On Capitol Hill, it's business as usual.

When Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election, I believed that the Republican-controlled Congress would confidently pass the agenda that was responsible for dispatching Hillary Clinton and Company.  The issues that were most important to me- safe borders, immigration enforcement, rolling back unnecessary regulations, re-negotiating terrible Trade Agreements, and support for our veterans, were part and parcel of the platform that President Trump embraced during the election.  Given that those same issues are also traditional Republican concerns, I assumed that Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan would have little difficulty corralling their respective Republican majorities and pushing aside the Democratic opposition.  Unfortunately, it just hasn't happened as I envisioned.  Although President Trump has been able to pass some of the agenda, he must be frustrated with the lack of urgency demonstrated by Congress.  Ten months into the Trump presidency, why hasn't Congress been more aggressive on implementing his agenda?

Most of the more prolific Republican members of Congress have voted in line with President Trump.  More accurately, they have voted as conservatives, which is what is expected by their constituents.  My Congressman, who has been in office over three decades, traditionally votes as a conservative, but I'm not ready to concede that his voting record this year is an indication of support for President Trump.  I think the same can be said for many of the more influential Republican Congressmen and women.  Voting conservative is something that is expected by their constituents, and not necessarily an indication of support for President Trump.  Since my district voted heavily in favor of Donald Trump, I expected my Congressman to take a leadership role in shepherding the Trump agenda through the House of Representatives.  He's been in Congress a decade longer than the Speaker of the House, and currently chairs the Science, Space, and Technology committee.  I can only assume that he wields enough influence to make a bold stand calling for unity behind our Republican President, and the issues that swept him into office.   On the contrary, since the inauguration, what I've observed is one Democrat member of Congress after another aggressively attacking President Trump and his policies.  Since the Republican Party has a forty-six seat majority in the House of Representatives, why is it always the Democrats who seem to control the debate?

For a Congressperson to be accountable to his or her constituents, it must take more than a positive voting record.  Our nation sits at a crossroads, and our elected officials must be ready to stand up and be heard, because the left has shown no hesitation in taking over the bully pulpit.  President Trump deserves a Congress that will use its majority to push aside the opposition and pass the legislation that will make our nation safer and our economy stronger.  For too many years, the polite, business-as-usual style of negotiating in the House of Representatives has allowed the Democrats to dominate the agenda, regardless of which party is in the majority, and every year, Congress seems to become less responsive to the people.  We need a Congress that tackles its responsibilities in a responsible fashion, and the last one to leave the Chamber turns out the lights.  Instead, we have a never-ending process of brokering, deal-making, behind-the-scenes negotiating, additional deal-making and still nothing gets accomplished.  This is not my idea of smaller government, folks, and any member of Congress who calls themselves a Conservative and has been in office more than a decade, needs to explain to me exactly what steps they have taken to make our government smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive on our lives.

The election of Donald Trump as the forty-fifth President of the United States was the first step taken by the American people in returning responsible, accountable leadership to Washington DC.  In order to provide President Trump with the legislative support he needs to make our nation safer, shrink the size of government, and grow our economy, we must elect a Congress which demonstrably supports the Trump agenda and is willing to toss aside convention when necessary and use the majority which was provided by the American electorate.  Its time to look beyond the Congressional voting record and ask the all-important questions, "what has my Congressperson actually accomplished, how dedicated are they to a smaller government, and just how aggressive is he or she willing to be in support of the Trump agenda?"

The Oval Office should be above arguing on Twitter, especially with the likes of MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

I understand the motivation, but every time I hear that President Trump is arguing with someone on Twitter, its like fingernails on a chalkboard.  First and foremost, the President of the United States should not be arguing with journalists and entertainers on social media.  The Office of the Presidency has platforms in place to allow the president to address either the media, or the American people.  Responding to ill-intentioned individuals on Twitter provides the worst elements in our society with an opportunity to insult the Commander and Chief.  Candidate Trump made tactile use of Twitter during the Republican Primaries and during the campaign against Hillary Clinton.  He was able to communicate with the American people with language that set aside some of the delicacies that annoy many real Americans.  Now that President Trump sits in the White House, we assume he has too much on his plate, so to speak, to get drawn into a social media arguments with ignorant and nasty journalists and entertainers who openly admit disdain for our Republic and its history.  So much for assumptions.

On a personal note, I can't help but be confused and disturbed with some of President Trump's Twitter comments.  With as much less-than pleasant ammunition about Mika Brzezinski available through Google, why bring up some occasion at Mar-el-Lago three years prior when Brzezinski had evidence of recent plastic surgery?  News flash- Mika Brzezinski has had some work done?  At the end of the day, the President of the United States should not insult someone's physical appearance on social media, regardless of how nasty this person has been.  President Trump argues that the biased and aggressively political media no longer provides his administration with access to the American people.  He believes that his forty-five million followers on Twitter give him the access he needs.  Actually, Mr. President, at least half of your followers are Democrats, waiting for you to make some ill-advised comment about an entertainer, a journalist, or a Democrat politician.  President Trump, I implore you- please cancel your personal Twitter account.

I'm not President of the United States, so I feel very comfortable commenting on MSNBC hacks Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.  Joe and Mika were heavily involved before beginning divorce proceedings with their former spouses, but in some circles, the vows made during the marriage ceremony mean nothing.  You would think that when Joe and Mika decide to tie the knot, both might be a bit embarrassed when the preacher gets to the vows.  As for Joe and Mika, the MSNBC hosts of some morning program (honestly, I've never seen it, and from what I understand, few people have), you would be hard-pressed to find more miserable, mean-spirited, unpleasant co-hosts.  Joe used to be a Republican, and Mika used to be a human being.  In February 2017, Brzezinski decided to no longer accept Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway as a guest on the show (I guess Joe agreed).  Mika claimed that Conway really didn't have the access she claimed, and that each time she was interviewed, "something's askew, off, or incorrect".  In fact, Brzezinski didn't want Conway on her show because Conway knows how to handle agenda-filled interviews.  Instead of just admitting that Conway wasn't easily intimidated and manipulated, as most of Joe and Mika's conservative guests are, she engaged in a mean-spirited, insulting, personal attack.  This episode is important, because Mika claims to be a huge supporter of women in the workplace.  The entire episode was a good example of just how much clout Brzezinski has at MSNBC.

Thank goodness very few people actually believe that MSNBC is a "real" provider of news anymore.  You would have to search high and low to find two people with less class than Joe and Mika.  Actually, what's really missing with these two is an iota or either integrity or relevance.  Since, like most Americans, I've never seen the show, I've been reviewing clips sent to me by friends and associates.  When Mika and Joe get started on a Trump kick, which I understand happens every day, they aren't able to discuss the details of the various controversies, because as we know, the FBI has been unable to provide even the slightest shred of evidence that Trump or any of his staff were involved with Russian efforts to impact the 2016 election.  Instead of filling their time slot with useful interviews and factual investigative work, Joe and Mika spend their time insulting President Trump.  According to Joe and Mika, President Trump is a criminal, a liar, a crook, a terrible businessman, a terrible father, a Russian agent, and a "shmuck".  Its the same message day-in and day-out, and for the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone can watch this crap.  The truth is, there are loonies on both sides of the spectrum, and when President Obama was in office, it was occasionally necessary to put some distance between myself and some of the angry, anti-Obama crowd.  But the left seems to adore these two clowns, and since the left basically controls the media, we'd better get used to seeing them around.  I'm just grateful I don't have to watch them, although they do serve a purpose.  They remind me that in America its still possible for someone with absolutely no talent or integrity to earn two million dollars a year (her salary; I have no clue what he makes).     

The apparent all-out war on the Trump Administration may appear to be focused on the President, but the real target is something much more important.

Within weeks of losing the 2016 Presidential Election, the big shots of the Democratic Party called an all-hands meeting to formulate a strategy in response to Donald Trump's unexpected victory.  It would be both dangerous and wrong to assume that the leaders of the Progressive Movement that has taken over the Democratic Party are incompetent or ignorant.  In fact, I'm sure the plan that was formulated at that gathering has been successful beyond their wildest expectations.  They recognized that the biggest threat to their efforts was not President Donald Trump, but his agenda.  If the Trump Administration was successful in legitimately stimulating the economy, creating a perpetual job-creating machine, and re-establishing the United States as an international Super Power, then the progressive message of bigger government, more regulation, open borders, higher taxes, and international control of our environmental policy, would be tossed in the dustbin of history.  Don't be mistaken; behind the non-stop criticism, hysterical attacks, and never-ending demonstrations, is a real fear that Trump's efforts to invigorate the economy, bring jobs home, and squash ISIS once and for all, will succeed, which would leave the Democratic opposition without a platform on which to run in 2020.  The powerful Democratic movers and shakers who met after the November 2016 surprise, agreed that whatever marching orders they issued must be in pursuit of the same goal: the crippling of the Trump agenda.

