Skip to content

Month: January 2016

The future narcissist in chief

The future narcissist in chief

by digby

He takes credit for everything good that happens and then says he would have done it better.

Republican primary front-runner Donald Trump on Saturday said his rhetoric condemning the Iranian regime played an integral part in securing the release of four U.S. prisoners.

“So I’ve been hitting them hard, and I think I might have had something to do with it,” Trump said at the South Carolina Tea Party Convention in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

“You want to know the truth, who’s using it? It’s a part of my staple thing. I mean, I go crazy when I hear about this,” he added.

“They’re in one of the worst prisons in the world, and we had to do something, so I’d always talk about it.”

Iran on Saturday released four U.S. citizens, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, 39, who had been incarcerated for the last 18 months.

The release came as part of a prisoner swap, in which the U.S. freed seven Iranian-Americans who were being held on sanctions-related charges.

The U.S. also agreed to drop international charges against 14 other Iranians suspected of sanctions violations.

The billionaire businessman said he did not think the prisoner exchange was a fair trade, citing the billions of dollars in frozen assets Iran will receive from the nuclear agreement.

“They’re getting seven people that they’ve wanted, much more serious, real people – real people meaning they’ve committed real problems – and they’re getting I guess 14 or 15 other people that are on the watch list – these are really bad dudes, and they’re being taken off the watch list,” he said.

“We give them $150 billion, we give them essentially 22 people – 21, 22 people – but these are people that really did have problems, and we’re getting back four people who didn’t do anything wrong,” he added.

“That’s the way we negotiate. That’s the way we negotiate. It’s so sad. It’s so sad.”

Honestly, I can’t understand what kind of person likes this self-serving, puerile nonsense. How can anyone take this bullshit seriously?

But those have the famous last words of many a person in history, haven’t they?

.

QOTD: Jonah Goldberg, stopped clock edition

QOTD: Jonah Goldberg, stopped clock edition

by digby

On the birther question:

Other than the presidency, there’s no place in American life where the distinction between “naturalized” and “natural-born” citizenship matters. But imagine if it did? Imagine that your American-born mother just happened to give birth to you in Canada or Belize while on vacation. Your American-born mom and dad bring you home days later and raise you exactly as they would have had they been in Cleveland the whole time. 

Now imagine there are also all sorts of jobs you are barred from having. Not only can you not be president, but you can’t be, say, a chiropodist or an embalmer. Pick your restrictions: You can’t go to certain colleges or you can’t get the best ESPN bundle. Americans born abroad can’t buy basset hounds. Unless you were born here, you can’t get cheese on your hamburger. 

Whatever. It really doesn’t matter. If that were the case the Constitution would be amended — either properly or through interpretation — to get rid of this distinction instantly (which means this would have happened centuries before the invention of ESPN, but you get the point).

My point is simple: This issue remains unsettled because it matters so little.

When he’s right he’s right. Who gives a damn? When this was put in the Constitution there was a real question about someone of foreign birth have loyalty to another country. America was a new nation and colonialism was still the way the world was being organized. Things have changed. And nobody with any sense really gives a damn — it’s a political tactic. It’s true that there are right wingers who undoubtedly think Obama was some sort of Kenyan Candidate but it’s highly doubtful that anyone cares about Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth. Please.

But you can’t help but read this and think about DREAM kids who’ve been here their whole lives and live as Americans being told they have to go live in a country they’ve never known.

But that’s different, right?

.

Ben, I just want to say one word to you. Water. by @BloggersRUs

Ben, I just want to say one word to you. Water.
by Tom Sullivan



Detroit Water & Sewerage Water Treatment Plant

The United States used to be the subject of Michael Moore documentaries. Now we are living in one. Moore was in his home town of Flint, Michigan yesterday to protest the contamination of the city’s water with lead:

FLINT, MI — Filmmaker Michael Moore accused Gov. Rick Snyder of poisoning Flint water in a rally here today, Jan. 16, and called again for the U.S. attorney general to investigate the governor for what he called crimes against the city.

