Twitter and email info

Thursday, June 30, 2016

What this election needs is an honest assessment of candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy record.

Since Donald Trump trounced his GOP primary opposition and became the apparent Republican nominee for President, the media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Trump has no foreign policy record or experience to gauge.  No doubt Trump's grasp on foreign policy will be challenged often on the campaign trail by both his opponent and the press, and this is as it should be; the voter deserves to see both candidates undergo a thorough vetting process not just in foreign policy, but in a handful of tremendously important subjects.  With very little journalistic effort and probably no homework, the media has already decided that the issue of foreign policy and international diplomatic experience is a huge winner for Hillary Clinton, who served for twelve years as a United States Senator and four years as Secretary of State.  Let's take a look at candidate Clinton's foreign policy record during her years as a Civil Servant and see if we agree.

Hillary Clinton served in the United States Senate from January 2, 2001 until January 21, 2009.  During this time period, Senator Clinton took a number of international trips as part of her job, but no legislation was introduced or supported by Senator Clinton that has left a profound "foreign policy" impact.  Being a well-known personality and a leader in her party, Senator Clinton did not hesitate to comment on foreign policy issues, saving her most critical comments for the George W. Bush Administration.  You may recall that when the Bush Administration requested Congressional Approval for military action against Iraq, Democrat Senators and Representatives were put on the spot.  September 11 was still fresh on the mind of Americans, and politicians did everything possible to avoid the reputation of being "soft on terrorism".  This political reality explains why so many Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent, voted in support of the Bush Administration's efforts vis-à-vis Iraq.  Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama in 2008 were wrong to criticize Senator Clinton regarding her vote.  Hillary made it very clear that although she wanted to support the right of the president to take certain actions when necessary, she did not support the Bush Administration's intention to go to war with Iraq.  Clinton did not "flip-flop" on this issue.  Like many Democrats, she did what she thought was best in order to support the office of the presidency and at the same time prosecute the war on terror.

An examination of Hillary Clinton's record during her time as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration will serve as a much more useful tool in measuring Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State, and understanding how her political philosophy influenced her actions.  In campaign commercials that Clinton is already running, she takes credit for her efforts to help write and promote 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Mark my words- The Clinton Campaign will misrepresent the facts involving this Treaty, because the reality has the potential to damage the image being portrayed by Democrats and the Media of a shrewd, tough negotiator who faced down Russian President Vladimir Putin.  This false scenario is so off the mark that it is disturbing, although existing treaties with Russia were due to expire and there was an expectation for the Obama Administration to address the issue.  The New Start Treaty was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev on 8 April 2010, with the intention of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

The first real problem with the New Start Treaty is that it was signed by Russian Federation President and Vladimir Putin figurehead Dmitry Medvedev.  This particular Russian government has no intention of following through with its obligations, regardless of all the hand-shaking and smiles.  This sad fact was known to the Obama Administration, but it didn't matter; what was important was the treaty's political benefits, not the feasibility of its verification protocols.  Now I have the unenviable task of explaining the flaws of the New Start Treaty without putting you to sleep.  The reality is, this treaty will result in broad reductions of U.S. Ballistic Missiles because we follow through on our negotiated obligations.  The Russians will not.  It makes no sense to go through each and every flaw (the Heritage Foundation identifies twelve major flaws) because we can assume from the beginning that Russia will cheat at every opportunity.  If you need a dose of clear and brutal evidence, just review the diplomatic history of the current Ukrainian conflict.

The Clinton Campaign has identified the New Start Treaty as a diplomatic achievement important enough to make the voter brush aside all the failures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's  Department of State.  We will be discussing some of these failures in the next blog posting, including the Clinton State Department's crippling habit of being reactive as opposed to proactive.  Diplomacy is a multi-faceted tool which has the fruits of espionage as one of its resources.  In addition, our cadre of well-trained diplomats are expected to create new relationships and build upon existing partnerships.  These are but a few of the resources that the State Department has at its disposal, to allow for a consistent pattern of proactivity on the international stage.  When the Arab Spring arrived with the force of a mid-summer Saharan sandstorm, our embassies in Tunis, Cairo, and other Arab capitals appeared to be taken by surprise, as was our Secretary of State.  From the genesis of this fascinating political and cultural event, the United States was always one or two steps behind.  I credit our career diplomatic corps at Foggy Bottom (State Department) for keeping many of our assets out of harm's way, but the entire mess leaves one to ponder, where was Secretary of State Clinton when the Arab Spring broke?

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

The timing seems right, so let's revisit the Benghazi controversy.

A number of times within the past year, I've shared my perspective on the Benghazi controversy.  In the very beginning, I formed an opinion before the most important details regarding the event had been made public.  I was obliged to completely revisit my original beliefs and comments, which I did, using this forum.  That fact does not change the single most concise and unavoidable truth surrounding this sad occurrence.  In the United States, we have a tradition in government service that "The Buck Stops Here".  President Harry S. Truman helped establish this little cliché by placing a notice on his desk containing that simple message.  Truman was announcing loud and clear, that in his role as President of the United States, he alone was accountable for the actions of his government.  Since Truman, countless Generals, Chiefs, Secretaries, Directors and Presidents have expressed the now-famous sentiment, "I take full responsibility.......".  Following the terrible events of September 11, 2012, which included the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three additional young men, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to follow tradition and accept "full responsibility".  Since that time, Clinton and the leftist media have jumped through hoops so that she can avoid doing just that- taking responsibility.  I will not push the envelope so far as to say that Clinton is responsible for the casualties that resulted from the terrorist assault on both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the nearby CIA Annex.  But we must accept some very simple facts: the United States had an accredited U.S. Ambassador on the ground, in an environment that was, to say the least, totally unsecure and dangerous.  Communications examined from that time period make it clear that the Clinton State Department was aware of Benghazi's major security deficiencies.  Who made the decision to send Ambassador Stevens and his necessary support staff into this war zone?  More importantly, once Foggy Bottom became aware of the dangerous environment, why weren't Stevens and his staff evacuated?  At least the level of security at the Consulate and Annex could have been increased.  No matter how much the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Washington Post declare otherwise, those questions need to be answered.  I noticed that the media have once again introduced Ambassador Steven's family into the controversy.  Steven's family have publicly stated on more than one occasion that they do not hold Hillary Clinton responsible. However, the parents of the other three young men who died that night DO hold her responsible.  It is beyond offensive to me that the liberal press and media publicize the opinions of Ambassador Stevens' family, but don't mention the other three men who lost their lives.  They have families as well, even if they aren't from the beltway elite.