I imagine that the Democrats and Progressives who are working tooth-and-nail to disrupt Trump's legislative efforts are thrilled with the non-stop barrage of stories in the press regarding President Trump and alleged Russian efforts to impact the 2016 campaign.  Its nothing but icing on the cake, as far as their concerned.  Like the rest of us, they probably didn't realize the depths to which the mainstream media would sink, in order to carry out their part of the plan.  One scenario that seems the most likely: the Democrats realized that they still had almost three months of the Obama Administration in control of the tools of government.  Since the FBI had already informed the Obama folks that the Russians were being more aggressive than usual with regards to password theft, virus introduction, and hacking in general, every time a Russian met with a Trump adviser, that person was unmasked and the identity leaked to the press.  Therefore, you have the FBI announcing increased Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 campaign, at roughly the same time as information is leaked regarding Trump folks meeting with Russians.  I can assure you, it wasn't coincidental that the announcements by the intelligence services and the FBI regarding Russian hacking, hit the papers at roughly the same time as the press chose to print leaked information regarding Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn meeting with Russian officials.  We know now that Session's interaction with Russian officials occurred when he was still a Senator, and was totally innocuous.  Because of all the legal wrangling, I'm still not sure what the FBI thinks it has on Michael Flynn, but one thing is for certain, we have yet to see even a shred of evidence linking Russian espionage with anyone associated with the Trump campaign.

As for who is responsible for unmasking Sessions and Flynn, only certain officials have the authority to make such a serious decision.  Susan Rice was one of the "unmaskers", but we have yet to discover who else was blatantly abusing regulations that were put in place to protect U.S. citizens against just this type of political warfare.  This issue should have died a deserved death months ago, but the media keeps the narrative fresh, through a regular supply of White House leaks.  These leaks have become so plentiful, that I never hear any concern regarding the validity of the information and the existence of the so-called "leakers".

This issue has become so large, that we now have a Special Counsel investigating the Trump Administration and its contacts with Russians.  The Special Counsel rule has been abused in the past, but to appoint Robert Mueller to the role when the FBI has yet to produce one iota of evidence supporting the allegation, should be very disturbing to every law-abiding American.  Its a boon to the Democrats, whose strategy was to hinder the Trump Agenda in the Courts, in Congress, and by utilizing the media to monopolize the bully-pulpit and control the front-page narrative.  Another avenue of attack was to paint all Trump efforts as racist, starting with the attempt to repeal Obamacare.  The Democrats never tire of abusing the race card, and for the first time in his life, Donald Trump is being labeled a homophobe and a bigot.

At the moment, the left is accomplishing more than was expected or intended.  After watching Donald Trump do the unthinkable and beat Hillary Clinton, the Democrats realized that if his agenda proves successful, a Trump second-term is assured, along with increased Republican majorities in Congress and more than likely another conservative Supreme Court Justice.  The strategy put in place was solely focused on disrupting the Trump agenda, but no one considered how ineffectual the Republican Congress was going to be, and how often President Trump would self-inflict wounds through the use of social media.  The Democrats have been able to cripple the agenda, and cause serious damage to the reputation of President Trump, at a time when the Republicans control Congress, the Executive, and, arguably, the Supreme Court.  I'm not surprised that the left has been able to slow the agenda, but getting a Special Counsel appointed to investigate an allegation that has yet to yield any evidence is something I would never have foreseen.  Not surprisingly, Mueller has already expanded his investigation to include possible obstruction on the part of President Trump.  Its like having a never-ending supply of darts- keep throwing, and eventually you will hit something.  I guess you can't blame Mueller; no doubt he has discovered that the allegation of Trump collusion with Russia is without merit, and an opportunity presents itself to justify an extended, long, political, and expensive investigation.

In the end, it may end any hope we have of getting Trump's agenda back on track.  

Congressional Republicans selfishly refuse to defend President Trump from a never-ending, orchestrated campaign to destroy his agenda.

Link: List of Major Obama Administration Scandals.


The Obama Administration struggled through one Congressional investigation after another, with the Departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and Agriculture all getting their turn on the hot seat.  Interestingly, the public never really connected these scandals to Obama, instead associating Lois Lerner, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and other career bureaucrats with the various investigations.  When President Obama first took office, his administration focused on placing political appointees in various government positions of influence.  Performance may have suffered when someone unqualified individual took over a powerful agency, but concern for the average citizen was not on the list of priorities.  In some instances, persons were appointed to certain positions for specific purposes.  Leon Panetta, whose intelligence experience was limited to two years as an Intelligence Officer in the Army from 1964 to 1966, was appointed Director of the CIA in 2009.  Panetta spent two years as CIA Director, which was more than enough time to conduct an internal investigation into the interrogation practices of the agency under the Bush Administration.  Lerner, Napolitano, Holder, and Clinton closely followed the script, as none of the scandals involving these agencies were ever connected to Obama.

President Obama was particularly adept at manipulating public perception.  Without exception, during every political crisis the GOP took the hit.  The Republicans were responsible for the shutting down of government over budget disagreements, and because the Republicans were so obstructionist, the President was forced to address prolific legislation through the use of Executive Orders.  At times, it appeared as if Obama would not find a way to avoid criticism.  The U.S. role in crafting the nuclear Treaty with Iran, and the subsequent night-time delivery of  four-hundred million dollars to the Iranians, not to mention the gift of one-hundred thirty tons of Uranium, didn't seem to sit well with the American people.  But the Democratic Party, Congressional Democrats in particular, in-step with the main stream media, put out the fire in shockingly quick fashion.  The weak-kneed Republican Congressional leadership probably was too tired of fighting the fight, and focused instead on upcoming elections, which brings us to a big part of the problem.

A friend who works on the staff of a GOP Congressman frequently complains about how much time is allotted to campaigning.  He remarked that the next campaign always begins the morning after winning an election.  For a number of reasons, members of Congress are never prepared to move on to a live outside of Capitol Hill.  No doubt the most common reason for wanting to get re-elected in perpetuity is the sense of power public office can provide.  In addition, the great majority of Congressmen and women have enriched themselves while serving, which is why I am always pleasantly surprised when I learn of a Senator or a Representative from any political background who has not become a millionaire while in office.  These politicians take the access they are afforded through their position very seriously, which explains why so many Republican Congressmen refuse to support President Trump.  The Democrats have demonstrated how successful a president can be regarding his/her agenda, with the support of a united party, but the message just hasn't caught on with the right.  Republicans on Capitol Hill are constantly worried about Trump's "numbers", because they don't want to lose votes in the next election by supporting a damaged president.

President Trump has had precious little time to introduce his agenda, as the media has totally signed-on to the anti-Trump campaign.  Not long after Trump was elected, the power-brokers in the Democratic Party met to discuss what steps to take regarding the new president and an agenda which threatened to guarantee Trump's re-election in 2020.  Because of the total politicization of the Justice Department, they were aware of concerns regarding Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.  Fortunately, they also had almost three months to continue collecting intelligence and disseminating it as ammunition to a frenzied and angry media.  The decision was made to declare war on the Trump agenda, and the plan included using political activist Judges to slow-down Trump's efforts in the courts.  In addition, a willing mass of unemployed young protesters would be bused from one location to the next, to give the impression of spontaneous opposition to this administration's policies.  The media promised to do their part, by taking full advantage of any mistakes made by the administration to keep unflattering stories alive.  The most important effort would be the cooperation between the media and persons leftover from the Obama Administration to edit, politicize, and disseminate information from ongoing Justice Department investigations.  The leaks, which also include salacious stories of internal fights within the administration, have not only proven to be hard to stop, they are illegal.  Most recently, the Washington Post alleged that President Trump shared classified information with Russia regarding ISIS operational activities in Syria.  While accusing Trump of wrongly sharing classified intelligence, the Post included the details of the information in their story.  Should the Post be criticized for disseminating classified information?  Not in our lifetime.

