Category: Chris Freind

Donald Trump Open Letter

Donald Trump Open Letter

By Chris Freind Donald Trump Open Letter

Dear Mr. Trump:

From your business acumen to your sense of humor to your unprecedented ability to “tell it like it is” where others fear to tread, you are a man of many admirable qualities – qualities, not coincidentally, that are requirements for a successful president.

Which is why it’s so frustrating to watch you continue to implode – a feat entirely of your own making. Despite being firmly in the driver’s seat just a short time ago, controlling your destiny and potentially that of the nation’s, you now find yourself flailing, unable to regain your once-unstoppable momentum. Sure, you won your home state of New York, and will likely do well in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, but barring a miraculous finish, you’ll come up short, forcing a contested Republican convention.

Open convention or not, if you don’t get your head in the game quickly – assuming you truly want to win – not only will you be flushing your chances for the GOP nomination down the toilet, but with it, the hopes of many Americans.

And that’s unfortunate. Donald Trump will land on his feet, no matter what happens. But what about the millions who expended blood, sweat and tears fighting for you, and defending you when your antics were indefensible?

What will you say to those who, justifiably cynical for so long, had given up on representative government and succumbed to apathy? And yet, because of you, they found themselves daring to believe. They rediscovered hope.

How will you look them in the eye and tell them you tried your best when you refused to stop hurling insults and belittling all who oppose you, despite knowing that such behavior has been the major reason for your decline?

Given that your staff seems to be filled with “yes men,” and in spite of an apparent hearing problem that precludes you from listening to common sense, here are a few “Freindly” suggestions, on the eve of the crucially important Pennsylvania primary:

1. Stop whining. No one likes a chronic complainer, and to many (even some supporters), that’s exactly what you’ve become. Adding salt to the wound is that many of your outbursts are filled with considerable inconsistencies, which make you look eminently unpresidential.

Take the delegate situation. When you lose a state and/or its delegates, you typically engage in an insult-laden tirade (often on Twitter because you refuse to hold a press conference), whining about how you’re being cheated, and that the nomination is being stolen from you.

Yet when you win, as you gloat and call opponents third-grade names while telling the world that you have the nomination locked up, we hear none of those complaints. Which is it, Mr. Trump? Because it can’t be both. Granted, the primary system needs significant revision, but you should have known the rules of each state going in. You can’t pick and choose based on how well you perform in a particular state.

2. Be consistent. From the get-go, you had the resources to hire the best and brightest campaign strategists to navigate the labyrinth of rules, but given that Ted Cruz is outmaneuvering you, it’s clear you didn’t pull the trigger and put the proper team in place. Fine. That was a costly mistake, and there’s no such thing as a perfect campaign. Admit it, rectify it, and move on.

But blaming your delegate losses on a grand conspiracy by the party elites to defraud you is make-believe. The rules have not changed since you decided to run, so stop acting like they were. The fact that you got caught unprepared is no one’s fault but your own. Americans want humility in their leader, and will reward those with the ability to admit mistakes (as well as win, and lose, graciously). A dose of such humility would serve you well.

3. Take a lesson from the Boy Scouts: Be prepared. Every candidate makes gaffes on issues, and the American people will overlook them, so long as they’re about trade deal minutiae or the name of the president of Guyana. But stumbling on major issues, such as abortion and visas for skilled foreign workers, ostensibly because you were unprepared, is a killer. Right or wrong, the American people see those mistakes as the result of a cavalier approach to the issues. If you aren’t sure about an issue, saying the magic words, “I don’t know, but will do my homework,” works wonders.

Few expect (or want) their president to be an expert on every issue. But giving bush-league answers on issues that have been around for decades, and then taking multiple positions in rapid succession in a misguided attempt at damage-control is a recipe for disaster.

Learn the issues, and advocate with poise and grace, and you win hearts and minds. It’s late in the game for such advice, but heed it, because it will only get harder from here.

4. Stop playing the victim. The prevailing perception of Donald Trump right now is that of a nasty, mean-spirited bully who can dish it out like a champ, but can’t take an iota of criticism. Instead, he resorts to hurling insults, threatening lawsuits and boycotting people who have “offended” him.

Americans look at your ongoing feud with Fox’s Megyn Kelly and your refusal to participate in debates not to your liking as an ominous harbinger of a Trump administration. Will you walk out on China during trade negotiations because you don’t like a question they ask? Will you boycott media organizations that criticize you? Will we go to war because you refuse to employ diplomacy, tact and, God forbid, restraint when it’s warranted?

People won’t elect a president whom they view as unpresidential, and that will never change.

5. Finally, start spending your own money. Now. As this columnist wrote back in October: “Trump made a huge error by not spending $100 million on a nationwide ad campaign showing a kinder, gentler Donald Trump. Since he is the only one who could afford such a blitz, he could have defined the campaign, leaving his opponents powerless to respond. Incomprehensibly, he did the opposite, putting away his checkbook and accepting campaign contributions. In doing so, he lost his biggest trump card.”

No better time than the present, Mr. Trump.

The ultimate winner will be one who can appeal to a broad GOP constituency. Right now, that leaves you out in the cold. But if The Donald opens his wallet, stops hurling insults, demonstrates a firm grasp of the issues, and eats some humble pie by admitting his mistakes – all while being the only one on the national airwaves telling the Trump narrative – we could see the most exciting convention in history.

And who knows? You might turn out to be the best “Trump card” the Republican Party has had in a long time.

Donald Trump Open Letter

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

By Chris Freind Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

Politics has always been a soiled business, but given the movements underway – both defending and pushing against laws governing which bathrooms transgender people can use – it’s gotten even messier.

So in an ode to the commode, let’s avoid a dirty scene and keep the bathroom debate clean.

It’s amazing that with so many problems facing Americans, from terrorist threats to astronomical college tuition, the dominant national debate recently has centered on which bathrooms adults can legally use.

Make no mistake: This won’t be relegated to an issue that will be flushed quickly from the headlines, but is in fact a steamy election debate that will lead to a judicial logjam as newly passed statutes – known as “religious freedom” laws – are dumped in the court’s lap. And given the Supreme Court’s current makeup, which side ends up in the outhouse remains to be seen.

While this may seem like a joke, it’s a debate that will result in serious legal precedents. The stakes are extremely high.

More than 30 states have passed or attempted to pass so-called religious freedom measures. These laws range from mandating that people use the bathroom corresponding to their biological gender, to allowing private business owners to refuse service on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction.

And they have come with a price. Big business, professional sports teams, Hollywood, rock stars and even other state governments have criticized them as discriminatory, with some pulling their business ventures from those states, and others threatening to do the same.

Like most issues, this one has devolved into the bowels of divisiveness because a small but vocal minority refuses to see that the law is rooted in common sense and safety, not bigotry. Instead of amicable dialog, many extremists are deliberately employing hateful rhetoric in the hopes of igniting a flashpoint, emboldened by the misguided support of well-known entities.