Regardless of the issues raised in the preceding paragraph, I would happily agree to put this subject to bed, if I could get the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton camp to address one particular detail.  Immediately following the announcement in the press that Ambassador Stevens, along with three brave young Americans, had died during a night of violence in Benghazi, the Obama Administration identified the catalyst for the violence.  According to the Administration, local Libyans were angry because of an "anti-Islamic" video that had been released in California.  In their anger, they decided to riot and storm the U.S. Consulate and Annex.  According to all reliable eyewitness accounts and follow-up intelligence, the attacks that night were carried out by Islamic Extremist groups intent on committing acts of terror against Americans.  The people who attacked the Consulate that night and later the Annex, were not thinking about some stupid videos made in California.  As I was preparing to write this article and I was googling certain events to confirm certain dates, I came across a recent MediaMatters article claiming that, still to this day, the riots on the night of September 11, 2012 were the result of anger on he part of average, law-abiding Libyans who could not help but express their anguish and pain by attacking the U.S. Consulate.  Hillary Clinton has always believed that the ends justifies the means. Heck, Media Matters is happy to peddle an outright fabrication just to deflect legitimate criticism of their candidate.  It has become obvious to me that the Democrats and the left have adopted Hillary's Modus Operandi with no hesitation. 

Alongside the usual characters, this political season has unleashed a flood of new political operatives from both major parties.  Finding an honest, decent soul amongst the bunch is the real challenge.  True, I have always voted Republican, but people would be wrong to assume that I follow the party platform, hook, line, and stinker.  If someone is curious enough to see where I stood as the primary season unfolded, all of my blog posts from that time period are available for perusal.  As for me, I'm done worrying about what happened in January, February, March and April this year.  I am voting for Donald Trump for president.  As for the rest of you, there are three candidates running from three parties, and you have until November to decide which person will be our next president.  Today's blog post marks the beginning of a series of commentaries I will write detailing Hillary Clinton's foreign policy achievements and initiatives.  Thank you to all who have commented and shared my posts.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

It's not too early for the GOP to issue marching orders to the rank-and-file.

This morning when I turned on my computer I was confronted by more "random" political articles that usual.  Like millions and millions of Americans, I chose the simple Google search prompt as my homepage.  Since political season is upon us, any use of the Google search option will result in numerous "politically nuanced" articles that have little relation to my search.  Google believes that it is doing a service by helping to educate whoever is using their search tool.  Of course, every article, blog or commentary manages to approach even the most mundane of subjects from the Left.  I'm a huge baseball fan.  My Houston Astros have finally started playing good ball, so this morning I went looking for some simple baseball commentary regarding the approach of the All-Star break.  What did Google offer?  Links to garbage like "Deadspin", which has a particularly disgusting and adolescent attack on Donald Trump as a young man interested in baseball.  Other links were also provided, including an article from USA Today which basically identifies Trump as a common criminal.  This leaves me in an inconvenient position.  I truly enjoy the convenience of Google and Gmail, but I really don't enjoy observing Google's undisguised effort to deliver political pop-shots at the Republican candidate.  Don't fool yourself into believing that this effort is singularly focused on the Trump candidacy.  Google and Facebook were up to similar activities in 2008 and 2012.  The irony here is as thick as maple syrup.  The press and media have been thrilled with the Republican selections in each of the past three elections (including 2016).  They lay off the candidate that they hope becomes the GOP standard barrier until the primary season is concluded.  Then the media unloads all the garbage it has been collecting.  They are convinced that Donald Trump will provide the least amount of competition to a Clinton candidacy, but they are mistaken.

Much of the media in the United States continues to claim no political bias.  A simple review of newspapers, magazines and entertainment outlets should clear up any questions on that front.  During the entire GOP primary, the only criticism of Donald Trump came from his opponents.  The media presented Trump's rude and occasionally offensive comments as nothing more than political theater.  If you recall, it was in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine where Trump first made disparaging comments about Carly Fiorina's appearance.  Any real criticism of Trump's comments by the mainstream media might have reflected negatively on the comatose Rolling Stone, so with the exception of Fox News (and Megan Kelly), any mention of Trump's comments were snickered about off-camera on the sets of MSNBC, CNN, and NBC.  The season of "laissez-faire" for Donald Trump has come to a screeching halt.  The media is utilizing every possible resource to disseminate accusations regarding Trump, most of which are absolute garbage.  All this, and not a word about Hillary Clinton.  If it weren't so harmful it would be humorous.  Every week another development regarding Hillary's private server and classified emails hits the campaign, but you won't hear about it unless you watch Fox.  The biggest tragedy has been the collapse of the Bernie Sanders campaign.  Of all the things you can say about Bernie and his worship of Eastern-Bloc Socialism, at least he had the nerve to discuss Hillary's record.  Bernie, who has been pushing leftist legislation in Congress for decades, always likes to ask Hillary why she didn't put forward all of her great ideas when she was spending twelve years as a Senator and four years as Secretary of State.   I am always amazed how entrenched, long-term politicians only discover all the answers to our problems when they decide to run for president.  I for one am glad to see Hillary proposing solutions for invigorating our comatose economy and creating jobs, because she is responsible for the mess as it is today.  You can't run away from your close association with Obama, Hillary.  His fifty-one percent approval rating won't hang around forever, and then you get to explain just what a success eight years of Obama has been to our nation.

