Really Right – Page 98 – Religion, Politics, and Culture: Explained and Defined

What Really Killed Toys R Us

Unless you are a CRA member, living under a rock, voted for Hillary, or have any Park Family Genes in your DNA, you have likely heard Toys R Us is liquidating their business here in the United States and all over the globe. What caused a giant big box that controlled 20% of the toy market to collapse you may ask? Well a combination of things, but the internet, Amazon.com and high prices were none of them.

First some background on Toys R Us. The company was founded in 1948 by Charles Lazarus who interestingly died the same day the company decided to liquidate all stores. The company had sustained success and was even referred to as a “category killer” which is similar to how people view Amazon.com today (a company that is almost impossible to compete with).

Editor’s note: As a child, the highlight of every Christmas was receiving the Sear’s Christmas catalog. In my youth this was Christmas. We only wanted to get toys from Sears because it was literally a one-stop shop for everything. From their catalog, our parents could order anything and have it waiting for us under the tree. Seemingly out on nowhere, along came Toys R Us and stole Christmas from the oldest and most well-known retailer in the country.

Retail icon, Toys R Us, fades into oblivion

The company prospered for many decades but in the late 1990’s Toys R Us started having issues competing with Target, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com. In 1998 it fell behind Wal-Mart in market share. This is when the chain’s issues started. They tried Kids R Us, a clothing discount chain, and it failed badly and was liquidated after 5 short years. They began growing their Babies R Us chain, to essentially focus on commodities like diapers and bottles, this was also a bad decision. Even more costly was the expensive remodeling of all stores in 2000 by former FAO Schwartz CEO John Eyler. This predictably didn’t change the competitive landscape so in 2005 with the stock struggling on Wall Street, it was sold in a leveraged buyout to 3 private equity firms. This further exasperated the problems facing Toys R Us. The buyout to take Toys private was 6.6 billion dollars, led by Bain Capital (After Mitt Romney had left) Vornado Realty Trust, and Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts.

Leveraged buyouts are not always bad things, there are benefits to being private and you do not have to answer to public investors on Wall Street and can work out corporate and company issues behind closed doors. In N Out and Chick-fil-A are both private and the lines are out the door, down the street, and in most cases backed up to the freeway! Michael Dell—yes that Dell—took the company he founded, Dell Computer, private. Dell Computer had been struggling for many years but taking it private has allowed it to turn around. Typically, after these types of buyouts, private equity firms wind up taking the company public again (more on this later).

So how do these buyouts work? When a public company has a major drop in stock price and has fundamental issues like Toys did, then in come the White Knights saying they can fix everything and will offer to buy the shares of the entire company. In the case of Toys, the private equity guys offered a price 67% higher than what the shares were trading for on Wall Street; banks are happy, stockholders are typically happy, everyone gets paid and then the company is private. In the case of Toys, it was 6.6 billion. So, did the private equity guys have to pay 6.6 billion for Toys? No, they borrowed the money from investment banks—think Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc.—and used the company’s cash flow as collateral. Truth be told, the private equity guys in this case likely put up only about 10% of that 6.6 billion.

So, from the start, Toys had a debt load of 6 billion to pay back, at interest rates likely in the 8-9% range! Banks extract large fees from these loans and add it to the debt load—think the housing crisis circa 2008. The banks just rolled the expenses into the loan then sold it to an unsuspecting group of investors. In this case Toys was now controlled by 3 large companies that didn’t know how to run the toy business at all. However, one thing these 3 companies know a lot about is how to extract money from their investment, (more on this later as well).

So after the dust settled, Toys was saddled with 400 million in annual interest payments to satisfy the terms of their loan. Think about that, 400 million in annual revenue goes first to paying off debt interest, not keeping the lights on or paying salary, just debt. Then the private equity companies charge a “management fee” of usually 2-3% of revenue every year, further straining cash flow to pay bills. Then they pay themselves a dividend every year of around 5-8% on their “investment” once again straining cash flow even further.

With sales falling, Toys began to run low on cash. As a result, cuts had to happen across the company because no way would the private equity companies take a cut in fees. In such circumstances, the research and development department gets cuts first, then other sales, general and administrative expenses are slashed next, followed by a hiring freeze, then changes to the accounts payable department. What used to be 30 or 45 day terms are changed to 60 or 90 day terms. After that benefits are cut/eliminated and salaries for new hires are slashed to minimum wage. This is all being done to pay interest and dividends to private equity companies.

The result of this ultimately led to the death of the company. Because of financial constraints, Toys can’t innovate much. For example, toys are only made by a couple different companies—Hasbro and Mattel being the big ones—so in a sense you are limited by their innovation in that space. On price, Toys only had about 800 stores in the United States compared to Wal-Mart and Target which have 800 in the western U.S. alone. This hurt the negotiation power Toys had with suppliers. For example, Toys wants to buy one million GI Joe toys from Hasbro, and Hasbro sells them to Toys for $10 a unit. Wal-Mart orders three million GI Joe toys and Hasbro cuts them a volume discount based on $7 a unit. As a result Toys sold GI Joe for $14 and Wal-Mart could sell for $10. Toys then agreed to price match the competition, so now on that same GI Joe instead of making $4 per unit, they were breaking even; such a business model is not sustainable.

Also, there was no money being re-invested back into the business. Toys used to be known as a huge demonstration and interactive place for children to visit, try out the toys, and then scream and cry until mom or dad bought it for them. Those demo areas disappeared. Toys became a big box store and worse yet couldn’t compete on price with other big box stores like Wal-Mart. In a world where price is now everything, Toys had an advantage at one time. The child could play with and decide they want the product and unfortunately for the parents, they couldn’t wait two days for Amazon Prime because little Mike wanted it NOW.

Even as the business declined, Toys still controlled 20% of the market. Finally, the private equity guys turned to turnaround artist David Brandon, you may recognize the name, he turned Domino’s Pizza into the company it is today and brought it back from the dead. The problem for Toys was that it was too late. Toys remodeled several hundred stores, brought back the demo areas, improved their website, but the damage from private equity had been done. The flow of money away from operations led to customers opting for other big box stores or internet websites. They couldn’t attract top talent anymore and began to close stores several tranches at a time.