“I am standing in the middle of a crime scene …,” Moore said. “Ten people have been killed … because of a decision to save money.”

Yesterday, President Barack Obama declared a federal emergency in Flint, freeing federal dollars to help “save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in Genesee County.”

There is a long backstory to this situation. Wouldn’t you know, as Moore said, it involves money.

“A manmade catastrophe”

Before the credits roll for The Big Short, the screen goes black and a series of “where are they now” statements about the protagonists appears as an epilogue, including this one:

Michael Burry contacted the government several times to see
if anyone wanted to interview him to find out how he knew the
system would collapse years before anyone else. No one ever
returned his calls. But he was audited four times and
questioned by the FBI. The small investing he still does is
all focused on one commodity: water.

That raised my eyebrows. I’ll get to why later. It also raised eyebrows at Barrons, Business Insider, and investor sites. Burry (played on film by Christian Bale) gave an interview to New York Magazine:

The last line of the movie, printed on a placard, is “Michael Burry is focusing all of his trading on one commodity: Water.” It sounds very ominous. Can you describe this position to me?
Fundamentally, I started looking at investments in water about 15 years ago. Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not — water is political, and litigious. Transporting water is impractical for both political and physical reasons, so buying up water rights did not make a lot of sense to me, unless I was pursuing a greater fool theory of investment — which was not my intention. What became clear to me is that food is the way to invest in water. That is, grow food in water-rich areas and transport it for sale in water-poor areas. This is the method for redistributing water that is least contentious, and ultimately it can be profitable, which will ensure that this redistribution is sustainable. A bottle of wine takes over 400 bottles of water to produce — the water embedded in food is what I found interesting.

Burry’s approach sounds relatively benign. Relative, that is, to the the approach of multinationals investing in water, as I wrote in 2014:

Privatizing water supplies is a growth industry. Whether it’s American Water, Aqua America, Suez, Veolia Water, or Nestle, private water companies are competing to lock up water resources and public water systems. If not for you, for the fracking industry. As with charter schools and vouchers in public education, public-private partnerships are one of business’ favorite tactics for getting this particular camel’s nose under the tent.

When Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s emergency manager took charge in Detroit this year, it was no accident that the first public infrastructure up for sale was its water and sewer system. They began by shutting off water to thousands of poor residents behind on their bills. Local activist Maureen Taylor told the Netroots Nation conference in July [timestamp 1:08:45], “This monstrous thing that’s going on in Detroit … beyond demonic … You gotta leave here changed! … Water is a human right.”

But that’s not how the investor class sees it. They see water as an asset capable of producing reliable returns. It is like public education and health care that way. People have to have it. People will pay for it. Investors just have to wrest control of the supply and the distribution from public entities. As Naomi Klein suggested, sometimes that involves taking advantage of a disaster, or creating one. With Detroit’s bankruptcy and Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, it was a little bit of both:

Detroit’s Water and Sewage Department provides water service to the city and eight suburban counties that account for 40 percent of Michigan’s population.

In a June 14 proposal to the city’s creditors, Orr said he hoped to spin off the water and sewer services into an independent authority.

Independent authority is step one on the way to full privatization. Sally Kohn wrote in July 2014:

Why would any city want to privatize its water system? A report by Corporate Accountability International (CAI) shows that water privatization fairly universally leads to higher prices for cities and consumers and, in many cases, decreased efficiencies. In fact, the track record for water privatization is so abysmal that CAI found more than 20 American cities that had once privatized their water have taken back control of their systems since 2002. If water privatization is bad for the city of Detroit and its residents, who is it good for? Corporations. Which is where the state’s interest comes in.

