The Washington Post and New York Times have dropped all pretense, and now see it as their duty to destroy both President Donald Trump and the Conservative Movement in the United States.

This weekend, the NY Times will publish a front-page story on former Donald Trump advisor Paul Manafort.  Can you guess what shocking revelation the Times will be sharing with its readers?  No doubt it will highlight Manafort's long-time business activities in Russia, and close with a comment from another ubiquitous anonymous source, reminding the reader that the justice Department is investigating certain Trump advisors and their "alleged" contact with Russians during the 2016 Campaign.  You can be sure that the Times article will not mention that this investigation, which is becoming more disturbing everyday, has yet to find the slightest bit of evidence indicating wrong-doing on the part of Trump or his staff.  Between the Washington Post and the Times, its beginning to appear as if these two once-respected newspapers are taking turns, publishing stories about Trump advisors or cabinet members, which provide nothing but the same basic allegation, dressed up with the all-important comment from the secret source.  Currently, journalists in DC seem to have an endless supply of inside government sources.  At first, these leakers caused a firestorm by providing the Associated Press and others with the identity of three Trump advisors or confidents who had met with Russian government officials during the campaign.  What should be most disturbing is the willingness of the AP, the Post and the Times, to print information which is obviously classified and illegally obtained.

 If the FBI or another government entity finds it necessary to surveille and "listen in" to the conversations of foreign nationals, occasionally that effort will pick up the identity and incidental comments of U.S. citizens as well.  Whoever has been given the authority to collect intelligence on the foreign national is required by law to mask the identity of any U.S. citizen who has "inadvertently" picked up in conversation.  Before the FBI or whoever are allowed to start the surveillance operation which might involve a U.S. person, they are required to obtained FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) authority from a Judge.  Trump's nominee for Attorney General Jeff Sessions and advisor Michael Flynn were picked up during a FISA-approved collection effort.  How can we know this?  Because an anonymous source, probably within the Justice Department, provided this information to a journalist.  First and foremost, only a select number of people in Washington DC are supposed to have "unmasking" authority.  One of these individuals unmasked both Sessions and Flynn, which gave the media the opportunity to create a firestorm of innuendo and unproven allegations regarding both Trump and Flynn.  I have yet to hear one Democratic Congressperson express concern regarding the unmasking of U.S. citizens.

Some things in life are guaranteed. Ice is cold, kittens are irresistible, and the American people have no faith in the mainstream media.  Have you noticed that since the GOP has taken over both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the media is anxious to publicize any and all polls that illustrate Congress' low approval rating?  At the same time, you will rarely see poll results on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS that highlight the complete lack of trust the American people have for the mainstream media.  Regardless, journalists continue to have no clue.  Even after the fiasco of anointing Hillary Clinton as the winner of the 2016 election while the Campaign was still in full-swing, the media remain convinced of their intellectual superiority over almost all Americans (they probably rank themselves somewhere just below tenured Ivy League Professors).  This knowledge burdens them with the heavy responsibility of editorializing every piece of news.  From where they stand, the job of a journalist is not only to report the news, but to do so in a selective and nuanced fashion, ensuring that the audience comes away with the "correct perspective".  For the press, the fact that no evidence exists connecting Trump advisors and staff to alleged Russian efforts to impact the 2016 Presidential Campaign, makes it imperative that the American people are reminded, ad nauseam, that the Justice Department has not completed its investigation into this matter. 

The environment in DC at present is bizarre, to say the least.  From 2008 to 2016, Democrats and the Obama Administration, with the assistance of an active, aggressive media, frightened and intimidated Republicans into playing dead.  Now that President Trump is the White House, and the GOP controls both Houses of Congress, the high-tide of the Conservative Agenda should be sweeping away all sorts of Obama legislative leftovers.  Don't hold your breath, folks.  The Democrats act as if they own Capitol Hill, and Obama is still sitting in the Oval Office.  Why do Republicans continue to avoid serious confrontation with Democrats?  The first reason is fear of being labeled a racist or a Nazi.  The Left can manipulate just about any issue, so that with the help of the press, opposing the Democrats will result in being called a racist and/or a Nazi.  The second reason the GOP has become so non-confrontational is, of course, the media.  You don't want to defend Conservative principles too loudly, just ask Ted Cruz.  Devin Nunes, Head of the House Intelligence Committee, temporarily distracted the media away from the Trump/Russia narrative, by visiting his own source and being shown intelligence which demonstrates how leakers passed classified intelligence, including the unmasked identity of a U.S. Senator, to the press.  Once the Democrats on his own Committee discovered that Nunes had been to the White House and shared information with President Trump (which is authorized), the indignation was palpable.  No one gave a rats ass that the Obama Administration went out of its way to spread classified intelligence about the Trump Campaign before Obama left office, nor did anyone on the Left express even the slightest concern regarding the shocking amount of leaked classified intelligence that regularly ends up in the hands of the media.