This spooked suppliers and as a result; Hasbro, LEGO, and Mattel changed the terms under which they would sell products to Toys. The result, Toys ran out of inventory during the Christmas shopping season! With unsustainable debt, the company could not pay its bills and as a result the only option left was bankruptcy protection. A big store like Toys—similar to Sports Authority and Sport Chalet—no way the creditors would allow them to go through a restructure, they would need to liquidate. Thus, the end of Toys R Us. But don’t feel bad for the private equity groups. They collected fees and dividends for over 15 years and then during bankruptcy sold the inventory and everything else to liquidation firms. Additionally the lack of profitability also gives tax advantages to these groups since they tend to own many companies. The employees? They got nothing, except a pink slip of course.

Could Toys have been saved…I think so; there is room for a toy store chain in the United States. This is what I would have done. I would have run the stores similarly to Best Buy or a grocery store. I would have found a tenant or two to sublease floor space, so they could demo their own products. I would have set up an area to host children’s birthday parties, and maybe reached out to LEGO to see if they wanted to create a LEGO Land in the stores. This would give predictable cash flow every month and given you a way to spruce up your business to make it more appealing to customers. Have you been to a Best Buy lately? I don’t even think Best Buy owns much of its own leased stores; Pacific Sales, Sprint, T-Mobile, Magnolia, Google, and HP/Apple lease a ton of floor space from them. As far as price match goes, that’s a battle big box stores win by attrition. I would have focused on making the stores into a place both parent and child want to go to because I don’t think anyone admits publicly to wanting to go to Wal-Mart. But alas, a large part of most people’s childhood is gone with the wind.

“X”

Ready Player One: Review of the Review

On my recent trip to Ogden, Utah, I treated the family to a trip to the movies to see Ready Player One. We enjoyed the movie but I was curious about how much it deviated from the book because experience has taught me that movie makers take extreme liberties with their depictions of books and other source material.

The basic plot of the movie is that the future is a miserable, dystopian place to live so people spend as much time as they can in a virtual world. You can be anyone or anything in this world. People navigate thru the world as avatars. You can be a Star Wars Storm Trooper, a World of Warcraft character, Iron Man, or anything else. The only stipulation is if you die in the virtual world then you lose all your stuff that you have accumulated and must begin again. The inventor of this virtual world created a treasure quest that if completed would allow the winner to own the virtual world. Think-winner of contest owns Internet and all its content-and you get an idea of the prize.

I often read articles on a website affiliated with the SyFy Channel (formerly SciFi Channel)—even though we are cable cutters and I haven’t watched their programming in many years. This website has changed names several times over the years most recently changing from Blastr.com to SyFy.com. It is owned by NBCUniversal Media, LLC whose parent company is Comcast. So when I read content on this website I know two things, first that the person writing an article is getting paid for their contributions and secondly that they represent the company for which they work—at least to some extent.

I found only one review of the movie on their website. I thought I would be getting a perspective from someone who would critique the movie either in comparison to the book upon which it was based or at least in terms of how well Steven Spielberg did in making the movie.

If someone wanted to be critical of the movie—irrespective of the storyline in the book—they could complain on three points:
• The movie is a typical hero journey movie, average or misfit young person discovers an ability or aptitude as he begins a quest, gets discouraged along the way and overcomes adversity to succeed
• Corporations (and governments) are always the bad guys
• Hero falls in love with girl that doesn’t like him at the beginning but their relationship helps him to prevail

I began reading the review and it was clear that it went off the rails very early and into an alternate reality.

You’ll see He-Man running into battle alongside Catwoman, and Harley Quinn hanging out in a dance club in The Oasis, the virtual world where gamers intermingle. But these aren’t the characters you know and love. Within the movie, these are the chosen avatars of anonymous gamers around the world. Their cameos tell us nothing new about He-Man or Harley, as they are in no way bound to behave as they would in canon.

Why does the reviewer expect avatars to behave as they would “in canon” meaning in comic book character. Which canon is this reviewer talking about? The one where Superman marries Louis Lane or the one where he marries Lana Lang? I found a website listing 18 different women that had a love interest in Superman and this is just one comic book character out of thousands. Thanks to J.J. Abrams, what is canon in Star Wars or Star Trek anymore? It is ludicrous that the reviewer expect that avatars must only behave as they do “in character”.

Reluctantly, the reviewer later concedes:

But its use in Ready Player One doesn’t tell us much about The Oasis, except that someone somewhere likes He-Man.

Yeah, this is why it’s an avatar.

Lest you think this dense person admits that an avatar is an avatar, the author then starts a rant about the Iron Giant. Why, because the Iron Giant shoots a bad guy and that is out of character for him to behave like that. Seriously.

A big element of promoting Ready Player One has been showing its inclusion of the Iron Giant, the beloved robot at the heart of the adored 1999 animated feature. In his own movie, the Iron Giant’s defining moment is when he declares, “I am not a gun.”… He is a hero who refused to be a weapon but still saved the day.

In Ready Player One, the Iron Giant is an avatar of top-notch gamer Aech. Despite the fact that the titular character’s entire arc in The Iron Giant was about how he chose not to be the weapon, Ready Player One only uses him as a giant gun in its climactic battle. Some are already venting their frustrations on Twitter about this misuse of the definitely anti-gun character. But this isn’t even the only assault on Iron Giant fans that this movie has in store. Because when Ready Player One does decide to be true to this character, it’s to kill him.

Ok, so despite admitting that the Iron Giant is an avatar and not the character from the children’s movie, the author of this review has a tantrum about the giant shooting his gun—in self-defense I might add. All I know at this point is how much this person hates the Second Amendment but never worry because she is just getting warmed-up.

Hubris is defined as: excessive pride or self-confidence.
synonyms: arrogance · conceit · conceitedness · haughtiness · pride · vanity · self-importance · self-conceit · pomposity · superciliousness · feeling of superiority · hauteur · uppitiness · big-headedness

Now we get to the real core of the reviewer’s complaints against the movie; she hates it because the movie doesn’t bend over shamelessly to validate her lifestyle. Since when does the rest of the world have an obligation to so?