That’s state in the Republican, free-market, vampire squid sense of the word. Kohn cited Ned Resnikoff:

City agencies and entire school districts have been outsourced or privatized; public employees have been laid off in droves; municipalities have sold off vast swaths of public land; and city employee unions have seen their contracts whittled down to nothing. All of this was accomplished in the space of three and a half years. Michigan’s Emergency Manager system is what made it possible.

Two years later, here we are:

LANSING President Barack Obama on Saturday declared a federal emergency in Flint, freeing up to $5 million in federal aid to immediately assist with the public health crisis, but he denied Gov. Rick Snyder’s request for a disaster declaration.

A disaster declaration would have made larger amounts of federal funding available more quickly to help Flint residents whose drinking water is contaminated with lead. But under federal law, only natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods are eligible for disaster declarations, federal and state officials said. The lead contamination of Flint’s drinking water is a manmade catastrophe.

Nothing new here

Okay, it is not immediately clear exactly how the decision to switch Flint’s water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River makes somebody money. But given the history, you can smell it. North Carolina has been trying to get control of our local water system since our former ALEC state legislator rammed through a piece of legislation to forcibly take it. (The attempt to get control of Charlotte’s airport failed.) That is still in the courts. Even a local Republican wrote an op-ed declaring the effort to “study” the issue was “more like somebody casing a bank,” trying to figure out how to rob it without getting caught. In the end, it’s always about the money. It changes people.

Towards the end of The Big Short, conflicted and angry hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell) is finally breaking down to his wife over his brother’s suicide:

MARK
Before… my brother… committed
suicide… when he told me he was
having bad thoughts… My first
response was… to offer him some
money. My brother was in pain. Real
pain. And I offered him… money.

CYNTHIA
You tried to help. There’s no
perfect way…

MARK
All this greed in the world. Maybe
I’m not so above it. Maybe I’m part
of it. And it’s changed me. Changed
me into a person who’s not able to
reach out to someone who’s hurting
without money being a part of it.

Update: Changed a line to clarify that the backstory, as Michael Moore said, involves money.

Wolves, bison and bears…oh my: “The Revenant” by Dennis Hartley

Saturday Night at the Movies


Wolves, bison and bears…oh my: The Revenant ***½


By Dennis Hartley









“Nah, man…I gotta remember: NEVER get outta the boat!”
-from Apocalypse Now


If there’s one thing I’ve learned reading Jack London and Joseph Conrad and watching countless adventure movies over the years, it’s this: never get out of the goddam boat. Remember what happened in Apocalypse Now , when they got out of the boat? Aguirre, The Wrath of God, The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad . Uh, Deliverance? It very rarely ends well.


Latest case in point: Alejandro Inarritu’s sprawling survivalist epic, The Revenant. Once “they” get out of the boat, everything goes to hell in a handbasket; in this case, an authentic, hand-woven handbasket crafted by authentic First Nation peoples, in an authentic rustic setting. Inarritu’s film is not only steeped in gritty and authentic Old West verisimilitude, but tells its tale in real time. OK, I’m exaggerating-it’s only 3 hours.


The story is set in the early 19th Century, “somewhere” in the Rocky Mountain region of the Louisiana Purchase (I assume, as there are Frenchmen wearing fur hats lurking about). Leo DiCaprio stars as a crackerjack woodsman named Hugh. He and his half-Native American son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) have hired on as guides for a pelt-hunting expedition. After the party is ambushed by Indians, Hugh leads the survivors into the deep woods. While temporarily separated from the party, Hugh is severely mauled by an actual “grizzly mom” (it is the film’s most harrowing scene, which is really saying a lot).


His compatriots find him, barely alive, and begin to carry him along. However, they soon find the terrain too daunting to navigate with a stretcher. Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), one of the more mercenary members of the party, suggests putting Hugh out of his misery so they can make tracks. The party’s Captain (Domhnall Gleeson, son of Brendan) briefly considers the option, but decides to leave Hugh in the care of Hawk and a young volunteer named Jim Bridger (Will Poulter…playing who I can only assume is the Jim Bridger of legend, since the screenwriters take no pains to elucidate). One more man is needed, but the Captain has to first sweeten the pot with the offer of a reward. Guess who steps up? If you guessed our mercenary friend with dubious motivations, you are correct.