The 2016 presidential election will include a monumental effort by the left to leave no stone unturned in their efforts to keep the White House.  Now that John Roberts has been unmasked as a conservative fraud who always seems to be voting with the left, this election has become even more pivotal, as we try and keep our nation from being steered right off the cliff by leftist judges who never met a transgender sexually-fluid (look it up!) nutcase that they didn't embrace.  We might lose this election, but it won't be because of Donald Trump's candidacy.  This election could very well turn on the same issues that decided 2008 and 2012.  Democrats have become very, very good at registering people to vote and getting them to the polls on election day.  Make no mistake; this is the party of Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama only borrowed it in between rounds of golf and signing Executive Orders.  Hillary is a dedicated believer in the old cliché that "the ends justifies the means".  For the first time in a century, 2012 witnessed serious episodes of fraud on election night.  Not surprisingly, the FBI was not ordered to investigate.  Will we again see instances of intimidation and fraud at polling precincts?  No doubt.  But its highly unlikely to impact the final count.  If Republicans want to win this election, then it is time to embrace Donald Trump.  If you aren't willing to fight for Trump against Hillary Clinton, you might as well start wearing a Hillary Clinton for President T-Shirt.  I realize that folks are sensitive to some of Trump's comments and behavior during the primary campaign, but let's face it, Trump is not a seasoned candidate.  It was obvious from the beginning that Trump's clear and honest approach to the issues, and the simple language with which he communicated, resonated with the voters.  I believe that some of Trump's advisors may have pushed this strategy a bit too far, and Trump came off looking like a bully.  Take a good look at Donald Trump today.  He is still prepared to call Hillary Clinton a liar (she is a liar), but in the same speech he is taking the time to break down his policies regarding immigration, taxes, trade and the environment.  Trump is putting together a team that will make this election about the issues.  Those of you on the right who are struggling with voting for Trump, please return your perspective to THE ISSUES.  Hillary Clinton has been obliged to embrace the far-left in her party.  She has been canoodling with Elizabeth Warren again, for goodness sake.  We must have a conservative in the White House to chose Supreme Court Justices who are determined to interpret the law, not write it.  Don't let the media influence your opinions or your choices.  I did not begin this campaign season as a supporter of Donald Trump, but I am now.  I can think of nothing more important to share with your grandchildren one day than to say, "I helped defeat Hillary Clinton".   

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Why I chose to support Donald Trump as opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Are you happy with the state of affairs in this country?  Are you content with the rate of job creation and the percentage of annual economic growth?  What about other domestic issues?  Are race relations improving?  Let's take a wider view.  Do you feel safe?  Would you hesitate to fly overseas? Do you believe that other nations respect us?  If giving consideration to these or similar questions gives you pause, then, like most Americans, you are not happy with the state of our Union.  How will this impact the 2016 presidential election in the United States?  It's simple to remark that Barack Obama is not running this year, so we have no opportunity to express our displeasure regarding the economy, employment, foreign affairs and the national debt.  A review of Hillary Clinton's political disposition since resigning as Secretary of State in 2012 makes it abundantly clear that Clinton has continued to strongly support the policies of Barack Obama.  During the next four months, a great deal of information regarding the crippled state of our economy will become headline news, and, God forbid, if we suffer additional domestic terrorist attacks, the health of our nation and the security our government is struggling to provide, will become the most imortant issue in this campaign.  Hillary Clinton will be unable to run-away from the mess in Washington DC, because she IS Washington DC.  Clinton is as much a political creation as any politician we have ever experienced.  Who hasn't known, since 1998 when Bill Clinton left office, that nothing would stop Hillary from one day running for president herself?  Lets keep the honesty flowing, folks- who hasn't aslways suspected that Hillary sees herself as the real superstar in that family?  As for her campaign for president in 2016, Hillary will be unable to runaway from the mess that the Obama Administration has created.  In one way or another, she has always been a part of Obama's team, even after leaving her job as Secretary of State.

I decided to embrace the Trump candidacy for two reasons.  Initially, I chose to support Donald Trump for president after Ted Cruz had suspended his campaign.  Cruz leaving the race made it apparent that Trump was going to storm into Cleveland with something of a mandate from GOP primary voters.  I was able to transition my support to Trump without much difficulty because aside from his penchant for name-calling and a few episodes of embarrassing comments about women, I agree with the policy positions Donald Trump had adopted.  Immigration is a huge issue for me, as is the economy and our criminal national debt.  Like Trump, I am convinced that the United States Armed Forces has always had the capacity to destroy ISIS without the involvement of great numbers of ground troops.  Like Trump, I am disgusted with the obsene politization of the federal government.  The Obama Administration has yet to miss an opportunity to fill a high-level government position with a less-than qualified political appointee.  This is where all the stone-wallers who derail Congressional investigations come from.  The second reason I was able to support Trump was a simple reminder to myself of what the alternative promised to deliver.  We all know that the Obama Administration's corrupt Justice Department will not indict Hillary for her use of a secret, non-secure server with which to conduct classified business.  Take it from me, folks.  I lived and worked in that environment.  If this were anyone else but Hillary Rodham from the Rose Law Firm, we would have seen an indictment long ago.