If the Republican members of the Senate and the House of Representatives make the decision to defend President Trump with half the vigor that the Democrats demonstrated during the Obama Administration, the American people would regain the Bully Pulpit. I'm convinced that the majority of Americans are much more in line with the politics of the right, as opposed to what they see coming from the left.  The average American is not comfortable with protesters destroying property and denying people the right to speak.  The Republicans need to tie these demonstrations around the neck of the Democratic Party like a scarf, because I have yet to hear Democratic opposition to the behavior of these hooligans.  But more important is the need for the Congressional Republican leadership to support the Trump Administration.  Individual members look to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to unite the Congressional GOP behind this president, because come election time, regardless of the polls, a Trump endorsement for a Republican Primary opponent will be tough to overcome.
Although the left continues to absolutely dominate the dissemination of information to the public at large, conservative media has become more relevant in the last decade.  Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Matt Drudge and Breitbart give us a voice, but so many Americans still rely on CNN and the three fossils of news programming, ABC, CBS, and NBC, for their daily smidgeon of news. 

The effort to cripple the Trump agenda, which is about controlling our borders, fighting terrorism abroad and at home, creating jobs, and standing up for the Constitution, will not stop.  In their own way, the Democrats want to make this country ungovernable, expecting that the blame will fall on President Trump.  The Democrats flirt with the idea of Impeachment, but aside from having no basis to bring proceedings, the left is petrified of a Pence Administration.  They are much happier with the status quo, which from their perspective leaves a sitting president bereft of party support.  This must end.  The Republicans in Congress must stand with President Trump, instead of cowering before accusations and allegations which all of Congress realizes are politically motivated lies.  Sure the Russians made an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, just as they have with every election since 1944, alongside the Chinese and Iran.  The Special Prosecutor will eventually confirm that there was absolutely no collusion on the part of the Trump Campaign, a fact which is known to the Democrats.  I only wish we could hand Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein the bill for the millions of dollars that this unnecessary investigation will cost the nation.
    

SHUT HER DOWN.

 Link: Author chased from the stage by Black Lives Matter protesters at Claremont McKenna College.


I've been writing this blog for just over a year, and from the beginning, I was prepared for disagreement.  I recognized that each time I made someone angry, I had succeeded in penetrating the other side, so to speak.  For any of us who write blogs, letters to the editor, or even simple Facebook comments, the goal should always be to impact persons who have a different perspective.  What is to be gained by preaching to the choir, as they say?  So I've always welcomed expressions of disagreement, polite or otherwise.  Last year, as the GOP Convention drew near, I made the decision to support Donald Trump for President.  A simple review of my archived blog posts will illustrate clearly that I did not support Trump during the majority of the GOP primaries.  Early on, I went back and forth between Dr. Ben Carson and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.  I did not appreciate Trump's penchant for personal insults, nor was I impressed with his communication skills.  But once the Convention opened, I jumped in line with the millions of Conservative voters who had decided long ago that the carcass of a dead housefly would get their vote over Hillary Clinton.  I didn't anticipate having trouble writing blog posts in support of Donald Trump, because even if I didn't like his campaign style, I agreed with everything the man promised to do.  Before the Convention, I wrote a number of posts that were very critical of Hillary Clinton, and occasionally I would receive a negative comment in reply, usually on Twitter.  The critical messages I received were usually mild, at least until Trump won the Republican nomination.  When I began writing posts in support of Donald Trump, it was as if I had run down a group of nuns escorting young orphans across the road, and each orphan was carrying a kitten.

By now, the amount of animus that Donald Trump manages to engender in people should come as no surprise.  Donald Trump is hated, reviled and despised, and that's from Republicans!  Before Trump jumped into the political arena with serious intentions, I think most people were either indifferent to the man or respectful of Mr. Trump's business success.  He started giving folks the red ass early-on in the primary season by flavoring his political criticisms with the odd personal attack.  Trump made quick enemies of the candidates who had yet to establish any traction by flatly telling them to stop wasting everybody's time, and get off of the stage. His attacks on Florida Governor Jeb Bush created ill will which is still palpable in Crawford.  In fact, the Bushes came out in support of Hillary Clinton, and it wasn't because they agreed with her platform.  Donald Trump had collected a sizeable group of haters long before he sent Hillary packing, which set him up to be the most despised man in America.  Its not difficult to understand why I would receive threatening phone calls, hateful emails, and nasty twitter messages.  My defense of Trump's political positions is akin to an endorsement of Trump as a person, and there is nothing that can be done to alter that reality.

The amount of insulting, hateful and occasionally threatening messages I receive are almost all a reflection of my support for Trump's candidacy and my approval of the actions he has taken since the inauguration.  I am aware that my previous line of work and the memoir I published in 2015 negatively impact my popularity amongst Islamic Extremists and those who excuse their behavior, but fortunately I can distinguish the origin of the threats and insults without much difficulty.  When I wrote a blog post defending President Trump's Executive Order on refugees, I was called a Nazi countless times in many different forms of social media.  Since I'm responsible for announcing the new blog post and its subject matter on Twitter, I know what to expect, although the majority of the responses I receive are usually supportive, thank goodness.  I can't help but be amazed, though, at how easy it seems to label people for the progressives on the left.  I'm a Nazi, a Racist, and a Fascist.  I'm a Bigot, a Homophobe, a White Supremacist, the KKK, and a Bully.  It wasn't that long ago that the Democrats and Liberals were screeching about Conservatives "labeling" people, and name-calling.  The media led the campaign to paint Republicans and those on right as being guilty of bullying people, and abusing them with stereotypical labels and pejorative titles.  But now that Trump is a Nazi, and Rush Limbaugh is a Bully, and I'm a Bigot, name-calling is just fine in the offices of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Last Thursday, April 6th, Author Heather MacDonald, who recently published a book analyzing the conflict between the "Black Lives Matter" organization and various police departments, was scheduled to speak at Claremont McKenna College in Los Angeles.  The "Black Lives Matter" organization, which has spoken out against MacDonald's book, decided in advance to disrupt MacDonald's speaking engagement.  Flyers were distributed to all the various progressive groups, including the University Democrats, which labeled MacDonald as a racist, and directed protestors to "SHUT HER DOWN".  MacDonald was greeted by a mob of angry protesters, who succeeded in chasing her from the premises under heavy police protection before she was able to speak.  Controversial Conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was treated in a similar fashion before a scheduled speaking engagement at the University of California-Berkeley earlier this year.  I realize many young people today seem to have a problem with even basic history, so I guess its up to us to educate them.  From 1933 until 1938, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist movement in Germany took control by refusing to let opponents speak.  The Nazi's ability to intimidate persons with opposing viewpoints allowed for the eventual domination of public discourse.  Hitler used the SA, a special para-military private police force of sorts, to beat up and frighten anyone who opposed the National Socialists.  This is a tremendously poignant example of why FREEDOM OF SPEECH is so important, young people.  SHUT HER DOWN.  SHUT HER DOWN.  SHUT HER DOWN.  Black Lives Matter is being used to intimidate anyone with a divergent perspective.  This effort, alongside what I refer to as "the branding" of Conservatives as Nazis, Racists and Homophobes, is becoming more and more reminiscent of the actions of the SA and real National Socialists.  No doubt if Black Lives Matter had copies of MacDonald's book, Milo Yiannopoulos' book, Rush Limbaugh's books, and probably even my book, there would have been a book-burning.  Will young people clear their heads of leftist propaganda pushed by academics, pick up a World History book, and figure out for themselves that they are on the wrong side?  Those of us who understand history, and have been around the world enough to understand how easy it is for the monsters of the past to be reborn, can only hope.  

    

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.          

Meet "The Resistance"- the name chosen for the anti-Trump storm troopers who flood social media with ignorance and hate.

Last week, I was asked to participate in a taped radio interview dealing with allegations of Russian espionage and possible attempts to impact the 2016 Presidential Campaign.  When I discovered that this interview would be taped as opposed to live, I almost canceled; I've been burned by "selective editing" before, and I didn't enjoy the experience.  I eventually chose to participate in the hope that I might be able to actually explain what it means to request a FISA, and how common it has become for Judges in our day and age, to ignore established case law and become political activists.  During the interview, I was asked to comment on California-based artist Karen Fiorito and the growing controversy surrounding the billboard she had painted/created.  As I was unfamiliar with Fiorito, I was unable to comment, and we moved on to other subjects.  The interview itself was for local consumption, and I have no guarantee that it will ever actually be broadcast.  But I had committed the artists name to memory, and that evening, on the internet, I introduced myself to Karen Fiorito, her billboard, and to "The Resistance".