A more caustic element of Ready Player One is the way it uses allusions as a litmus test of cool. In one scene, Parzival readies for a virtual date with Art3mis, and decides he’ll wear a suit from The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. On one level, it’s supposed to show her he’s cool enough to know this cult classic. But, he tells his confidante Aech, it’s also meant to see if Art3mis will get it. What’s implied here: is she a real fan, or some Fake Geek Girl? Of course, Art3mis—the manic pixel dream girl that she is—recognizes it and thinks he’s super cool, because Ready Player One is nothing if not a fantasy for straight-fanboys who dream of hot gamer chicks who’ll get all their references to obscure (or not that obscure) sci-fi. But that’s not the end of this tedious testing thread.

The story of Ready Player One’s hero Wade Watts suggests there is one right way to fan. Notably, the one who figures out this one true path is a straight, white, cisgender fanboy —which suggests that to be a “Real Fan,” you must like things on the terms of dominant (and often exclusionary) fanboy culture. Spielberg could have opened up things if the characters of color or women took a stronger role in the film. But despite the heroics of the other members of the High Five, they are ultimately sidelined as sidekicks to Wade. Alternately, Spielberg could have explored new pathways into the familiar characters he folds in by using familiar avatars to explore elements of fanfiction, a sphere of fandom that’s often more female and LGBTQA+ friendly.

Ready Player One feels like Spielberg dumped out a collective toy box, but wasn’t interested in playing with its incredible contents. It’s a wasted opportunity, and worse yet a lazy exploitation of geek culture that promotes its more toxic elements of sexism, self-righteousness, and fan-versus-fan hostility. What could have been an inclusive celebration is instead determined to divide us.

For those that haven’t seen the movie, it features kids and adults of a variety of races and genders but because the author can find nothing blatantly homosexual promoting in the film, her conclusion is that it is a dud and “wasted opportunity”.

Sorry babe but neither Steven Spielberg nor any of the rest of us need to conform to your views or values. The world at large does not exist to validate your life choices, this is hubris.

Folks if this article had appeared on the Huffington Post or some other website I would just ignore it but since it is on a site paid for by one of the biggest media companies in the world I think it deserves a rebuke.

Ready Player One is a fun romp and great entertainment for the whole family.

Oh, the ridiculous review quoted above can be found here:
Link: How Ready Player One fails geek culture

Last week, I took a roadtrip to Ogden Utah to see the middle child. Along the way I had a few ideas that might end up being blog topics but I thought I’d jot down some thoughts that I had.

First, Elon Musk is a fraud. As soon as you depart the once Golden State in your privately owned vehicle, you will find zero charging stations along the Interstate 80 corridor. While electric vehicle travel within California is a sketchy proposition, outside of California it is not possible or practical. Hybrid automobiles are a rare sight away from the Left Coast and electric ones are unheard-of.

Musk thinks he can sell ten thousand vehicles a week and sustain that production? It’s a Ponzi scheme. He can’t even get to 5K per week and is running out of cash and good will.

Musk is a flimflam guy of the first order and gets lots of other people’s money (often tax dollars) from Liberals to do stuff that is not market based because these guys believe that governments not markets should decide what our economy should look like. The AB-32 crowd wants to use the power of the State to force us into electric vehicles that are not able to leave the gilded cage of California just because it is their religion. Their arrogance to pick losers and winners is hubris of the highest order.

Second, the path from Reno to Salt Lake City is the only proof of a universal flood anybody should need. Except for a few mountains here and there, this whole path is clearly a shallow sea that was only recently drained. This was within the last few millennia not millions of years ago.

Third, Brigham Young sure picked a crappy spot to proclaim the new Zion. My biggest gripe of the area is the lack of trees. But he did have big plans.

The Territory of Deseret would have comprised roughly all the lands between the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies, and between the border with Mexico northward to include parts of the Oregon Territory, as well as the coast of California south of the Santa Monica Mountains (including the existing settlements of Los Angeles and San Diego). This included the entire watershed of the Colorado River (excluding the lands south of the border with Mexico), as well as the entire area of the Great Basin. The proposal encompassed nearly all of present-day Utah and Nevada, large portions of California and Arizona, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, and Oregon.

Link: State of Deseret

Brigham seems to have wanted the 1840’s version of “fly-over country” to be united under his banner; whether as a state or a separate country depends on what you read. The presence of Los Angeles and San Diego as part of his territory would indicate a separate nation was in the back of his mind. The war of northern aggression ended that dream and he reluctantly settled for Utah statehood after yet another rewrite of Mormon Scriptures to get rid of polygamy. Why the “god’ of Mormons is not the same yesterday, today, and forever like the one revealed in the Bible is a subject for another day.

Fourth, the amount of indigent and homeless people in Ogden really surprised me. Latter Day Saints try really hard to cultivate the reputation that they care for their own—maybe they do—but for the folks outside their church, clearly they are on their own.

Fifth, the amount of young people with ridiculous amounts of body art and piercing was a surprise to me. I was expecting Donny and Marie type youth but clearly not everyone follows this expectation. My wife thinks that Ogden draws youth from outside the LDS world for the skiing. Maybe this is true. Clearly a large segment of young people are nonconformist.

Sixth was a news story that I saw on the local television station. This is interesting because the LDS church is front and center of a story about a man named Joseph Bishop.

(Note: Although the LDS church has clergy with the title of “bishop” this is not the same as in Protestant Christian Churches and not Mr. Bishop’s title just his last name.)

Mr. Bishop was in charge of training youth that knock on your door as missionaries. Mr. Bishop is accused of giving private lessons to some of the female candidates under his care—much like President Clinton did in the Oval Office with Monica.

SALT LAKE CITY — (KUTV) – On March 20, as a sexual assault scandal was exploding around former Missionary Training Center President Joseph Bishop, his son, and attorney Greg Bishop sent an email to 2News unsolicited.

In the email, he unspools a five-page dossier about the past of the woman who had accused his father of rape.

The email included the woman’s criminal record, alleged false allegations she’d made in the past, and jobs she’d lost.

It even included details about an incident that occurred when she was 17 years old. Bishop encouraged reporters to examine the woman’s past adding, “consider the source.”

In the last two days, 2News has obtained a letter that was written by David Jordan, a lawyer at the firm, Stoel Rives, acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The document is a response to a letter from the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, requesting a settlement from the LDS Church.

The document includes everything we saw in Bishop’s email, plus a review of her ecclesiastical church record.

At the bottom, the Jordan indicates that he sent the letter to Greg Bishop.

It appears Bishop took portions of the letter, and at times, repeated allegations word for word and sent it to the media.