Last week I listened to Hillary promise to fix all our nation's economic problems.  After eight years of a Democrat in the White House, it seems clear to me that whatever problems Hillary wants to fix, have been created by Hillary and her fellow Democrats.  More importantly, if Hillary has a shopping cart full of solutions to all our problems, then why haven't we seen them before campaign season, 2016?  Hillary was a two-term Senator from her home state of New York, and also Secretary of State for almost four years.  Why didn't she share all these great ideas then?  The questions that need to be asked of candidate Clinton must be addressed by us, the American people, because the media and the press have lined up against Trump with no bias concerns, and you can assume that they will give Clinton a free ride.  CNN, the AP, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, HuffPo, thr NY Times. the Washington Post and whatever makes up the international press have no shame in printing campaign material for Clinton and passing it off as legitimate journalism.

The odds certainly do not appear to be in our favor, but they are.  Millions of Americans are fed-up with Michelle Obama's food police, the morality squad that attempts to force Christians to act against their religious convictions when they decide with whom they want to do business, an activist Justice Department, and a Department of Homeland Security that is no longer deporting foreign national felons.  What they would really like to do is yell at someone in DC.  They can't, but Trump can, and will!  The people like Trump because he is reminding us that political correctness need not be a permanent condition.  What we have to do is make those Cruz, Bush, and Rubio supporters understand that they need to focus their frustration on Hillary, and vote for Donald Trump in November.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Who do you believe is responsible for the bloodshed in Orlando?

(Before I begin a new Blog Post, I want to say how grateful I am to the Comal County (TX) Republican Women's Club and Joyce Yanuzzi.  I was afforded the opportunity to speak with this group on Monday night and made many new friends.  I also was fortunate to run into a few old friends, including Comal County Commissioner Jen Crownover.  I had such a wonderful evening with this intelligent, engaging group of Comal County citizens, and was reminded that folks are paying very close attention to politics in 2016,  Personally, I feel much better with that little bit of knowledge.)

Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield.  I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome.  I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary.  Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article.  Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th.  So what did happen?  How would you answer that simple question?  From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people.  As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando.  According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on).  In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism.  I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.

If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer.  The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!).  The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job.  Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event.  And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt).  Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing.  Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon.  Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room.  We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed.  We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders.  The narrative for the Left doesn't change.  We are always the guilty party, and must apologize.  And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.

As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch.  How bad is it?  Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks.  Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS.  When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee.  These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another.  To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk).  They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration.  So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly.  Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists."  But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line.  We all have bills to pay and families to care for.

So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism?  The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years.  President Obama is not a Muslim.  Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks).  I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya.  Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests.  Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true.  For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security.  We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran.  We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once.  Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay).  Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.

Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam.  He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt.  I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.     

Saturday, June 18, 2016

The events surrounding the terrorist attack in Orlando make it obvious that we need to review gun-purchase laws.

I'm sure many of my readers will be surprised with the direction I am taking on this issue, but it's a simple case of common sense.  The murderer who killed 49 people last Saturday/Sunday night, purchased two of the murder weapons a couple days before he committed his act of terrorism.  There was no need for a legitimate background check because most states do not insist upon that requirement.  If an FBI background check had been in place, he never would have been allowed to purchase those weapons.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Rights Organizations are going to argue that he would have been able to access the same weapons illegally on the Black Market.  I would much rather that the asshole had been forced to dig up contacts in Orlando's seedy gun-selling underground, than to know he was able to purchase the weapons legally just hours after entering the gun store.  Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but then he might have gotten caught up in a law enforcement sting operation, or he may have bought a misfiring weapon.  As for those who argue that if he was truly determined to kill people, he would have just used a different weapon.  I would be a heck of a lot more comfortable if he had entered the club with a butterknife, wouldn't you?

No, I have not changed by opinion vis-à-vis the Second Amendment.  I will defend with my life the right of United States citizens to legally own a firearm.  But the establishment of a two-day waiting period, to include fulsome background checks, will only help us keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the sleeper cells we on the right love to talk about so much.  The NRA argues that additional background checks are a slippery slope, that will eventually lead to more onerous prohibitions.  Isn't that what the NRA is for?  I assume the dues of the hundreds of thousands of NRA members will provide more than enough resources to prevent a full legal assault on the Second Amendment.  What I am calling for is reasonable and timely.  We can't continue to call for the left to compromise if we aren't willing to do so ourselves.  From my perspective, only persons with troubling backgrounds should be opposed to a two-day waiting period.

Now to really piss off my conservative buddies.  Assault and automatic weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment.  When the Amendment was written and voted into law, assault and automatic weapons DID NOT EXIST.  So how can they be covered under the Second Amendment?  I do not hunt, but the people I know who do, use either a single-shot rifle or a bow-and-arrow.  Just how dead does the Buck have to be, that it requires an AR-15 to take down?  Assault weapons and automatic guns exist for one reason, and that is for killing groups of people.  I will make a deal with those who disapgree with me.  If it appears that our government is moving towards a dictatorship, I will gladly fight to remove the prohibition on assault and automatic weapons. 

I do support the Second Amendment and I am enough of a student of our Constitution to believe that it was added to allow private citizens the opportunity to own a weapon as part of a state militia, in the event that our government did become oppressive.  I make every effort to follow the Constitution to the letter, and when an issue is nebulous, then I study the background with the hope of determining the intent of our Founding Fathers.  We do have threats to our freedoms, but for the most part they come from abroad.  Law Enforcement and the U.S. Armed Forces are more than capable of protecting us.  And if the time comes that the Army needs to be supplanted by militias, then the legally-purchased handguns and rifles will have to suffice until other arrangments are made.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Is Anderson Cooper is a BIGOT?