Fiorito is a modern-day hippy/artist from California who burst onto the scene in 2004, with a billboard accusing then-President Bush of lying to the American people, and then asking to be trusted as he ran for a second term.  The current billboard in question sits overlooking downtown Phoenix, and has no written message.  In the center of the billboard is President Trump, who is flanked by two large mushroom clouds.  At either end of the billboard are dollar symbols, altered to also resemble swastikas.  I spent a bit of time examining the image, trying to understand why Fiorito left out long lines of starving refugees and illegal immigrants.  I can only assume that she felt it was time to introduce a new line of attack, but your guess is as good as mine.  Its possible that Fiorito received new talking points/marching orders, which point out that the Left's focus on immigrants and refugees is about to come apart, and a new allegation/attempt to frighten people must be released.  But why mushroom clouds and dollar-swastikas?  Is the Left about to jump-start the "Trump is a war mongerer" narrative?  Its true that Trump is determined to spend more money on National Defense and to use government resources to rebuild the Veteran's Administration, although President Trump has yet to twitter any clues as to which countries might be on his shortlist for annihilation.  And what about the dollar-swastikas; is this somehow a warning that President Trump is planning to send financial aid to fascists and dictators?  Probably not.  Its more likely aimed at the tax issue, including the never-ending accusation that President Trump will find a way to lower taxes on the richest Americans, and transfer the burden to the poorest (you know, the poorest forty-five percent that pay no income taxes whatsoever). 

I respectfully advise anyone who is interested in the Federal Budget and National Security to do a bit of research on the issue of military spending.  Certain technologies advance at a head-spinning rate, and no-doubt our scientists and researchers in the military industrial complex are on the top of their game.  But with the introduction of every new application and the improvement of existing hardware, upgrades must be made across-the-board.  Having the world's greatest military is a tremendously expensive obligation, but an obligation that we can't afford to relinquish to China, Russia or anyone else.  Realistically speaking, military spending grew stagnant under the Obama Administration. His reluctance to spend money on the military was only matched by his determination to avoid using U.S. personnel in a combat posture.  Trying to unravel the Obama agenda vis-à-vis our military always brings on a huge headache, mostly related to the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and the immediate, subsequent invasion of Iraq by ISIS.  Today's blog post has a different focus, thank goodness, although trying to decipher the dollar-swastika message might just bring along a headache in its own right.

Since Hillary Clinton conceded the 2016 election to Donald Trump, the Left has done everything possible to damage the Trump Presidency.  It began with a confused attempt at recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, with the result of a handful more votes for Trump-Pence.  Then the media lathered itself into a frenzy over a few electoral voters who announced opposition to Trump, also a dead-end.  It was about this time that the Progressive Democratic opposition got itself together, and created a plan to cripple the Trump Administration.  Its marching orders were to make a mess out of Congressional Hearings for trump nominees, and to direct leftover Obama personnel in the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Agencies to create a false narrative that Trump campaign personnel were involved with Russian efforts to mess with the 2016 Presidential Campaign.  The goal of this effort may be to neuter the Trump Administration, but in their heart-of-hearts, they are dreaming of, dare I say it, IMPEACHMENT.  They've managed this operation well, with the media jumping through hoops to print any and all negative allegations, regardless of merit.  They will fail, simply because as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things".  There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump personnel were involved with Russians intent on impacting the 2016 campaign. The is the end, folks, not the middle or the beginning.  Now the Trump Justice Department, hopefully removed of its politically active Obama leftovers, will find out the truth about leaks from government agencies, and discover if FISAs were issued by some activist Judge to allow the wiretapping of the Trump campaign and possibly even a sitting U.S. Senator. 

This group of Progressive Democrats that have declared war on the Trump Administration, are all battle-hardened veterans of the Clinton Campaign, and they understand how to make the best use of a compliant, friendly media.  I've noted a handful of separate Leftist groups with catchy names, but "The Resistance" seems to be leading the pack.  I came to this conclusion by checking out the Twitter accounts of the most offensive members of the entertainment and professional sports communities.  All the well-known loud-mouths have aligned themselves with this group, although the more respectable, suit-wearing political activists have to be a bit more discreet, and the ones behind the scenes are the most dangerous, because they hide behind this mask of fake moderation; they are no more moderate than Alec Baldwin.  Another reason why I'm keeping my eye on this group, is its unclear connection to the media.  For those of us who identify as conservative, oppose big government, support the Second Amendment, demand effective border control and a strong military, stand by local and Federal Law Enforcement, expect a repeal of Obamacare and expect tax policies that encourage economic growth, we are well-aware that the media will not hesitate to manipulate the news in support of liberal political causes (with the exception of Fox News, Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, and a few brave others).  This new billboard in Phoenix, crafted by Progressive Lefty Karen Fiorito, serves notice as to what "The Resistance" and the Democrats are going after next: support for the military/military spending, and taxes.  No doubt the Trump Team will be ready.  Stay tuned......       

What would we do without celebrities to tell us how to vote and how to live our lives?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the media delighted in reminding everyday Americans that most actors, singers and athletes lean hard to the left politically, and that the arrival of candidate Donald Trump on the scene for the GOP had spun up Tinseltown this year like a kicked-over anthill.  Anyone who has paid even the slightest amount of attention to national politics over the past few decades is no doubt aware that most Hollywood personalities and professional sports stars vote Democrat.  There are exceptions, but they are harder to find all the time.  I hope that the numbers are a bit more balanced than we are led to believe, and that intimidation and bullying keep a decent percentage of conservative voters in the entertainment community from expressing their political convictions, but each election makes me more pessimistic.  The truth is, none of this should matter.  Theater and film actors, directors, writers, singers, technicians, cameramen and movie extras are all entitled to support which candidate they choose, and the same holds true for professional athletes, coaches, and sports journalists.  So why have I wasted a paragraph, restating the obvious?  Because many personalities within the entertainment and professional sports community have decided to take advantage of their access to the press and media, and verbally abuse and threaten the candidate they dislike.  This development has provided me with the opportunity to examine the entertainment community in America today, in an effort to determine what they have accomplished, which makes them feel entitled to lecture the everyday folks of this great nation regarding their respective personal choice for president.

The Entertainment Industry has created, and continues to create, more millionaires percentage-wise than any other industry in the nation.  I don't watch the sitcom the "Big Bang Theory", but I am aware that the two main stars each make more than one-million dollars an episode, with the rest of the cast probably not far behind.  This kind of money seems obscene to me, and I have no clue how much more money these particular actors make from endorsements and the seemingly never-ending percentage earned since the show has become syndicated.  Jennifer Lawrence, one of Hollywood's hottest stars, makes an average of forty-six million dollars annually, Jennifer Aniston clocks in at twenty-one million, Jennifer Lopez at forty-million, and Meryl Streep, the doyenne of the group, brings in a not-too-shabby seven million dollars a year.  On the other side of the coin, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson commands over sixty-four million per year, Matt Damon fifty-five million, Tom Cruise fifty-three million, and Johnny Depp can expect to make forty-eight million dollars this year.  Again, these figures do not include a whole variety of opportunities that are available to famous folks.  Of course, these are estimates that I collected from various websites, including the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and TMZ, but the point I'm attempting to make can be understood without down-to-the-penny details.  Sure, I'm only commenting on the artists who sit at the top, but if you have the skill and charisma to be successful, Hollywood will hand you a paycheck to make all your dreams come true, and this includes the television actors whose names may not be familiar.  When I read that the actors in a recently-canceled, less-than-successful television series each made more money in only one season than I made in my entire career working for the CIA, I realized that the Entertainment Industry truly is drowning in cash.  The companies that create movies make most of their profit from overseas ticket-sales.  Interestingly enough, all that is required to sell out the movie theater in Paris or Kuala Lumpur, is to remind the theater-goer that the film was a huge success in the United States!  The sad American dichotomy that many performers and athletes make more money in a month than most Americans make in a lifetime of work, continues to grow with impunity. 

