Twitter and email info

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Keeping it short and simple- a post-debate reminder why I'm voting for Donald Trump.

I spent a good part of tonight's Presidntial Debate trying to understand why someone with Donald Trump's public exposure and profile seems to have the communication skills of a High School sophomore.  He has real difficulty staying on topic and finishing points.  My friend Jennifer refers to it as talking in "verbal circles", and I think that she has found a great description.  That being said, I am able to clearly identitfy what Trump supports and what issues will be a priority should he win this election.  This debate only served to solidify my support for Trump and my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton.

Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right.  NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers.  Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border.  Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan?  The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well.  Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.

Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses.  Democrat Administrations love regulation.  They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air.  Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees.  But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners.  In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money.  They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy.  That's a guarantee you can take to the bank.  Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs.  A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.

Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law.  Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map.  We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws.  Americans are only as secure as our international border.  We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.

Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago.  Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care.  Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.

During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation.  She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy.  Lie is a special word in Clinton's world.  She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation.  We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation.  I wonder why?  And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department.  Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran?  Where was the benefit in that?  What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages?  If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars?  And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.

I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen.  So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016.  Fortunately, it didn't take very long.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Should persons identified as Transgender be allowed to use the public restroom of their choosing?

A few years ago I wouldn't have believed that this issue would ever become part of our nation's social conversation, but here we are.  The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer lobby (LGBTQ) has had amazing success in promoting certain issues and forcing conversation on subjects which probably have been ignored for too long.  Simply put, people should not be ill-treated or discriminated against because of their sexual identity or preference.  I grew up in an era where the words fag, dyke, gay and queer were commonly used as insults by young people.  No doubt, persons were harrassed because of perceived differences relating to sexual preference.  I can recall particular kids in Junior High and High School who were teased mercilessly; I'm a bit surprised that my graduating class didn't have any suicides because of this issue.  It's encouraging to see real changes taking place, especially in grade school.  All Americans, and Conservatives in particular, value privacy and believe that matters relating to sex should be discreet and between consenting adults.  Hopefully we are reaching the point at which young people respect the right to privacy, and to live our lives not being singled out or discriminated against because of some perceived personal characteristic.  I don't want to know what you are up to behind closed doors, and I would hope you would afford me the same privilege.  Adopting this example of mutual self-respect will discourage name-calling and harrassment in Junior and Senior High School, and hopefully make those all-important years a positive experience for everyone.

With regards to today's blog posting, one of the more important issues raised in the previous paragraph is the subject of privacy.  Actually, its much more important to identify privacy as not just a "subject", but as one of our most valuable Civil Rights.  I support the right of every U.S. Citizen to seek redress for any infringment of rights.  But we must be careful not to step on someone else's protections, as we act to defend our own.  I do want want to share a restroom with a woman.  I consider it to be a violation of my privacy and Civil Rights, to be obliged to partially undress and go about my PRIVATE business, in the presence of a woman.  The LGBTQ lobby and its liberal Special Interest Group allies are determined to turn all public restrooms in the United States into unisex facilities.  The argument being made is that a certain percentage of Americans are born trapped in the body of the wrong sex, therefore these folks should be allowed to use the restroom of their choice.  I will not debate the issue of Transgenderism.  I have met enough self-identified Trans persons to believe that the great majority of these unfortunate folks are suffering terribly.  I won't begin to try and figure out the emotional and medical issues involved with this condition.  I don't have to, because I have enough common deceny to recognize when another person is in sincere pain, caused by something over which they feel no control.  Thank goodness the medical community has made tremendous advances in the field of sexual reassignment surgery.  No doubt things aren't yet where they need to be, but Medicine seems to be on the right path.