Of all the loud-mouths you will stumble across in Social Media, I'm unlikely to engage in name-calling.  Last year some time I believe that I made some less-than flattering comments about former Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner, but normally I deal in facts, not personalities.  I think I might have to cross the line a bit today.  Wednesday, June 15, I was visiting with my friend Jennifer and the television in the living room happened to be on CNN.  We had been keeping an eye on the news, hoping against hope for miracle in the case of the two-year old boy in Florida who had been grabbed by an alligator.  During a break in our conversation, we noticed that CNN reporter Anderson Cooper has started a live interview with Florida's Attorney General, Pam Bondi.  Given all the news coming out of Florida, we decided to listen, and turned up the volume.  I wish I had said my goodbyes, and left for the day. The roughy one-minute interview between Cooper and Bondi upset me so much, that I truly wanted to walk out into the front yard, and scream.

I imagine I was not alone in assuming that Cooper's interview with Bondi would focus on law enforcement and the investigation of the Pulse nightclub terror attack.  If my memory serves me correctly, the first question or two dealt with the Florida Attorney General's Office response to the tragedy.  On a few occasions that morning, I had observed on Social Media members of the LGBT community complimenting Bondi and her office for doing a great job.  But Cooper didn't care about the needs of Florida's LBGT community that afternoon.  He wanted to discuss Bondi's role in the State of Florida's litigation dealing with Gay Marriage.  It appears that Bondi, in her sworn duty as Florida's Attorney General, had been obliged to defend Florida's position on the issue.  In later interviews, Bondi claimed that she was blindsided, and that just before the interview, Cooper had told her he would be asking about the "GoFundMe" account set up for the Orlando victims, and also alleged price-gouging by Florida funeral homes.  Let me assure you, folks; neither of those subjects were raised by Cooper in the interview.  In response to Bondi's claims, Cooper accused Bondi of being "very mistaken or lying", and that she knew very well that Cooper wanted to talk about Gay Marriage.  Now lets use a little common sense here. The day after this terrible terrorist attack, would it make sense for Anderson Cooper to ask the Attorney General questions relating to the incident, or would it seem normal for Cooper to start asking Bondi questions about her role as Attorney General during litigation over the Gay Marriage issue?

During the interview, Cooper accused Bondi of once stating that Gay Marriage would cause "public harm".  Before allowing Bondi any real chance to respond, he then asked her, "do you really think that you're a champion of the gay community?"  It seemed as if Cooper had gone over the edge.  Bondi has never claimed to be a champion of the Florida gay community.  During the short interview, it was apparent that Bondi was expecting to discuss the terrorist issue.  Instead, we received a reminder that the gay comunity "holds a grudge", at least according to Anderson Cooper.  If you google Bondi and Anderson Cooper you will get a full broadside on this issue, mostly from Cooper's perspective (big surprise).  Well folks, I saw the interview as it happened.  I used to have a bit of respect for Anderson Cooper.  But his verbal assault on Bondi left me disgusted and angry.  In addition, I wanted to hear an update on the investigation into the terrorist incident, not more propaganda on the Gay Marriage issue.

Forgive me, but I'm going to take this opportunity to be blunt. The "organized" gay community in the United States, the one that is represented by the LBGT movement (there are many gays and lesbians in the United States who do not support the LGBT organization, which has led to introduction of such lovely phrases as "self-loathing fags"), has been given so much free press by the media, it seems that they are never off of the airwaves.  Entertainment moguls go out of their way to create gay characters for TV shows and to promote gay-themed movies.  The average American is being barraged by issues involving the gay community day and night.  I have gay friends of mine who joke around that the entertainment industry needs to tone down the gay propaganda just a bit.  It has nothing to do about equality, folks.  The war being fought by the LGBT movement, which includes the transgender community, which liberally makes up roughly .003% of the population, is about forcing people to "like" and "respect" homosexuality.  That is about as un-American as it gets.  Gay Americans (and transgendered folks) deserve a workplace free of discrimination, and equal access to the great opportunities provided by our nation.  No one gets to force anyone else to be their biggest fan.  If someone chooses to dislike homosexuality and decides to only have heterosexual friends, that person is not breaking any law.  Regarding the openly gay Anderson Cooper's interview with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, it would do Anderson good to remember that the gay community consists of possibly 10% of our nation (according to the Kinsey Report).  The remaining 90% wanted to hear you ask the Attonrey general questions about the terrorist attack.  Actually, I'm sure a good number of gays would also have preferred that Cooper address the terrorist issue and not drudge up the subject of Gay Marriage once again.   Anderson, I realize that you live in New York City, and you are constantly surrounded by patronizing syncophants who only encourage this idea that you have that the United States begins and ends with the gay community.  It does not.  After watching a replay of the interview, I have decided that I really don't like you anymore, Anderson, and I should consider myself fortunate that for news purposes, my television never leaves Fox.        

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

How does Obama manage to keep a fifty-two percent positive poll rsting amongst the American people?

Lately my viewer numbers have been a bit astonishing, especially since I occasionally disappear for weeks at a time.  Today I would like to challenge those of you who take the time to read my blog on a regular basis.  One of the few subjects which can cause me to develop a very quick case of the Guadalupe River Red-Ass, is the confusing issue of polls.  Every news channel has a polling staff, and they usually team up with an established private pollster, for example, NBC teams up with the Wall Street Journal and ABC news works with the Washington Post.  Poll results can be confusing and often misleading.  I have noticed that pollsters directly connected to media sources have a tendency to "lead the respondent" with carefully constructed questions.  Most of us like to announce within our own group of friends and family that we "never pay attention to polls", when in fact, we use them all the time to back up our own arguments.  I studied polling methods as part of a Statistical Methods and Procedures course I took in college just before I got on the Mayflower and made my way over to the New World.  Polling hasn't changed much, and can be as confusing as always.  In 2012, all the major pollsters reported that Mitt Romney had a solid lead on Hillary Clinton; so much for that poll.  Don't misunderstand- I am not advising you to ignore all the polls that will continue filling up the print media as we approach November.  What I will advise you to do is focus more on the simple polls, for example the very recent Wall Sreet Journal/NBC poll that informed the world that Barrack Obama's job performance was approved by Americans at a fifty-two to forty-eight percent clip.  In other words, six months before he leaves office, President Obama has a favorable approval rating.  You can take all my experience, common sense (?), and college learning, and pile them up to the sky; it won't make any difference.  I just don't understand how fifty-two percent of Americans believe Obama has done a good job.  How is this possible?