Link: Exclusive: Documents reveal how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

Link: Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President

The woman told 2News Bishop had been grooming her, taking her out of class to talk about the sexual abuse she had suffered as a child. She said he seemed to enjoy the discussion, then one day he invited her to a place he called, “special.”

“He didn’t tell me there was a bed or a TV or a VCR down there, he just said it was this really special room,” she said.

“I was nervous and uncomfortable, and I should have listened to that feeling.”

Once she and Bishop got into the small room, he advanced on her.

“He tried to kiss me and I pushed him off, I was like, ‘oh my gosh, here’s this old man, I’m 21 years old,” she said. “Then he pulled my blouse and rips my buttons off. It had little pearl buttons, then he ripped the back of my skirt, it was an A-line skirt, and then with one hand he pulled my garment and my pantyhose down, there he was, trying to rape me.”

The woman tried to tell officials in the LDS Church on multiple occasions including her bishop.

2News documented as many as four times when the woman tried to speak out to church leaders, but the woman says she had told as many as 10 different church leaders about the alleged abuse.

“Oh no, oh no, I have been talking to bishops and stake presidents for years; one bishop in Colorado Springs called me a liar and wouldn’t even talk to me.”

Link: Exclusive: The woman at the center of the MTC abuse scandal shares her story

I find it interesting that the LDS Church saw fit to release a letter concerning the character of the accuser and defending Mr. Bishop by saying there is no need for them to look into this matter. The LDS church has a long history of circling the wagons when things don’t go their way.

Here is another example of the “see something, say something” mentality. Put yourself in her place, do you want your church releasing an official letter about your past?

When has your church ever made an issue of your:
• Juvenile behavior?
• Morals?
• Employment record?
• Criminal record?
• Marital status?

Sorry, I thought churches were in the business of changing lives thru the power of God’s Word not keeping a tally of what notorious sinners we are just in case they need to shut us up.

At the same time this story is going on, another one about sexual abuse had faithful Mormons marching in the streets.

Link: Mormon church to allow parents in youth bishop meetings

Link: ‘Stop protecting sexual predators’: Outburst interrupts LDS General Conference

Seventh, we went to Easter services at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ogden. It was a nice service that emphasized the importance of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Stormy, Romance, and Trump

On Sunday, CBS’s 60 Minutes is scheduled to air a segment on Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels.
In it, Trump will be berated for paying women for sex and giving gifts.

Also circulating is this story:

Stormy Daniels’ attorney hinted on Thursday that he may have hard evidence that the adult-film actress had an affair with President Trump…

Link: Stormy Daniels’ lawyer posts photo of mystery disc in a safe

“Hard evidence” in the porn industry? Last I heard, they only cared about one thing being hard but I’ve never heard it described as evidence before.

Stormy is getting all the attention now but waiting in the on deck circle is Karen McDougal. McDougal is a former Playboy model that reportedly had a relationship with Trump in 2006.
Link: Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal says Trump tried to pay her after making love

Folks, for the sake of this post, I will stipulate that Trump did pay women for consensual sexual relations and that there are more women that are less willing to come forward and discuss it.

Who cares? Trump has been married at least twice and constantly surrounds himself with beautiful women. Doesn’t our culture teach us that rich guys do that? Hollywood does it in their movies and in real life. They tell us that is a sign of success. How many movies have you seen where the rich guy—usually a bad guy at that—has a swimming pool full of scantily clad women at his beck and call. We expect James Bond to have at least two women in every movie and in the next flick two more and that is just the way he rolls. They are working on the 27th Bond flick so that is at least 54 women this character has bedded with a slam, bam, thank you ma’am.

Rush Limbaugh, the man who claims that you can trust him in a Motel 6 with your wife and daughter was busted with 29 Viagra pills upon returning from a sex tour in the Dominican Republic.
Link: Rush Limbaugh’s Dominican Stag Party

Folks, rich and powerful men have been behaving like this since we were booted from The Garden.

In my freshman year of college, I remember Denise Macintosh telling me that the only thing more powerful than sex and drugs was Jesus. If you don’t know God, you will fill Pascal’s God shaped vacuum with other things to try to fill the void, folks that have the means often resort to sex and drugs.

So why is this attack on Trump taking place?

First, the Liberals are trying to make a moral equivalence between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

However, the two are not comparable. Trump and Clinton are both unfaithful to their marriage vows but the similarity end there. Clinton is a serial rapist. He often takes who he wants by force. Clinton also preyed on young women. He appears to have trouble reigning-in his appetites.

Second, the Establishment is trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his conservative base.

Much of Trump’s base has been unmoved by the controversies surrounding his administration. This frustrates the hell out of the Liberals and media types. They keep probing for the issue to separate supporters from Trump so they can bury him. Short of impeachment, they would love to make him a one term anomaly so they can get back to business as usual.

Why Trump Attacks Don’t Phase Supporters
Folks, sorry but I’m not buying this attack on Trump. I know he’s no saint (and he doesn’t claim that he is). I do pray for the man and hope that he will find a saving faith in Christ. Flawed as he is, Trump is the last hope for the Republic.

Look at the demographics and trends when he took office, if Trump fails to turn the direction of the country, there will never be another Republican in the White House; ever. The Democrat Party will do for the other 49 states what they are doing here in California. Obama pushed the country to the brink of oblivion and now is the tipping point that will determine if the Republic has a chance of survival. The issues at stake are bigger than any man but as Providence would have it, the burden has fallen on a blue collar guy that has a New York attitude. Mr. Trump, I’m not alone in wishing you Godspeed in your administration.

Who Led the Walkout on March 14th, the Students or the Teachers?

Faithful followers, your humble correspondent intercepted a communique from the Elk Grove Teachers Association by facsimile at the beginning of this month regarding a student led walkout protest in regard to the recent shooting in Florida. As a note to the CRA readers and the occasional Park offspring that read this blog, we do not condone any part of the shooting in Florida, this is merely to point out that fault lies with parents, teachers, and the students during these subsequent walkouts nationwide.

First of all, to the teachers and parents of this country, you are both directly responsible for this radical walkout, let me explain. When William and I were young lads many moons ago, if us students planned a protest or demonstration we would be instantly shot down, by said teachers and parents. The words, “sit down, shut up”, or “life isn’t fair” were uttered constantly. If we didn’t obey, a subsequent trip to see the principal and a phone call to your parents and likely a suspension was warranted. Yes, these were the days that a parent (or educator) could spank you so hard you couldn’t sit down for a day or two.