I'm hoping that the Trump/Russia issue can be put to bed once the Justice Department Investigation is complete.  Can you imagine how much money has been spent to date?  More resources than were expended investigating Hillary and her special server, no doubt.  Once Attorney General Sessions has finally exterminated all the hold-over rats that seem to be lurking in every nook and cranny of the FBI, State Department, and Homeland Security, we can expect internal and external investigations in numerous Agencies, and hopefully prosecutions.  Leaking classified information for political and ideological reasons is not acceptable justification, and a message needs to be sent so as to avoid this situation in the future.  Throw the book at 'em.  It will be interesting to see just how the Post and the Times attempt to keep the Russia story on the front burner.  I might bother to check out a NY Times headline or two, but I don't like trying to read the paper than lines my cat box.          

Voter fraud: the latest electoral disease introduced by the Democratic Party.

Everyday new evidence is uncovered which details the level of corruption in the Democratic Party.  For many years, both the Republican and the Democratic Parties were plagued with a small but embarrassing amount of bribery and fraud.  1960 was the year that the Democrats put the pedal to the metal and zoomed right past the GOP in the electoral corruption sweepstakes.  Many historians today accept that John F. Kennedy only beat Richard Nixon because of voter fraud in Texas and Illinois.  In an election that was decided by less than 119,000 votes, serious questions remain to this day regarding the eighty-nine percent turnout in Chicago's suburbs (Kennedy won Illinois' huge electoral prize by just 8900 votes, and won Texas with a razor-thin race due to documented cases of ballot-box stuffing).  Since then, Democrats have consistently topped the GOP with regards to fraud allegations.

The contested 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore was a question of electoral law as opposed to fraud, but the 2008 election between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama included numerous allegations of intimidation and ballot-box stuffing, especially in Ohio.  2012 saw a repeat of the problems in Ohio, with even more claims of irregularities.  In 2012, unlike 2008, Republican officials in Ohio were able to collect evidence of multiple cases of ballot-box stuffing, precinct worker intimidation, and precincts reporting one-hundred percent counts for one candidate.  The Justice Department, which has the obligation to investigate electoral fraud, announced that the allegations did not meet the threshold that would trigger a federal investigation; this decision was made before any of the evidence had been examined.    Eventually someone was convicted, but the great majority of the cases were never prosecuted.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, the national Democratic Party really got their act together.  They realized that many traditionally Democratic voters were not registered, while others were not being encouraged to vote.  Others needed assistance to reach the polling station.  Kudos to the Democrats who put together a well-organized plan to register new voters in heavily urbanized areas, and to guarantee that those voters showed up at the polls on election day.  Special emphasis was put on registering African-American citizens, who have traditionally voting for Democratic candidates over Republicans by a wide margin.  Democratic activists have expanded this effort to include Hispanic-Americans, who also traditionally support Democrats.  This nation-wide drive has had a significant impact on electoral politics.  Experts point to Virginia and Florida, both former Republican states but now leaning Democrat, as a good example of the impact of this effort.  Both states voted Democratic in 2008 and 2012.

In 2016, the Republicans finally discovered a game-changing strategy of their own, and it had everything to do with the candidates themselves.  Well-known businessman and billionaire Donald Trump announced his candidacy as a Republican, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared as a Democrat.  It would have been difficult to find two more polarizing candidates, at least as far as Republican voters were concerned.  Republicans went wild over Trump's brash style and willingness to speak his mind, even if it meant insulting his opponents.  On the other hand, the average conservative voter seems to have a special animus towards former First Lady Hillary Clinton.  Vote totals in one GOP primary after another would set a new record.  It became apparent that the number of Republican votes was bound to increase substantially, and Hillary Clinton did not inspire the same kind of excitement amongst Democrat voters.  The Democrats had no other option but to fall back on their other reliable method for increasing votes: fraud.