Those tactics are counterproductive, and serve only to divide, widening the gulf between those who have already shown themselves to be tolerant, from support for gay marriage to an ever-evolving “live and let live” philosophy.

But enough is enough.

Here’s a look at the broader context of the bathroom law, and why it is needed.

Critics cry that the bathroom law discriminates against transgender people, as well as anyone who “identifies” with their opposite biological sex.

First, a word about “discrimination.” Does the law discriminate? Of course! And it should, in just the same way that we “discriminate” – a dirty word in today’s society, but one that simply means “choose” – a thousand times a day. We discriminate about what clothes we wear, what toothbrush we buy, where we work, what car we drive, and what kind of latte we order. And yes, we discriminate, as we always have, about which bathrooms we allow each gender to use. It’s always worked before, so why the big controversy now?

Second, this law is, above all, about safety and security, especially for women. What parents in their right minds – Republican and Democrat, gay or straight – would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into the ladies’ bathroom where a man, acting on “feelings” alone, might be using the same facility? A father out with his 5-year old daughter can take her into the men’s room, but when she is 8 or 9, that doesn’t cut it. So what then? Will the father have to enter the women’s bathroom to keep a watchful eye on possible voyeurs, pedophiles, and other predators?

And what about locker rooms? While high school boys would love nothing more than legally accessing the girls’ locker room – after all, who can prove their feelings of “identity?” – it would create an environment of fear and anxiety in a place that should be private and secure. And while an assault or rape there would still be illegal, the liability that now exists should an entity willfully allow the opposite sex to access bathrooms and locker rooms would go out the window.

And how could such a regulation possibly work in the military? Or the workplace, for that matter? How can a woman who feels threatened by that creepy guy habitually inside the women’s bathroom file a sexual harassment lawsuit? Guess what? She can’t, because legally he would be entitled to be there.

But since extremists always push it way beyond common sense (and common decency) to prove a point and garner headlines, watch for them to do an end-run around these laws by lobbying for a third bathroom in public and private facilities. Crazy? Of course, but since the entitlement mentality sweeping America is in full swing – fueled by people’s silence in opposing such ludicrous political correctness – it will happen. If men and women can each have their own bathrooms, the transgendered community should be entitled to one, too, at taxpayer expense, no less! And let’s have another for bisexuals. And gay people. And pet lovers. And private bathrooms for those with a phobia of other people.

Is this debate for real?

Is this really why Bruce Springsteen won’t perform in North Carolina? This is why PayPal won’t locate there? Why some people think the NBA should never hold an all-star game in the Tar Heel state, or the NFL its Super Bowl? It’s too bad these people can’t discriminate between ignorance and common sense.

The beauty of America is the ability to choose. If those entities want to boycott North Carolina, so be it. That’s their right. But they would be wise to fear the much greater backlash that will occur when people see their blatant hypocrisy.

Is PayPal also going to “boycott” the millions of dollars its business generates from consumers in North Carolina? Will the NFL refuse to play its Super Bowl there – the same “morally conscious” league, by the way, that doles out stiffer penalties for steroid use (which affects no one except the user) than it does horrendous domestic assaults?

And Springsteen, self-proclaimed liberal man-of-the-people who derides the “disparity of wealth” in America (code-speak for taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don’t), conveniently doesn’t mention that he takes advantage of a New Jersey tax loophole allowing his 200 acres to be labeled “farmland.” What about the millions in property taxes he avoids that could help fund all those welfare programs? With a loophole like that, perhaps Bruce should be boycotting his home state instead.

No one is saying you can’t be transgender. No one is saying you can’t be transgender in public. All the North Carolina law says is that you must use the bathroom corresponding to your gender at birth (or currently are). That’s it. No bigotry. No hatred. No nonsense.

Just good old-fashioned common sense. If we used that a little more, we wouldn’t have such a mess.

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

By Chris Freind Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Does this sound familiar?

1. A terrorist attacks occurs.

2. Trite, boilerplate statements are released: “Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims;” “This aggression will not stand;” “We will bring the perpetrators to justice;” and, “This is not just an attack on (fill in the blank), but on all of humanity.”

3. “Thorough” investigations begin (code for law enforcement starting to do the job they should have been doing all along).

4. Arrests are made within 24 hours. A testament to outstanding police work, or the result of officials finally acting on intel that had already determined who and where the terrorists were? If you answered the former, go back to living under your rock.

5. People stage candlelight vigils, often more for the cameras and social media “Likes,” than for the actual victims.

6. Any attempt to affix blame — not for the sake of blame, but to ascertain exactly how and why the attack occurred, what went wrong in preventing it (or at least knowing about it), and developing plans to stop future attacks — is immediately criticized by the politically correct crowd. “Not now,” they say. “It’s callous and way too soon to talk about such things. They’ll be time for those discussions later.”

7. Time passes, people move on, and “those discussions” never occur. Complacency sets in again, and more ominously, the insensitivity that comes with increasingly frequent attacks.

8. Surprise, surprise. Another attack.

9. Go back to Point One.

* * *

When will we learn?

When will we learn that appeasement and burying our heads, in the naive hope that the threat will simply vanish, will never work?

And “our” refers to everyone except those doing the killing.

Quite frankly, it’s amazing that Islamic terror is as vibrant as it is, considering that five of the most powerful entities in world history share the goal of rooting out and destroying that festering threat.

America; Europe/NATO; Russia; China; and India. While each have differences in why they oppose radical fundamentalism — and different agendas in how the war on terror should be prosecuted — they nonetheless should be united in opposing ISIS and Al Qaeda. But they’re not — not even the U.S. and its European allies. Instead, bureaucracy, incompetence and the desire to placate political correctness allow the threat to gain a stronger foothold, especially in Europe.

Blame for that failure falls on each entity, but the United States (especially the George W. Bush administration that squandered the world’s good will after the 9/11 attacks), shoulders the most. As the only superpower, we could have taken the lead though common sense strategy, but instead embarked on a disjointed, wholly ineffectual policy that has allowed terrorists to blossom.

Enough with the meaningless tough-talk rhetoric. It’s time for a comprehensive strategy that keeps terrorists on the run, destroys their communication and financial networks, and jettisons political correctness.

Here’s how:

1. First and foremost, close the European (and American) borders, and end the refugee exodus. That’s not inhumane; it’s self-preservation. European countries have been languishing under socialist polices for years, stagnating their economies and putting tremendous strain on governments hell-bent on funding every social program imaginable. Throw millions of refugees — many uneducated and unskilled — into that malaise, where they are given extravagant housing and welfare, and you have the recipe for economic collapse. Such largesse not only kills the incentive for refugees to work and assimilate, but allows many to disparage Western culture and laws, while demanding unwavering respect for theirs.

Add that none of the refugees can reliably pass a background check because no one in the war-torn countries can verify anything, and you have another impossible task: Trying to keep tabs on a huge population, some of whom are undercover terrorists gaming the system (evidenced by the Paris attackers). These masquerading terrorists are salivating at the chance to upstage their compatriots’ “success” in Paris and Brussels; we may not be able to stop all of them, but let’s not roll out the red carpet.