The average salary of a professional basketball or baseball player in 2017 is over four million dollars annually; the pro football player makes a bit less, at two million.  In the pro leagues, the team owners and the athletes take home unbelievable paychecks, regardless of the particular sport.  Where does all this money come from?  Have you noticed the price of a movie ticket lately?  Have you paid over thirty bucks for a medium Coke, a hot dog and some nachos lately?  Not to mention the two-hundred dollar authentic Dak Prescott jersey and the "official" NFL Cowboys baseball cap, which ran upwards of thirty dollars.  People are willing to pay two-hundred dollars to see the San Antonio Spurs play (the cheaper tickets require you to bring your own oxygen).  I'm a strong supporter of capitalism, so I'm in no position to complain when people make money from the system.  Also, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit, even if its on a three-hundred dollar Green Bay Packers blanket.  I'm hopeful that our economic system will eventually bring some balance to this issue.  I can't imagine salaries continuing to rise for both entertainers and athletes in this fashion, but I guess its possible.  I can't help but think that the average American will reach the point of having to choose between filling up the gas tank or taking the family to a movie.  Maybe at that point some sanity will return to the industry.

I never cease to be amazed at the greed that is regarded as normal behavior in the entertainment world.  Once a performer has become established and successful, there are no qualms about hiring a ghost writer and putting out a book a two.  Successful singers have a habit of sliding over into the acting business, grabbing even more dough while they can still take advantage of their familiarity to the American public and their access to the media.  Athletes have a habit of transitioning from professional sports to the world of motivational/public speaking, which can be very lucrative, especially when Apple, Google, Facebook or Microsoft are willing to pay two-hundred thousand dollars for speaking appearances.  The CEOs of these billion-dollar companies are only interested in finding a familiar face that will impress investors and stockholders who will be in attendance.  Back in the ancient days, when I was in grade school, actors were actors, athletes were athletes, writers were writers, and motivational speakers were non-existent.  I am disgusted with this community of multi-millionaire performers and athletes, who don't hesitate to elbow into other professions, taking audiences and resources away from persons who are singularly dedicated to their craft.  I will never forget when I glanced over the NY Times best-seller list and saw two books written by Bravo "housewives" and a self-absorbed, badly-written effort by Dr. Phil taking up spots that should have been occupied by dedicated, talented, sincere writers.  Successful performers and athletes have an unfair advantage.  They are able to use their access to the rich and famous in the business world and publishing, along with a recognizable face, to put away another million or two with little effort.  At least ghostwriters are doing good business.

Besides being actors, singers, athletes, authors, and writers, many persons within the entertainment community have also decided that they are much smarter than the average American.  They have accepted the obligation to instruct us on how to vote, because obviously the American people can't get along without their guidance.  This particular annoyance would be much less a distraction, if it weren't for the offensive and threatening attitude taken by these "entitled" folks.  Twice I have read that Robert DeNiro wants to punch President Donald Trump, and I can't count how many times the Baldwins, the Streeps, the Kathy Griffins, and the Madonnas have labeled all Trump supporters as Nazis and Racists.  We've experienced this type of aggressive political bullying on the part of the leftist entertainment community before, but never with such self-satisfaction and moral superiority.  And all from people with mansions, property in the Caribbean, secret offshore bank accounts, chauffers, and not one who could guess the price of milk or eggs.  Another new element was the inclusion of the know-it-all, leftist professional athlete (or in the case of the San Antonio Spurs basketball team, know-it-all, multi-millionaire Coach Gregg Popovich).  I was fascinated observing the left, as they struggled to decide whether or not to embrace the Colin Kaepernick "insult the National Anthem" movement (they did).

I'm convinced that Hillary Clinton lost valuable votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida because of the liberal left's willingness to accept America-bashing as part of its effort to discredit the Trump candidacy.  For years the media has painted Conservatives as evil, intolerant, name-calling fascists, and yet the average American voter had no trouble identifying the party and the ideology behind the hate injected into the 2017 campaign.  The mouthpieces for this message of nastiness was no doubt the rich and famous leftists within the entertainment community.  The famous personalities who were happy to go before the camera and label anyone with an opposing opinion a "racist" or a "Nazi" never seemed to end.  For some time I tried to keep track of them, so to avoid watching their programs or buying tickets to see their movies.  After a while, though, it became apparent that I would have to cut off my television altogether, which may not be such a bad idea after all.

The Chelsea Manning issue needs to be kept in perspective.

Today President Obama issued a pardon to former US Army Private Bradley Manning, who identifies as a female named Chelsea and will be undergoing sexual reassignment surgery sometime in the future.  Last year Manning was convicted by a Military Tribunal of violating the Espionage Act by passing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks.  For reasons which are still a mystery to me, then-Private Manning was given access to countless Top Secret documents and US government communications while serving in Iraq in 2009/10.  Manning claims that his decision to share classified information was greatly influenced by his discovery of war crimes committed by the US military.  Manning also claims to be suffering from a gender identity disorder, which has caused long bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts.  From the beginning, the liberal and leftist elements in our society have been openly supportive of Manning.  The left strongly opposed the Iraq war, and by extension, see Manning as a hero for exposing part of the corrupt system which created false justification for going to war.  A substantial number of political groups and well-known activists opposed Manning's Court Martial and subsequent trial, and after the verdict, put pressure on the Obama Administration to issue a pardon.

Manning has been on the winning side of a number of decisions since his conviction.  Last April, the military announced that the US government would pay for Manning to undergo sexual reassignment surgery.  So what exactly has happened since Private Bradley Manning chose to commit treason in 2009?  Manning was Court-Martialed and given a 35-year sentence.  Then the military announced that Manning would be undergoing a sex change procedure, paid for by the US taxpayer.  Fast-forward a few months to January 2017, and today Manning is pardoned by President Obama.  I assume that Manning will be released almost immediately, and the offers for a book deal will start piling up.  So the lesson here is, if you are in the military and you want the government to pay for your sex-change operation, just commit treason and become a hero to the liberal media and left-wing political movement.  At the end of the day, a multi-million dollar book deal will be waiting.  I wish I had an opportunity to ask President Obama if he has spent much time thinking about the persons whose lives were ruined by Manning.  The CIA cadre of reporting contacts includes many foreign nationals who are "assets of conscience".  They decide to clandestinely provide the US government with valuable information because they believe in the American system and the freedoms we enjoy, and hope to encourage change in their own countries.  We could be referring to citizens of nations like Iran, Russia, and China, for example.  These brave people take the chance that their secret relationship with the US is not revealed to their own government.  That being said, I can't fathom the number of foreign assets who may have been exposed within the seven-hundred thousand pages of documents that Manning passed to Wikileaks.  No doubt the imtellignce community conducted numerous damage assessments, imformation which hopefully will never been known to us.  I don't need to know the names and nationalities of persons who may have paid a heavy price for Manning's actions.  I understand the environment enough to realize how much more difficult it will be for our Intelligence Officers to find willing reporters on the issues that keep Americans safe day-in and day-out.

At times I have found myself feeling very sympathetic to Chelsea Manning.  Obviously she has struggled for years trying to find a place in the world.  I cannot imagine any sane person knowingly choosing the path that Manning has followed.  At the time, I doubt that Manning comprehended the ramifications of his actions, but every adult in our society has to be held responsible for their decisions.  I would not have opposed a commuted sentence of some sort, maybe a five-year sentence, with an agreement that Manning be prohibited from writing a book or benefiting financially from his actions.  Instead, Manning has been pardoned, and is about to hit the jackpot as far as money is concerned.  Seven years after breaking the oath that he took to serve his country, seven years after committing treason and very likely putting a number of very brave people and their unknowing families in harm's way, Chelsea Manning will be a free and very rich young woman.  The revisionist media in our country are jumping through hopes to create a legacy for Barack Obama that deos not include twenty trillion in debt, race relations at their lowest since the Civil Right's era, a flag that is disrespected at home almost as much as it is by the international community, an economy that is bleeding jobs because of over-regulation, and a precedence-setting willingness to abuse Executive Action to avoid working with Congress.  Will the Manning pardon be mentioned by the press as part of Obama's legacy?  Don't hold your breath.

A unique opportunity for the Trump Transition Team.

The last eight years were a time of uncertainty and frustration for many in the intelligence community.  In the beginning, no one knew exactly what to expect from the incoming Obama Administration.  I can't say I was terribly surprised with the now famous "apology tour", because during the 2008 campaign, Obama did not disguise his contempt for previous U.S. policy in support of pro-US dictators.  Obama also spoke out regarding attempts by US intelligence agencies to clandestinely impact foreign events, including elections and revolutions.  But 2008 was a far cry from 1965, and the CIA and NSA of the twenty-first century are built to collect intelligence in two directions: in suppprt of national security, and in furtherance of current Administration policy.  The intelligence community expected the incoming Obama Administration to continue efforts to collect against terrorist targets, but to also have a list of new targets, in support of Obama's diplomatic initiatives.  Almost from the start, it was difficult to determine the direction of Obama's foreign policy, although the Obama Administration did not takes steps to diplomatically re-align US foreign policy, at least not overnight.

