Trump and the coming of the second Democratic Party!

Is the GOP about to become just another Democratic Party? The question arises following the GOP's convention in Cleveland that--in a surprise to no one--Trump deemed a "yuge success." (Trump's got more problems with Hs than his inability to aspirate.) But is there any real difference between Hillary's party and Trump's?  The GOP has now embraced several points that the Democrats have long prided themselves on: (1) they had some guy talk about how proud he is to be gay; (2) Ivanka said her daddy is all about equal pay for equal work (embracing the myth that men are paid more than women for the same work); (3) Trump is pro-abortion; (4) Trump's history shows he has been a big contributor to Democratic candidates; and (5) Trump's moral fiber is as tenuous as Bill Clinton’s. This latter point denies credibility to Republican criticism of the Clintons as immoral and unethical. Oh, and the Republicans’ candidate has a campaign staff that not only plagiarizes, but steals from Democrats’ speeches. 

A lot of folks claim that if Trump wins he will nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. What is the basis for believing Trump would look for, much less nominate, a conservative? His record belies his claim. Trump is not a converted pro-life candidate. His sister is a pro-abortion judge of the RBG type. Is it because he said so? In other words, is it his word? Let's examine. 

What do we know about Trump's word? Melania says it is his bond; she, the third Mrs. Trump, should be at least third in the line of doubters , not the chief proponent of the claim. And, having stolen this line from Mrs. Obama's speech, maybe she's not quite the expert on truth she would have us believe.

What about Trump's claimed respect for veterans? Is he not the same Trump who joked that STDs were his own personal Vietnam? Was it not Trump who disrespected Sen. John McCain? Is Trump really any different from Hanoi Jane? What of the Republicans' years of attacking Bill Clinton because of his draft dodging? Again, the GOP has given up the credible argument on this and other points that once distinguished the GOP from the Democrats.

The modern GOP is starting to look a lot like the Democratic Party! 

A few words on "your word is your bond."

Perhaps you’ve heard that Melania Trump used the phrase “your word is your bond” in her speech the other night. This along with other parts were lifted from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech. There’s “information” on the Internet that this phrase has its origins in black America or, more specifically, hip-hop culture. Patently untrue! 

Similar biblical references aside, this phrase appeared in Chaucer around 1400, Cervantes quoted it in Don Quixote about 200 years later, and its first cited reference in America was in 1777 in The Diary of Col. Landon Carter of Sabine Hall. Gregory Titelman, America’s Popular Proverbs and Sayings at p. 223 (2^nd ed. 2000). I don’t know what hip-hop culture is or when it began nor do I care to know; but I dare say Chaucer, Cervantes, and Landon Carter pre-date hip-hop culture. And lest we forget, Scout tells us that “Mr. Radley’s word was his bond . . . .” Titelman (quoting Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird).

It is not a phrase that came out of hip-hop culture specifically or black America in general. (It would be okay if it did, but it didn't.) And contrary to what the Slovenian-born Madame Trump claims it has no Eastern European context.

We’ve had two women whose husbands coveted the presidency assure us that their husbands keep their word. The history of the last eight years is replete with examples of Mrs. Obama’s husband’s failures in this regard. And Madame Trump has forgotten that she is Madame Trump number three. Of course, I might be too hard on the political class. Madame Trump's husband, like Mrs. Obama’s husband, might intend to keep his word only until he decides not to. But then it really wouldn't be much of a bond! 

Will Bill claim that Hillary too was raised to believe that "your word is your bond"?  

Don't let robust go the way of literally!

Excessive use will kill most things or make them less effective; even words. Consider for a moment "literally": a good word whose overuse and misuse have deprived it of real meaning.

http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Confound-it-Hawkins-when-I-said-I-meant-that-literally-that-was-just-a-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8643121_.htm

Once, “literally” meant, well, literally; now it is being accepted as something other than literal. I would go into more detail, but my heart breaks for “literally”; I mean that figuratively. The next time you hear someone say, “He literally bombed on stage" or something similar, roll your eyes as contemptuously as any teenager! Using "literally" for "figuratively" is at Stage 3 on Bryan A. Garner's Language Change Index. (Stage 3: "The form becomes commonplace even among many well-educated people but is still avoided in careful usage.") But let's not let this happen to robust. 

Although "robust" seems to be the word of the moment, this is not good for the future of "robust" as a useful word. 