Europe has been more than generous, but its open-borders policy must end immediately.

2. The goal should be to train refugees, in both military and civilian capacities, so that they can return to their countries, fight to win the peace, and effectively administer whatever government is formed. This cannot be an open-ended vacation; there must be an end-date to their stay in Europe. That way, European soldiers could guard their borders and not shed blood in the Middle East.

In that regard, all boots on the ground must be “locals.” We should train and arm them, and provide logistics, intelligence and air support, but America and the West cannot become entwined in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire where victory is impossible. Not only does it breed resentment (crusaders occupying their lands), but it has never worked. And it certainly won’t work now.

3. Assuming that countries like Syria can be “liberated,” the West cannot dictate what type of government should be established (a mistake made time and again by the Bush Administration that sought to impose “democracy).” Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad and Muammar Gaddafi may have been tyrants, but they kept the peace (there were no car bombs — ever — under Hussein’s reign). If Middle Eastern countries need to be ruled by strongmen who keep the terrorists at bay, so be it.

4. Can someone please tell the NSA to shift its priorities? Either their operations have been fatally curtailed by blowback from domestic spying (which would be insanity, since honing in on terrorists is what they should be doing), or their resources are focused on who has the best March Madness brackets.

5. Since we continually raid places that we clearly know are terror hotbeds, but only after attacks, maybe we should pretend it’s “Opposite Day” and hit them before they act. How novel.

6. Bring back torture. It works. Period. Despite the protestations of armchair academics sitting in their ivory towers, inflicting pain, physical and otherwise, on those with critical information works. No man is unbreakable. When thousands, or perhaps millions, of innocent lives hang in the balance, the “rights” of an animal go up in smoke. Perhaps literally.

If we don’t, it’s like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. And no, Geneva Convention rules should not apply, since this is not a traditional war. We are fighting opponents who will never respect such protocols, and who gleefully target innocent civilians. Gloves-off is the only way to deal with such barbarians.

7. Finally, not only do we need to aggressively profile, but profile the right people without regard to “offending.” It is our first, best, and sometimes last line of defense in catching wind of a plot. How effective is it? Ask the Israelis, whose El Al, the most-highly targeted airline in the world, has only been hijacked once. Profiling works, and should be instituted immediately. Any whiny American who doesn’t like it can take the bus to Europe.
* * *
Employ common sense, and the terror threat can be hugely mitigated. But keep engaging in ineffective feel-good tactics and unwinnable Middle Eastern wars, and the attacks will continue. Time is running out, and that ticking you hear is most definitely not a clock.

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems By Chris Freind Leigh Anne Arthur

Pop quiz: Your house is left unlocked, and an intruder enters. The trespasser rifles through your private belongings and steals compromising information, which he then uses to incriminate you. With ample evidence of his crimes, he is caught red-handed.

Should you expect:

A. The perpetrator to be immediately brought to justice, or

B. To be publicly scolded by the authorities for leaving your door unlocked; blamed for enabling the invader to enter your premises; get fired from your job; and face possible charges for your “indiscretion” – all as the perp goes unpunished.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day question. Instead, it’s an analogy to a situation playing out right now in a Union County, S.C., public school district.

The only problem? It’s just not true.

On Feb. 18, teacher Leigh Anne Arthur stepped out of her classroom for a few minutes to monitor students in the hallway. She left her unlocked cell phone on her desk.

In her absence, a 16-year old student accessed Arthur’s phone without permission and, after navigating through several apps, opened the picture gallery. There he found a semi-nude photo of Arthur (who said it was a Valentine’s Day present for her husband. and widely distributed it.

Arthur, told she would be subject to disciplinary proceedings, resigned. Ever since, she has been blasting the administration, and Superintendent Dr. David Eubanks in particular, for ignoring the invasion of her privacy, claiming she was punished despite being the victim.

The problem for Ms. Arthur, as is so often the case, is that she seems to be ignoring those pesky little things called “facts.”

Sunshine is the best antiseptic, so let’s shed some light on what happened:

1. First and foremost, Arthur was not fired, nor was she “forced” to resign, as was widely reported. She resigned of her own free will. Period. And it wasn’t like she was put on the spot “resign now or you’re fired,” but had ample time to mull her decision. Most damning for Arthur is that, under South Carolina law, she had the right to appeal to the school board whatever action was taken against her, as that body is the final arbiter. And why wouldn’t she? After all, if she were truly the victim, one would think that she would welcome her “day in court.”

But instead of fighting the superintendent, she chose to resign. That bears repeating: She chose to leave. Case closed.

2. It is fascinating to note that, despite all the claims of victimization, Arthur apparently never actually reported the incident. Arthur apparently never said a word to the administration. In fact, it was Dr. Eubanks who immediately launched an investigation (including contacting law enforcement. as soon as he was made aware of the incident – which was brought to his attention by staff and students four days after it occurred.

Bottom line: It’s kind of hard for Arthur to make the case that she was wronged when A. she voluntarily left, and B. she never even reported what had occurred.

3. “The whole premise of my privacy being invaded is being ignored, and that’s what’s wrong,” Arthur stated.

While Arthur may think it sounds good to frame this as privacy-rights-gone-astray issue, it’s nothing of the sort.

For the record, there is no bigger privacy advocate in the media than this columnist; if this case were actually about that, “Freindly Fire” would have jumped to Arthur’s defense. But it’s not.

The invasion of Arthurs’s privacy most certainly is not being ignored, as the student is being held accountable by both the school and law enforcement. He faces an expulsion hearing on March 14. More ominously for him, he has been arrested and charged with computer crimes and aggravated voyeurism. And according to reports, he is being detained at the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice.

If Arthur would care to explain how that’s “ignoring” the alleged privacy violation, the country is all ears.

4. Let’s cut to the chase. Arthur would have faced disciplinary action because she violated school procedures, according to Dr. Eubanks, and clearly exercised very bad judgment.

Teachers monitoring hallways are instructed to do so from their doorways so they can keep an eye on both the corridor and the classroom. But numerous witnesses state she was in a completely different room. So clearly, had she followed the established monitoring protocols, the incident likely would have never taken place.

Arthur apparently routinely allowed students to access to her phone, both for calling and Internet purposes. In the age of technology, that’s not a very prudent decision, however well-meaning it may have been. Should 16-year olds understand the difference between using her phone with, and without, permission, and know right from wrong while on the phone? Sure, in theory. But in the real world, you simply cannot assume that will be the case. Teachers in particular can never lose sight of the temptations that come with students holding more computer power in their hands than the Apollo spacecraft.

But for God’s sake, if you are going to allow students to use your phone, you cannot, under any circumstances, have wildly inappropriate material that could be accessed with a few clicks. It’s not a backwards-Southern-evangelical mindset, as many have been so quick to say. Instead, it’s simple common sense – a belief that a teacher’s nude selfie is out of bounds to have on an unlocked phone that students use.