Although the Obama Administration on occasion allowed US Army Special Forces into battle zones in support of our allies, most foreign policy initiatives were introduced through the end of a pen.  Obama was determined to avoid utilizing US military power at every opportunity, although he did not shy away from imposing sanctions.  Over time, the Obama foreign policy became more and more difficult to define.  The imtelligence agencies started to suffer a higher rate of officer turnover than usual.  I can't say for certain that the Directorate of Operations received more resignations and early-retirements that expected because of Obama's policies, but I believe they had a definite impact.  I have yet to meet a CIA employee who is not a true patriot.  One of the main reasons people apply to join the Agency is the opportunity to support US foreign policy from the front lines.  Regardless of personal politics, many officers became frustrated by their inability to decipher our long-term foreign policy goals.  I know numerous officers from different directorates who left the Agency during the Obama Administration, and in most instances it was because of job disastisfaction.  Don't misunderstand; I didn't hear complaints about management, working conditions, benefits, or inter-office issues.  Frequently I was told that the mission had lost its clarity.  The rapid withdrawal from Iraq impacted many Agency officers personally, and later during the Obama presidency, the nuclear agreement with Iran was oppposed by many in the intel community.

Of all the judgements being passed down by Democrat politicians, social agitators, and the entertainment community, no one has yet to accuse President-Elect Trump of being shy.  His pre-inauguration commentary has included certain harsh observations regarding the intelligence community.  With the exception of the Congressional 9-11 review and the investigation into Iraq's suspected WMD program, I don't recall the CIA having to deal with so much intense public scrutiny.  My how things have changed.  Agency employees, especially officers from the Directorate of Operations, are very familiar with the terms, "discretion", "confidential", and "covert".  Now it seems the Agency is in the news everyday.  My ability to understand recent events is limited because I'm now on the outside, looking in.  Frankly, I'm still waiting for the previously promised "proof" that Russia aggressively cyber-targeted the Clinton campaign in an effort to ensure a Trump victory.  I have no doubt that the Russians hacked the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  Spies collect intelligence on targets of interest, and no one gets a day-off because a national campaign is unfolding.  I can assure you that the Russians also attempted to hack into the Trump Campaign and the RNC, and the Chinese were knocking on the door as well.  This feigned shock and indignation is all a bunch of affectation by people who should know better.  But this is the season for politicizing everything, folks.  The mainstream media wants the American people to believe that, in a determined effort to get Donald Trump elected, the Russians hacked a bunch of emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta's email account.  Next, the Russians passed the emails to Wikileaks, who released the salicious details to the public.  This was Russia's determined effrot to get get Trump elected.  Have you read the emails?  I would be embarrassed if I were the Democrats (and royally pissed-off if I were Bernie Sanders), but I can't fathom how anyone would make their decision to vote, one way or another, based on the Wikileaks emails.  Then, before anyone had an opportunity to catch their breath, came the announcement that the CIA and FBI were investigating an allegation against Donald Trump that involved a ritzy Moscow hotel room and two Russian hookers in 2015.  Wow.  Could this announcement not have waited until after the inauguration?  Not when the goal is to deligitimize the results of the 2016 election, which seems to be the goal of every mainstream-media story these days.  Be that as it may, the Agency has been the target or subject matter of the press for too long.  The professionals at the CIA are trained to work discreetly, and many times in confidential locations.  The organization can't function effectively when it is under so much scrutiny, which sadly is the result of the politicization of just about every branch of the US government by the Obama Administration.

The positive side of the coin- this environment will result in more honest, experienced, hard-working intelligence officers who may have retired early, deciding to return to the work they love.  There is a new sheriff in town, as they say, and he seems sincerely determined to support the intelligence community in ways that will allow for a return to more humint collection and less politicization.  I supported Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and I have great faith that his inauguration will herald positive change in the United States.  The intelligence community will do its part, and I expect the Trump Transition Team will recognize the opportunity that awaits with a review of resigned or retired intel officers who also strongly supported Donald Trump.  My case is a bit unique- I retired Medically Disabled, and have worked to regain my health so that I may return to work.  Like many others, I have submitted my application and resume because I want to do my duty, to be part of a rebust national security effort which President-Elect Donald Trump will inspire.  To quote President-Elect Trump, "much work needs to be done"; that work will not be accomplished by the entertainment industry multi-millionaire elite who, for some reason, believe that being a skillful actor equates to being entitled to decide the future of our nation.  Sixty-three million US citizens provided Donald Trump a clear and decisive electoral victory, which in the long-run will benefit even his greatest critiques.  Donald Trump is making America Great Again.

Green Party candidate requests official recounts in three states in an effort to raise questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Just when you thought that the burdensome, depressing 2016 Presidential Election was finally over, Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reminded us just how much the Liberal political establishment disrespects our electoral process.  Stein raised and spent millions of dollars on a campaign which was destined to never reach the five percent mark.  I can only assume that the money Ms. Stein spent on her exercise in vanity would have provided tens of thousands of poor Americans with food and clothing as winter approaches, but even Stein has her priorities, I suppose.  Stein has decided to pursue recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, states won by Donald Trump by very thin margins. According to Hillary for America attorney Mark Elias, "we believe we have an obligation to the more than sixty-four million Americans who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings so that an accurate vote count will be reported."  Why is Mr. Elias commenting on Green Party nominee Jill Stein's request for recounts?  Because, not surprisingly, the Hillary campaign has jumped on the recount band wagon as well.  But lets be honest, the Clinton campaign has been in cahoots with Jill Stein since the idea of a recount was broached.  The idea was to encourage Stein and the looney Green Party to request the recounts, so that if the results remain the same (which they should, notwithstanding Democratic shenanigans), then Hillary wouldn't appear to be a sore loser.  This entire development is full of bits of comedy.  The Democrats have so much confidence in our electoral system and the honesty of the American voter, that they fight tooth and nail against any voting identification requirements.  So if the Democrats have so much confidence in the system, then why do we need a recount in three states?  Can the system that is so foolproof that voter fraud is impossible, screw up in all three states that basically decided the election?

The insincerity of the recount circus is truly disturbing.  The Democrats will have us believe that they are attempting to ensure that every vote is counted, especially in the states which were decided by small margins.  Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were decided by small percentages, but in the end, they voted for Donald Trump.  What about New Hampshire and Minnesota?  Clinton won New Hampshire by less than four thousand votes (forty-seven point six to forty-seven point two), and Minnesota by less than forty-three thousand votes (forty-six percent to forty-five percent).  Colorado, Maine, and Nevada were also within a few percentage points.  But these states were won by Hillary Clinton, so the concern for the sanctity of the individual vote goes right out the window when a Democrat has been declared the winner.

When the leaders of this effort discuss the process and their motivation, they always mention the "popular vote".  They assume that the average American is so easily distracted, that they can create a national wave of anger around the idea that Hillary Clinton was the "legitimate" winner in the 2016 Presidential Election.  We went through this once before, in 2000, and many people were reminded regarding how our electoral system functions.  We have an electoral system to prevent large urban agglomerations from single-handedly picking our president every four years.  Enough people live in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, to arguably decide each and every national election.  Many years ago, persons much wiser than myself decided that each state should have an impact on national elections, and candidates should not focus their entire campaigns on just three or four urban areas.  I like the electoral system, but I can understand why someone wouldn't; fortunately, because we live in the United States of America, you can change the process through legislative action.  If you believe that the popular vote should decide the winner of our presidential elections, then get involved, build a movement, seek out like-minded persons and politicians, and draft an amendment to the Constitution.

