Saturday, April 30, 2016

Will The Prospect of Hillary Becoming President Weld Republicans Into A Unified Force? Please Vote For Peter Muller!

Radical liberal using free speech to block free
VIDEO: Loony Campus Liberal's Epic Meltdown
It is called revenge of what rhymes with "the nerds" - the t----!

When Oscar-Winning Actress Breaks Court Injunction to Protest Fracking on His Land, Farmer Decides to Get Major Revenge

Perhaps we have had our fill of radical PC ideology and now are prepared for some ordinary old fashion, "aw shucks" John Wayne/James Stewart type patriotism?

I am not a consensus thinker and seldom have been.  Sometimes I am right, sometimes wrong. Being an independent thinker has served me well but often leaves me lonely because no one likes to have their comfort zone and "my mind's made up so don't confront with me with another viewpoint," challenged.

Therefore, I suspect the press and media folk and radicals who have taken over the Demwit Party along with the slave like supporters of Hillarious will ultimately be disappointed. Why?  Because, should Trump become the Republican nominee, I suspect Republicans will not rend  and rip themselves apart since the prospect of Hillary becoming president will weld them into a united force.

If I am correct, it will be a very interesting presidential race because Trump might appeal to many who have given up voting, the total vote could the largest %  in recent history as two "unlikeables" fight for the Oval Office. Certainly Trump will create some excitement and that will be a relief compared to Hillary's boring dullness.

Rest assured neither will drown us in soaring rhetoric.

Stay tuned 'cause time will tell (See 1 below.)
The meeting for Peter Muller went well and if those living at The Landings get out and vote, Peter's prospects will be greatly enhanced.

This is not a partisan or black versus white issue although there are those in the black community that are trying to make it so in order to energize their faithfuls. Blacks in Savannah have been on the end of losing battles of late as white candidates have been winning their races. Financial matters, particularly black on black crime, and corruption reached a point where even black voters were getting alarmed

The circuit court race is strictly a matter of who has the best judicial temperament, who will be equitable in administering the law and who has the willingness to work hard so justice will get back to being timely.

Peter's opponent has never been challenged in the , almost, 25 years he has served on the bench because lawyers are afraid/reluctant to challenge judges they come before.  This is why we have some judges who do not deserve their position.

I hope you will consider Peter Muller.  His name appears on both ballots and the election is May 24 and early voting begins May 2. The Landings vote will really matter in this election.

Simple Patriotism Trumps Ideology

After 16 years, Americans have grown tired of both conservative and liberal abstractions.

