up to his promises. (3)>> Darrell Issa, currently in Congress, used his personal fortune to bankroll the recall election in hopes of taking over as Governor. Unfortunately, Arnold stepped into the race at the last minute (actually making his decision and announcement on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show) and dominated the race almost all the way, even with numerous experienced and generally respected politicians running as well. Arnold skipped the first debate among the front-runners, but cleaned up in the second debate.Arnold had one thing the other candidates didn’t have – celebrity independent of politics. He had instant name recognition from the start, a popular persona generated by his movie roles, and often surprised his opponents (in politics and the media) by being relatively smart and well-versed in economics. Like Trump, Arnold had built a fortune in real estate, and was perceived as somewhat insulated from many of the normal lobbying pressures. He used a self-deprecating sense of humor to deflect many of the personal attacks launched on him by his more run-of-the-mill opponents. Gray Davis’ campaigns used a lot of negative advertising; this worked to some extent against similar politicians, but it boomeranged against Arnold.  So far, the analogy to Trump is similar .Mixing a blend of populism and hard-right scapegoating, Schwarzenegger as governor promoted moderate stands on the environment and gay marriage while savaging state employees with unpaid furloughs and threatening pay cuts in a failed effort to restore fiscal solvency and discipline. Trump, for his part, has sounded almost liberal when he has spoken about his early opposition to the Iraq War and his support for Social Security and Medicare, even as he has viciously targeted illegal immigration and Muslims as the cause of the country's many maladies.
How the Republican Party became the Party of NO.

The Arnold that Californian's elected later turned out to be thoroughly corrupt, I remember how Schwarzenegger would call the California  Democratic legislature "girly men"  , unlike the days when Davis was governor the state could not pass a budget on time , when Arnold came it just got worse . He wanted to solve problems by cutting, dismantling the California beaurcasy   It was like what you all see happening in Washington D.C. during the Obama years , the Republicans may have borrowed a line of obstructionism to the core to fight Obama , but the "tactic" originated here in California with Gov. Schwarzenegger . The term  "the party of No" was seeded here , was adopted .Now, Did Arnold’s business acumen transfer to being able to get political changes in California? No, but in truth, Arnold was up against a very large left wing force in California. Governance of the country will be easier for Trump than the job Arnold took on and failed in CA.The only comparison is the "celebrity" factor, whereas the pollsters can't truly gauge the turnout as there will likely be people voting who usually don't, and people crossing over from the Democrats to vote for someone like a Trump or a Schwarzenegger, who they already know outside of politics.The problem with Schwarzenegger is that he wasn't running on any sort of conservative platform, unlike Trump (i.e., fix the border once-and-for-all, temporarily halt Muslim immigration, fix waste and corruption, etc.) In other words, Trump ran on a Democrat-lite platform and couldn't implement it once in office, but Trump is running on a Republican base platform (cementing core support from the Republican Party base voters).But Schwarzenegger was able to get himself elected as a Republican in a state with 60%+ Democrat majority. Frankly speaking  ( my theory is ) that Schwarzenegger may have been in part because of his celebrity status part of a rigged election to get a republican elected in a state that in majority is Democrat . It worked. Political leadership is not like running a business. Business is a dictatorship. In government, even the president is limited in power. You can’t summon those who are not cooperating and say, “You’re fired.”Worse, Trump’s business record shows he loves to use government power to advance personal interests.  Mr. Schwarzenegger has primarily used the image (like Trump).  that he so carefully cultivated during his body-building career and movie career to demonstrate his bona fides as a tough guy and therefore prove his eligibility for an executive position (like governor).Comparisons of Trump  with Schwarzenegger are alarmingly similar. The latter brought California a hollow government, with little results. Trump’s less-than-optimistic style could similarly take us in the wrong direction, if not into a national disaster.His bullying style brings out divisiveness and hatred. He is a narcissist. He is vindictive. He appears to be emotionally insecure. He is all bark and no specifics. He is admired for his celebrity status and wealth, yet, we know money is a poor measuring stick for character. Remember that  Schwarzenegger said  he decided to run in part to change politics. But his party was in power nationally, and was never  receptive to change. 