Oh, the good ole days…

Fast forward twenty some odd years and we get to the current political climate. Now you have a generation of 40 to 55 year-old parents whom after having their feelings and voice suppressed want their children/students to do their bidding for them. My reasoning, someone explain to me why a local K- 8 grade school had a massive walkout here? When I was in Kindergarten through 8th grade school I was more worried about whether we would be playing football or basketball during recess and hoping I wouldn’t get cooties from girls, hence I find it very hard to believe these same students today could decide to walk off campus in a protest! I didn’t know who the president was and definitely didn’t know much about gun violence. But wait; what about social media? No K-8th grade student is that plugged in; sorry to say, these protests were all led by their parents and teachers; sorry.

Let’s face it, sadly we live in a world that has become very politicized, and filled with breaking news, not correct but being the first to break it. This political climate started during the end of the Bush II administration and has progressively gotten worse since the election of CRA enemy Donald J Trump.

Let me take a couple of steps back and try to make sense of this for you. It used to be that a teacher’s job was to teach, and this job didn’t pay well, but the benefits and having summers off coupled with the love of children and joy of teaching outweighed the salary part. Currently, teachers believe they should be paid north of 100k to start, and get the same great benefits, coupled with no accountability at all. Actually, this is not far off, some school districts start at 75k, have great perks, and most importantly grant tenure after just 2 years of teaching! Yes folks, they get a “you can never be fired pass” after just 2 short years!
(Editor’s Note: while technically two years, the administration approves and submits the tenure paperwork when the new teacher is about 18 months into their teaching gig.)

It used to be if you wore a Reagan/Bush/Clinton shirt you were sent home or told to turn it inside out. Now you can wear a “F**k Donald Trump” or “Kill a Cop” shirt and if you’re a teacher, you’ll be eligible for sainthood and if you’re a student you are accounted as “a forward thinker.” The problem is people who have no business teaching are now in the classroom because they view teaching similar to being a doctor or a lawyer, it’s a money making career. Go to a local school, look at most of the teaching talent, I wouldn’t hire most to work the till at your local Burger King let alone teach my child! Don’t believe me? Go complain to the principal or the school board about this, you would be labeled as a racist or a homophobe or a bigot. Speaking of school board, WTF has happened to that group, it used to be they fought over should we teach sex-ed to 7 graders or eighth graders, now it’s should we give condoms out to students in 4th or 5th grade? Or we need to pass a school bond to make gender neutral bathrooms, or to create a safe space or best summed up at a local charter school out here a “Peace Pole.” Well I guess a peace pole is better than a stripper pole, seeing the number of teachers arrested for having a sexual relationship with students so far this year already…but I digress.

Politics has no place in our schools or class rooms, however all that has changed as well. These classrooms have become a propaganda machine for left leaning groups looking for lambs to lead to the slaughter later in life. I don’t want you to believe me; just ask one a question to see for yourself. Ask who the President is, you will likely get a very serious response of “He isn’t my president” “He was helped by Russia” “He is a racist”. The answers run the gamut. Then ask about Barak Obama, the answers will be completely different; they have been fed propaganda by their teachers in order to create a permanent voting class for dependent liberals.

So now I will tie this all into the protest, point by point as taken from this intercepted communique from Elk Grove Education Association.
Click here for EGEA Memo

1. Do NOT advocate certain political positions or encourage students to participate in a non-authorized student demonstration.

Well this is fresh, so they can pander all they want on any other day, but don’t you dare state or advocate a political position during the protest? Heck why not play the Anthem of our Country, you have probably already conditioned your sheeple to take a knee during that! Additionally, non-authorized? What the actual heck, if you’re under 18 and something wasn’t authorized as stated above, sit down, shut up, and learn.

2. You should not be perceived to be participating in the activity. Instead, your role during such activities should be supervisory.

Again, what the heck! You should participate, you should supervise? Please explain the difference to me between don’t participate but supervise? So, I can walk off as a teacher but hide behind the excuse that I need to supervise little Mike on his way off campus? What about the other students? Is Mike 18? Why is he allowed to leave without parent consent and being present with said child? Hell, supervise; 7/9ths of teachers can’t supervise properly during yard duty let alone a protest!

3. Follow instructions and plans of your site administrator. Some sites may be planning activities during this event.

Site administrator? What are we talking about here a website? As far as activities being planned, there is an activity planned that day it’s called a faux Donald Trump Protest, these kids don’t know anything about the circumstances of the shooting they just hate Donald Trump, because their teachers and parents told them too. Additionally, was there a permit pulled for this protest because they took place on public property, or was it exempt because Donald Trump?

4. Do NOT prevent a student from leaving your class who wants to leave. Follow your site procedures about reporting this behavior. Do NOT question or draw attention to a student’s participation or choice not to participate.

If a student wants to leave, especially one under 18, fine they can do so if accompanied by a parent (except when going to the local abortionist and then it’s illegal to tell the parents). As far as reporting the behavior goes, give little Mike an A for the day as far as properly following protocols.

So yeah, that’s pretty rich; but it’s right there in black and white. The teachers who tell our students complete untruths regarding Donald Trump, now want to be seen as neutral? That’s preposterous. The real sad thing about all this kerfuffle is most students and even adults have no real idea what happened during and leading up to that shooting. As far as where that lunatic got the gun, or what his motive was, who cares? The SOB is gone from this earth. Maybe we should discuss cyber bullying? The internet is a place where people can be anonymous and bully or troll anyone they please. Maybe we should discuss banning bump stocks and conversion kits, but should we also ask why it is that during an Antifa or Occupy Wall Street rally law enforcement usually recovers a cache of weapons including; rocket launchers, grenades, tommy guns, etc.? Those are far more capable of ending human life than a legally purchased AR-15. Maybe we should discuss arming a few personnel on campus, not open carry but concealed carry. How come these protests didn’t happen during the Obama presidency? Why has the older generation been allowed to ruin America’s future generations for the sake of having their children/students be social justice warriors?

Facebook Data Breach: Not

There is much nonsense going thru the Internet today about a Facebook data breach that was supposedly used to help elect Donald Trump. If you believe that Trump stole Facebook data to get elected, then I have a bullet train that I’d like to sell you. (Sorry, come to think of it, the people that bought the crap about the bullet train would believe this load of fertilizer too.) We also have it on good authority that neither George nor Aaron Park is believed to have impacted the results of the 2016 Presidential election.

Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg—a big time Liberal—was a zealous supporter of Mrs. Clinton in the last election. As you may recall, Mrs. Clinton’s only qualification to be President was that she slept in the same house with one for eight years—how often they spent together is a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, Zuckerberg is believed to be harboring aspirations for the Big House, I mean White House in 2020.

Given the partisan nature of Facebook and hostility that they have to anything religious, pro-Constitution, or generally Conservative, clearly Trump’s campaign could only benefit from Facebook data by stealing it, right?

Actually, Facebook gave the data on 50 million users away for free.

The reality is far more distressing: Facebook basically gave away our profile data. The company has always made all of this data available…

According to some excellent reporting by The New York Times, Cambridge Analytica built a personality survey app that required a Facebook log-in. That app was distributed by a compliant Cambridge University professor, who claimed the data would be used for research. This was entirely legal and in accordance with Facebook’s policies and the profile settings of its users. That the data was passed from the professor to Cambridge Analytica was a mere violation of Facebook’s developer agreement.

Around 270,000 Facebook users reportedly downloaded the survey app. So how did Cambridge Analytica harvest the data of some 50 million users? Because they were Facebook friends of people who downloaded the app.

Facebook’s policies and default privacy settings allow apps to collect massive amounts of profile data. That information is supposed to be used to provide you with a customized product; in reality, it’s usually tailored advertisements. The most painful part is that we users opened the door to these apps — the user has to download the app and grant it permission to access their Facebook profile. It tells you right up front what data it wants access to.

Taking the survey required allowing access to your Facebook profile. Thanks to Facebook’s default privacy settings (which only a small portion of users have changed) the survey app also pulled in the profile data of millions of Facebook friends.

That your data was readily available for exporting and exploiting — via your friends — should both appall and infuriate you. But this was not a breach or a leak; it was an exploitation of Facebook’s own tools and rules.

URL Link: Facebook never earned your trust and now we’re all paying the price

Sadly for Never-Trumpers and Democrats, no laws were broken, no furry animals were harmed, and no Russian spycraft was involved.

UPDATE
This was not just OK when Obama did it, it was brilliant.

The left is outraged that President Trump’s campaign used data mining to win the 2016 election – but neither the media nor Democrats seemed to mind when President Obama’s team did the same thing.

Shapiro noted that Facebook didn’t object when Obama’s team used tactics similar to what Trump’s campaign employed, noting that a former Obama campaign staffer recently admitted Facebook didn’t try to stop Obama’s 2012 re-election team because the company wanted him to win.

Obama’s campaign built a database of every American voter using the same Facebook developer tool used by Cambridge, known as the social graph API, according to the Washington Post. This technology allowed the Obama campaign to access information of voters to figure out “which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote,” according to the paper.

Liberal media didn’t think data mining was so bad when Obama’s campaign did it

Hawking Death

A few days ago, Stephen Hawking died. To me, Hawking was just a guy in a wheelchair that suffered from an illness. For some reason he seems to many in pop-culture a successor to Carl Sagan. The only thing both men seem to have in common was a disdain and hatred for organized religion—especially Christianity (why is it that Liberal icons never say anything bad about Islam?)—and both claimed that the cosmos can be explained without a Creator.

Stephen Hawking says he’s an atheist, arguing that science offers a “more convincing explanation” for the origins of the universe and that the miracles of religion “aren’t compatible” with scientific fact.

“…if there was a God, but there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

In 2011, he told The Guardian that he didn’t believe in a heaven or an afterlife, calling it “a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Stephen Hawking Says ‘There Is No God,’ Confirms He’s An Atheist

I find it curious that Christopher Hitchens did not get the same send-off when he died. He believed the same things as Hawking and Sagan.

After people die, there is often a bunch of sentimental nonsense uttered in an effort to comfort those left behind. This is doubly true of those with no hope. Much of this sentimentality comes from or about people with no evidence of faith. In such circumstances we often hear things attributed to them that are undeserved.

“Baby Doe is in a better place now.”

“Uncle Bob is in a place with no cancer.”

“Pirate Sven is sailing in a place with fair winds and calm seas.”

“Johnny don’t be so sad. I’m sure Grandma is running through a meadow in her bare feet and she and Grandpa are looking down on you.”

Such was the case for Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot.

“Rest in peace Dr. Hawking,” Gadot wrote in a tweet. “Now you’re free of any physical constraints. Your brilliance and wisdom will be cherished forever.”

Gal Gadot’s Seemingly Innocent Tribute To Stephen Hawking Offended Some People

I have a number of problems with this expression of sentimentality.

First, I think Gadot was trying to be compassionate towards those left behind in Hawking’s family. In our culture “Rest in Peace” is often used, especially for those who knew no peace in this life or suffered greatly. This expression is an indirect reference to the belief expressed in Revelation 21:4

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Second, atheist Hawking has no reason to hope for any rest. The best he can do is hope for the oblivion expressed in Ecclesiastes 9:5

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

However, we are assured that all men will stand before God on the last day.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27

The Bible is pretty clear that God doesn’t believe in atheists.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8

Gadot received lots of blowback from the Tweet that I just commented on but not from the religious community. It was an attack from disabled leftists and atheists.

People with disabilities and their advocates took offense at Gadot’s statement that Hawking was finally free of his “physical constraints” and said the assertion was ableist, or discriminatory toward people with disabilities.

Gal Gadot’s Seemingly Innocent Tribute To Stephen Hawking Offended Some People

This subgroup of the disabled community who are attacking Gadot are really attacking the foundations of Western Culture. They are denying sin and its effects on the Creation. The Bible is clear that we all have corruptible bodies that are tainted by the effects of sin and that we will get a resurrected body that is incorruptible.

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:49-58

For the disabled community to attack Gadot like they did is a denial that all our bodies are corrupted. When we say ‘disabled” we are talking of degrees of how defective our bodies are. We all age, we all died, we all return to dust. The Bible is clear that no matter how distorted it may be, we are image bearers of God and made in His image. Each of us is created just as God wanted us—even if we are blind or lame we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”.

Another comment on Hawking’s death also got some media attention.