5. Once again, much of the media has shown its true colors: Laziness, aversion to doing its homework, and above all, chasing the most sensational headlines, truth be damned.

Calling on journalists and editors to become more responsible is another column (which this writer has pointed out numerous times.. But indisputably, the more they speed recklessly down the path of hype over substance, of shoddy work over diligent reporting, the more that people will tune out, as declining ratings and readership levels clearly demonstrate. The future of the Fourth Estate is at stake.

Union County, S.C., is a slice of Americana: A small, quaint place that adheres to the values that made America great — accountability, responsibility, courage. The last thing its people, and Superintendent Eubanks in particular, would have wanted is to be the epicenter of a national firestorm. But despite coming under withering attack from the uninformed, they have stood their ground and taught the rest of the country the most valuable lesson of all: The truth shall set you free.

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

By Chris Freind Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Only one of two things is true:

A. Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment found their true calling in the comedic arts, or

B. They are, without a doubt, the dumbest people in America. And in a culture that values all things Kardashian, that’s saying something.

But given how serious Romney was Thursday – playing the role of elder Republican statesman in trashing Donald Trump – it is painfully obvious that stupidity “trumps” comedy in the GOP.

Too bad they didn’t do this before the Oscars. If they had, there would have been a plethora of movie remakes for this melodrama: “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Failure To Launch,” “Revenge Of The Nerds,” “The Jerk,” “Quantum Of Solace,” “Fury Road,” or even “Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Republican Sisterhood.”

But truth be told, even Hollywood couldn’t script this farce.

Trumpeting his own horn during the “big announcement” speech, Romney referred to Trump supporters as “suckers” in a desperate attempt to derail Trump and deny him the nomination. In doing so, Romney and the GOP hierarchy personified another movie: “Psycho.”

Let’s take a look at the how this epic blunder will completely backfire:

1. Granted, the list of credible Republican statesmen is short (a fault of the party’s own making because, ever since Ronald Reagan, it has focused solely on coronating candidates “whose turn it is” rather than developing charismatic leaders), but the single worst person to deliver such a message was Romney – especially since he sought, and received, Trump’s endorsement and money during his presidential runs.

Surprised? Don’t be. After all, Romney was the worst candidate that GOP elites could have chosen to take on President Obama in an election that should have been a slamdunk for the Republicans. Yet that’s exactly what they did.

The proof was in the pudding. Despite spending millions after his unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to secure the GOP nomination, Romney was still routinely losing seven of 10 Republicans in the 2012 primaries, even after he had all but locked up the nomination – and that was with a weak field. In other words, despite competing against a rag-tag cadre of opponents who had virtually no money or organizations, and who mathematically couldn’t win the nomination, he was faring worse than four years prior.

But did paternalistic party leaders listen? Nope. They, not the rank-and-file, knew “best,” and the coronation proceeded.

After staggering to the nomination, Romney ran an abysmal campaign. Despite Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters – including Republicans – still rejected Romney, as three million fewer voted for Romney than for John McCain. And the exit polls showed what common sense had already told us: A majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large. Yet more pulled for Obama. Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument. He was incapable of relating to the middle class, and thus never sealed the deal. The “Anyone But Obama” strategy backfired, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Paul Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an “Anyone But Romney” backlash.

Throw in his numerous flip-flops, monumental gaffes (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people, too; criticizing the “47 percent”), late release of his tax return, pandering to minorities, and an unprecedented aloofness, and his landslide defeat was easily predictable.

And yet, what did Romney and party leaders (including GOP “experts” Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris) do after that crushing defeat? They blamed Chris Christie, because he worked with the president in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. You simply can’t make this up.

Oh, and they came up with ways to “reinvent” the party and “win elections.” So it’s not without a bit of irony that the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaign but guaranteed a Romney “landslide” were writing the playbook for how to win in 2016 – and who are now telling voters whom not to vote for.

Is it any wonder that the party that championed insomnia-curing candidates Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush is now being ignored by a majority of Republicans? The establishment’s credibility gap had never been wider than before Romney’s speech. But after his debacle, it has expanded into an almost unbridgeable chasm. Brilliant, Mitt.

2. Forgetting everything else, Romney looks like a jealous malcontent. First, his money, while substantial, is dwarfed by Trump’s fortune, and in that world, size matters. Second, Mitt is green with envy at the reception lavished on Trump – fervent crowds, standing-room-only arenas, passionate supporters. Romney never came close to inspiring Americans the way Trump has. But rather than looking inward, he instead feels compelled to criticize Trump for the success he never garnered. As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”

3. Romney’s speech may have been a trial balloon to gauge whether he should enter the race, especially if Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida. While the filing deadline has passed in most states, Romney could still get on the ballot in several states, including moderate-leaning California (the biggest prize of all) and New Jersey. According to the strategy, Romney might be able to siphon enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number for victory, leading to a brokered convention, where all bets are off.

If that were to occur, it would, without exaggeration, be the end of the Republican Party. There would be a massive civil war, millions would permanently leave the GOP, and an inevitable third party candidate would assure a Democratic victory.

If Mitt Romney’s goal is to become the most reviled man in modern American history, jumping into the race would be his path forward.

3. Sound crazy? Sure, but since when has that ever factored into the establishment thinking of both parties? It has been a long-held rule, especially in big city machines, that it’s better to lose an election than lose control. That mindset, while warped, is nonetheless becoming the de facto policy of a Republican National Committee hellbent on stopping Trump at any cost – President Hillary notwithstanding. 4. Romney’s pomposity will backfire, as such theatrics always do. It will cause Trump’s base to dig in, motivating them even more to crush the establishment they feel has betrayed them so often. And it will cause many undecideds to break Donald’s way – not necessarily because they wholeheartedly support him, but that they despise arrogant leaders giving marching orders.

Donald Trump has substantial baggage, from his business practices to outlandish insults. Maybe a Trump candidacy assures a Clinton victory, and maybe The Donald as GOP standard-bearer leads to big Republican losses in Congress. But with a wildly unpredictable electorate, and Hillary Clinton being the ultimate insider at a time when anti-Washington feelings are at a fever pitch, it would be a mistake to write off Trump.

The smartest course for the GOP would be to let the chips fall where they may, stop playing God, and take a hard look in the mirror. If it doesn’t, the “elephant” in the room may be on the verge of extinction.

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Political Incorrectness Path To Success By Chris Freind CHRIS FREIND

Barring a catastrophic collapse, it appears that Donald Trump could well be the Republican presidential nominee. Yet for all their theories about how he achieved his unlikely success, most pundits are still missing the biggest reason: Trump is winning as much because of his bluntness as his opponents’ lack thereof. And the same is true of Bernie Sanders.

People are sick of Washington politicos talking down to them, bickering about miniscule partisan advantage and regurgitating tired talking points on the minutiae of trade agreements, health care and tax policy with inside-the-beltway jargon.