My issue isn't complicated and it has nothing to do with bigotry, although after reading the next few paragraphs, I will undoubtedly be called a racist and a homophobe.  What I am doing is nothing more and nothing less than any average American should do to protect their right to privacy.  The LGBTQ lobby wants to give Trans individuals the right to use the bathroom which corresponds to the sexual identity that they have chosen.  Until the medical community can find a universal method to certify someone as Transgender, I am expected to just "assume" that the genetic female standing in the men's restroom is truly a Trans person.  I don't want to use the restroom alongside a woman, regardless of what identity issues he/she faces.  I should have the RIGHT to decide who sees me in a state of partial undress, shouldn't I?  I asked a few parents I know how they would feel knowing that a genetic male was in the ladies restroom at the same time as their eleven and twelve year old daughters; you can guess the response.  If we decide to use the honor principle, and keep our fingers crossed, how long do you think it will be before some pedophile follows a young girl into the restroom for unthinkable purposes?  If the police are fortunate enough to intervene, wouldn't this pedophile be able to identify himself as a Trans person named Mabel?  I realize that some folks are going to accuse me of equating the Transgender issue with pedophilia, which is absurd.  I am referring to sick people who will take advantage of any and every opportunity to access their target of interest.  In fact, this nightmare scenario has already occurred, or at least something very similar.

The medical community hypothesizes that the Trans community in the United States makes up less than one percent of the population.  Some special interest groups are willing to flip the table upside down for everyone, just to pursue "equal rights" for a miniscule number of people.  Another very aggravating fact is that the LGBTQ lobby isn't interested in just adding another restroom with a unisex logo.  They strongly believe that every person should have the right to chose which restroom most appropriately suits their sexual identity, and sharing a "unisex" facility with persons who are self-identified as the opposite sex would be humiliating.  Actually, I respect that concern because, as I stated earlier, I accept that the Transgender issue is real, and must cause confusion, pain and depression, especially to young sufferers of this condition.  I don't think I could function if I woke up tomorrow in a woman's body.  But this conversation isn't about access to reassignment surgery, something I support.  Our discourse today is about violating one person's Civil Right to privacy in an effort to accomodate another.  Is it that difficult, to wait until after reassignment surgery to resolve the issue?  But wait, I'm assuming that all Trans persons want reassignment surgery, when some have no intention of going under the knife, ever.  This subject has so many confusing angles.

I'm certainly not a bigot or racist, but on this issue, I'm willing to be tagged as such in defense of my right to privacy.  I should not be forced to use the restroom in front of a woman.  True, no one is "forcing" me to use the facility, but the last time I checked, peeing in a public parking lot in broad daylight is still against the law.  I respect the LBGTQ lobby and appreciate some of the problems they continue to address.  But ts time to let up on this one, folks.  This is the issue that just might provoke a backlash and jeopardize other, more reasonable goals.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Addressing the professional athletes who chose to sit or kneel on one knee during the National Anthem.

I have waited some time to discuss this issue, as I had hoped it would disappear before becoming a true national disgrace.  Unfortunately, my patience was in vain.  For anyone who is unfamiliar with the controversy, Colin Kaepernick, backup Quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, chose to sit during the playing of the National Anthem before a preseason football game.  Since then, Kaepernick has continued to sit during the remainder of the preseason and for the first game of the regular season.  One professional female soccer player (yes, they exist) and a handful of additional professional football players have repeated Kaepernick's demonstration, but the numbers were not nearly what was hoped for by persons affiliated with the "Black Lives Matter" movement and other far-left organizations.  What exactly is Kaepernick protesting?  Simply put, his sign of disrespect to the National Anthem and the Flag stems from his desire not to support a nation that "oppresses Black people and people of color", and that allows police officers to receive "paid leave while getting away with murder".  The most galling of this situation is that Kaepernick himself is worth somewhere in the area of two-hundred million dollars.  We live in an age when the professional sports and music industries are dominated by African-American performers, and the current President is Black.  I'm not sure just when Kaepernick was "oppressed" during his young life, and I can't help but wonder why he doesn't donate half of his multi-million dollars to support educational programs and anti-drug initiatives in poor communities.  The truth is, this entire circus has nothing to do with anyone's sincere efforts to encourage positive change.  Kaepernick and his ilk are interested in accomplishing one goal, and that is to offend patriotic Americans who love the United States of America.