With just over two weeks to go before the election, reports are popping up in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida of vote tampering and other forms of electoral cheating.  Evidence of fraud has turned up in Texas, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  To add gas to the fire, Independent Filmmaker James O'Keefe produced an undercover documentary highlighting the Clinton Campaign's efforts to train its volunteers in how to commit voter fraud.  The Clinton Campaign subsequently fired two of its campaign coordinators, but the cat was already out of the bag, folks.  This election will probably be decided by the electoral votes from one or two of the batleground states.  On that list are North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida.  Acceptance of this organized effort to steal an election is not only un-American, its criminal.  Now we understand why Democrats are so opposed to instituting a photo identification requirement at polling stations, and allegations that the Democratic Party supports amnesty as a method to increase the number of Hispanic-American voters doesn't seem so unreasonable after all.  Not only does Donald Trump have to deal with a politically-biased national media, he now must confront potentially rampant electoral fraud and a Justice Department that is determined to protect his Democratic opponent.

Over 70 Republicans sign letter to GOP National Committee Chairman, urging him to not support Donald Trump.

The efforts of the Beltway Republicans to find a way of making Donald Trump disappear, continue.  This flock of Rinos (Republicans In Name Only) and otherwise liberal Republicans are determined to create a weekly media event, as their way of punching Trump in the gut, so to speak.  Yesterday it was announced that roughly 70 ex-lawmakers and former Republican staffers sent an open letter to GOP National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, urging him to forego using GOP funds to support Trump's candidacy.  There is so much wrong with this effort, its difficult to decide where to begin.

First and foremost, this issue is not about Donald Trump.  I will not discuss his issues, bad habits, speaking style or haircut.  This issue is about disaffected "lifetime" GOP bodies who are petrified that their permanent place among the DC elite might be in jeopardy.  Many of the so-called Republicans had announced their support for Hillary Clinton before the Republican Primaries were complete.  I have a few close Republican friends who are unable to bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.  I absolutely support their decision, as much as I support the overwhelming decision of Republican voters to support Donald Trump (he was not my first or second choice either).  But there is a huge difference between not voting for Trump, and voting for Hillary Clinton.

I am thoroughly disgusted by any Republican who attempts to alter the results of the primaries.  The system performed as it should, and an impressive number of conservatives made their choice.  This is the U.S. electoral system; there are no "do-overs".  Do these people really think that they can replace Trump and not face an exodus from the GOP?  The people have spoken; if you don't like the choice, then stay at home or vote for the other candidate.

The truth is, this is a relatively small group of insidious political hacks who have FAILED comservatives over the past few decades.  Who are they to complain about Trump?  They failed us in 2008 and 2012, they allowed Obama to run wild and get just about everything he wanted, and they feel that they are justified in trying to overturn the choice of the people?  Priebus will ignore this most recent letter, as he has the preceding ones.  This election will end up being very close, with Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina being the most important prizes.  I have seen enough internal polling to believe that Trump can win all four.  I hope everyone finds some way to participate in the process, but at the end of the day, trying to overturn or ignore the 13,406,108 Americans who voted for Donald Trump, is about as un-American as having a candidate who should be wearing prison pinstripes instead of pantsuits.

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".   

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.

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.  

Five reasons why I'm not voting for Donald Trump.

Links: A. Trump for President Official Site.
           B. Real Clear Politics- Presidential Polls, GOP


I admit it- I'm just as surprised as all the media analysts and talking heads regarding Donald Trump's seeming inevitable March to the GOP nomination.  Immediately following the latest offensive comment, I always expect to see Trump's numbers take a hit.  But if we are to believe the polls, and there are reasons to approach them with a cautious eye, The Donald seems to just build on his advantage.  I've heard the whispers in some Republican conspiratory circles, that the media is doctoring the polls, to create an air of invincibility in Trump.  Why would the media do something to benefit Donald Trump?  Because they realize that when Nov. 2 rolls around, he is the one GOP candidate that Independent voters will have the hardest time supporting over Hillary Clinton.  I can't say that I'm anywhere ready to sign on to that theory, but strangely enough, I'm having trouble finding folks down south in Red State Country, who will openly declare their support for Trump.  But he is getting tremendous support from somewhere.  I don't like Trump, and I'm going to tell you why.