What they seek is a leader who talks in plain English. While Trump and Sanders have, at times, been short on specifics, their willingness to tackle subjects in a conversational way has electrified the electorate.

There’s no doubt that if the Republican nominee tackles the lunacy invading America’s culture – perpetuated by a small extremist movement hell-bent on off-the-wall social engineering – he will gain a significant advantage in the general election. Many of these issues transcend party lines, but it would seem only a Republican – as part of the “lesser politically correct” party – will have the courage to use his bully pulpit to inject common sense into the debate.

Consider these four recent examples, and the traction that could be gained by addressing them head-on:

  1. The Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit against the gun manufacturer. It goes without saying that no one can imagine the pain of parents who lose a child, especially in a senseless killing spree. While some motivations of the killer will never be understood, we should be working toward real-world solutions that could help prevent another such tragedy. Casting blame the gun manufacturer on the grounds that it was somehow complicit solves nothing, and only derails serious efforts to discover the root causes.

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her legally owned guns and ammunition. Therefore, he, and only he, is responsible for the massacre. Not his mother. And certainly not gun manufacturer Remington. Period. That’s like a car company being held liable because a reckless driver kills someone, or a beer maker incurring responsibility for an individual who drinks to excess. The Sandy Hook parents do not think the weapon used in the murders should have been legal. Fine. That’s their opinion. But indisputably, it was legal. This case should have absolutely no legal standing. A presidential candidate who, while showing empathy, focuses on real solutions instead of placating those who refuse to accept the truth, would find immense success.

2. The elimination of Valentine’s Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas in schools. Incredibly, the banning of “dominant” holidays – whatever that means – is becoming more commonplace, ostensibly because they may “offend” those unfamiliar with them. Really? That’s what educators think is best for our children? In point of fact, we are mandating close-mindedness in our kids while crushing their natural inclination for discovery. In other words, we are teaching them to be wholly intolerant of other people, cultures and traditions. If that warped mindset remains unchecked, it’s only a matter of time before the last truly free country on Earth collapses.

The vast majority of Americans – despite their collective silence on these types of issues for fear of being labeled insensitive bigots – would respond favorably to a candidate rejecting such mandates by asking:

• Since when is a holiday celebrating love and friendship “offensive?”

• Why is it wrong to celebrate holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah – without pushing religious beliefs – in what has always been a Judeo-Christian country?

• And how can the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving – rooted in peace and friendship between Europeans and Native Americans – be eliminated in America?

While the role of commander-in-chief is not to intervene on the local level, using the office as a bully pulpit to shine light on policies gone awry is eminently presidential.

3. Transgenders using bathrooms of their choosing: Bowing to political correctness, schools and city councils are allowing transgender people to use whatever bathroom with which they most “identify.”

Extremists aside, what parents in their right minds – Republican and Democrat alike – would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into a “ladies” bathroom where a man, who on “feelings” alone, can freely use the same facility?

How could such a regulation possibly work in the military? Or the workplace, for that matter?

Tolerance and inclusion are admirable, but forcefully pushing back when things go too far would be met with resounding applause.

4. Nevada high school athletic associations suspending coaches for being successful: This isn’t an early April fool’s prank, but a rule that has made a joke of high school athletics. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association has created a mandate – supposedly to encourage sportsmanship and prevent embarrassing scores – stipulating that a team can’t win by more than 49 points, and if, God forbid, they do, “coaches are required to submit documentation explaining how it happened and how they tried to prevent it. If it happens three times in a season, the winning coach is suspended. The rule also institutes a running clock in the second half after a lead gets to 40 points,” according to ESPN.

What has America come to? No one likes to be on the losing end, especially when a contest is lopsided, but having to document why a team wins? Seriously? That punishes players and coaches who worked hard to achieve success, and, ironically, humiliates the losing team that much more, as the better team often just holds the ball in what amounts to a patronizing move.

The answer is not to penalize those who earn success, but encourage those on the losing end to work harder – the best form of motivation, and the way it’s always been. It makes no difference whether a team loses by 49 or 69. A loss is loss, but to mandate a mercy rule at the high school level is ludicrous.

What next? Will we see mandated running plays in football if the margin exceeds 50 points? Will running backs simply fall down on their own? Will winning basketball teams be required to give their opponents 20 straight scoring opportunities while playing tepid defense so the losing players can feel good about themselves?

Don’t laugh. Grade school athletic programs have been doing this for years: Up by five in soccer? Pull your goalie and no shooting. Leading by 1- in baseball? Purposely strike out. And of course, give everyone a trophy. So the push for homogenization at the expense of individual achievement marches onward.

Enough is enough. If a presidential candidate advocates re-instilling traditional American values, with common sense as a guide, the keys to the Oval Office will be his, or hers. For all our sakes, here’s hoping.

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

By Chris Freind Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Sometimes life imitates art so perfectly that even Hollywood couldn’t script it.

Now is such a time. And how ironic.

Hollywood – long perceived as a bastion of unwavering liberalism – is now being accused of playing the race card, employing discrimination in how Academy Awards nominees were selected, or, more accurately, not selected.

Of the 20 actors nominated for an Oscar this year, none are black, for the second consecutive year.

Now director Spike Lee (whose movie wasn’t nominated) and actress Jada Pinkett Smith (whose husband Will Smith was not nominated) are boycotting the award show and asking others, especially the black acting community, to do likewise.

And here is where this saga jumps the rails. Lee and Smith are shooting from the hip more than John Wayne, ignoring the concept of “presumed innocent,” and insinuating that the men in black simply have the wrong creed to win an Oscar. Their arguments are so mind-numbingly off-base they could give you a concussion.

Let’s take a look at Tinseltown’s latest controversy:

1. Did the academy, admittedly an organization shrouded in secrecy, deliberately snub black actors two years in a row simply because of skin color?

Don’t know. Translation: Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But that’s the whole point. Labeling one of the preeminent Hollywood institutions racist, and by extension calling its members bigots, are mighty powerful charges to be leveled without a shred of evidence beyond the “sight” test. As such, it should be incumbent upon those making such accusations to back up what they allege.

But they didn’t. No leaked internal documents showing racism, no secret recordings of backroom deals to keep the blacks out, no smoking gun. Just their opinions.

As a result, their message, especially to our youth, is that it’s OK to shoot your mouth off and demonize anyone you choose – lack of facts notwithstanding and people’s reputations be damned – just because you don’t like the way something pans out. (Of course, it’s a whole lot easier to do such things when you’re wealthy and powerful, a lesson surely lost on their followers who risk job and security when acting similarly.)

Using one’s platform to draw attention to a cause is admirable, but only when it doesn’t impugn the character and reputation of others without justification.

Smith and Lee’s actions are highly questionable, since they reinforce the do-and-say-whatever-makes-you-feel-good entitlement attitude sweeping America. Good role models, they are not.