As for persons who continue to disseminate the idea that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, therefore she should be president, I can only suggest a simple review of recent history.  Both Clinton and Trump earned their nominations after successful but contentious primary campaigns.  After earning their respective nominations, both candidates huddled with advisors and created plans to accrue the two-hundred seventy electoral votes necessary to be declared the winner.  Neither candidate discussed what steps would be needed in order to win the popular vote.  During the campaign season, the talking heads on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and everywhere else, continually analyzed the map of electoral votes, not of population.  If the popular vote were the deciding factor in the presidential election, Donald Trump would have made more than one trip to Texas.  In fact, he would have made quite a few trips to California, New York, and Illinois.  Trump did not need to make repeated trips to Texas, because Texas is a solidly red state.  But if he had campaigned heavily in Texas, I am convinced he would have added another one million votes to his total.  Trump did not campaign in California or Chicago, but regular visits could very well have added an additional million votes to his popular total.  But Trump didn't need to visit Bakersfield, or Cicero, or Syracuse, New York.  His team realized beforehand that he needed electoral votes, not the popular vote, so a plan was crafted by which Trump would sweep the bell-weather states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and either Michigan or Pennsylvania.  Trump campaigned hard in those states, and for that reason, he is the President-Elect.

Its time to put this election and all its associated bad behind us.

Last night, the candidate who I voted for and strongly supported, Republican Donald Trump, was elected the forty-fifth President of the United States.  Don't be surprised if there isn't much celebrating coming from my house.  While I'm relieved that my candidate won, I'm not particularly thrilled with the manner in which he conducted himself during the campaign.  In fact, Donald Trump was my last choice amongst the list of Republicans running in the presidential primary.  As odd as rhis may sound, both the Republican and Democratic nominees were hugely unpopular, even in their own parties.  It will take someone with a bit more time than I'm willing to commit to determine exactly why these two persons were selected by the voters.  I just hope and pray that we don't ever have to go through another election like this one.

I find Donald Trump to be arrogant and dismissive, and I'm truly shocked by his lack of communication skills.  Wnile I don't believe he is a bigot, he has a tendency to show a pronounced lack of respect to women and at times minorities.  I voted for Trump because I agreed with his stated positions on the issues that I find important.  He appears determined to improve immigration enforcement in one way or another, and he shares my opinion that no citizen is safe when border security is ignored.  Trump is a Republican, and is likely to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court who will properly inferpret and enforce the law.  Trump's opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, would nominate liberal activists, at a time when the Court is likely to require four, maybe five new members.  One important reason why I and I'm sure the majority of other folks voted for Trump, was our shared opposition to Hillary Clinton.  I have no intention or revisiting the list of reasons shy I did not support Clinton, but I can assure you my decision was not made lightly.  I'm a firm believer in the rule of law as it is enforced equally on all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, sex, or financial status.  Also, I have a difficult time looking in the other direction when a U.S. government employee uses their access for personal enrichment.  The term is "Influence Peddling", and it is practiced by both Republican and Democratic civil servants with frightening frequency.

The last eight years have been a nightmare of fewer jobs, lower wages, abuse of Executive Authority, loss of international stature, and a frightening breakdown in the relationships between Americans of different ethnicities.  For many Americans, Hillary Clinton represents a continuation of the Obama Administration.  This is an unfair characterization, even though Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State from 2010 to 2014.  I don't know if any Democrat would have stood much of a chance in this election, as voters were motivated to express their anger and frustration to the Obama Adminstration in the only way on hand, which was at the ballot box.

It is time to turn the page, folks.  This election should be considered the last page in the review of the Barack Obama Administration.  President-elect Trump must rise to the occasion, and never forget that he represents all Americans.  I can't be the only person who has had their fill of the Clinton email scandal.  I believe that once he takes office, President-elect Trump should take steps to either pardon Hillary Clinton or instruct the Justice Department to immediately end all investigations related to the email matter.  What is to be gained by continuing any collateral investigations?  Take my word for it, Hillary Clinton has been punished.  She will never have another opportunity to become the first female president, which was obviously a life-long ambition.  Talking about reaching across party lines is one thing, and actually doing it is another.  Letting Clinton retreat into retirement with discretion and grace, without the concern of continued criminal probes, serves the best interest of the nation.

Isn't the integrity of our political system worth a voter identification requirement?

During my life, and not just during my career with the CIA, I have lived in a variety of different countries.  I was basically raised in Europe, and as soon as I graduated from college, I accepted a job in Africa.  Exposure to so many different cultures has been a tremendous blessing.  The languages that I picked up have proven useful time and time again.  As a Federal Agent working on the border, I became very familiar with Mexico and its history of political instability.  Once I joined the Agency, I had the opportunity to visit a number of third-world countries, including Iraq, Zimbabwe, Jordan, Nigeria, and Kenya.  I truly enjoyed experiencing life as it is lived in other countries, and I'm pleased to say that the great majority of people I encountered were happy, kind and generous.  I experienced true humility every time someone who had next to nothing invited me to share what little they had.

I often found myself feeling very frustrated that so many people, hundreds of millions, from different religious backgrounds and speaking different languages, all were caught in the same prison of political corruption.  A quick glance through a few history books indicates that almost every poor nation in the world at one time or another, has had an opportunity to experience an election based on the principles of representative democracy.  But electoral fraud in the third-world is almost as common as poverty.  I recall countless times when (with a bit of pride) I would think to myself, "thank goodness we don't have to worry about election fraud back home".  It's true that the political history of the United States includes LBJ getting elected to the Senate with a ballot box full of dead people, and John F. Kennedy benefitted from some questionable votes in his razor-thin victory over Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election.  But these examples are very much the exception.

The 2012 election between Republican Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democrat Barack Obama, made me realize that the United States is no longer immune to voter fraud.  I recall more than a handful of instances in which Democratic precinct representatives were accused of various examples of fraud.  A few people were actually prosecuted, even though the Justice Department makes no bones about its unwillingness to investigate voter irregularities.  The 2016 presidential election ushered in a number of streamlined methods of voting, designed to encourage participation.  Unfortunately, a disturbing number of voter fraud allegations have cast a shadow on these efforts.  Accusations of ballot-box stuffing, voter substitution, and the participation of dead folks only seem to involve Democrats.  Is it a surprise that investigative filmaker James O'Keefe was able to provide a video in which Democrat election workers discussed how to commit voter fraud, and even went so far and to provide examples of how new volunteers are taught methods of voter substitution and ballot box stuffing?

Because of the documented episodes of voter fraud in 2012, a number of states passed laws requiring all voters to present valid identification.  Immediately, the Democrats, cried foul, claiming that racist Republicans were attempting to intimidate minority voters.  I was stunned by this development.  Am I wrong to think that we should do whatever we can to protect the integrity of our electoral process?  You and I need identification to do just about anythimg today, from driving a car and cashing a check, to picking up a prescription for toe fungus.  What is so intimidating about showing identification before voting?  From my perspective, it's very simple.  Anyone opposed to the idea of requiring I.D. before voting, is intent on committing fraud.  I'm sad to say that so far, the courts have sided with the Democrats.  Texas was the most recent state that was obliged to scrap its voter I.D. law because of a ruling by a Federal Court.

The effort to keep the voting process free of personal verification is part and parcel to the Democrat's intent to move the United States closer to becoming a one-party state.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President on November 8, she promises to sign amnesty legislation that will almost immediately provide twenty million foreign nationals with U.S. citizenship.  The great majority of the twenty million are ethnic Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, so you can bet that once their citizenship is in place, they will be voting Democrat.  Since the last few presidential elections have been decided by seven million votes or less, you can understand the importance of blocking amnesty in its present form.  I don't fathom why it's necessary to adjust the twenty million illegal aliens directly to citizenship.  Wouldn't it make more sense to process these individuals for Permanent Resident status first, so they could pay taxes, register their kids for school, and not panic each time they encounter a Police Officer?  They would then have the option of completing the Nationalization process, just like other Permanent Residents.  The idea of fast-tracking these imdividuals, whose entire presence in our country is predicated on breaking our laws, should be repugnent.  At the least its terribly unfair to all the persons who have applied legally, and are sitting in Mexico City, Tegucigalpa, San Salvador, Lagos and New Delhi, patiently waiting for their name to be called.

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton go off the deep end when this change in the proposal is mentioned, and its easy to understand why.  For the Democratic Party, this entire issue is about adding a game-changing number of new voters to the list of registered Democrats.  Don't fall for the crocodile tears and speeches about families being separated.  Sure, there have been some isolated instances when family members "sin documentos" have been returned to Mexico, but it's only the politics of distraction, my friends.  This is about votes and political power; nothing more, nothing less.

Why I can't support Hillary Clinton.