Trump is a "sound bite" candidate if there ever was one.  He makes grandiose announcements, with no follow-up.  Its not difficult to do...just fill the empty air with another sound bite.  Trump will build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it.  And just how will this be accomplished?  I'm not looking for an answer in two sentences, I'm looking for an actual well-thought piece that takes into account all the factors and variables included in public policy.  How much will it cost?  Who will pay for it?  How long will it take to build?  About the mechanics...how will the wall be constructed and with what materials?  Will there be breaks in the wall for Ports of Entry?  Will it be necessary to build the same wall on the Canadian border?  Does Congress need to approve this action?  How will it impact our already existing treaties with not only Mexico, but other Latin American countries? How will this wall impact the environment? Will it destabilize the migratory patterns of wildlife?  I am using one of Trump's more famous pronouncements as an example of his addiction to sound bites.  The questions that I have listed took five minutes to create; I'm sure with a bit of time, experts could come up with quite a few more questions, most with more substance. The reality is, he never has to give an answer.  He has his own version of "Trump Answers", which are dismissive at best and insulting at worst.  You see, Trump thinks that any idea he has must be genius, and if you can't see it well enough to understand all the answers already, then you are an idiot and a moron.  Oh, and you're ugly to boot.  And possibly a pedophile.

Trump believes he can develop a foreign policy based on his business experience.  Nothing personal, Mr. Trump, but one of the reasons I voted for Mitt Romney was because of his business acumen.  But he chose to keep his business credentials where they belonged...in conversations relating to economics.  Trump's forty-year record as a businessman is difficult to really grasp.  He has had his share of successes, and also a few high-profile train wrecks.  But foreign policy must always be more about people than money, more about compromise than victory, and more about friendship than hostile takeovers.  Trump compliments Putin, and says that the Russian leader "is a man I can work with".  I find Putin to be a 21st century fascist, whose actions in Ukraine and Georgia over the past decade show a complete contempt for international law and the integrity of national borders.  Putin is militarizing Russia in the same manner than Hitler did Germany in the 1930s....getting rid of dead-weight, simplification and modernization, and the skirting of international laws and treaties.  I don't admire Vladimir Putin, but if Trump thinks Putin is going to fold like the chairman of some company Trump Enterprises has just swallowed, he has a few surprises coming.  Trump scares me for a number of reasons, including the vision I have of Trump losing his temper because he can't "swing the deal" he wants, and all of a sudden the U.S. military becomes the wild card.

I don't trust Donald Trump.  For some people, maybe that isn't a problem, but it is for me.  I'm not so jaded about our political system that I'm ready to vote for someone that I do not trust.  My lack of trust stems from a simple examination of history.  Just a few years ago, Trump was a Democrat.  Probably a decade ago, he was a Republican, who knows.  I'm sure it made sense at the time, to be on the same side as the political winning side (of the moment).  But Trump professes to be a "life-long Conservative".  How can any life-long Conservative admit to donating money to the Clintons?  As for his claim to being a Conservative, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is certainly "pro-business" (a bit too pro-business for me), but what are his opinions about the other issues that are important to many Conservatives?  Is Trump pro-choice?  What is his opinion regarding the Marriage debate?  More importantly, how often has his opinion on these issues changed?  Personally, I'm not looking for a political ideologue as a candidate.  But with Trump, I'm just sure what I'm getting, and just how far I can throw it.