2. If there is such strong institutional racism within the academy, how to explain the numerous black actors who have been nominated for past Oscars? That includes Will Smith – twice. And Spike Lee – twice, as well as being the recipient of an honorary Oscar just last year. The same Oscars, incidentally, that are being hosted by a black comedian (Chris Rock) and overseen by a black producer (Reginald Hudlin).

These pesky facts have, apparently, been forgotten by Smith and Lee. How convenient.

And how to explain, for the second consecutive year, a record number of black nominees and winners, especially black women, for the Emmy awards? It was a 64 percent gain from the previous year, which itself had been a record.

The Golden Globes have had no shortage of black nominees and winners, nor do any of the other awarding institutions, including the Black Reel Awards, the Black Film Awards, the American Black Film Festival, and Black Entertainment Television.

So let’s get this straight. Despite black actors being nominated by the academy for years, it’s acceptable to cry “racism” because your film, your husband, and other black actors didn’t happen to make the cut this time?

Too many actors in Hollywood become insulated from real life, leading many to forget where they came from, and how they got there. But this is too much, even for Tinseltown. With all the problems we face, from terrorism to hunger to real racism, we’re supposed to care about whining millionaires who didn’t win yet another award? Please.

3. So why did no black actors get nominated? Who knows? Maybe their performances simply weren’t that good, or that their films didn’t measure up. Maybe some were beaten out by better actors in better flicks in a year that simply didn’t go their way. Guess what? That’s called life, and it isn’t always right or fair, especially when human subjectivity is involved. But is complaining and using divisive language the answer? Do these narcissists really believe they have a right to be coddled, and that we should jump every time they feel slighted?

4. Some are claiming that the Oscar ratings were down 16 percent last year because of the alleged racism. They are wrong.

The reason people aren’t tuning is much simpler: Besides many bad movies, the Oscars have become long and boring, featuring self-aggrandizing actors reading incoherent speeches and thanking people we’ve never heard of. Throw in corny hosts telling painfully unfunny jokes, and it has all grown very old. There’s an invention called cable TV, and people are using it to turn the channel. To paraphrase “Field Of Dreams:” If they change the content, viewers will come. But they haven’t.

5. One of two things is true:

– If racism is involved, it would show those in Hollywood to be ultimate hypocrites. They talk the talk by using liberal pyschobabble buzzwords such as tolerance, inclusion and diversity, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they run the other way.

– Or racism played no part in the academy’s decisions, in which case they chose what they believed to be merit over skin color, knowing their actions, while correct, would nonetheless create controversy. A gutsy move – who’d have thought?

6. Where does the push for “diversity” end? Will we see quotas for minority actors next year? And will there be ones for ethnicity, gender and sexual preference, too? And what happens to those deserving of an award but who get shafted because they happen to be the wrong skin color, since overt reverse discrimination would be the new rule?

It is not without irony that the Oscar controversy was raging on the holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps the boycotters would do well to recall his timeless words about what America should be, instead of hurling racial barbs around the town that gave them fame and fortune: “… a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Unfortunately, this fight looks to get uglier before it gets better, as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences president is already caving in to the boycott. And that means for this story, there won’t be a happy-ever-after Hollywood ending.

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town.

Chris Freind — Obama Gun Orders Sensible

 Obama Gun Orders Sensible By Chris Freind Obama Gun Orders Sensible

It’s not exactly taking a shot in the dark to predict that the sniping over President Obama’s executive orders on guns will intensify. As the elections draw near, both sides will aim to put the issue directly in their sights and blast away at those who disagree.

But like most important issues, there’s too much rapid-fire rhetoric and not enough common sense, which serves only to move the debate off-target. If the politicians truly care about reducing violence, both sides would holster their weapons and keep their powder dry, and instead hone in on the real problems with sharpshooter precision.

Let’s look at the smoking guns in this latest firestorm:

• Policy: The president, stating he was fed up with a Republican Congress that he saw as doing nothing to tackle gun violence, announced executive orders to increase the scope of background checks for prospective gun buyers, including sales conducted online and at gun shows. Anyone selling firearms would be required to obtain a federal license, and the loophole allowing individuals to buy weapons through a trust or corporation without a background check would be closed.

The GOP, predictably, has been shooting from the hip about how such measures violate Second Amendment freedoms.

One question: How?

How does requiring a criminal background check using the FBI’s database in any way violate one’s rights? Put another way, do these people really believe we shouldn’t have background checks at all? Talk about firing blanks.

Contrary to claims by conspiracy theorists, background checks are not federal gun registries. Neither do they lead to them.

For those who believe that expanding background checks will lead to gun registries, where have they been for the last decade? Background checks aren’t new, so, by definition, if we are simply expanding and modernizing an existing system, then under the critics’ rationale, wouldn’t we already have such a registry? They can’t have it both ways.

Background checks are not a conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue. And since they do not infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm, it’s not “gun control.” It’s criminal control.

Undeniably, such checks work. There have been 1.8 million denials since 1998. In 2010, half of those denied had felony convictions or indictments, almost 20 percent were fugitives, and 11 percent had violated state laws.

To allow convicted felons or the mentally ill to buy a gun with quasi-legal impunity is crazy, since savvy criminals will choose the no-background-check loophole rather than risk getting caught in an undercover sting. It’s a no-brainer.

But while background checks are useful, they are not a panacea. The FBI database is only as good as the information it receives from states. If criminal and mental health records aren’t routinely sent and/or updated, it won’t be as effective, which is why the administration is boosting its efforts to have states increase their records reporting. It’s also why the president is mandating the FBI upgrade its NICS database system, and providing for additional manpower to staff it. That modernization will greatly reduce the number of gun applicants who, by law, are permitted to take possession of a gun if their background check isn’t completed within three days.

Background checks certainly aren’t perfect, but that’s not a reason to opposes expanding them. Nothing will ever fully prevent lunatics from engaging in a shooting spree, but a background check system is a solid first line of defense.

Political: While idiocy is not illegal, it would behoove some gun-rights people to get a shot of common sense. For example, don’t show up at a gun rally or counter-protest with AK-47s on full display, as some routinely do. And don’t blame the “liberal media” when they post that shot on the front page. Do you want to look cool by touting guns in public, or do you really care about protecting gun rights?

The two never go hand-in-hand. Leave the guns at home, wear something that isn’t camouflage, and articulate a reasonable message with a calm demeanor. You’d be surprised how much more effective you’d be at convincing the Great American Middle – and it is they who will ultimately decide this issue.

Take it to the bank, expanding background checks is a winning political issue.

• Principle: Here’s the problem: President Obama’s executive orders may well get shot down by the courts faster than a speeding bullet – as they should. The Constitution makes it abundantly clear that presidents are elected to implement laws passed by Congress – not do end-runs around the legislative branch.

By no means is that criticism leveled simply at Mr. Obama, since both Republican and Democratic presidents have used executive orders. But wrong is wrong.