Donald Trump after his foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.ENLARGE
Donald Trump after his foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The wind is at Donald Trump’s back, and it’s the kind that doesn’t lessen but build. Last 
week he won the New York primary with an astounding 60% of the vote to John Kasich’s 
25% and Ted Cruz’s 15%. This week he swept the five-state Northeast regional primaries 
with numbers that neared or surpassed the New York results—54% in Maryland, 57% in Pennsylvania, 58% in Connecticut, 61% in Delaware and 64% in Rhode Island. He beat 
Mr. Kasich in Greenwich, Conn., the affluent enclave of the old moderate Republicanism. Amazingly, he carried every county in all five states, and every county in New York 
except Manhattan. With 10 million votes, Mr. Trump is on track to become the biggest
 primary vote-getter in GOP history. He did well with varied demographic groups, old and 
young, college graduates, rich and not.
This is the kind of political momentum that tends to grow. A political saying attributed to
Haley Barbour is that in politics this is the dynamic: Good gets better and bad gets worse. 
Very smart analysts and reporters have been translating all these victories into delegate 
counts, which of course is the key question. But as I look at where we are I think: Get your
 mind off 1,237; get your mind on the wind at Donald Trump’s back. After all the missteps
 and embarrassments of the past few months, his support is building.
“I consider myself the presumptive nominee,” Mr. Trump said in his victory remarks. He
Nothing wrong with Mr. Cruz and Mr. Kasich continuing to forge on. If you added their 
votes together the other night, Mr. Trump still would have beaten them. But they’re 
imagining they still have a shot, and Mr. Cruz just brought in Carly Fiorina as a 
reinforcement. His admiration of Ronald Reagan is such that he even imitates his blunders. That is what it was for Reagan in 1976 when he picked a running mate before the convention. 
Desperate gambits are more likely to work when they don’t look desperate.
Here I note an odd aspect of this cycle. Candidates at this point, roughly nine months in, 
are supposed to be dog-tired, near the end of their personal resources, exhausted and, if 
they’re not winning, depressed. That’s how it usually goes. But Mr. Kasich is clearly 
having the time of his life and told me as much in November. Mr. Cruz told me the same 
thing last week, at a Journal editorial board meeting. I expected to see him tired and 
dragging. No, fresh as a daisy. Mr. Trump too is clearly having a ball.
I find their joy distressing. America is faced with overwhelming problems, the voters are 
deeply concerned about our future, and they’re happy little chappies in the cable news 
town hall. I think they’ve absorbed too well the idea of the power of the happy warrior. I 
would respect them more if now and then they’d outline our problems and look blue.
In my continuing quest to define aspects of Mr. Trump’s rise, to my own satisfaction, I 
offer what was said this week in a talk with a small group of political activists, all of 
whom back him. One was about to begin approaching various powerful and influential Republicans who did not support him, and make the case. I told her I’d been thinking that 
maybe Mr. Trump’s appeal is simple: What Trump supporters believe, what they perceive 
as they watch him, is that he is on America’s side.
And that comes as a great relief to them, because they believe that for 16 years Presidents 
Bush and Obama were largely about ideologies. They seemed not so much on America’s 
side as on the side of abstract notions about justice and the needs of the world. Mr. 
Obama’s ideological notions are leftist, and indeed he is a hero of the international left. He
 is about international climate-change agreements, and leftist views of gender, race and 
income equality. Mr. Bush’s White House was driven by a different ideology—
neoconservatism, democratizing, nation building, defeating evil in the world, privatizing 
Social Security.
But it was all ideology.
Then Mr. Trump comes and in his statements radiate the idea that he’s not at all interested 
in ideology, only in making America great again—through border security and tough trade
 policy, etc. He’s saying he’s on America’s side, period.
And because people are so happy to hear this after 16 years, because it seems right to 
them, they give him a pass on his lack of experience in elective office and the daily 
realities of national politics. They accept him even though he is a casino developer and 
brander who became famous on reality TV.
They forgive it all. Not only because they’re tired of bad policy but because they’re tired 
of ideology.
You could see this aspect of Trumpism—I’m about America, end of story—in his much-
discussed foreign-policy speech this week. I have found pretty much everything said about
 it to be true. It was long, occasionally awkward-sounding and sometimes contradictory. It 
was interesting nonetheless. He was trying to blend into a coherent whole what he’s 
previously said when popping off on the hustings. He was trying to establish that there’s a
theme to the pudding. He was also trying to reassure potential supporters that he is actually serious, that he does have a foreign-policy framework as opposed to just a grab bag of emotional impulses.
The speech was an attack on the reigning Washington foreign-policy elite of both parties, 
which he scored as incompetent and unsuccessful: “Logic was replaced with foolishness 
and arrogance, and this led to one foreign-policy disaster after another.” Mistakes in Iraq, 
Egypt, Libya and Syria threw the region “into crisis,” and helped create ISIS. He described democracy-promotion efforts as destructive, costing “thousands of American lives and 
many trillions of dollars.” Our resources are overextended, our allies must contribute more,
 our friends don’t trust us, nor do our allies respect us. He called for “a coherent foreign 
policy based on American interests.” His interest is “focusing on creating stability.” “We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies,” including a “pause for reassessment,” which will help prevent the next San Bernardino.
He positioned himself to Hillary Clinton’s left on foreign policy—she is hawkish, too 
eager for assertions of U.S. military power, and has bad judgement. This will be the first 
time in modern history a Republican presidential candidate is to the left of the Democrat, 
and that will make things interesting. It reminded me of how Mr. Trump, in his insistence 
that he will not cut or add new limits to entitlement spending, could get to Mrs. Clinton’s 
left on that key domestic question, too.
He certainly jumbles up the categories. Bobby Knight, introducing him at a rally in 
Evansville, Ind., on Thursday, said that Mr. Trump is not a Republican or a Democrat. The
 crowd seemed to like that a lot.
Those conservative writers and thinkers who have for nine months warned the base that 
Mr. Trump is not a conservative should consider the idea that a large portion of the 
Republican base no longer sees itself as conservative, at least as that term has been 
defined the past 15 years by Washington writers and thinkers.

Is There Something Feral About Ferrell? Status Symbols. 2016 and the Republican Party. Finally A Politically Correct Drug!

A spineless and gutless American President whose
policies are intended to wreck our nation. Wake Up

Finally a Politically Correct Drug but only to be
prescribed for Liberals and Progressives!
I was scanning the WSJ Magazine today and the following thought popped into my addled brain about broadly displayed status symbols.  Do you agree?

Years ago the auto was a status symbol then financing became available to all and even poor souls can drive a nice car.