My final reason for not supporting Donald Trump, is that I don't want a bigot and a misogynist for a president.  I don't think I will ever get past his comments about Carly Fiorina.  What's really sad is that Trump supporters know in their hearts that the only reason he apologized was for political expediency, but yet they don't care....depressing.  Donald Trump is also a first-class Ass Hole.  Excuse my descent into profanity, but for some reason, that title just seems perfect.  He is the perfect example of a school-yard bully, who has spent most of his business career intimidating people with less resources.  Actually, its a bit of a play on the Napoleon Syndrome.  Trump has always bragged about his ability to outspend people; I've never heard him brag about his ability to impact another person's perspective through honest dialogue, have you?  If we are faced with a President Trump, exactly how will he conduct a meeting with a female foreign leader, whose appearance he doesn't appreciate?  Watching Trump respond whenever another candidate improves in the polls is like watching a World Champion Prize Fighter who will stop at nothing to keep the title.  He threatens (usually by bragging about how much money he is prepared to spend), and then he makes good on his threats.  Ben Carson did not lose his momentum because of his lackluster debate performances, he fell victim to nasty accusations regarding the truthfulness of his biography.  A few weeks later, when all the dust had settled, Carson had reasonably addressed all the questions, but the damage was done.  Trump publicly called Carson a liar and compared him to a pedophile.  Of course, it took some time for Carson, a very decent man who lives his life for philanthropy, to come out from under the stench of "liar and pedophile".  But being a jerk doesn't disqualify someone from being president.   

The greatest Presidents in the history of our Republic were able to effectively persuade because of the conviction of their beliefs, not because of the size of their pocketbook.  I'm worried that Donald Trump believes that the President of the United States carries a wallet with the title, "Armed Forces of the United States of America".  And I have no doubt that he would use that wallet unwisely.   

A bit of politics: The Republican field begins to take shape...Dr. Ben Carson.

Soon Americans will be bombarded with advertisements, billboards, television commercials and radio messages, explaining why one particular Republican candidate is the best choice to run against Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.  The majority of registered voters are Democrats, but the difference doesn't appear to be an issue for the GOP.  In fact, when Ronald Reagan was burying Walter Mondale in an electoral landslide in 1984, the majority of registered voters were Democrat. This fact speaks volumes for the idea that in some instances, you really don't know who someone is going to vote for after the curtain closes.  Along with many others, I thought Mitt Romney would beat Barack Obama in 2012; the polls showed Romney ahead in both Ohio and Florida on the day before the election.  Obviously, some persons who were projected Romney voters, closed those curtains and voted for Obama (not me, I promise).  The point being, that it is very difficult to handicap the U.S. Presidential Elections.  The primaries, on the other hand, don't present nearly as much of a problem.  Take for instance the Democrats in 2016; we have known that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee for years (provided she didn't unexpectedly expire or run off to join the circus).  True, the party pretends that a few other possibilities exist, including Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts who can occasionally be mistaken for Pocahontas.  But the nomination has been Hillary's since Obama took the oath of office in 2012.  In my mind, Hillary is a very flawed candidate.  If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried.  Hillary is dealing with controversies about emails and a private server, the Benghazi tragedy, the alleged "Quid Quo Pro" for companies and persons who contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and a less-than-impressive turn as Secretary of State.  But, to my surprise, HRC continues to lead all the GOP candidates in every poll I have seen.  This fact leaves me both disgusted as sad.  After looking at the Bushes and Clintons for decades, I would think that everyone would be as ready as I am for a new face, even if it requires taking a chance on an unknown.

The Republican polling machines already have created a two-tier separation between the candidates.  In the top five or six, we have Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee not far behind.  The next group is usually led by Dr. Ben Carson, famed Neurosurgeon and my personal choice, and former Hewlett-Packard/Compaq CEO Carly Fiorina.  The rest of the list includes the "unknowns"; those who have yet to decide, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor and another favorite of mine (sorry Jennifer!) Bobby Jindal, former New York Governor George Pataki and recently retired Texas Governor Rick Perry. A big question mark seems to follow former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate Rick Santorum.  I really like Santorum.  I have tremendous respect for Santorum; he shows no fear when the time comes to stand up for this issues that are important.  When he is given an equal playing field and access to the electorate, Santorum does very well.  He speaks well and with conviction, and he is a very intelligent man.  Unfortunately, the media and the Democrats (and some of his former Republican opponents), have pinned the ultimate Scarlet Letter to Rick's lapel.  You see, Santorum is TOO conservative to be president.  He doesn't budge on any of the issues; he's against Gay marriage, pro-Life, supports the Second Amendment, opposes amnesty, and is strongly in favor of entitlement and tax reform.  To someone like me, Santorum is not TOO anything.  He is just the right amount.  He talks about the issues that just might be the keys to turning our country around.  No, my issue is not that Rick is too conservative.  Its that he is running for an office that he knows in his heart he can't win.  If Santorum were to get the GOP nomination, he would unite and mobilize the left in a way we haven't seen since Barry Goldwater.  We need a candidate that will appeal to the level-headed Democratic voters who  sense the need to abandon the current socialist agenda.  I am bothered that Santorum would take a chance on putting another Democrat back in the White House, which is what will happen if he wins the election.  It makes me consider that possibly he has fallen victim to the Bush/Clinton fog, which convinces every member of those two families that the United States CAN'T FUNCTION without them.