I believe with complete confidence that Barack Obama is the worst president the United States has ever been obliged to endure (and two terms, no less!).  I don't need to dig into any detailed argument, with statistics, witnesses and a long boring slide show.  Obama has been a horrible president because he has been honest to his convictions.  While most of America still identifies as Chistian, I believe Obama worships at the feet of modern-day European Socialism.  American Exceptionalism, the key to building the greatest nation in the history of our planet, is derided by Obama.  You may remember that Obama was a regular attendee at the Chicago Church of deranged, hate-filled preacher Jeremiah Wright.  After the mainstream media finally decided to expose Wright and his racist preaching, The Obamas announced that their attendance was bascially just part of neighborhood tradition and solidarity, and that he denounced the hateful rhetoric that Wright preached every weekend.  Herein lies the problem.  The Obamas were married by Wright, he baptised the two daughters, and Obama credited Wright with the inspiration for the name of his book, "The Audacity of Hope".  As Obama tried to move away from Wright, the good Reverend got pissed off!  The entire episode left a bad taste, and was basically just a harbinger of what was to come.  Once the cameras started to roll, Obama presented himself as a particular kind of man; but so many questions were left unanswered.  When Obama returned home from his Middle-Eastern and European "Apology Tour", it became obvious that President Barack Obama has some serious issues with the United States of America, and our history.  I was disgusted by the Apology Tour, as I know enough of history to be aware that NONE of those communities deserved or required an apology from the United States.  This nation has been feeding most of the world at one time or another since World War II.  Other countries on the other side of the planet screw up their own situation, allowing despots and dictators to take over, and the blood of young American soldiers washed the way to new opportunities at freedom and Democracy.  The only kind of American who would apologize for the actions of his country is a man who is ashamed of his country.

Let me try and keep this list to a minimum.  Presidnt Obama ordered the Pentagon to pull our troops out of Iraq ahead of schedule.  That schedule included large-scale, intensive training of the Iraqi military.  No doubt ISIS sitting back in Syria watched as the U.S. troop-carrying C130s headed from Baghdad to Germany.  As soon as the coast was clear, ISIS was back in Iraq, with an untrained, frightened, ill-preprared Iraqi military to stand in their way.  The Iraqi Army deserted the battlefield outside Tikrit before a shot was fired, and ISIS picked up the booty of at least one billion dollars worth of U.S. military equipment abandoned by the Iraqis.  What else makes my list?  Obamacare is up near the top, but I don't think an explanation is required.  I also disagreed with traditional marriage being morphed into something unrecognizable to millions of Americans, like my parents, who thought that they were entering into a pact that was not subject to amendments.  We are currently stuck in the latest "state versus feds" debate, with the Obama Administration bound and determined to make unisex-only public bathrooms mandatory in the United States.  The continued existence of ISIS also pisses me off just a tad.  President Obama has the authority and the U.S. military has the capability of destroying ISIS in a matter of days, for all practical purposes.  For half a decade we have known WHERE the enemy is, and HOW the enemy resupplies and reinforces itself.  But Barack Obama refuses to commit the U.S. military in any way, form or manner that could be considered "large-scale".  Instead, ISIS lives, and continues to seed our cities with operatives who will one day stand up to be counted.  How is this possible?  Have you taken a look at our immigration system lately?  Obama manipulates figures to try and convince the average American that we are still deporting folks.  If you want the truth just as a Customs or Immigration officer.  As I type this blog post, Obama continues a fast-track policy of bring in Syrian refugees with little or no investigation.  And lets not forget the abuse of our system of Checks and Balances.  Obama has set a precedent: if you are President and you don't want to wrestle with Congress, just use Executive Action. I'm still not exactly sure how we went from three-to-five trillion in debt to twenty trillion in only eight years.  And all he wants is to bring in more people for us to feed, and to replentish the coffers of one wasteful entitlement program after another with taxpayer dollars.  The money poured down the toilet by this Administration on "new energy" research alone is astounding.

So- if I'm correct, and President Barack Obama has done a pretty awful job, then why, six months before he leaves office, does he have a fifty-two percent approval rating?  Are we still stuck in the place that makes us believe any criticism of an African American President is racist?  To be honest, I think many folks are of the mind to not criticize our first black President.  We have a difficult past during which for many years human beings were treated worse than farm animals, and its a part of our history that we cannot ever allow to be forgotten.  But what we have attempted to create with the experiment that is the United States, is a nation where all men and women are created equal.  We are judged equally, we are rewarded equally, and hopefully we dispense charity equally.  At least, that was the goal, wasn't it?

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Dynamics in U.S. politics in 2016 capable of damaging all manner of relationships.

As is typical of someone from my generation, I always find myself comparing the present to the past.  The United States of 2016 is no doubt split by political ideologies that could not be more further apart.  When I think about the different stages of my life, I am unable to recall a time when Americans were so politically polarized.  The Red State voter is motivated by a deep resentment for Barack Obama, and the Blue State voter is exhibiting the same kind of emotion for Donald Trump.  Personally, I hate this time of year.  It seems to be impossible to express oneself politically without offending a friend here and there.  Recently my blog posts have been more political, and I also post the occasional news link on Facebook.  Each time I post a political blog, I find myself worried about possibly offending friends with different political ideas.  I wonder, am I the only one who feels this way?  I can think of three friends in particular, one in Washington, one in Tennessee, and one in New York City, for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration.  All three work very hard, and have created successful careers and relationships.  I don't know how or why we ended up on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but here we are.  With Social Media at everyone's fingertips in one form or another, it only takes a few seconds to write a political comment or link an online article.  Recently, one of my friends posted his thoughts about Donald Trump, and I agreed with much of his assessment.  In totality, though, I did not agree with main thrust of his argument.  I wanted to reply, and provide my perspective. Then I remembered, how many times have I written something that rubbed him a bit raw?  Probably more times than I would like to admit.  Don't get me wrong; none of my friends are thinned-skinned.  All three love to laugh and reflect on some of the more absurd daily details of life.  The problem is with me.  Actually, the problem is with a bunch of folks, not just me.