The GOP would do well to remind itself of that the next time one of its own occupies the Oval Office, as many will undoubtedly shelve their criticism of executive orders when it happens to be on an issue near and dear to them.

(As an aside, the most egregious executive order of this administration was its agreement with Iran. What is clearly a treaty – which legally should have been subject to ratification by the Senate – was accomplished instead by executive fiat. While the GOP-controlled legislature tried to kill this via legislation, they were unable to muster enough Democratic support to overcome the 60-vote cloture rule in the Senate. Having said that, the question remains why Congress has not filed suit to undue the usurping of its powers.)

• Practicality: Whether executive orders or Congress-passed laws, these measures, while valuable, will simply not stop terrorists and mass killers, and to think otherwise is stunningly naïve. From the San Bernardino terror cell to the Sandy Hook shooter, these people have no regard for laws in the first place, and won’t be deterred by gun restrictions or background checks, especially when they know they won’t live to see another sunrise. All too often, they steal and kill in their quest to obtain weapons.

The answer to stopping these attacks isn’t rooted in limiting magazine size or types of weapons. It’s finding out what we’ve done that has destroyed empathy in many of our young people and fostered a mentality that killing with abandon is somehow a viable option.

Remember that this mass violence didn’t happen in the 1950s – or even the 1980s or most of the ‘90s – when access to guns was considerably easier than now. We didn’t bolt school doors a generation ago, we didn’t have lockdowns, we didn’t whitewash everything, we didn’t constantly coddle our kids, and we didn’t get a trophy even when we lost. And we didn’t kill people when something didn’t go our way or we had hurt feelings in a warped but somehow romanticized outlook of going out in a “blaze of glory.”

There is no single cause for these mass shootings, and it will take a comprehensive effort to stop such tragedies, from increasing efforts to identify and assist the mentally ill to stemming the entitlement mentality of coddled youth.

A good start would be would be to stop sniping at each other, and instead keep our eye on the real target – the bad guys.

Obama Gun Orders Sensible

Biggest Losers 2015

Biggest Losers 2015 By Chris Freind Biggest Losers 2015

It’s time to name 2015’s biggest losers. Not surprisingly, this list is always much longer than the “winners,” and, truth be told, a lot more fun:

•

Bill Cosby: Sure, he’s innocent until proven guilty. But one verdict is already in: Cosby is truly one of Hollywood’s most smug, arrogant and despicable stars – and that’s really saying something in Tinseltown. However, while his star will continue to fall, and with it his storied career, Cosby will more than likely be a “winner” when his trial in Montgomery County is said and done. His case was the centerpiece of newly-elected District Attorney Kevin Steele’s campaign, which will draw not-without-some-merit “politically motivated” arguments from the defense. Throw in the fact that successfully prosecuting a 12-year-old case is extremely difficult in the best of circumstances, and Cosby’s chances for an acquittal are high.

But that won’t make him any less of a creep. Too bad Dr. Huxtable was only a TV character.

•

Charlie Sheen: Just because.

•

Philadelphia Eagles and owner Jeff Lurie: The NFL wanted parity, but it got mediocrity, as 19 of its 32 teams finished the season at .500 or below. Yes, the Eagles were one of them, which is especially disappointing given the legitimately high pre-season hopes for the team. And why were expectations high? Because now-fired coach Chip Kelly had turned around Andy Reid’s disastrous 4-12 showing in 2012 by compiling consecutive 10-6 seasons, including a division title. Kelly pushed for and received control over player personnel at the beginning of 2015, so undeniably, many of this team’s shortcomings landed on his shoulders. But fair is fair: Kelly shouldn’t be held responsible for many of the bush-league mistakes his players made, from blown coverages to a seemingly unprecedented number of dropped passes. If those errors aren’t made, resulting in the Eagles winning just one or two of their close games, then Kelly would be entering playoffs with a team capable of big surprises. Instead, he was booted by an ungrateful owner.

It was Lurie who gave Kelly his power, and he should have allowed the coach at least one more year to fine-tune his system. If at that point the Iggles fell short, fine – “Chip’s Ahoy,” to quote the Daily Times headline. But given Kelly’s significant success in just two seasons – especially in light of how long Reid was allowed to hang around despite never winning The Big One – Chip deserved another shot.

You fumbled, Jeff. Now, watch for the Eagles to be mired in mediocrity for the foreseeable future.

•

The personal touch: No one wants to stand in the way of progress, but there’s a fine line between convenience and laziness. Take Christmastime. Not long ago, people spent many frustrating, but eminently worthwhile, hours going “Clark Griswold” with outside decorations and penning short notes on their Christmas cards.

Now? They are remnants of a bygone age, casualties of our aversion to anything that takes effort. First, we had the way-too-easy icicle lights (which look nothing like icicles) that took mere minutes to hang. Then net lights came along, which involved nothing more than heaving a few sets haphazardly over some bushes. And now, lasers, the point of which still eludes, as they are just a bunch of spots in the trees and have nothing remotely to do with the holiday season. But shove them into the ground, flip the switch, and – voila! Back to Reality TV in less than two minutes!

And a handwritten note on cards, or God forbid, people actually signing them? No surprise, since we can’t even talk to each other at the dinner table or coffee shop because our heads are buried in phones, breathlessly following every one of Caitlyn Jenner’s updates. The personal touch seems gone forever, and with it much of our humanity.

•

“Star Wars:” To quote C3PO, “Oh dear!” With an unlimited budget and unprecedented fan base, there was no excuse for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” to be anything but stellar. But Harrison Ford’s performance notwithstanding, it’s a boring re-telling of the first film, which succeeds only in blasting the film into the orbit of mediocrity. A new hope will be for the directors to awaken and use some good old-fashioned creativity to make high-caliber films worthy of the “Star Wars” name. And may the force be with them – please!

•

Carly Fiorina: Here was one of the few promising Republican candidates, a successful businesswoman with presidential gravitas who was positioning herself to be the year’s big surprise. Yet she abandoned all good sense – and shattered her credibility – by pandering to the Iowa caucus vote. No, it wasn’t flipping on ethanol subsidies or a farming issue. It was worse – she disavowed her alma mater Stanford, and publicly rooted for the Iowa Hawkeyes in the Rose Bowl.

In doing so, she got the worst of all worlds: infuriating Stanford alumni – many of whom have big bucks – and gaining nothing but contempt from Iowans for her naked political calculation. It also gave pause to many GOP undecideds who now view Fiorina as just another pol who will say anything to win, and who compounded the situation by claiming it was a joke, when everyone knows it wasn’t.

People may not understand deficits or trade agreements, but they intuitively know when someone lacks sincerity, and it’s often a deal-killer. Some will laugh off such criticism as irrelevant, but it’s often the little things that have the biggest impact. And if that’s the case, the joke’s on Fiorina.

And by the way, Carly, here’s something to stick in your ear (of corn): If you’re going to pathetically pander for a team, you better be damn sure they don’t get humiliated, as Iowa did, 45-16. Ouch.