TRUMP- Christie Presidency ? .

There are lots of consperacy theories about the latest fiasco in our government politics . Indeed, Donald Trump seems eager to alienate sane voters by embracing conspiracy theories wherever he can find them.  Christie's announcement took many by surprise. Christie's former presidential campaign finance director, Ray Washburne, simply told Politico, " I am shocked." Taken aback by Christie's support, people are grappling to explain why the New Jersey governor is giving a stamp of approval to Trump as prominent members of his party have stepped up efforts to rally the troops around Sen. Marco Rubio in time for Super Tuesday. This endorsement is a slap in the face of the mainstream GOP .Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), raised a bizarre conspiracy theory. As the Miami congressman told a local radio show, maybe Donald Trump’s entire presidential campaign is an elaborate scheme – cooked up by Democrats – to make Republicans look ridiculous and undermine the GOP. I am not surprised that in reality the Republican "party" is secretly endorsing Trump . At this stage of the primary campaign, the Republican Party’s interest lies in weeding out the weak candidates and testing the strong ones to see who can stand up to tough questions,So for the next eight or nine months until Republicans have their nominee. In the longer term, Christie's support equips Trump with a powerful and outspoken surrogate who can match the former reality star's tart tongue and, like him, can inflame a media narrative critical of his opponents.Trump accompanied his rollout of Christie with a stream of invective against Rubio, reflecting the raised stakes ahead of Super Tuesday and the scorched-earth duel now raging between them.

So why are you Crazy for TRUMP ,  rejected MITT ROMNEY ?

Will Mitt Romney soon endorse Trump?

Look American's Trump is a billionaire , a lot less "poorer" ( yet still wealthy though) remember Mitt Romney? We had the 99% er's against the 1% er's way back in 2012 . The Occupy movement was certainly motived against Wall Street , and against Mitt Romney .Trump won't necessarily fix the GOP's image as the party of the rich. The public opinion has changed. Romney was (4)>>shy about his wealth, which made the media very curious. Everywhere Romney campaigned, journalists wanted to know: How could he relate to the everyday Americans whose votes he sought? Let's not forget, Trump endorsed Romney early on in the last nominating cycle (early February 2012 after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina).  Its vary strange to me that comparing Mitt's wealth margin was a big deal , while Trump is clean slate with the avverge Joe. Romney could have done wonders for this country but he refused to be outspoken like Trump. The obvious answer, of course, is that Trump appears to connect with regular people very well. The evidence is even quantifiable: Americans without college degrees and those earning less than $50,000 per year help form the foundation of his campaign. He does much better with them than with rich and more-educated people like himself.Romney, on the other hand, fared better on the higher ends of the income and education scales — from the earliest days of the campaign to the first primary states and all the way to the general election. There’s plenty of anecdotal proof, too. Just look at the enthusiastic crowds Trump gets in working-class communities; Romney never connected with this demographic.Something about Trump seems to make people say, “Hey, if I struck it rich, I’d be a lot like him.” Romney never possessed that quality. As polling has shown consistently, Donald Trump tends to do better among voters with lower incomes than he does among those with higher incomes. This is true of education as well: In the New Hampshire primary, Trump won 23 percent of the votes of those with a post-graduate degree, but 46 percent of those with only a high school degree or less. He's the closest thing the GOP has found to a candidate of the common man in a long time. Romney wants to keep his toe in the tub to keep testing the waters. And after doing this, Mitt fumbled around on the national stage and lost the most winnable election of modern times... even though the GOP leadership and the media told us Romney was the "most electable".