Robust's definition includes: "1. strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous; 2. Strongly or stoutly built; 3. Suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance; 4. Rough , rude, or boisterous; 5. Rich and full-bodied; 6. Strong and effective in all or most situations and conditions." But there is good reason to think that our politicians and media are on a mission to deprive robust of its, well, robustness. Not intentionally, they're not entitled to that much credit. 

The Obama administration likes to use “robust.”

“President Obama is refusing to acknowledge he needs to change strategy against ISIS after the terrorist attacks in Paris, defending his actions as ‘robust.’”

“Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, ‘we’re still planning to take in Syrian refugees’ . . . there are ‘very robust vetting procedures for those refugees.’”

"FACT SHEET: Obama Administration and Private-Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust Progress to Address Potent Greenhouse Gases[.]"

The military is developing a fondness for robust: “ʻThe French have been a robust partner and a robust member of Operation Inherent Resolve.” We shouldn't put too much stock in the military's word usage; after all, the military and its political overlords gave us "deconflict."

And the media are using it: “Democratic candidates pledge robust ISIS fight, implicitly chiding Obama.” 

In the examples, it’s not that “robust” is used incorrectly in all cases, but it is overused and often there's a better choice. But to know that and to make a better word choice requires work on our vocabulary. Alas, I'm not optimistic!

What is a false or misleading statement made to deceive the people of the United States?

From Art. I of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon:

"making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct."

From our current president, "If you like your policy you can keep it." As shown in this link Dear Leader said this and similar things more than once. Why did he say this? Was he trying to mislead the people of the United States?

Are these false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States?

So, Dear Leader made false public statements that were misleading the people of the United States into believing ObamaCare didn't do the very thing it does: cost a lot of folks insurance that they seemed to be happy with. Or at least as happy as one can be with health insurance.

Bill O'Reilly is a carnival act!

Last night in responding to a viewer's question (why didn't O'Reilly mention Christ's conversation with the thief on the cross in "Killing Jesus"?), O'Reilly replied "because there's no historical evidence that the conversation happened." He then offers his opinion that it would have been impossible to talk because crucifixion kills by suffocation.
I can see his point--after all there are mounds of historical data supporting the resurrection and, comparatively speaking, being resurrected is oodles more possible than talking while hanging on a cross.
O'Reilly's a carnival act!

What? Obama doesn't follow his own legal advice!

There is a problem with following a by-the-seat-of-your pants approach to constitutional interpretation; the Constitution has no settled meaning. But whether you subscribe to the absurd notion of a "living Constitution" or to the more sensible textual-interpretation method, you ought to at least have some idea what you think the Constitution means. Unfortunately, our president (a  former constitutional law professor or senior lecturer) can't meet this standard.

In a 2008 interview with The Boston Globe, Obama said, "The President [sic] does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." So, according to the professor/senior lecturer the before a president can "unilaterally authorize a military attack" the country must be faced with "an actual or imminent threat."  

But Obama is prepared to, "authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the [United States]." We know there is no "actual or imminent threat" because Obama says so. On September 9, 2013, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Assad "doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States." He was even more direct with Fox News's Chris Wallace; telling him, Assad's "threat [is] not direct and imminent to the United States[.]" But he went to Congress anyway despite, in the president's words,  "me believing I have the authority to take, uh, action." (As a matter of grammar our highly educated president should have said, "despite my believing . . . .")

So, where does he get this authority? The Constitution hasn't changed since 2008 when the president lacked this authority. It's not enough to say, "presidents have always claimed this power." Why? Because when Obama snookered citizens into voting for him, he promised to be different than Geo. W. Bush. He was a cut above all the rest!  Obama let his mouth overload his behind when he started tough talk about red-lines and the consequences of crossing them. Obama's problem has been and remains that he thinks he's special, but he's not. And Putin and Assad are about to make a fool of him and this country.

Shame on Columbia University!

Forty-three years ago, the Weather Underground bombed the home of a New York state judge. Here is an article by the judge's son reminding us about this terrorist attacks. Today, a member of this terror group, Kathy Boudin, is a professor at Columbia University's School of Social Work.
According to the university's website, she's been an educator and working for social change since 1964. No mention of her life of crime!
Her crime spree came to an end in the early 80s on a New York thruway, but not before she tricked the police into lowering their weapons so that her bank-robbing cohorts could ambush the police. Her social change resulted in the death of a policeman.  Oh, and before some in her group blew themselves up, they planned to bomb the officers' club at Fort Dix. And Columbia thinks she's worthy of teaching its students. Thanks to Dr. John for the tip about this article.