•

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf: You call yourself the “education governor,” yet it took six months to release funding for our schools, including aid to the non-publics for much-needed textbooks? Shame on you, Guv. You almost make Tom Corbett look good. Almost.

•

Donald Trump: Sure, he also made the “Winners” list for his unique ability to change the political landscape. But had he exhibited even a modicum of restraint by not insulting damn near everyone, he could have been a viable contender. America needs a businessman to shake up the failing status quo, and Trump could have been that guy. But instead, he valued making a mockery of the process – and his issues – over being a serious candidate. As a result, voters are about to send Trump a familiar message: “You’re fired.”

Biggest Losers 2015

2015 Winners By Chris Freind

2015 Winners By Chris Freind 2015 Winners By Chris Freind

Finally! It’s time to name the year’s biggest winners. Here’s a spotlight on those who won, though not always in the conventional sense:

Nurses: Freindly Fire’s unsung heroes for 2015, nurses are on the frontlines in the war against pain and suffering. They are our constant companions in good times and bad, always there to administer medicine, assist with therapy and keep a watchful eye on those needing care. But infinitely more important — as this writer knows firsthand because the nurse he knew best was his mother — nurses offer something more: unrestrained love and kindness. From a reassuring look — to both patient and family — that everything will be OK, to holding a scared child’s hand from beginning to end, they are the humanity and light in an otherwise sterile and jargon-filled world. In an age where not getting personal with your patient seems to be standard operating procedure, nurses gleefully break that rule.

And for some, a smiling nurse’s face is the last thing they will see in this world. If you have to go, I can’t think of a better way. Thank you to those who heal not just our ailments, but our spirits.

•

Kate and William: More than anyone else on the planet, the Royal Couple, by their position and charisma, hold the key to leading the West out of its literal death spiral. The negative birth rates of Europe, Japan, and yes, America, have placed them on a course to end the most benevolent civilizations the world has ever known. Because of ill-advised cultural, economic and political decisions, birth rates have been plummeting, and all have fallen below the 2.1 children per family threshold necessary just to achieve zero population growth.

This, while the threat in the East continues to rise, as enemies sworn to oppose freedom multiply by the millions, menacing what is left of the West.

So Duchess, congratulations on Charlotte Elizabeth! Thank you for your example, and please keep them coming! Or else …

•

Ahmed the Clockboy: Well, it’s apparently acceptable to “build” your own alarm clock – a device replete with timer, protruding wires and electronic circuitry, and which makes beeping sounds — and bring it to class. And shame on teachers, administrators and law enforcement who thought it might have been a bomb and acted accordingly. After all, it’s not like we’re at war with terrorists, or that we’ve been attacked here in the homeland.

So because Ahmed was “wronged,” he was invited to the White House and became the celebrity du jour to everyone from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to Twitter to MIT. (But despite all that, the disenfranchisement was just “too much” and he moved to Qatar).

So the blueprint for becoming a winner in today’s America is to cry foul every time someone legitimately calls you out on something, assert racial bigotry, play up the victim role ad nauseam, and, of course, sue. What a country!

•

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and the Kardashians: Whether it’s being boosted by Millennials — the most narcissistic generation in history — living vicariously through these ultra-materialistic, do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good “Reality” TV celebrities, or the rest of America, tuning in to reassure themselves that their lives are “normal” compared to these Hollywood whackjobs, they are still “winners” because we’re still talking and gawking over them. But the really scary thought is that when they fall out of favor (and they will), who will take their place? Somehow Donald Trump comes to mind…

•

Trump: Love him or hate him, Donald is the ultimate showman. He has blown up what would have been an incredibly boring field of GOP candidates, and entertained the world with his off-the-cuff — albeit often nasty — remarks, especially when ripping Jeb Bush to shreds.

Will he win the nomination? No. And he’ll blame everyone and everything for his loss, except himself (sometimes life isn’t “fair,” even to a multi-billionaire). But if you think he was restrained even a tiny bit as a candidate, just wait until we see Trump Unleashed during the general election as a “commentator.” The word’s biggest ego needs to be fed, and there’s no better time than during a presidential election. Since addressing serious issues is a thing of the past, replaced by our insatiable desire to be entertained 24/7, Trump is in the right place, at the right time. The bigger question is: What’s he planning next?

•

The Pope: What’s not to love about Francis? Sure, some of his critics rail against his positions as too “liberal.” But they are misguided, twisting his words into Right Vs. Left partisan politics when, in reality, the pontiff is masterfully bringing issues to the forefront in a way no one has done in decades. Basic human rights; climate change; eradicating poverty; and advocating tolerance and compassion. How can anyone argue that tackling these things is wrong? The debate should be about the best approaches to solving our problems — as they affect us all — but too often, it devolves into politics of derision.

Yet the Pope keeps forging ahead with his unprecedented salt-of-the-earth touch, and the contagious energy of someone half his age. Thank you, Your Holiness, for being a much-needed beacon of light, and a special thanks for visiting the City of Brotherly Love. We could not be prouder!

•

The Philadelphia 76ers: They are winners because of how pathetically inept they really are. After all, who wants to be just bad when you can be record-book awful? The all-time worst record in NBA history belongs to, of course, another 76ers team, who went 9-73. But given this team’s 2-31 showing thus far, barring a miraculous turnaround, they are poised to go down in the annals of sports lore. And it’s only fitting that it’s a Philly team, given that the Phillies have the most losses in human history (over 10,000), the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and the Flyers last won a Stanley Cup during Gerald Ford’s presidency.

At least we have Rocky.

•

Big Oil: Finally! America has finally begun its reawakening by responsibly drilling its way toward energy independence. In doing so, we are accomplishing a triumvirate: extricating ourselves from the Middle East quagmire, putting significant money into people’s pockets through vastly lower gas prices (the average household saved $1,100 in 2015, equating to over $130 billion pumped backed into the economy), and revitalizing our moribund manufacturing base (which creates good-paying jobs).

Anytime we aren’t bent over a Middle Eastern oil barrel makes for a very good year. Drill, baby, drill!

•

Pharma: The advances made by our pharmaceutical companies this year simply boggle the mind. From drugs that are combatting melanoma to injecting biologics into DNA that repair mutated (and cancer-causing) strands, pharma is quickly marching toward the day when diseases that have taken so many of our loved ones prematurely will be eradicated. Shame on those so quick to criticize these companies as the Evil Empire, when there isn’t a single American whose life, or that of someone they know, hasn’t been made better, lengthened — or saved — by the work of the smartest people on Earth. Pharma research is America’s best medicine. Keep it up!

•

TJ Maxx/Marshalls/HomeGoods: For years, this column has hammered stores that opened on Thanksgiving, ripping families apart and placing profit over principle. But this year, not only did the above stores remain closed, but produced a fantastic commercial that talked about focusing on what really matters: Our families.

Bravo for having the guts to ignore the competition and do the right thing!

Happy New Year!

Look for the Biggest Losers next week.

2015 Winners By Chris Freind