You probably are able to discern the reasons why I'm supporting Dr. Carson.  Many of you may criticize me by pointing out that Carson has about as much chance of beating HRC as Santorum does.  I don't accept that argument.  Once Carson gets familiar with the podium and the pace of campaigning, he will be a natural.  it may seem a bit strained at the moment because he is a neophyte.  I find his "newness" refreshing.  As for qualifications, Carson has written a number of wonderful books, he has spent a good part of his life caring for other people, and he has dedicated himself to public service OUTSIDE of his occupation.  You would be hard-pressed to find a more well-spoken, polite, learned man, and importantly, he is humble.  I had some questions regarding his grasp of the wide spectrum of issues that face the president (heck, ignorance of those issues certainly did not affect Obama's decision to run), but lately he has made a concerted effort to address foreign policy, economics, and the social troubles that seem to be about ready to catch this nation on fire.  Does it matter to me that he is African-American?  Yes, it does.  Only in the fact that it might provide him with more access into those communities that are bleeding and suffering the most.  I have heard Dr. Carson discuss the inner city neighborhoods of Baltimore, his home.  Dr. Carson did not grow up in wealth and opportunity.  He is a true American success story, as is Herman Cane.  But he never fails to discuss the plight of the poor, inner city youth, who wake up every morning to another day of no options, no opportunities, just suffering.  It will be a priority for Dr. Carson, who will, I believe, create a cabinet-level position to focus exclusively on the people who haven't been able to escape to the suburbs.  It is an issue worth serious attention and funding.

Something to consider....President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Link: A. Hillary Clinton is running for President.
          B. Flaws of New Start Treaty

Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States in 2016.  These things occur in steps: first the candidate must make a public announcement, usually accompanied by a Hollywood-produced video of babies, puppies and lots of Old Glory.  Then the candidate must run for their political party's nomination, in a series of primary elections that take place across the country.  Once the primaries are complete, the party meets in a pre-selected city for the nominating convention, where the votes are tallied (candidates earn delegates according to their percentage of the vote in each respective primary) and a nominee is announced.  The count takes place on the third night of the four-night spectacle, which allows the party to put together a fourth night, jump-start "pep rally" for all of the delegates and volunteers and party faithful.  Then the candidate runs for president against whoever was chosen by the opposing party.  Ideally, our system is designed to allow for multiple parties to participate, which could result in four or five candidates running in the general election.  But the system has allowed itself to be molded, shaped, prodded, and morphed in a manner that really only makes it reasonable for the participation of two political parties, and in the end, two presidential candidates.  In the United States, we have the Democratic and the Republican

Party.  We also have the never-say-die Libertarian Party, which can never get traction because of their lack of financial support for ad campaigns, and the wink-and-a-nod agreement between the GOP and the Democrats to keep the libertarians out of any debates.  This guarantees no press exposure, no major newspaper editorials, and no chance whatsoever of being competitive.

For everyone already familiar with our political system, I appreciate your patience slogging through the above paragraph on our electoral process.  The majority of my readers are not American, and I never assume that they understand the way we run our business.  As for the primary process, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  This is not Hillary's first attempt to win the nomination.  In 2008, she started the primary season as the candidate to beat, only to be upstaged by Barack Obama.  I can only imagine how frustrating this loss must have been, as Clinton really appreciates everything happening according to plan.  Clinton was supposed to be president in 2008, not 2016; but these are cards she must play.  What I found to be the most amusing was that some political analysts (and personal friends) actually considered the possibility that she wouldn't run.  Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a long, long time.  Anything short of her own Administration will be considered a lifetime disappointment, at least in her own eyes.  You see, Hillary comes from the generation of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was either fighting in Vietnam, or protesting the war while in college.  Actually, Hillary Rodham was such a bright student and potential future leader, that in 1974 she was a chosen as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernie Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and it's historical grounds and standards.  During that same time, Hillary was dating Bill Clinton.  Once they were married, though, it quickly became apparent that his political ambitions would come first.  But Hillary made it obvious as First Lady that she was interested in policy, not White House Tours.  Her run for the Senate surprised no one, although her choice of locations was up in the air for some time.  Then, after losing the Presidential nomination to Obama in 2008, Hillary made the strategic decision to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.  I think that this was a mistake, but how big a mistake is yet to be seen.