Today, I believe the watch is a broadly based and suitable status symbol for males based on the myriad of ads I see for expensive watches and purses have become the comparable symbol for women using the same determining factor.  Both are copied so fakes sold by street vendors give substance to my thinking.

Yes, there are other status symbols but these two seem to be the broadest display of such.

Then of course there are vacations, art, homes and private planes and islands for the super rich who may try to be somewhat more discreet about their display of status symbols.
This Hollywood Liberal tried to turn Reagan's legacy into a cartoon but failed because the reaction was swift and deafening and he feared his career would be ruined.

Ferrell could substitute Obama's? That would work and maybe enhance his career. (See 1 below.)
The Republican Party has fought internally for a long time because it has tried to be an encompassing tent thereby, allowing many factions to reside within. 2016 might prove another disaster.

Democrat candidates may fight among themselves but the party places winning above everything else so they compete more effectively regardless of their nominee and do so by using general tax revenue to dispense goodies among a variety of constituencies.

Both parties place returning candidates to office above the  nation's key interests.

That is why political parties may well be the destruction of our Republic. (See 2 below.)
What I have been saying about Obama's claim that unemployment is down and thus the economy is so much better.

Instead of a $75,000 job in the oil fields Obaman's are working in the service sector at $10/hour.
(See 3 below.)

College Tuition's will become free because liberals will make taxpayers pay their cost.

Thus, another disaster proves what I want placed on my headstone: "When all else fails, lower your standards."  (See 3a below.)
Take this shocker of a poll! (See 4 below.)

A must attend, very informative public service program:

                                          Skidaway Island Republican Club
True Perspectives 

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The FBI Perspective onTerrorism
Eugene S. Kowel

Plantation Club
Cocktails/Cash bar : 4:30 PM
Presentation : 5:00 PM
Sustaining members – Free
Regular members - $5
Non-Members - $10
All Welcome


Any honest assessment of Will Ferrell comedies would have to say they are uneven. The first Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby are classics; Get HardStep Brothers, and Blades of Glory, not so much. The best you can say about the next Ferrell vehicle announced yesterday, in which he will portray an Alzheimer-impaired President Reagan being manipulated by his staff, is that the Hollywood left has capitulated to the fact that since they can’t assail Reagan’s record directly, they’ll have to settle for extreme comic distortion.
Here’s what I told the Washington Times today when they called for a comment this morning:
There they go again. Since the Hollywood left can no longer directly attack Reagan’s record in office, they have to resort to making up a disability to try to turn him into a comic figure. Anyone who has ever read the transcripts of Reagan in his one-on-one meetings with Gorbachev will know that the premise of this film is absurd.
Reagan’s daughter Patti has weighed in today with a scathing “open letter” to Ferrell:
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
I saw the news bulletin — as did everyone — that you intend to portray my father in the throes of Alzheimer’s for a comedy that you are also producing. Perhaps you have managed to retain some ignorance about Alzheimer’s and other versions of dementia. Perhaps if you knew more, you would not find the subject humorous.
Alzheimer’s doesn’t care if you are President of the United States or a dockworker. It steals what is most precious to a human being — memories, connections, the familiar landmarks of a lifetime that we all come to rely on to hold our place secure in this world and keep us linked to those we have come to know and love. I watched as fear invaded my father’s eyes — this man who was never afraid of anything. I heard his voice tremble as he stood in the living room and said, “I don’t know where I am.” I watched helplessly as he reached for memories, for words, that were suddenly out of reach and moving farther away. For ten long years he drifted — past the memories that marked his life, past all that was familiar…and mercifully, finally past the fear.
There was laughter in those years, but there was never humor.
             There’s more, but it closes with this hammer: 
               Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have — I didn’t find anything                comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either. Perhaps                you would like to explain to them how this disease is suitable material for a comedy.
             If the movie gets made, I predict it will bomb.
             UPDATE: Today (Friday), Ferrell has announced that he is dropping out of the project. I’ll                        amend my prediction: this film will not get made.
2)The Last Great Republican Rupture

The showdown between Ford and Reagan at the deeply divided 1976 convention was a preview for today’s fractured GOP