What ensues earns what I like to call my “3G” rating (Grueling, Grinding, and Gruesome). It’s a quasi-biblical, “to hell and back” tale of betrayal, suffering, fortitude and (drum roll please)…redemption. It’s also a bit of the aforementioned for the viewer, as he or she is required to channel the patience of Job while awaiting the redemption part.


Which reminds me of a funny story. Around halfway through, I had to excuse myself for a few minutes (hey-let’s see you try making it through a 3 hour flick with a 59 year-old prostate…and fellow sufferers be warned that the sights and sounds of babbling brooks, surging rivers and roiling rapids abound throughout). Anyway, as I left the auditorium, I noted that the recovering but not yet fully ambulatory Leo was slowly, painfully, crawling through brambles. I go do my thing; when I return to my seat several minutes later, I note Leo is still slowly, painfully crawling through brambles. I whispered to my friend, “So I take it I didn’t miss anything?” He confirmed that my intuition was spot on.


While I stand by my conviction that the film would not have suffered from judicious trimming, it still has much to recommend it, particularly for fans of adventures like Black Robe , The New World , The Last of the Mohicans, Dances With Wolves , Never Cry Wolf, or The Naked Prey. In context of its striking visual poetry, there is one film evoked that must have inspired Inarritu and/or his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and that is Letter Never Sent , Mikhail Kalatozov’s tale about a state-funded quartet of Russian geologists who become trapped by a wildfire while diamond-hunting in Siberia. The 1960 film was breathtakingly photographed by Sergey Urusevskiy, also renowned for his work on Kalatozov’s The Cranes are Flying and I Am Cuba (my review). Like Urusevskiy, Lubezki fuses natural light wide-angle photography with classically composed long shots and audacious hand-held takes that make you scratch your head and wonder  “how in the hell did the camera operator shoot that without running into a tree?!”


The director and screenwriter Mark L. Smith co-adapted their screenplay from Michael Punke’s 2002 book The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge. I didn’t realize until doing a little research after seeing the film that Hugh Glass was a real-life trapper and frontiersman (how I know who Jim Bridger is, yet have never heard of this guy…is one of life’s mysteries). I also learned this is not the first film based on Glass’ exploits; that honor goes to a 1971 western called Man In The Wilderness, directed by Richard C. Sarfian (how I know and love Sarfian’s 1971 classic Vanishing Point , yet have never heard of his other 1971 film…is another of life’s mysteries). What isn’t such a mystery are the 12 Oscar nominations, which include Best Actor and Supporting Actor for DiCaprio and Hardy. DiCaprio earns his statue for the al fresco dining alone (you’ll know when you see it). Hardy is perfect playing a character who could be an ancestor for those mountain men in Deliverance. And I can’t emphasize this enough: Never, never get outta the boat.


More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

Cruz unleashes the beast

Cruz unleashes the beast

by digby

And it’s mad:

Jerry Falwell and Tinky-Winky

Katie Zezima and Dave Weigel report:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slammed Donald Trump on Saturday, casting him as a false conservative and questioning the real estate mogul’s temperament and judgment.

Cruz’s remarks open up a new front between the two Republican front-runners, with Cruz aggressively hitting the New Yorker for the first time while on the campaign trail.

“Donald’s record does not match what he says as a candidate,” Cruz told reporters in Fort Mill, S.C.,

“It seems Donald has a lot of nervous energy. For whatever reason Donald doesn’t react well when he’s going down in the polls,” Cruz said.
[…]
Trump escalated his attacks on Cruz in a series of tweets Saturday morning, stating that additional lawsuits will be filed questioning Cruz’s eligibility to be president, knocking him for not reporting loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank that he used to fund his 2012 Senate campaign. Trump said Goldman “owns” Cruz and he will “Do anything they demand.” Cruz’s wife is on leave from her job as an executive director at Goldman.