The GOP will go through a much more contested primary season, and at this point, its anyone's guess if the nominee will be Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, or someone else.  The Democratic nomination, though is Hillary's.  Forget the "draft Elizabeth Warren" campaign, or the conversation about Martin O'Malley; it's just a bit of distraction to make the Democrats appear as if they really are holding a competitive primary.  What is the first thing any sincere voter should do when considering a candidate?  Why, look at their experience.  Hillary served almost nine years as a Senator, representing New York State, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's first term.  She chose not to continue as Secretary of State during Obama's second term.  Evaluating Hillary's performance as a Senator is not difficult.  She voted as any liberal Democrat would, which is what was expected by her New York constituents.  She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and then explained that she, like so many of her fellow Democratic Senators, had been lied to and tricked into believing that Iraq posed a threat, when it didn't.  If you really want a look at Hillary's record, her time as Secretary of State is a treasure trove of information.  First and foremost, Hillary stayed behind the scenes during the Obama apology tours, that were such a highlight of his first term, which is a bit odd, considering that she was Secretary of State.  When it came to the

Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov 

sign documents for Entry into Force of the New START Treaty.

New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin and Russia, though, she was highly visible. Clinton was highly supportive of this treaty, which was intended to get the United States and Russia back on track to diminishing the nuclear stockpiles that had been accumulated during the Cold War.  Unfortunately, this treaty, like any treaty that would be approved by Putin, required almost all of the sacrifice to be on the part of the United States.  Plainly said, the New Start Treaty virtually eliminated any remaining advantage we had over the Russians, and severely limited our ability to protect our allies in Europe (especially eastern Europe).  No matter how you look at this treaty, it is a victory for Russia.  The treaty is a loser for the United States, and I have yet to hear anyone bring this fact to the attention of its number one supporter, Secretary Hillary Clinton.  Also during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the Arab Spring bloomed right under the noses of our State Department, without so much as a fart coming out of Foggy Bottom.  We were unprepared in Tunisia, unprepared in Egypt, and boy, were we out of our league in Libya.  The events of the Arab Spring are an indication of a State Department that had become solely reactive in its actions.  Why? Because its focus was elsewhere. 

Another very sensitive issue deals with Secretary Clinton's creation of a private server, from her home, not just for her use, but for the use of certain members of her staff.  Law requires that all of those emails must be saved, but many weren't.  In fact, it appears as if two members of Secretary Clinton's staff reviewed the emails from the personal server to separate the ones that were personal and not related to government business, and to destroy them.  Wow.  Actually, no emails should have been destroyed, period.  Anyone want to bet that at least a few of those emails had "Benghazi" written in them somewhere?  It shows terrible judgment for someone who, at the beginning of her career in politics, was involved in the Watergate Investigation, during which a president destroyed tapes so they wouldn't be politically or criminally incriminating.  And now she orders two of her staff to destroy emails?  I don't think we've seen the last of this scandal.

In general, I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a president.  I believe she is an egomaniac, but what politician isn't?  It might actually be a useful trait for the job.  She is very intelligent, and appears to have boundless energy.  In no way have I seen any justification for questioning her patriotism.  Economically, I believe her policies would be much more to the center than the Obama Administration.  I'm convinced that one of the first things she would do would be to put together a panel to fix whatever is broken about Obamacare (or dump it altogether).  I don't see her being taken to the cleaners again by Putin, and she has gained substantial experience on the international stage.  My strongest disagreements with Hillary Clinton would be in the realm of foreign policy.  I believe that her international perspective is very left-of-center, and the world has become too dangerous for anything less than a strong, pro-military, "America-first" policy.  We are no longer in a position to trust first and verify later, and we must never waiver in our commitment to Israel.  For these reasons, and to a lesser extent, some of the issues mentioned earlier in this post, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.