Nobody quite understood why he did it, but on the second night of the 1976 Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Mo., Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, sitting in shirt sleeves with the New York delegation, mischievously grabbed a Ronald Reaganplacard from a North Carolina politician and tore it in half. It was the showdown night of the convention—where Reagan was waging a long shot bid to deny Gerald R. Ford, the sitting president, his own party’s nomination—and tensions were high.
Douglas Bischoff, a pro-Reagan optometrist from Utah, was unamused. Months before, Ford had announced that he would be choosing a new vice president, but Rockefeller still embodied the liberal East Coast establishment despised by the party’s insurgent right wing. Bischoff marched over and, after giving chase to Rockefeller, grabbed the white telephone linking the New York delegation to Ford headquarters and yanked it out of its socket.
Chaos ensued. Delegates, guards and reporters swarmed. Eventually, Bischoff was hauled off by security officials, while a grinning Rockefeller, sweating through his blue-and-white striped shirt, held up the broken phone and its severed cord for the cameras.
The rancor in Kansas City’s Kemper Arena in August 1976 never spilled over into all-out riots of the sort that Donald Trump warns could occur in Cleveland this July if he is denied the GOP nomination. But then, as now, the Republican Party was fractured to the breaking point, and the great summer gathering meant to foster unity instead revealed warring camps that could barely consider themselves allies.
In 1976, establishment forces were hard pressed to beat back a grass-roots challenge from a movement that showed contempt for the party’s leadership. This year, it is the party leadership that is scrambling, perhaps in vain, to deny Mr. Trump the first-ballot majority he will need to win. But as in 1976, there is ominous talk today that the GOP is in crisis—possibly headed for extinction, like the old antebellum Whig Party.
The internecine warfare in Republican ranks this year is the expression of many developments, including America’s demographic transformation and its economic hardships. But the story of the 1976 Republican convention—reconstructed here from news articles, memoirs and such indispensable accounts as Jules Witcover’s book “Marathon” and Craig Shirley’s “Reagan’s Revolution”—suggests something more: that this year’s turmoil reflects not just current conditions but also internal tensions that have periodically forced modern Republicans to choose between their instinct for order and stability and their desire to blow up the system.
The 1976 campaign season was tumultuous. In the primaries, President Ford surged to an early lead in the delegate count, only to watch Reagan overtake him with a string of primary victories. Ford then battled back to reclaim the advantage. When the popular contests ended on June 8—with a Reagan triumph in California and Ford wins in Ohio and New Jersey—the president led narrowly, 961-856. Precisely 1,130 delegates were needed to clinch the nomination.
Reagan was in striking distance—far closer to Ford than Ted Cruz is to Mr. Trump today—and 150 delegates were going to the convention uncommitted, free to vote as they wished. Throughout the summer, both camps wooed these would-be kingmakers. Minor legislators and state party chairmen were romanced. The president invited them to friendly chats in the Oval Office. Reagan called to ask them to lunch or dinner, maybe mentioning that John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart hoped to tag along.
As the delegate hunt intensified, Reagan’s 36-year-old campaign manager, John Sears,convinced his candidate to throw the dice. Presaging Ted Cruz’s recent stunt of naming businesswoman Carly Fiorina as his prospective vice president, Reagan declared on June 26 that, if nominated, he would pick the liberal Pennsylvania Sen. Richard Schweiker as his running mate. The plan was to rally moderates to his banner and prove his commitment to party unity.
The gambit misfired. Annoyed with Reagan’s apostasy, the arch-conservative North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms talked up an 11th-hour nomination bid by New York senatorJames L. Buckley. Worse for Reagan, the head of the Mississippi delegation—the only state caucus bound by a “unit rule” that required them to vote as a bloc—transferred his own loyalties, and thus his state’s 30 votes, to Ford. Reagan’s people doggedly tried to flip the delegation back.
The large number of uncommitted delegates made exact counts impossible. The candidates’ staffs each maintained tallies, which they inflated when talking to the press. Newspapers and networks kept their own counts. By convention time, Ford was closing in on the magic number—yet remained, in every count, at least a handful of votes short.