Trump called Cruz the “ultimate hypocrite,” linking to a story about how Cruz raised money at the New York home of two wealthy gay businessmen.

Cruz pointed to the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that shows him beating Trump in a two-man race — although Trump leads the entire field.

“And I imagine it pulled him out of bed this morning and sent him tweeting and tweeting and tweeting. I think in terms of a commander-in-chief, we ought to have someone who isn’t springing out of bed to tweet in a frantic response to the latest polls,” Cruz said.

“I think the American people are looking for a commander-in-chief who is stable and steady and a calm hand to keep this country safe.”

Well, we’ll see. There do seem to be a lot of people who want a commander in chief who’ll just “bomb the shit out of ’em” and “have so many victories they’ll be coming out our ears.”

Cruz’s campaign also went on the offensive, tweeting and emailing a video of Trump on “Meet the Press” in 1999 where Trump said he is “very pro-choice” and talks about gay marriage and gays serving in the military through the lens of someone who lives in New York.

“I lived in New York City and Manhattan my whole life, so my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa,” Trump said. Cruz said this week that Trump represents “New York values,” stating during the debate that they are “socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.”

Trump offered an emotional defense of city, speaking movingly of the Sept. 11 attacks. Cruz apologized on Friday to New Yorkers – for their liberal elected officials.

Cruz said Saturday that the “New York values” phrase came from Trump himself.

During the 1999 interview Trump described New York values as “being very, very very pro choice, supporting partial birth abortion and being open to gay marriage. That’s what Donald Trump described as New York values,” Cruz said.

I’m guessing Cruz has had this video for quite some time and was waiting to unleash it. It’s a testament to the ineptitude of the others that they didn’t have it as well. Especially Jeb. It seems very odd that he wouldn’t have wanted to hit Trump on his admission of being “very pro-choice” and “pro-gays in the military.” Just saying he had different values than people in Iowa is bad news.

A Cruz aide said that the campaign will attempt to highlight contrasts between Cruz and Trump when it comes to “guiding principles” and records of accomplishment. This person said the campaign wants to point out differences between the two that show Cruz is “better prepared, that people can be confident that he has guiding principles to make critical decisions as president and commander in chief ,” this person said.

“I don’t think the voters have that same confidence in what Donald Trump’s guiding principles are other than he would make a deal and compromise on any given issue, and then he has policy proposals that just don’t seem serious,” this person said.

When asked why Cruz decided to go after Trump this week, the person said, “We have three weeks to go” until the Iowa caucuses.

Cruz’s surrogates have also gone on the offensive, highlighting Trump’s lifestyle and multiple marriages.

This is interesting, though. Huckabee obviously really hates Cruz (or self-servingly thinks he’ll get more personally out of a Trump nomination)

Cruz has spent the entirety of his campaign trying to gain the support of evangelical Christians and tea party conservatives. One of Cruz’s rivals for religious voters, Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, arrived at a tea party convention in Myrtle Beach, S.C., several hours before Cruz was set to speak. In the New York values debate, Huckabee might have been expected to pick Cruz’s side: In his pre-campaign book “God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy,” Huckabee described New York as the capital of “Bubble-ville,” a city of filthy streets and empty churches. But Huckabee, who has watched Cruz capture many of the social conservative voters that backed his 2008 campaign, repeatedly defended Trump.

“I think Donald Trump did a great job the other night of talking about the kind of values that we saw and the sacrifice of New Yorkers after 9/11,” said Huckabee, recalling his own visit to the “smoldering” World Trade Center. “I think everybody in the world was just absolutely amazed at how the people of that city pulled together and rebuilt.”