A Texas state representative came under fire on social media Wednesday over a tweet about famed British physicist Stephen Hawking that some found insensitive.

Just hours after Hawking died, Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Republican, tweeted: “Stephen Hawking now knows the truth about how the universe was actually made. My condolences to his family.” Hawking died Wednesday at age 76.

But despite the overwhelming criticism, the lawmaker remained defiant and stood behind his comment.

“While many see him as one of the greatest public intellectuals of the last century, and no one disputes that he was brilliant, the fact remains that God exists,” Cain told the American-Statesman. “My tweet was to show the gravity of the Gospel and what happens when we die, namely, that we all will one day meet the Creator of the universe face to face.

“Stephen Hawking was a vocal atheist, who advocated against and openly mocked God,” Cain continued. “Hawking has said, ‘[T]here is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate.’ And, elsewhere, `I’m an atheist.’”

Lawmaker’s tweet after physicist Stephen Hawking’s death draws criticism

My first reaction to Briscoe Cain’s comments is preach it brother. God has done everything to necessary to keep us out of Hell but only if we come to Him through Jesus. We can’t live life as we see fit and expect to enter Heaven on our own merit. The best works we could possibly do are called by God “filthy rags”.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah 64:6

But what are filthy rags? The best modern translation is “used tampons”. Here is the Strong’s definition.

In the Old Testament, a woman having her period was ceremonially unclear during that time and for a few days after. So the bottom line is that your best works of righteousness are not just physically unclean but keep you from entering God’s presence. They are fit for nothing but to be burned.

God’s remedy was to send Jesus to die in our place so His righteousness could be used to obtain what we could not, peace with God. But we can only do this on His terms not ours. Only then can we say this:

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:8

Stephen Hawking chose poorly.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1: 18-23

Who Said Crime Doesn’t Pay?

I often quote Randy Stonehill’s lyrics, “We put criminals in office because its way too crowded in the jails” but today’s story is about another fraud, this one is in Silicon Valley. Unfortunately, this person will never see a day in jail. I don’t get why Enron executives and Bernie Madoff go to prison and this person got nothing of consequence.

Meet Elizabeth Holmes. She is described by the New York Post as a “Silicon Valley wunderkind ” and “Steve Jobs wannabe who dresses exclusively in black turtlenecks ”. Per the Post article, her net worth is estimated at 4.5 billion dollars.

Silicon Valley wunderkind Elizabeth Holmes

So what was the crime of this 34 year old babe? A few years back, she started a blood testing outfit called Theranos. Here are a few claims made to investors.
• “Theranos told investors about the Department Defense using its blood tests…”
• “Theranos distributed pitch books to investors containing articles … written by other pharmaceutical executives — lending the startup institutional clout…”
• “…Theranos said (it) was able to test for diseases with only a pinprick, and more cheaply than what was commercially available…”

Claims like the above convinced investors to trust 700 million dollars to the company.

However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has come down hard on little miss valley girl and her fake company. The Post article describes the situation this way:

The charges amount to one of the biggest scandals to rock the tech world since the bursting of the tech bubble in 1999.

Theranos and 34-year-old Holmes ran “an elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance,” according to the SEC.

Elizabeth used to claim that Theranos had “a valuation north of $9 billion”.

While Theranos had said it was on track to make $100 million by the end of 2014, the real figure was “a little more than $100,000,” according to the SEC. And, contrary to what Theranos told investors about the Department Defense using its blood tests, they were “never deployed by the DOD in the battlefield, in Afghanistan, or on medevac helicopters,” according to the settlement.

The disgraced CEO also misled employees about its institutional backing, according to the charges. Theranos distributed pitch books to investors containing articles purportedly written by other pharmaceutical executives — lending the startup institutional clout —but were in fact written by company employees, according to the charges.

Theranos started to unravel in 2015 after the Wall Street Journal reported that its blood tests were actually being conducted by commercial analyzers, and that the actual technology wasn’t special.

Oh, the SEC fine given to Elizabeth for her indiscretions, was $500,000.

Let’s run the numbers again.

Net Worth 4.5 billion
Defraud Investors 700 million
Fine ½ million

Thus her fine is 0.0714 percent of the amount that she defrauded from investors and 0.0111 of her net worth. To put this in numbers that you might understand better, if you stole $45,000, your civil fine would be $32.14 and you don’t have to repay the investors.

There is no indication that any criminal charges are pending.

Who said crime doesn’t pay?

SEC accuses Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes of ‘massive fraud’

Braying Jackalope Mark Cuban Had A Rough Week

Let me begin by saying Mark Cuban is a very recognizable figure lately; he is the owner of the NBS franchise in Dallas, the Mavericks, he is a guest on Shark Tank on CNBC, and is also known as a Donald Trump hater. As a NBA owner he was very vocal about officiating gaffes, and has been fined millions over the years, on Shark Tank he sits to the left of the screen and is basically known for striking a deal about once a week with an entrepreneur. Lastly, he despises everything about Donald J Trump, from endorsing Hillary over him in the election to threatening to run against him in the primary in 2020. Seems like he would be welcome by the CRA and the tea party groups nationwide!

Cuban’s quest for publicity at every turn actually could lead to his demise. On February 20th of this year Sports Illustrated, (mostly known for their famous Swimsuit edition rather than actual journalism by the way) put out a strange tweet saying they had finished an investigation into sexual harassment with the Dallas Mavericks. Not to be outdone, the Mavericks quickly went in to spin mode:

The Dallas Mavericks have received information about behavior in our workplace that appears to have violated the organization’s standards of conduct. It has been alleged that a former officer of the organization engaged in various acts of inappropriate conduct toward women over a period of years. This individual left the employment of the Mavericks nearly three years ago and the Mavericks have only learned of the scope of these complaints in the past days.

This is to be expected. Mark Cuban likes to control the narrative, however it is a very weird response to the tweet put out by Sports Illustrated. What came next was a bombshell even Cuban couldn’t have anticipated. The investigation goes all the way back to 1998; when Cuban bought the team! Terdema Ussery was the team President and CEO at the time and prior to Cuban’s purchase, he had been investigated for sexual harassment by the team, after several female employees complained about him. Cuban kept him on the job, but “every employee of the organization received a revamped employee handbook with a new sexual harassment policy.” It was 1998 and at the time this was passable behavior from a new owner, keep the crew but make sure they know about new policies. Problem was Ussery continued his behavior. Here is a firsthand account:

At this meal, with ESPN crew members seated nearby, Ussery struck up an unusual conversation. As the woman recalls the exchange, Ussery claimed that he knew what she was going to do over the coming weekend. When the woman asked, confusedly, what Ussery meant, he smiled.