I hope I don't regret speaking my mind, but I'm prepared to take that chance, because what I have to say is exactly what many Americans truly believe.  Whenever a Police Officer feels the necessity to discharge his/her firearm, its a tragedy.  But where to put the blame?  I do not believe that Police Officers in the United States purposely target anyone, at least not with a weapon, unless that individual has become a threat.  We have to trust Law Enforcement to make that decision, because otherwise, who will protect us?  If you don't want to end up on the unfortunate end of an encounter with the Police, then don't break the law.  Don't rob a store and pistol-whip the owner, don't steal a car, don't carry around a stolen weapon because it makes you feel like a badass, and don't pull a weapon in the presence of a Police Officer.  If an accredited Peace Officer is involved in a shooting which raises questions, we have to trust the system in place to dispense justice.  If you feel that the system isn't adequate, then work to bring the changes that you feel will make a difference.  In the meantime, don't break the law.  I am a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer and I was obliged to carry a Beretta 40 caliber pistol holstered to my waist.  It wasn't something any of us enjoyed.  All it takes is one determined criminal or lunatic to attempt to grab your weapon and people can get seriously hurt.  Its a heavy responsibility, one that should never been taken lightly, but the streets of many of our cities are owned by young people, flashing weapons as a sign of their authority.  Over three-thousand persons have been shot in Chicago already this year.  How many times have Police Officers been forced to pull their weapons in order to protect innocent people?  It happens everyday, in San Antonio, in New York, In Seattle, and in Chicago.  The lives protected and the lives that are saved are never counted by the Kaepernick's of the world.  He and his supporters aren't interested in educating themselves on the reality of life as a Police Officer.  The only people who live more dangerous lives are the unfortunate folks who live in the inner city, who are held captives by thugs, gangs, and drug lords.

Sitting during the National Anthem is a slap in the face of every soldier who gave their life so that we could be free.  Its not just a cliche.  Kaepernick and his posse are allowed to express themselves because brave men and women died so that we would not be forced to live under the tyranny of Communism and Nazism.  Our troops are putting their lives in jeopardy as I write this, fighting the growing threat of Islamic Terrorism that threatens at any moment, to rear its ugly head in a grocery store, at a High School football game, or during a parade.  Kaepernick could not live the life he enjoys in any other country in the world.  Why does the Anthem and the Flag represent those who gave their all?  Because those who continue to protect our freedoms (Police Officers included) have chosen those symbols.  If you are a filthy rich, entitled athlete or performer and you want to make a difference, go into the community and set an example as someone who can be admired.  Give as opposed to taking all the time.  As a closing thought, let me express to you what really gives me the red-ass.  Sometime in the last fifty years of our Republic we have decided that athletes and performers should be treated as special class citizens, and should be rewarded with mansions, first-class vacations, expensive cars, and all sorts of other "bling".  Why does Kaepernick earn, in one day on the football field, more money than my mother and sister earned in their entire careers as High School teachers?  Why does Britney Spears earn more money from one album, than an entire hospital full of nurses earns in a year?  Do you think the average city bus driver in Houston or Denver earns as much money as a professional baseball player?  I doubt it, but I can guarantee you that the bus driver has a more stressful, difficult job.  If you are looking for a cause, try that one on for size.  I'd better be careful, I'm beginning to sound a bit like Bernie Sanders.........

Friday, September 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

A few important and fair issues to consider before voting for Hillary Clinton.

(I realize that today's blog entry is addressed to person's who may choose to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8.  I also acknowledge that the great majority of people who read this blog have no intention of voting for Clinton.  These facts may lead you to consider, "what's the point?"  The national conversation currently taking place in the United States isn't meant to be limited to just the necessary amount of bad press to convince folks to vote one way or another.  Even after you believe you have made up your mind, its important to let the educational process comtinue.  Learn all you can about both candidates.  It can only add to your conviction.)