Get a load of this amazing display of smarmy hypocrisy from a hardcore member of the Christian Right:

“New York politics are different than they are in Arkansas, but it’s not my duty to explain them,” he said. “Look, if you want to talk about candidates who’ve switched positions, you’ve got a bunch of them out there who’ve changed on the Trans Pacific Partnership, and on ethanol, and on foreign policy. Donald Trump’s positions, if they’ve changed, have changed over the last 15 years. Not the last 15 minutes.”

Wow. We’re talking gays and abortion here, Huck. Your wheelhouse …

That’s just fascinating to me. It occurs to me that while it’s been obvious to me that this wacky race may end up mortally wounding the GOP. It hadn’t occurred to me until just now that it might wreck the Christian Right as well.

It will be interesting to see if Cruz’s hit on Trump works. Nothing else has.

.

An old fashioned bigot pander-fest

An old fashioned bigot pander-fest

by digby

Oh look, more Republicans pandering to bigots. This is a little bit more traditional than the “deport and ban” crowd but it’s the same thing:

In yet another example of what the Religious Right’s recent focus on “religious liberty” is really about, five Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak this weekend at a “religious freedom” event hosted by a conservative pastor who has repeatedly declared that AIDS is God’s punishment for gay people’s “immoral act” and has called for a “class action lawsuit” against homosexuality.

Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee are scheduled to join a “Free to Believe Broadcast” on Saturday, hosted by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, two of the most outspoken anti-gay activists in the country.

Their dream will never die.

Little Donnie can count!

Little Donnie can count!

by digby

Here’s his statement on the prisoners being released:

Now I have to see what the deal is for the four people, because someone said they were getting seven back. So essentially, they get 150 billion plus seven, and we get four. Doesn’t sound too good.

This is the kind of high level analysis he would bring to the presidency.

The last GOP president sounded like a 16 year old. This frontrunning candidate sounds like a 6 year old. When did the Republicans become so puerile? They didn’t used to be this way. They were wrong about everything but they were adults.

Trump is selling himself as a great “deal maker” which evidently means that everyone in the world will bow down and give the US what it wants because he’s going to make them do it by sheer force of his personality. Does that sound like a mature person or a spoiled child?

.

Let ’em fight

Let ’em fight


by digby

This argument between Sanders and Clinton over health care strikes me as a good thing. There is far too much complacency over the ACA among average Democratic voters and a spirited discussion in the campaign over how to improve the system is necessary and healthy.

Health policy expert Harold Pollack has written a useful overview of the issues on this as well as a realistic examination of the politics and structural impediments to various plans. This is the conclusion:

Some progressives hope that single-payer could provide an attractive replacement for the grubby, path-dependent logrolling that now dominate our $3 trillion health care political economy. No viable single-payer program will replace these grubby politics. That’s logically impossible, because such a program must be produced through that very same process. Barring a historically comprehensive defeat of Republicans at every level of American government, advocates for expanded health coverage will face this discomfiting reality.

Passing a single-payer plan requires precisely the same interest-group bargaining and logrolling required to pass the ACA. The resulting policies will thus replicate some of the very same scars, defects, and kludge that bedevil the ACA.

Progressives should still push for basic reforms that improve our current system. I supported the public option in 2009. I still do. I hope it resurfaces in some form, particularly for older participants in the state marketplaces . It may open a pathway to a true single-payer. If it doesn’t—which I suspect it will not—it might still provide a valuable alternative and source of pricing discipline within our pathological health care market.

Whatever policy one supports, we must actually consider how this imperfect and messy process will actually play out. There’s no immaculate conception in American politics.

He’s right. I’m for single payer too. But it’s very hard to see a pathway to getting it in one fell swoop. Most of our big social welfare programs have been implemented incrementally, even Social Security, and I cannot see how this would be any different under the current circumstances. And I expect that both Sanders and Clinton know that even better than the rest of us.