On Aug. 15, the Sunday before the convention, a blanket of gray hung over a hot Kansas City. A light breeze blew. Reagan arrived on a chartered flight from California with his wife and three children and a posse of trusted aides. Ford alit a few hours later, Air Force One having been delayed by tornado warnings.
Each side had a trailer as a communications command post. Sears and Lyn Nofzigerdirected the Reagan operatives roaming the convention floor; the Nixon hand Bill Timmons and the rising GOP operative James Baker managed Ford’s. The latter spoke in code through walkie-talkies, like Secret Service agents: Ford was “Tarzan,” Betty was “Jane,” White House Chief of Staff Dick Cheney “Chimpanzee.” In the shadow of Watergate, both sides checked their trailers regularly for wiretaps.
Though odds-makers favored Ford, Reagan was determined. In a late-night session at the Alameda Plaza Hotel, his aides settled on two last-ditch tactics. One was to force a floor vote on the party’s foreign-policy plank—a major source of acrimony among Republicans. On issues from detente to Taiwan to the Panama Canal, Reagan considered Ford and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, too quiescent. Working with conservatives like Sen. Helms, Reagan’s staff drafted a resolution demanding “morality in foreign policy” that drew from the governor’s agenda. If Ford opposed it, they reasoned, his conservative delegates might decide to defect.
The second scheme, long under discussion, was to force Ford to name his running-mate before the balloting began. (Before 1976, running-mates were typically chosen at the convention.) After all, any choice might conceivably alienate a large number of delegates, whether on the left or the right, driving them to Reagan. Moreover, as Nofziger said in a later interview, “We were trying to halt the Ford people’s effort to convince our people that if Ford were the nominee, they could have Reagan as vice president.”
This proposed amendment to the rules, known as “Rule 16C,” was dubbed the “misery loves company” resolution by Ford’s people, who saw it as a cynical effort to salvage the Schweiker selection. Over the weekend, the Ford-controlled rules committee had shot down 16C by a 59-44 vote. But Sears had cleared the threshold necessary to bring it to a floor vote, which he planned to do on Tuesday night, along with the vote on the foreign policy plank—one night before the balloting for the nominee. Tuesday’s votes would thus reveal the true measure of each side’s strength.
On Monday, both candidates traversed the roads and highways of Kansas City, wrangling delegates. Clambering in and out of his limousine, often with Schweiker in tow, Reagan drove 20 miles east to Blue Springs, Mo., to meet with the Indiana delegation at a Quality Inn; back to Kansas City for meetings with the Alaskans and the National Black Republican Council; then back out to Grandview, to solicit the Virginia caucus—only to learn, once there, that three of its four uncommitted delegates were visiting with Ford.
In the made-for-TV proceedings that night, the convention managers had scheduled back-to-back appearances by elder statesmen and former adversaries Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, designed to signal reconciliation to viewers around America. But the enmity between the camps was palpable—and audible. Dueling chants of “We want Reagan” and “We want Ford” upset plans for a placid evening.
Reagan continued his frantic drive for votes on Tuesday. He visited 13 more delegations, while a roving band of Hollywood supporters, including crooner Pat Boone and TV starEfrem Zimbalist, Jr., paid call on others. But the delegates were trickling toward Ford, who claimed to have nabbed another 10 during the day.
When prime time arrived, tension in the Kemper Arena was thick. Even the candidates’ wives were cast as dueling proxies. Shortly after 9 p.m., the band on the convention floor struck up “Tie a Yellow Ribbon ’Round the Old Oak Tree,” a Tony Orlando hit. Orlando was in the Fords’ booth with Betty Ford and her daughter, Susan. “That’s your song, Tony,” Susan said. “Come on, you and Mom get up and dance.” As she recalled in her memoir, the first lady and the pop star sashayed for several minutes—right at the moment when Nancy Reagan entered the hall. Reaganites accused the first lady of upstaging her rival.
When time came to approve Rule 16C, the state delegations voted in alphabetical order. Supporters in the galleries cheered or jeered each announcement. Reagan took an early lead, but when New York voted, Ford pulled ahead. The measure failed by 111 votes. “It’s all over! That’s it!” cried Sen. Robert Griffin of Michigan, Ford’s floor manager.