(----------------------------------------------)

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>Schwarzenegger.  Arnold's legacy , The Cato Institute, which issues a bi-annual Fiscal Report Card on America's governors, grading them A to F on their fiscal performances, awarded Schwarzenegger a D in his final years as California's governor.Here's Cato's summary of Schwarzenegger's governorship: "Schwarzenegger has made some reforms to California government, but he will be handing over a giant economic and fiscal mess to the next governor. State unemployment is over 12 percent, the state's pension system has massive funding gaps, and the state's bond debt has exploded. According to Moody's, California's state debt soared from 2.5 percent of state income when Schwarzenegger came to office in 2003 to 4.4 percent in 2009. The rising debt is a looming threat to state taxpayers, yet California's personal, corporate, and capital gains tax rates are already some of the highest in the nation." (2)>>Gov. Gray Davis. Gray Davis was touted as “perhaps the best-trained governor-in-waiting California has ever produced.”, due to his position for years as Jerry Brown’s Chief of Staff (during Jerry’s first and second terms in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s), and his subsequent positions in state government (Legislature, Controller, Lt. Governor). He easily won election over Atty.Gen. Dan Lungren in 1998, and almost as easily over William Simon Jr. in 2002. During his first term, he benefited from a state budget surplus which he used to greatly expand various social programs. However, his second-term campaign was marred by the end of the dot-com boom and by the electricity crisis (which only later brought down Enron), which was exacerbated by his agreement to unwise long-term energy contracts. Having spent the temporary state surplus on ongoing programs, his later years saw the state facing large deficits as tax receipts fell. He was known as a policy wonk, whose personal charisma was reputed to reflect his name. He also reportedly engaged in “pay for play” practices, which often favored behind-the-scenes donors. He was perceived as corrupt, even if not prosecutable. (3)>>Darrell Issa. In 2003, Issa led the effort to recall California Governor Gray Davis. (Davis was undone by the energy crisis which crippled the Golden State thanks in large part to market manipulation by Enron.)  But part two of the Issa plan - to capture the Governor's office himself - abruptly ran aground when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to get in the race.  Darrell Issa helped the  election of Schwarzenegger to replace Davis sent shock waves through the political establishment. A recall of a sitting governor had only happened once in the country’s history (1921 in North Dakota).Even though Schwarzenegger had mixed success building on his early popularity and some of his programs alienated conservative supporters, those behind the original recall say they have no regrets. (4)>>shy about his wealth. So how much are we talking about?Trump was 153rd on the Forbes magazine's list last year of the richest people in America, with a net worth of $2.4 billion. Most of his money comes from real estate.Romney, former CEO of Bain & Co., was worth between $190 million and $250 million, based on a personal financial disclosure form he filled out in advance of the 2008 presidential campaign. In that race, Romney spent $45 million of his own money. On Fox News Channel on Wednesday, Romney raised an issue with which he is well-acquainted, calling on Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to release their back taxes. Though Romney gave lip service to the other Republican candidates, it became clear that Trump was the intended target of Romney’s remarks:“We have good reason to believe there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes […] Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or the disabled like he’s been telling us he’s been doing.”Romney makes for a strange messenger on this issue, having steadfastly declined similar calls to release his own tax returns during his 2012 presidential bid. (Romney eventually did release his returns.)

Let's REALLY (REALLY!) end the War on Drugs.

Let's REALLY (REALLY!)  end the War on Drugs.

Candidates running on both sides have expressed minimal responses on the current wave of legalization of Marijuana across several  States , yes it's legal in Washington DC . It's always puzzled me for a while after hearing Hillary R Clinton , Jeb Bush in two recent interviews on their perceptions of legalization . (1)>>They are both on the same hard line. So here is an analysis of both of them.  First, make no mistake: Jeb is a drug warrior."Some try to make the drug epidemic just a criminal justice issue, and some try to make it just a health care issue. These singular approaches oversimplify this complex challenge," the campaign said in a statement outlining the plan. "Governor Jeb Bush believes we need a multi-faceted strategy that: prevents drug abuse and addiction; strengthens criminal justice; secures the border to stop the flow of illicit drugs; and improves treatment and recovery programs." He said at a Town-hall meeting recently . By some accounts, he was one of the “best drug warriors in town” during his eight year stint as Florida’s governor. While there he took on the cocaine cartels and oversaw a slight reduction in drug-fueled violence. That’s the shiny part of his governorship; the rest was much more bleak. A vast majority of Governor Bush’s policy stances were indicative of and inspired by the larger failed trends in the war on drugs: He successfully lobbied against a ballot initiative that would have treated nonviolent drug offenders instead of jailing them, he cut funding to treatment centers and drug-courts, he increased mandatory minimum jail sentences for drug-related crimes, and, in 2014, stepped out of term limit-imposed retirement to urge Floridians to vote against an ultimately doomed medical marijuana bill that had, at one point, enjoyed nearly 90% support. The Democratic side has always supported the same stance on Drugs . 
The Clinton Crusade outcomes.