Lets face it: roughly one-half of the country is conservative and one-half is not.  You know just as well as I do that the two separate voting groups are for the most part, cemented to their overall political perspective.  Nothing I post in my blog is going to change someone's mind about not voting for Donald Trump, and no amount of reasonable argumentation is going to convince someone in Midland, Texas, to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No doubt the recent past was different.  During the elections of the 1970's and 80's, the Independent voter accounted for more than ten percent of the electorate.  It was possible to sway an undecided voter here and there with a well-argued commentary or speech.  You would think that in 2016, if the Independent voter is down to three or four percent, and the rest of the country is evenly split, that the Independent voter would be even more valuable today.  I just don't buy it anymore.  When Trump spends the next week, screaming himself hoarse before thousands and thousand of supporters, he will not be impacting his final vote tally, and neither will Hillary, campaigning with Elizabeth Warren in Rhode Island one day and Joe Biden in Delaware the next.  This election will work itself out in a fashion very similar to 2008 and 2012.  The side that motivates its voters to not only get to the polls, but to drag two or three like-minded voters along for the trip, will reap the rewards of victory.  The Democrats have run circles around the GOP when it comes to registering and getting people to the polls on election day, so the Republican Party had better be working up a sweat chasing down those unregistered conservative voters.  I think that this election will highlight the importance of the precinct workers more than every before.  In 2012, a number of odd things accurred in certain respective precincts across the nation.  It was nothing that would have impacted the final outcome, but both sides are being very careful to ensure precinct representation.

So why do we keep writing blogs, and linking stories, and watching debates, when we all know that our efforts aren't changing the mind of even one voter?  Since I know that turnout and getting voters to the polls will have the real impact on this election, then why did I link that article today on Facebook which trashed Obamacare in Alaska?  Can anyone out there who reads my blog (U.S. citizens only, please) honestly say that some random blog post of mine from the last year caused you to reconsider your choice for president?  I have been trying to keep my political commentaries and links to a minimum, but inevitably something I read online will nag at me until I offer a rebuttal.  The truth is, I like my friends and I don't want them to think that our political differences have the power to put a strain on our friendships.  The three individuals of whom I speak are truly amazing people and I am fortunate to know them.  I am beginning to consider the possibility that we have become so different in the way we view our nation and how we believe society should evolve, that the time has come to separate.  I realize we tried it once before, but I dare say the circumstances are different.  Red State and Blue State citizens seem to be so polarized, that maybe we would all get along so much better if we just went our separate ways.  Have you looked at the violence that accompanies political rallies today?  Its disengenuous to blame Trump; American flags were getting burned and Mexican flags waved long before Donald decide to bully his way into this election.  The truth is, we are like an old married couple that have grown apart, and for some reason, sentiment probably, we refuse to even begin the discussion of separation.  Here is the reality, folks.  Red Staters were not happy with many of the developments of the Obama years, and if Trump wins, I can guarantee you that the Blue Staters will be at least as agitated with some of Trump's actions.  Keep in mind, he has already announced his willingness to utilize Executive Action in the same manner as his predecessor.  At the end of the day, I hope we can find a way to reach across the divide and not aggravate our friends with opposing viewpoints.  Maybe we can get past this election without having to split apart as well.  Its possible that an emeny may invade our towns and cities and force us to remember the things that kept us together all these years.  God Bless America.  

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Media wastes little time in going to battle for Hillary Clinton.

Recently a Democrat friend complained about the media focusing on Hillary Clinton's email server mess.  Not surprisingly, when I asked him to produce negative reporting regarding Hillary, he was only able to offer reporting from Fox News.  It seems that Democrats have come to the conclusion that Fox News is the only source that matters.  As a point of curiosity more than anything else, I still visit CNN and occasionally ABC, CBS, and NBC.  I rarely hear any mention of Hillary's email server on any news station other than Fox News.  During the GOP and Democratic primary season, for the most part the media focused on congratulating the Democrats for the Bernie Sanders phenomenom, and trashing Ted Cruz.  I was a bit surprised that the media stayed away from Trump during the primaries and debates, until I realized the intention.  I kept waiting for CNN and NBC to dig into the Trump University scandal and various other stories.  I should have been patient.  The media had every intention of dumping all the scandals, bankruptcies and dirty laundry on the Trump campaign, but not until Trump had comfortably won the Republican nomination.  Is it any surprise that since Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, it has been one negative story after another on Trump?  In fact, I don't think an hour goes by without one of the major media outlets reminding Americans that Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a crook.