Giddy with victory, Ford delegates left the arena for the bars. But the foreign-policy vote remained. Rockefeller wanted to fight it, as did Kissinger, who correctly saw it as a personal rebuke. At one point he vowed to resign if Ford didn’t contest the plank. But as Cheney recalled in his memoir, another Ford aide, Tom Korologos, called Kissinger’s bluff. “Henry,” he said, “if you’re going to quit, do it now! We need the votes!”
Baker and Cheney, however, opposed a fight. “Nobody ever reads the platform anyway,” Cheney noted, according to Stephen Hayes in his biography of the future vice president. The Ford camp agreed to admit the plank into the platform on a voice vote, but for Reagan it was a mere consolation prize.
After Ford’s victory on 16C, the outcome of Wednesday’s roll-call vote on the nomination was no longer in doubt. Reagan’s supporters marshaled a rowdy demonstration, but Ford garnered 1,187 votes on the first ballot—an improvement of seven delegates over his tally in the 16C fight.
Around 1:30 a.m. that night, Ford came to Reagan’s suite at the Alameda for a hatchet burial. He still had to choose a running-mate. Conservatives pined for Reagan, but the governor had ruled himself out. Instead, in his tête-à-tête with Ford, he praised Kansas senator Bob Dole among the several names floated.
The next morning Dole was breakfasting with his wife, Elizabeth, when Ford called. Secret Service agents sped to Dole’s hotel to whisk him to a news conference. Reagan, for his part, met with 200 staffers for a final thank you. “Nancy and I, we aren’t going to sit back in a rocking chair on the front porch and say that’s all there is for us,” he said. “It’s just a battle in a long war.”
The reconciliation seemed to be going well, but that night it unraveled. Reagan supporters mounted another boisterous floor demonstration, delaying Ford’s speech for almost an hour. From his hotel room, the president cursed, finally ordering the convention to proceed despite the cacophony. But he didn’t take the stage until 10:40 p.m., central time, with many Easterners sound asleep. Ford gave what most observers judged a strong and effective speech, making news for challenging Jimmy Carter to debate in the fall (1976 would be the first time since 1960 that the nominees debated).
When Ford finished, Dole, Rockefeller and other GOP leaders joined him on stage. But Reagan, in his sky box at the arena, resisted entreaties to join in. Eager for a final show of unity, Ford took to the microphone to summon Reagan by name. The cameras cut to Reagan waving and smiling, but shaking his head “no.”
The crowd chanted, “We want Ron!” Another Ford deputy, Bryce Harlow, was dispatched to Reagan’s box as a supplicant. Finally, Reagan descended to deliver an eloquent and moving speech that managed to make almost no reference to the nominee. More than a few delegates confessed to experiencing buyer’s remorse.
Despite dire predictions at the time, the Republican Party did not go the way of the Whigs. Four years later, Reagan won not just the party’s nomination but the first of two presidential terms. His success reflected the GOP’s increasingly conservative character and the vanishing space for men like Nelson Rockefeller, who had once constituted a vital faction of the party.
The Republican outsiders of 1976 soon became the party’s new establishment. But they have lost ground in recent decades. The staunchly conservative GOP of Newt Gingrichand George W. Bush has found itself ever more on the defensive. At least since the split between the Bush administration and congressional Republicans over the 2008 financial bailout, and arguably going back to the candidacies of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in the 1990s, populist elements on the right have been challenging the party’s post-Reagan orthodoxies on trade, immigration and even foreign policy.
Those populist elements now form the core of Donald Trump’s support. How far they will be able to go in reshaping the party is impossible to predict. After all, the real consequences of the Ford-Reagan donnybrook in Kansas City were very unclear at the time. What the Trump candidacy means for Republicans will be revealed not in what happens in Cleveland this summer but rather in what unfolds in the years ahead.
Prof. Greenberg is a political historian who teaches at Rutgers University. His most recent book is “Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.”
Corrections & Amplifications
Richard Schweiker was a senator from Pennsylvania. An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified him as a governor. (April 29, 2016)