There are many ways to get to universal health care which is the underlying value in all this. Regardless of the method of delivering it, nobody should ever die or go broke for lack of access to health care especially in a modern, developed nation. But as other countries have shown you can successfully offer that in a number of ways. Some are single payer some are mixed (as ours is with employer mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, VA and Obamacare.) Most work a lot better than ours does although it has certainly improved with the advent of the ACA.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that we could do better than than what we have. The inability to mandate cost controls and our deluded fetish that competition and choice are all that’s ever necessary to create low cost and high efficiency make our system ridiculously complicated for no good reason. But that’s all a result of the political world in which we live and it’s important to try to devise ways to outsmart the various impediments to getting where we want to go. It’s time for Democrats to take on the task of creating a strategy and devising tactics to get that done and fighting over that in a presidential campaign is good place to start.

.

The Trump resignation

The Trump resignation

by digby

I tend to think the establishment will eventually hold their noses and accept Ted Cruz as their leaders, but others disagree. Chris Hayes, I gather, is of the opposite opinion and he’s a lot more connected than I am so I could be wrong.

I think the GOP establishment going with Trump would signal that they no longer exist basically. Trump is not a genuine Republican. He’s not even a genuine political figure. Perhaps they think they could control him better than Cruz, that he would be amenable to their expert guidance in ways that Cruz would not. I think that’s completely insane. Because Trump is a narcissistic lunatic who will not be controlled by anyone.

It is interesting if they truly believe that Cruz’s standard doctrinaire right wing agenda is more threatening to them than Donald Trump’s xenophobic nationalism though.

The hard core right does not like any of this, by the way:

Here’s Mark Levin this morning:

Friendly advice, Donald, and I do mean friendly…

MARK LEVIN·SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2016

Either cut the crap – your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks, etc. (see link below) – or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives. Save the liberal New York City bully tactics for the New York City liberals. Put down your computer keyboard for a few hours, think before you tweet, and collect yourself. You’re not politically invincible, regardless of the polls and media. I am already hearing more and more people getting fed up with the low road you’re taking against Cruz, which has obviously intensified this morning. You don’t need to attack his honor or attempt to smear his reputation. You can leave that to Mitch McConnell and the New York Times. Engage on real and substantive issues that matter to the country. Like I said, my friendly advice.

This isn’t some transactional thing to these conservative movement Tea Party evangelical types. Cruz is the living embodiment of their ideology. And ideology does matter to those folks. Sure, they enjoy Trump’s hardcore, politically incorrect style and the fact that he hates the right people. But they do have some principles.

By the way, Independents and Democrats really don’t like Trump, so the establishment had better hope that Trump gets every single Republican out and inspires many new people to vote that wouldn’t have otherwise done it.

.

Is that a gun in your pocket or do you just love Jesus? by @BloggersRUs

Is that a gun in your pocket or do you just love Jesus?
by Tom Sullivan

This week, via the Texas Observer: It’s the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Heckler & Koch. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition:

That, in a nutshell, is what Liberty University students heard from Jerry Falwell Jr., in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino in December. Falwell — president of the evangelical Christian college and son of the late Moral Majority founder — told students, “If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.” Adding that he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, he encouraged students to take Liberty’s concealed-carry training course.

Liberty University is in Virginia. It didn’t take long for the gospel to reach there from Texas (emphasis mine):

One pastor’s message to attendees of a 2012 Keller church conference went well beyond the suggestion that Christians consider gun ownership. “You can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun,” pastor Dr. Gary Cass told attendees at the Deliver Us From Evil Conference. “How can you protect yourself, your family, or your neighbor if you don’t have a gun? If I’m supposed to love my neighbor, and I can’t protect him, what good am I?” While Cass told me recently that there is some hyperbole in these statements — in that gun ownership alone is not sufficient to guarantee salvation — he does believe that self-defense “is a God-given right and duty.”

Literally not sufficient (#gunfail), which is surely not what he meant. But the idea of needing a gun as one prerequisite for salvation gives a whole new meaning to “baptism by fire.”