The real irony is that In his personal life, Trump doesn't appear to be any of these three negative characterizations.  Trump has been an outspoken supporter of Visa worker programs that target specifically skilled individuals, and he has actually called for an increase in legal immigration.  Regarding the accusation of bigotry (or misogyny, which is the term I previously used to describe Trump), a review of Trump's hiring history over the years indicates that he aggressively recruits and hires qualified women at a rate greater than the US government.  As for my earlier issues with Donald Trump, I was really focused on his comments regarding Carly Fiorina and Fox News presenter Megan Kelly.  In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Trump opined that Fiorina was too ugly to be president.  He also inferred that Megan Kelly targeted him unfairly because she was dealing with her "monthly female issue" (my quotes).  Trump claims that the Fiorina comment was in jest, but he has yet to adequately account for his hypothesis rebarding Kelly.  The truth is, Trump is an uncouth man.  He lives in a world of very aggressive business practices, and he has yet to learn the importance of discretion and respect for one's political opponents.  I think it is reasonable to assume that he is trying to adjust to a learning curve, given that he has apologized and made peace with both Fiorina and Kelly.  Don't think for one second, though, that you've heard the last of these two scandals.  The media is determined to follow a daily template to make Trump look like a bigot and a racist.  The media originally avoided dumping on Trump in the primaries because they had determined that he was the Republican which would cause Hillary Clinton the least amount of difficulty in a national election.  So the media focused on stories abiut Trump"s primary opponents.  Now that the media has succeeded in picking the Republican candidate (for the third
consecutive cycle), the time has come to go after Trump with guns blazing.  Be prepared, Trump suppprters; some of the garbage that will be disseminated by the likes of MSNBC and ABC will be ignore.

Fortunately, the Democratic establishment did Trump suppprters a favor by smoothing the way for Hillary to get the Dem nomination.  Unlike most politically active people in DC, Trump has no fear of the Clinton machine, and certainly no respect for Hillary.  Buckle up, folks- this election is going to get nasty.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Surprise, surprise...the left trashes Chris Kyle again, as the post-mortem attacks continue.

I had never heard of the internet news magazine "The Intercept" until last week.  A friend of Taya and Chris Kyle's had forwarded a copy of a story that The Intercept had disseminated.  The article in question accused Chris Kyle of inflating his medal count when writing his autobiography.  In addition, the article revisited some of the other accusations that the left has made, leaving a great American's repuation in question.  It took some time for me to settle down after I had read The Intercept's story.  A quick Google search revealed a number of well-written articles defending Chris, including a particularly clear and concise rebuttal from former Texas Governor Rick Perry.  I also noticed that Texas' flagship magazine "Texas Monthly" had waded into the discussion.  I'm one of those rare Texas Conservatives who still reads Texas Monthly religiously.  I have learned to avoid the predictable left-leaning perspectives that the magazine takes with every issue, and to enjoy the amazing writing by the likes of Skip Hollingsworth.  Its sad how quickly things can change.  I actually had hope that Texas Monthly would do a bit of research and defend Texan Chris.  I couldn't have been more wrong.  Texas Monthly was unable to jump on the bandwagon regarding the exact number of Chris' medals because the information provided by The Intercept (The Inept would be more accurate) was quickly discredited.  You see, the folks at The Intercept contacted the Department of the Navy to request clarification regarding the exact number of Chris Kyle's medals.  Those of us who have a bit of experience dealing with Uncle Sam and the U.S. military know that contacting respective USG Departments directly is liable to get you incomplete information.  My first thought was,  "did anyone at The Intercept think to track down a copy of Chris' DD-214?"  This is the form that accurately collates a soldier's time in military service, and it includes the accurate number of medals awarded.  The Intercept was correct about one thing: in his book, Chris did not provide the correct number of medals he had earned.  Instead, he actually shorted himself by one.  Chris had been awarded more medals than he had claimed in his book. You would think that this discovery would have shut down the latest campaign by liberals to trash Chris in absentia.  Sadly, you would be mistaken.

Texas Monthly had frothed themselves up into such a fit of anticipation, they decided to do a hit-piece regardless of the dicredidation of the information originally reported by The Intercept.  Instead, the well-known Texas publication published an article titled, "How We Talk About Chris Kyle" and subtitled, "It's Possible To Be Both A Hero And A Liar".  Ouch.  Let me state unequivically:  I knew Chris Kyle.  We were not best friends, we were two Texans who started talking to each other one day in the Green Zone in Baghdad because we both were wearing Texas caps.  Chris was one of the older Navy Seals on his team, and I was one of the older Case Officers in my graduating class at the Farm.  Us old farts tend to stick together, especially Texas old farts.  We talked about High School football, the Dallas Cowboys, and the awesomeness of West Texas, especially Big Bend.  Chris did not have a whole lot to say, which suited me fine.  Two things I can guarantee you about Chris Kyle- he loved his family, and he was no liar.  Texas Monthly wants us to know that it's possible to be both a hero and a liar.  Actually, all they've proven from my optic is that it's possible to be a magazine and a pile of shit at the same time.

In order to flesh-out its paper-thin and whiney accusations, Texas Monthly rehashed a few accusations that really strain credulity.  The events repeated by Texas Monthly could easily be chalked up to a misunderstanding, bad memory, or just a case of simple confusion on someone's part. Allegedly, Chris told someone about a shootout in which he was involved somewhere out in rural Texas.  The Texas Monthly reporter (or whoever was checking up on the story) drove out to the Farm Road that Chris had (again, allegedly) identified as the location of the incident.  It should come as no surprise that this intrepid investigator was unable to locate an establishment or any persons who could bear witness to the story.  This was one example of what Texas Monthly concludes is a pattern of lies.  Texas Monthly also mentions the well-known trial in which it was decided that Chris had lied in his book about an encounter with former Governor Jesse Ventura.  All of these examples may seem convincing to the folks in Austin, but what they have in common is the one fact that renders them useless: Chris died before he had a chance to defend himself from this slander.  My Daddy used to tell me that "if you want to ruin anybody's good name, just wait a few minutes til after they've gone to their just reward".

Chris is not here to point out that maybe he had gotten confused in the information he provided someone, or maybe the other person just mixed things up?  It happens all the time, folks, at least to me.  If you consider all the sacrifces Chris made for his country, not to mention his other heroic contributions, hasn't he earned the benefit of the doubt?  He has in my book, and I hope also in yours.  Its time for the media and the left to steer clear of Chris and his family, and go back to attacking Donald Trump.