Anemic Wage Growth Restraining Economy

4Sluggish worker earnings keep consumer spending in check

While some employers in low-wage industries say they’re seeing increased pressures tied to minimum-wage increases, others say there’s been little pressure to boost pay. Here, Brittney Bounds bags groceries at a market in Sacramento, Calif., last year. ENLARGE
While some employers in low-wage industries say they’re seeing increased pressures tied to minimum-wage 
increases, others say there’s been little pressure to boost pay. Here, Brittney Bounds bags groceries at a market in
U.S. employers for the past four years created more than 200,000 jobs a month on average.
But wages have shown little progress. Wages and salaries for private-sectors workers 
advanced 2% in the first quarter from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Friday. 
The measure has grown near that rate, on average, since the start of 2012.
The U.S. economy, like much of the globe, is stuck in a slow-growth rut. Turmoil overseas
 and still-weak commodity prices are preventing the manufacturing, trade and energy 
sectors from supporting growth. That leaves U.S. consumers to boost the expansion. But 
without accelerating wages, it’s difficult for them to step up spending.
“We continue to be on track for very slow progress,” said BNP Paribas economist Laura 
Rosner. “That’s reflected in the lack of wage growth."
Economists harbor little hope for a significant economic rebound this spring, though they 
do expect some pickup after a disappointing winter performance when the economy 
expanded at a 0.5% pace. Forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers projects gross 
domestic​product to advance at a 2.1% pace in the second quarter. GDP figures are adjusted
for price changes. Such an​acceleration would only bring growth roughly back in line with
the overall​pace of the lackluster expansion.
Overall compensation for all workers, a figure that includes benefits, rose 1.9% from a 
year earlier, the Labor Department said. Federal Reserve officials watch the gauge for 
signs of labor-cost inflation.
The reading has been consistently stronger than overall inflation. Consumer prices rose 
0.8% from a year earlier in March, a separate Commerce Department report said Friday. 
But the compensation growth remains small compared with the pace of increases during 
the previous expansion. From 2002 through 2007 compensation averaged better than 3% 
annual growth.
Another measure of wages, average hourly earnings for private-sector workers, shows 
slightly stronger gains, up 2.3% in March from a year earlier. But that, too, is little 
changed from recent years. Four years ago, in March 2012, the annual gain was 2.1%.
Some employers that hire low-wage workers say they are seeing increased pressures tied 
to minimum-wage increases in 26 states since the start of 2014. But other firms say there’s
 been little change.
Wage pressures are “nothing really any different than we’ve seen in the past,” Jeff Shaw, 
executive vice president for store operations at O’Reilly Automotive Inc., told investors 
Thursday. “There’s always a scramble for great people in the market. But…really no 
changes that we’ve seen.”
Several factors are constraining wage growth.
The unemployment rate might not fully reflect the degree of slack in the labor market. 
Some older workers and those displaced during the recession have returned to the 
workforce recently, and that makes it difficult for existing workers to demand higher pay.
And productivity growth in many service fields has been low, meaning even small wage 
gains can feel expensive for employers in those sectors, said BNP’s Ms. Rosner. That 
could partially reflect global cost pressures due to services that can more easily be 
provided from overseas, via the Internet and call centers, she said.
Weak wage gains are at least partially responsible for lackluster spending. Overall 
consumer outlays increased just 0.1% in March from February. Accounting for price 
increases, spending was flat for the second time in three months, Commerce Department 
data showed. The same report showed consumers are increasing savings at a faster rate 
than spending, a potential sign of shaky confidence.
The University of Michigan’s gauge of U.S. consumer sentiment, also released Friday, 
declined in April to its lowest level in seven months.
“Consumer mood and spending have been rather subdued recently due to volatility in the 
stock market and rising pump prices, despite well received employment reports,” said IHS
 economist Chris Christopher. But he forecasts better April spending, “so long as the stock
 market behaves itself, second-quarter consumer spending is likely to be significantly 
stronger than the first quarter.”