(1.2)>>Hillary Clinton wants to run for president as an economic populist, as a humane progressive interested in bolstering the fortunes of poor and middle class Americans. But before liberals enthusiastically sign up for Team Hillary, they should remember this: In the late 1990s, Bill Clinton played in instrumental role in creating the world’s largest prison system — one that has devastated our inner cities, made a mockery of American idealism abroad, and continues to inflict needless suffering on millions of people. And he did it with his wife’s support. The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI. In her speech at Columbia University on last year , Clinton called for an end to mass incarceration and recommended that police departments have officers wear body cameras.“Earlier today, Hillary Clinton proposed various criminal justice reform ideas in an attempt to undo some of Bill Clinton’s work — the same work she cheerfully supported as first lady,” a statement from the Kentucky senator’s campaign reads.The release cites an April 13 Salon article titled “The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How ‘tough-on-crime’ politics built the world’s largest prison system.”

World Wide implications of American war on Drugs.

AS remarkable as it seems the Clinton era of American politics was also the period where  the United States took part in making and shaping international laws , poring in billions into other nations to set up drug laws that persecuted individuals in the harshest and  most inhumane methods available . The war on drug's policy spread to other nations creating human rights violations . For decades, Washington’s crusade against illegal drugs has destroyed lives, (2)>>destabilized civil society and generally wreaked havoc on Mexico and the countries of Central and South America.Since October, more than 50,000 children and adolescents (mainly from Central America) have successfully made the trek through Mexico to reach the United States. Others have perished at the hands of the drug gangs that control the trafficking routes. Extortion, kidnapping and rape are all-too-common along these routes. Traffickers frequently force refugees passing through Mexico to become drug mules — they’re forced to smuggle small shipments of drugs as they make their way to the United States.The refugees are fleeing not only grinding poverty but widespread carnage, inflicted mostly by powerful Mexican-based drug cartels and other criminal gangs. Honduran President Juan Hernandez blamed U.S. drug policy for sparking violence in Central American countries and driving a surge of migration to the United States, Hernandez, who took office in January after winning on a pledge to be tough on crime, said only a drop in violence would curb the wave of families and unaccompanied minors fleeing Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras who have overwhelmed temporary detention facilities on the U.S. border."Honduras has been living in an emergency for a decade," Hernandez told Mexican daily newspaper Excelsior. "The root cause is that the United States and Colombia carried out big operations in the fight against drugs. Then Mexico did it." The evidence is overwhelming that American drug policies have also created dictatorships . Since the American stance on the drug war started since the 1970's the number of countries applying the death penalty for drugs offenses has increased. In 1979 there were 10 countries that executed drug offenders. By 1985, that number had increased to 22; by 2000, to 36 (although it declined to 33 in 2012). Some years have seen as many as 1,000 drug-related executions, many of them in Iran, Singapore and China, where precise figures are unavailable. Thousands of individuals are on death row in Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa for drug offenses. Indonesia offers a particularly gruesome example. In 2015, 14 prisoners there, mostly foreign nationals, were killed by firing squad.Worse off in Indonesia the government is corrupt enough that it's also trying to extort money from innocent  tourists by planting drugs on would be victims  Reports indicate hapless foreigners have paid up to US$45,000 in "bribes" to have the Balinese overlook their alleged / phony narcotics possession. What a nasty island Bali now is. Examples above is how America is seeding money to these countries to fight it's war on drugs , while at the same time corrupting them . The War on Drugs and the corruption it fosters in government, theirs and ours, is the problem, not the solution. Escalating the WOD will increase the profits for the bad guys on both sides, the cartels and their jackboot opponents, but the rest of society will suffer and pay the price as our rights are stripped away and are caught in the crossfire between organized crime syndicates, private and government. The WOD is a for-profit racket for all the cronies involved, replete with lobbyists in Washington DC. There’s the SWAT industry with all their expensive toys, the prison industry that make a profit housing all the mostly non-violent offenders, the trial-lawyer industry, pharmaceutical companies that don’t want cheaper, safer competition, to name a few of the players.