We have less than sixty-three days remaining before United States citizens go to the polls to decide who follows Barack Obama into the Oval Office.  There is no doubt that the American people would like a campaign based on the economy, foreign policy, and the national debt, just to name a few important issues.  But at the end of the day, the discussion always seems to devolve into negative reporting and personal attacks.  Last week, Republican Donald Trump announced an effort to reach out to Black and Hispanic Americans, two voting groups that seem determined to vote Democrat until the end of time.  Trump spoke of the rising unemployment in minority communities and the lack of quality schools.  He didn't shy away from the subject of gun violence, and the unacceptably high number of young Black and Hispanic men who sit in jail, when they should be sitting in a College Classroom.  Trump spoke of the failure of the system that exists in place, and the lack of opportunity in our poorer urban communities.  Instead of encouraging the introduction of such important issues into the race for the Presidency, the Clinton Campaign almost overnight put together a video alleging that Donald Trump has ties to the KKK- a perfect example of what is wrong with our political system.

Although I'm sure the Trump Campaign won't hesitate to attack Clinton in the same fashion, I always endeavor to introduce issues that I feel are relavent and vetted.  Vetted by who?  By me; I've spent enough time living in DC and working inside the beast to have a useful perspective, if you will excuse the self-promotion.  I won't accuse Hillary Clinton of being a Chinese spy or a closet Marxist (she disposed of the closet long ago!).  But I will ask a very important question, that as of today, has yet to be addressed.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President, how will she be able to view classified material?  A simple review of Clinton's admitted actions involving classified documents when she was Secretary of State, preclude her from having any hope in hell of passing a background check.  If we consider only the actions that Clinton has admitted, and set aside the plethora of unanswered accusations, it would be a stretch to think that Clinton could get a "Confidential" level clearance, let alone a Top Secret/SCI clearance, which is a necessary tool for the President of the United States.  Its past time that the issue is addressed by the media.  How can we elect a President who cannot pass the necessary evaluation to earn a Top Secret/SCI clearance?

Let's take a look at that monstrosity identified as "The Clinton Foundation".  This entity serves to provide former President Bill Clinton the opportunity to raise money for a number of good causes across the globe.  The idea is that Bill Clinton has a great deal of influence among the powerful and wealthy around the world, and can bridge the gap between the needy and the resources necessary to improve lives.  It all sounds great, except for a handful of problems.  Have you ever heard of, or seen, The Clinton Foundation at work?  Have you ever seen a news special or documentary on some successful project to feed hungry people or educate the poor, that was made possible by the Clinton Foundation?  In the end, the Foundation is just like all the other charities that the rich and famous like to set up (lately its been folks in sports and the entertainment industry); lots of noise and money changing hands, but very little being accomplished.  The reality is, these Foundations serve to provide jobs to all of those who at one time or another, proved useful.  The Clinton Foundation is a "who's who" of Clinton supporters and useful contacts.  It costs a fortune to run a Foundation, especially when you take a look at what it's employees are paid.  At the end of the day, its a miracle that any money is left over at all to apply to the original goal.  But the Foundation continues to grow, and in the case of Bill Clinton, provide a never-ending supply of worshipers and fans.  Isn't Bill a great guy!

When Hillary Clinton joined the Obama Administration as Secretary of State, persons within Obama's inner circle expressed concern about the closeness of the Foundation to the State Department.  The Obama folks were assured that a "wall" existed, so that no overlap could take place.  So much for the wall.  So far, it has come to light that two of Hillary Clinton's State Deptartment Staff,  Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, continued to do work for the Foundation.  The real trouble for Hillary didn't start until a review of her meeting logs detailed that 55% of persons she met with in her role as Secretary of State, turned around and donated money to the Clinton Foundation.  Have you heard of Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury?  He is a friend of Bill Clinton's, gave at least one million dollars to The Foundation, and pledged to donate one billion dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative.  Not surprisingly, he was treated as a VIP by Hillary's State Department.  He has since been convicted of money laundering in Switzerland.

Sixty-three days do not provide enough time to dig into the hidden tunnels of contacts and favors that existed between Hillary Clinton's State Department and The Clinton Foundation.  So much money, so many discreet deals and purposely paid degrees-of-separation.  For persons who are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, are you sure that all of this smoke doesn't lead to a fire somewhere down the line?  You may not like Trump, but he has lived his life as a businessman, doing his best to succeed within the framework of rules and regulations that exist for Real Estate Developers.  Clinton has been a politician her entire adult life, which inevitably leads to the type of complications discussed in the previous paragraphs.  Isn't it time we tried a different direction?