3a) U.S. Officials Adjusted 21 

Schools’ Student-Loan Default Rates

Education Department can strip student access to federal loans 

and grants at colleges with excessive default rates

U.S. education officials adjusted the student-loan default rates of 21 colleges, according to a list released by the Education Department.ENLARGE
U.S. education officials adjusted the student-loan default rates of 21 colleges, according to a list 
released by the Education Department.PHOTO: ISTOCK
U.S. education officials adjusted the student-loan default rates of 21 
colleges, helping them to avoid sanctions in the past two years that could 
have resulted in a loss of federal funding, according to a list released by the 
Education Department.
The list, released to The Wall Street Journal this week in response to a 
Freedom of Information Act request, included one school whose chief 
executive was later imprisoned for defrauding the government of nearly $1 
million in federal student aid. The Education Department said Friday that it 
released the list to the Journal in error.
that received the reprieve, even when asked to by members of Congress in 
Under federal law, the Education Department can strip student access to 
federal loans and grants at colleges if their default rates top 30% for three 
years in a row or 40% in one year. Adjusting the default rate for one or more 
of those years can give the colleges a reprieve that preserves their ability to 
offer federal student aid. Most colleges would be forced to close without 
federal funds.
Schools can get their official default rates adjusted through appeals to the 
Education Department, but, in 2014 and 2015, the department also 
voluntarily adjusted default rates for schools, based on a technicality 
involving students who had multiple loans. It is unclear which category into 
which each of the 21 schools that escaped punishment because of 
adjustments falls.
An Education Department spokeswoman said adjusting default rates is “part 
of the department’s deliberative process.” She didn't provide further 
explanation as to why certain schools were on the list.
Among the schools that narrowly escaped sanction was the now-defunct 
American Commercial College in San Angelo, Texas, whose president 
Doyle Brent Sheets pleaded guilty in 2014 to defrauding the Education 
Department of student-aid funds. According to a plea agreement, the 
college was excluded from participating in federal student-aid programs and
 Mr. Sheets was sentenced to two years in prison.
The Education Department didn’t comment on the adjustment for American 
Commercial College amid an investigation, but the investigation and 
oversight of default rates are conducted by separate offices of the 
American Commercial College’s default rate for students who entered 
repayment in 2009 was 29.6%—just below the federal cutoff—while its rates
 for the next two years topped 30%.
The lawyer who represented Mr. Sheets during his trial declined to comment.
Of the 21 schools that avoided punishment, 10 were for-profit colleges that 
largely offer certificates or two-year degrees, six were historically black 
colleges and the remaining five were public community colleges.
Collectively, students at those schools received more than $145 million in 
federal loans and grants in the 2014-2015 school year.
Timothy Campagna, campus president of the American School of 
Technology in Columbus, Ohio, said his school appealed the Education 
Department’s findings after discovering some errors in lenders’ actions that 
should have removed students from the sanction list. After removing them, 
the school’s default rate dropped below 30% in the third year.
“We appreciate that the Department of Education took our application 
seriously,” he said. Since then, the school’s default rate has improved and is 
now below 20%, he said.
Joel English, vice president of operations of the Aviation Institute of 
Maintenance of Virginia Beach, Va., said, “There are a variety of reasons 
that the education department would look back at our student portfolio, 
including economic disadvantage and students rectifying their balances.”
Chuck Anderson, financial-aid director at Hazard Community and 
Technical College in Hazard, Ky., said the college worked with a third-party
provider to appeal data errors. He also said that the college was affected by
the department’s decision not to count borrowers who had defaulted on some 
but not all of their loans as defaulters.
If the college had been sanctioned, “it would have put us out of business,” he
Fitzgerald Hill, president of Arkansas Baptist College in Little Rock, said 
the Education Department gave his school the opportunity to examine the 
defaults of individual students and determined that defaults were listed in 
error, including from some students who had died.
A representative of Baton Rouge School of Computers in Baton Rouge, La., 
said the school is small and a handful of defaulters can dramatically shift its 
default rate, and loan servicers sometimes have a hard time locating students 
after graduation.
At least two beauty schools on the list—Styletrends Barber and Hairstyling 
Academy in Rock Hill, S.C., and Paris II Educational Center in Gladstone, 
Mo.—have closed, as has Erie Business Center, a for-profit school in 
Pennsylvania. And according to Anthony Clarke, the president of 
Southeastern Community College in Whiteville, N.C., the school no longer 
offers federal loans, only grants.
Steven Malynn, a former employee of Paris II, said he was brought in to 
close the school and wasn’t aware of any problems regarding its default rate. 
However, he said the Education Department “went on a warpath” to put the
company out of business after monitoring the school’s cash flow.
The following didn't immediately return calls seeking comment:
Bennett Career Institute in Washington, D.C.;
Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio;
Denmark Technical College in Denmark, S.C.;
Fayetteville Beauty College in Fayetteville, N.C.;
Frank Phillips College in Borger, Texas;
Jarvis Christian College in Hawkins, Texas;
Maysville Community and Technical College in Maysville, Ky.;
Texas College in Tyler, Texas;
and Travel Institute of the Pacific in Honolulu.
The following declined to comment:
Concordia College Alabama in Selma;
Somerset Community College in Somerset, Ky.
Part 3 is a shocker. Wake up America!!
    A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
    B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
    C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
    D. In three generations, there will be very few Democrats.
    I love it when a plan comes together; don't you?!
    10 Poorest Cities in America  (How did it happen?)
    City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
   1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
    2. Buffalo, NY 29.9%
    3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
    4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
    5. Miami, FL 26.9%
    5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
    7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
    8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
    9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
    10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
    What do the top ten cities (over 250,000 pop.) with the     highest poverty rate all have in common?
    Detroit, MI - (1st on poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
    Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
    Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
    Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
    Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
    St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
    El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
    Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
    Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
    Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'.

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats... Yet they are still POOR.
    PART  3
    "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
    You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
    You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
    You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
    You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
    You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's Initiative and independence.
    You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what They could and should do for themselves."
                                                ~Abraham Lincoln
    "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government
    take care of him had better take a much closer look at the American Indian."
                                                   ~Henry Ford
SIX TRIVIA QUESTIONS to see how much history you really know. Be honest; it's kind of fun and revealing. If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all of the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers.
       1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
            A. Karl Marx                    B. Adolph Hitler                  C. Joseph Stalin
            D. Barack Obama           E. None of the above

       2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.. and to 
            replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."
            A. Lenin                           B. Mussolini                        C. Idi Amin
            D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above

        3) "(We).... Can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from
            some people."
            A. Nikita  Khrushchev       B.  Joseph Goebbels         C. Boris Yeltsin
            D. Barack Obama             E. None of the above
        4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ...
            In order to create this common ground."
            A. Mao Tse Tung             B. Hugo Chavez                  C. Kim Jong II
            D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
         5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
             A.  Karl Marx                   B. Lenin                                C. Molotov
             D. Barack Obama           E. None of the above
          6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire
               economy that they are being watched."
             A. Pinochet                      B. Milosevic                         C. Saddam Hussein
             D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
    No peeking!
Scroll down for answers...
 and the answers are:
 (1)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
    (2)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

    (3)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
    (4)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
    (5)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
    (6)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005