Without the media, the Democratic Party might just cease to exist.

Donald Trump has been in office less than two months, and efforts to impede his Administration show no signs of abating.  Late in the 2016 presidential campaign, the press asked candidate Trump if he would be willing to accept a Hillary Clinton victory.  Its becoming more and more apparent every day that the press should have been addressing the question to candidate Clinton and lame duck President Barack Obama, because the left is determined to impede all Trump efforts to establish a working government.  Aside from the anticipated nasty, rude, and politically motivated questions asked of Trump appointees, Congressional Democrats have besmirched the reputations of former friends and colleagues.  Since it became obvious that Donald Trump would win a substantial electoral victory, the left has resorted to one road block after another.  In the beginning, these efforts were little more than sideshows, as recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania actually added to the Trump victory.  While Elizabeth Warren and her flock of progressive activists were getting plenty of media exposure, the Democratic establishment, no doubt to include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, circled the wagons and crafted a strategy to at least cripple the new administration.  This plan includes making use of every political opportunity to stall and embarrass President Trump, and also relies heavily on the military arm of the Democratic Party, the media.

Last week, President Trump made the mistake of sending out an angry message on his Twitter account.  Trump has seriously difficulty refraining of shooting out Tweets when he seems to be the most frustrated, and I'm not the only American who wishes he would hang up his Twitter account for good.  The message to which I refer openly accused former President Obama of wiretapping Trump's office in Trump Tower last year during the 2016 presidential campaign.  When I read the Tweet, I immediately understood that Trump was referring to the Obama Justice Department as being responsible for the alleged wiretap, but the media as literally as possible, and CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times published the story as a direct accusation from President Trump to President Obama.  We will eventually discover that indeed there was a wiretap in Trump's office, and I'm guessing it will be connected to a Justice Department FISA approval signed by a Judge, and justified by concerns of Russian interference in the campaign.  I think we will also discover that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was also the target of a FISA wiretap, hence the leaked information that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador when he was still serving as a U.S. Senator.  Regardless of the investigations and the leaks, not one shred of evidence has been discovered that points to the Trump Campaign's involvement or knowledge of Russian efforts to impact the campaign.  What the media should be most concerned with are the never ending leaks coming out of this new Administration, all of which are obviously intended to damage President Trump.  Before all is said and done, someone is going to ask, "where is the evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by the Trump Campaign as it relates to Russia?"  The media and the Democrats can't produce the evidence so they focus on Trump's unfortunate Tweet(s).  Again, when will the Feds start focusing on the countless illegal leaks that are coming out of both the Administration and the Justice Department?

For eight years, Conservatives such as yours truly, followed established protocol for the political opposition.  I didn't hesitate to express my disagreement with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty, President Obama's precipitous removal of the U.S. military from Iraq in 2010, Obamacare, the appointment of unqualified political activists to the Supreme Court, Federal involvement in the Gay Marriage issue, the Treaty with Iran and subsequent, sneaky one-hundred forty million dollar payoff, and many other actions taken by the Obama Administration.  I wrote blog posts and spoke publicly when the opportunity presented itself, and in 2012, I volunteered on behalf of the Romney campaign.  I did not assault Pinata-effigies of President Obama, nor I did not refer to him as a Nazi or any other derogatory name (does Socialist count?).  Were we idiots for not protesting in the streets and breaking windows?  I hope not.  What I do know is that we played by the rules, waiting patiently until 2016 and the opportunity to put the nation on a different course.  We won the 2016, and had every right to anticipate the opportunity to see our ideas and our leaders put into action.  But somewhere in DC, in mid-November and December 2016, the Democrats were putting together a plan to disrupt the will of the American people by making it impossible for Donald Trump to govern.

The issue of Russian interference in the 2016 elect has been carried from one goal-line to the next by an aggressively partisan media, which provides us with a perfect example of what the Democrats intend to do.  During Congressional Confirmation Hearings, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked by Minnesota Senator Al Franken (a guaranteed embarrassment for Minnesota year after year) if Sessions had any knowledge regarding Trump officials and contact with the Russian government.  Sessions replied that he did not.  Since that time, it has been determined that Sessions met the Russian Ambassador with a group of other dignitaries at the GOP Convention, and had a one-time personal meeting with the Ambassador at his offices in DC.  Sessions claims that the meeting in DC was in the context of his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator, and not as someone affiliated with the Trump campaign.  Two other U.S. military officers were present at the meeting, during which, according to Sessions, nothing remotely related to the election was discussed.  Thanks to the media, the issue is no longer about Russia trying to impact our election, but about a Trump appointee "committing perjury" (my quotation marks).  More than a handful of Democrats have publicly called for Sessions to resign, and even more are requesting an Independent Counsel!  How easy it is for these career politicians to waste taxpayer money.  The hypocrisy is reaching levels never before seen.  Do you remember when Bill Clinton and Attorney General met on the Tarmac at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, when, coincidentally, the Justice Department was knee-deep into Hillary Clinton's server investigation?  The Independent Counsel Act was written for just such a circumstance.  To the person, the Democrats opposed an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and today, to the person, they are calling for an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The daily barrage of leftist propaganda has found a permanent home on the front pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and just about every other newspaper that represents a major metropolitan area, not to mention the countless blogs and internet sites.  When I was younger, I realized that the press tended to side with liberal causes, but over the past decade, the issue has lost all sense of perspective.  The last non-aligned study that I reviewed listed the bias at something near 88% pro-Democrat; and the press wonders why they are no longer trusted.  There was a time when unabashed bias would put a newspaper out of business.  People can discern when someone is trying to sell them a load of horse crap, and what do you know, subscriptions would crash.  Things have changed, folks.  Today, newspapers are rarely exclusively dependent upon their own sales to survive.  Companies like the Hearst Corporation own a number of papers, and success in one location can offset failure in another.  Also, big money has become more involved with the media.  To put it bluntly, newspapers are no longer dependent upon the bottom line.  The NY Times has been in a downward spiral for years, and the Washington Post isn't breaking subscription records either.  The owners of some of the nation's biggest newspapers are much more interested in promoting a particular message than they are in profit margin.  The same can be said for CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, and MSNBC.  Since its arrival roughly two decades ago, Fox News has rewritten the instruction manual for televised news. Actually, Fox News is the one News source that attempts to regularly provide a representative for both political perspectives.  Its true that Fox News does have a conservative orientation, and thank goodness.  The score is still eight or nine to three (Drudge and Rush Limbaugh certainly deserve a mention, but Breitbart is still finding its footing).  The fact the Fox News routinely destroys the opposition when it comes to viewership is a clear indication that conservatives watch the news as well.

While waging war with both the media and the Democrats, the Trump Administration appears more determined than ever to follow through with its campaign promises.  Thank goodness that I have lived long enough to see a candidate keep his word with such sincerity.  I support delaying refugee resettlement for ninety days, until Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Intelligence Community are able to ensure that we aren't welcoming terrorists into our communities.  The media and the Democrats continue to characterize this effort as a "ban on Muslims".  The Times, the Washington Post, Pelosi, and Schumer need a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of the word "ban".  What Trump is attempting to do has been done before, including by President Obama, albeit on a smaller scale.  In fact, the country targeted by Obama was also a Muslim nation, not that it matters to the media or a number of liberal, activist Judges.  The Trump Administration needs to put a moratorium on Twitter and stay solely focused on following through with the promises made during the 2016 campaign.  Those promises put President Trump in the White House, and the American people expect results.               

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".   

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.     

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 hard.to 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.