Just like freedom was the solution to the corruption and crime caused by alcohol prohibition, so to freedom is the solution to the WOD.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>They are both on the same hard line. Democrats & Republicans have in the most part in the last 40 years contributed to the strict mentality of the law on the drug war , it contributed to a disastrous course. Simply saying The American war on Drugs like it's war on Terror is costly . It's has also contributed to the national debt .   The Republican shift on weed comes as more and more Americans are starting to embrace the idea of legalization. Colorado and Washington residents can already get high whenever they want, and Alaska and Oregon will vote on similar measures to legalize recreational use this year. Recent surveys show that about half of Americans—including 58 percent in this January Gallup poll—now support legalization, up from about 30 percent in 2000. Those numbers are even greater among young people: According to a new Pew Research Center study on millennials, 68 percent of people ages 18 to 33 support legalizing weed, up from 34 percent just eight years ago.The issue has all of the makings of a culture-war blowout, pitting old-guard conservatives against a new cadre of young, more socially liberal conservatives. On one hand, the GOP is desperate to attract a younger crowd, a task the Pew report suggests is becoming increasingly difficult, as younger voters are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, tend to support abortion rights, and think the government should provide more services. That leaves marijuana legalization as one of the few issues where Republicans actually have a shot at appealing to voters under 30. On the other hand, the dwindling opposition to weed remains concentrated among older Republicans, the party’s most reliable voter base. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Democrats other lawmakers enacted a wave of tough-on-crime measures, driven by record spikes in violent crime and a crack epidemic that was ravaging major cities and poor and minority communities across the nation. Those laws, backed by both Democrats and Republicans, would lead to millions of people behind bars or dead, give rise to increasingly militarized police forces, and funnel billions of dollars into a global war on drugs. In 1988, Biden helped usher in harsher penalties for drug possession and create the Office of National Drug Control Policy, run by the "drug czar." The rhetoric of the first chief, William Bennett, recalled that of Harry Anslinger, the much-criticized first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a precursor to the modern-day Drug Enforcement Administration.Anslinger was the father of the war on marijuana and often used racial fears to gin up support for drug prohibition. For his part, Bennett once said he didn't have a problem with beheading drug dealers and was disappointed that those dealers, when arrested, could not be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. Bennett's hard line would define the drug czar's office for many years.Even today, the office is legally barred from supporting the legalization of any Schedule I substance. But the current drug czar, Michael Botticelli, has moved away from its tough-on-crime roots toward a more health-focused approach, favoring treatment over incarceration. (1.2)>>Hillary Clinton. In August 2015, an uncomfortable encounter between Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors and Hillary Clinton finally broke the silence of many mainstream press outlets on the Clintons’ shared responsibility for the disastrous policies of mass incarceration, and its catalyst, the War on Drugs. Although a number of prominent academics have written on the subject, little popular discussion of the racial impact of the Clintons’ crime and punishment policies emerged until the opening volleys of the 2016 presidential race. A true paradox lies at the heart of the Clinton legacy. Both Hillary and Bill continue to enjoy enormous popularity among African Americans despite the devastating legacy of a presidency that resulted in the impoverishment and incarceration of hundreds of thousands of poor and working-class black people. Most shockingly, the total numbers of state and federal inmates grew more rapidly under Bill Clinton than under any other president, including the notorious Republican drug warriors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. (2)>>destabilized civil society. U.S. federal, state, and local governments now spend $50 billion per year trying to make America "drug free." State prison budgets top spending on public colleges and universities. The prison industrial complex is ever more powerful. Nevertheless, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer, and easier to get than ever before.The same destruction has occurred in America. Millions of lives have been ruined through crime, murder, extortion, addiction, incarceration, etc. All because we didn't learn THE lesson of alcohol prohibition -- government cannot force people to avoid addictive substances through laws. We may as well try to outlaw smoking or sex. It doesn't work. Having said that, if there were no drug users, there wouldn't be a drug trade, so users massively contribute to the problem through demand for these products.