“You’re going to get gang-banged,” he asserted, “aren’t you?”

“No,” the woman responded, caught off-guard. “Actually, I’m going to the movies with friends.”

“No,” Ussery insisted. “You’re definitely getting gang-banged.”

On his other hand:

Two women claimed to SI that Ussery harassed them for years. These incidents ranged from inappropriate remarks to requests for sex to touching women’s calves and thighs during meetings. One of the women says she made [head of HR Buddy Pittman] aware—“countless times … I ‘leaned in’ so much I fell over”—of Ussery’s behavior; the other chose not to, frustrated by what she deemed to be Pittman’s unhelpful response to an unrelated complaint she had raised. “I felt trapped, frozen, scared,” says one of the women. “This was the CEO of the organization … and it was clear he wasn’t going to get fired.”

How was this bozo kept on the payroll? That question remains unanswered. In 2015 he left the Mavericks and joined Under Armour. He lasted 2 months at that company. Anyone want to take bets that his hands-on management style got him terminated?

Let us shift gears to another employee, Earl Sneed. Sneed was a freelance writer who got a full-time gig with the Mavericks in 2010-2011. Let’s look at how much this guy respected women:

Midway through that season, Sneed was involved in a domestic dispute with a girlfriend. According to a Dallas police report, Sneed “sat on top of her and slapped her on the face and chest.” At one point he told the woman, “I’m going to f——— kick your ass. Today is gonna be the worst day of your life.” Sneed, according to the report, “fled before the reporting officer arrived.” The woman, according to the report, suffered a fractured right wrist and bruises on her arms and chest in the altercation.

But wait, there is more. Sneed, in 2014, hit a female co-worker whom he was dating. The women reported the event to her supervisor and then to Buddy Pittman, the Head of Human Resources. Keep in mind almost every company has rules about dating co-workers, yet somehow Sneed was able to retain his job yet again, but with an unusual caveat; he could not be alone with any female at any time. Strange. Honestly that is a bizarre policy right there, especially coming from Human Resources who probably would have recommended termination for this employee. Was the HR supervisor overruled by Cuban? Impossible to tell right now. Also another female reported that a co-worker watched porn at his desk all day on a company workstation no less….sounds like a frat house more so than a place of work.

Cuban, looking to control the narrative did what any other lowly President of a corporation does, he claimed plausible deniability. In English that means someone who can safely deny that he knew anything about the situation. If you’re thinking of a CEO or government official being questioned by congress or the SEC you are on the right track.

Here is the problem for Cuban or anyone else that is a frequent twitter/media user…Cuban on multiple media formats has said/tweeted “I know so much about my company and the inner workings you can’t B******T me!. I purposely did not screen shot this tweet because of the vulgar language used, but will say this to prove my point, social media is a platform where you stand to win very little and stand to lose quite a bit. That little tweet has come back to rear its ugly head quite a bit the last couple weeks. Hard to claim you have intimate knowledge of everything in all your companies then come out and say you are so distant you have no clue. However, believe it or not this story gets even stranger.

Back in 2014 when disgraced former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling was on the verge of the NBA taking his team away, Cuban made some very strange remarks. Saying, “I think taking someone’s team away over comments they said or things they did were creating a very, very, very slippery slope.” I found this statement odd because Sterling was a very racist and bigoted man who had damaged the brand so badly that I felt he needed to lose his team. Now it makes sense as Cuban likely has several skeletons in his closet, including a recent report that back in 2011 he groped/penetrated a women at a bar. This report was corroborated by the bartender working that night describing Cuban as very intoxicated and very touchy feely with female guests. Luckily for him, the police “investigated and decided to close the case.”

My advice to Cuban is stay in private life, do a few deals on Shark Tank and enjoy owning the Dallas Mavericks and a movie theatre. Keep your head down and hope that this will all blow over. Claiming you’re a hands-on owner in this climate won’t be viewed favorably by most voters. Running against Donald Trump in a primary in 2 years would be one of the dumbest things you can do. Trump didn’t just beat his competition at every level of the race, he mortally wounded them; look at Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Lyin’ Ted Cruz, and look no further than crooked Hillary. Mark, any other skeletons in your closet will be outed, beware.

Why Republican Losses Are Good For Trump

Republicans have an openly hostile relationship with President Trump. We all know this but it’s really difficult for a sitting President to be at war with his own Party. Trump has a strategy to fix this, but it involves pain. I don’t like that Trump keeps backing Establishment candidates in the various special elections that have occurred since he was sworn in; however, the electorate doesn’t mistake Trump as part of the Establishment. If Democrats take back either the House or Senate, it will be a different dynamic. Trump will be the beneficiary. Here’s how.

• It’s OK that Trump is openly at war with the Democrats because they are the other Party.
• Trump will get more legislation passed if he must deal with the Democrats. Trump will gladly take 65 or 70 percent of something he wants than 100 percent of nothing—which is what the current crop of feckless Republicans have given him. But what about the tax cuts? Folks, the tax cuts are temporary, and, in a few years, they will revert to the old rates unless Congress passes more legislation. Remember, Washington wants issues to campaign on; they are not in the business of fixing anything.
• Without incumbents in election races, Trump can back whoever he wants and there is no political downside for him. Trump can handpick a legislative team willing to work with him. Even if the Establishment doesn’t like him, they will be forced to publicly pledge themselves to working with the President.
• Trump is head of the Republican Party and can control where much of the campaign money is spent.
• The Establishment types love power more than anything so they will set aside their differences with the President if they think he can help them keep their jobs.
• Trump—like Reagan—can bring issues before the public and bypass the media and political class.

Truthfully, it may not require the Democrats to prevail in November. The thought that it could happen may be enough. If Republicans stand with Trump they will be OK but if they try to throw him under the bus, then they might be the ones looking to spend more time with their families after November’s ballots are cast. Trump’s name is not on the ballot this year, but he has a better track record than any Republican campaigning in this cycle. If Republicans in Congress run on their own record they will lose, if they run with Trump they will win.