So what is my problem with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, anyway?  Although I did have a very short, pleasant conversation with her once. I won't pretend to be a confident.  A review of Bill and Hillary Clinton over the past four decades, convinces me that they are obsessed with power and money.  With Bill you can add "sex" to the list, but with Hillary you can add "ideology".  The Clintons are elitists, but who isn't in DC politics these days?  Members of Congress begin raising money and running for re-election the day after they are sworn in.  Almost immediately the focus turns to lobbyists, entitlements, and most importantly, committee appointments.  For some reason, people who are able to find a place in the DC political scene, always eventually become millionaires, and never seem to leave.  Who can blame the Clintons for wanting to stay part of the elite, especially after Bill spent eight years as President at a young age, relatively speaking?

For Hillary, its not all about money and influence.  Hillary is a political ideologue.  She believes that she knows what is best for the world, and she is determined to leave her mark.  Its not wise to disagree with her perspective, because she is dedicated to the principle that "the ends justifies the means", esepcially when you've earned your place amongst the elites.  We've seen it time and time again.  Hillary will obfuscate, confuse, and break the law to reach her goals.  In a recent manifestation of this habit, Hillary decided that security regulations did not apply to her (one of the elite), therefore she was going to install a private server and use it to occasionally (giving her the benefit of the doubt here) send and receive classified information.  Once the server was discovered, the goal became to survive the controversy without jeopardizing her run for the presidency.  Again, evidence destroyed, laws broken- actions justified because the end goal, becoming president, was what mattered.

Keeping all this in mind, my problem with Hillary Clinton has more to do with timing than anything else.  She is running for president at a very delicate time in our nation's history.  Our economy has ground to a halt and we are no longer create jobs, our immigration system is an invitation to all the needy of the world, and terrorism continues to knock on the front door (but now the knock is coming from the inside).  I don't believe that I have the luxury to whine and complain about Hillary's willingness to destroy people who stand in her way, or her willingness to lie about the cause of the Benghazi riot that cost us the lives of four brave Americans.  I'm very worried about the survival of our political, social, and economic system.  Hillary's bad habits will have to wait for my attention.

Simply put, we can't exist as a soveriegn nation as long as our borders are unprotected.  The effort to encourage foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally is nothing short of treason, but I'm no longer interested in talking about Barack Obama.  If Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will inact an Amnesty program (with or without Congress) that will provide between fifteen and twenty million persons who have been living in this country illegally, with the right to vote.  Amnesty is nothing short of rewarding people for breaking our laws, and punishing those who attempt to become US citizens legally.  But Hillary's goal is not to provide relief to twenty million people who, through their own actions, are caught in a very difficult place; her goal is to create millions of more Democratic voters.  The end game will morph the United States into a one-party nation.  Where will the GOP go to find millions of voters to balance the new political equation?  I guess the Republicans could accuse the Democrats of racism, and falsely claim that Democrats are going to take away a woman's right to choose and make old people eat out of trash cans, but that example of fear politics has already been perfected by the Democrats themselves.

Aside from immigration, I am concerned with the future of the Supreme Court.  The next president will be able to impact the Court in ways that the country has never experienced.  If Hillary Clinton is allowed to nominate four, maybe five leftist activist Justices in the mould of Sonia Sotomayor, what impact do you think this will have on the Constitution?  It brings us back to Ideology.  No doubt Hillary wants to be President so she can "encourage" government to interpret the Constitution as she does.  What does that mean for persons concerned about the Second Amendment?  How long will it be before Bibles are outlawed in public, and Churches instructed to alter their appearance, so as to not offend persons of other faiths who might be driving by?

Certainly I'm bothered by Hillary Clinton's attitude and history of deceit and corruption.  But this election is more about who she will become as opposed to who she is today.  She wants to be the President who ushers in a new era of Amnesty and open botders, and she wants to be Commander and Chief who finally succeeds in taking all the guns away.  These are the reasons why I will do everything I can (legally of course- I'm a Republican), up until the morning of November ninth, to see that she is not elected President of the United States.

Be prepared for a final week Clinton Campaign personal attack on Trump.

We haven't seen the end of the last-minute distractions, folks.  Last week Hillary Clinton received one heck of an unwelcome surprise from FBI Director James Comey.  It's standard Clinton modus operandi, though, to not let bad news linger.  The easiest way to distract the public's attention from an unflattering story is introduce an even more shocking bit of news, and surprise, surprise, it will be about Donald Trump.  Its coming, folks, so prepare yourselves.  You may recall that just as Trump was beginning to gain traction in the campaign, the media "discovered" a flock of women with absurd but attention-getting accusations against the Republican nominee.  With just over a week to go before the election, Clinton is desparate to make Trump once again the focus of negative press.  I give the mainstream media high marks for just how quickly they circled the wagons around their candidate.  All weekend long, it was one story after another, trashing James Comey and pointing out that his actions were not approved by Attorney General Lynch.  You remember Lynch, I'm sure.  She's the non-partisan (!) Justice Department boss who had that timely meeting with Bill Clinton on the runway in Phoenix.  Loretta Lynch, who belatedly apologized for the meeting with Clinton only after it had become public.  You can take her opinion on any issue regarding Hillary Clinton and you can throw it as far as the nearest Clinton Foundation office.

I don't know what shape the Clinton attack will take, but I suspect it will target Trump's reputation as a successful businessman.  We haven't heard the last of the income tax return issue, and the "Trump University" card is always good for a few headlines.  On the other hand, I can imagine that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are not happy to be relagated to "old news" by the FBI announcement.  I'm convinced that Assange has a few cards left to play, and I can think of nothing I would appreciate more than a Wikileaks email dump with lots of embarrassing Clinton tidbits.

As election day approaches, I am growing more and more concerned with continual stories of early voting irregularities.  Yesterday, I read that Democrats outvoted Republicans in early voting in Colorado by 27,000.  Who provided this information, and shouldn't it be kept confidential?  In addition, Reuters/IPSOS polling claims that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump in national early voting by 15%.  That figure is downright astounding and calls for closer scrutiny of the various registration and early voting operations.  Frankly, I don't trust the Democratic registration and "voter assistance" programs.  James O'Keefe has given us an inside look at what is clearly a process filled with fraudulent intentions.  With the unwillingness of the Justice Department to investigate claims of voter fraud, can you blame the left for pushing the envelope?

Since the end of the national comventions, I have done what I can to try and keep honest voters informed.  This election petrifies me for a host of reasons, but two stand out:  I am convinced that the United States is on the brink of becoming a one-party state.  In addition, the Constitution as we know it cannot survive the activist intentions of four, possibly five additional left-wing Supreme Court Justices.  Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton will pass an Amnesty in her first year in office, and if a Republican Congress objects, she will pull an Obama and make use of Executive Action.  An additional fifteen to twenty million Democratic voters is at stake, folks.  For persons worried about the legal right to own a weapon, or for Christians concerned with recent attacks on everything faith-based, you can guarantee that a left-wing activist Supreme Court will be determined to take away your gun and your Bible.  These are the equities in jeopardy, my friends.  This is why I have been so vocal about sharing these blog posts, and trying to get at least five people a week to either register (to late) or promise to support Trump on November 8.  Nothing less than the future of our Republic is at stake.

The last two weeks and a definite swing in momentum to Trump.

Recently I was stuck in a waiting room for a painful two hours, with only local television to keep me company.  At the moment I am without my television, so I have been spared the majority of the political advertising that must be flooding the airwaves.  If its any consolation to those of you who regularly watch TV, today I was literally tortured with non-stop commercials for Democratic Congressional Candidate Pete Gallegos, a slimey lobbyist-type if ever there was one.  During those two hours, I accomplished the impossible: I learned to dislike both Pete Gallegos and HIllary Clinton even more than I did when I woke up this morning.  For those of you who are old enough to remember, are you aware that the Democrats have resurrected that offensive campaign ad which accuses Republicans of planning to rob Senior Citizens of their Social Security? I received a potent-enough dose of Democratic political advertising to realize that at a local level, they have returned to the politics of fear.  Republicans are going to force old folks to eat dog food and women will lose the right to choose.  The simple truth is, in the last four decades, the GOP has controlled both Houses of Congress numerous times, and occasionally controled to White House to boot.  There has never been an effort to deny Social Security to the elderly, or a Republican-led, organized movement to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.  The truly sad fact is that people respond to these messages.

Even though my television is still in storage, I do listen to the radio and follow the news with my IPad.  I hear the non-stop chorus annointing Hillary Clinton as President two weeks before the election.  The media feels justified in pushing the idea that Clinton has triumphed because of the regular poll results that they devour on a daily basis.  Last week, another member of Trump's campaign staff resigned, which provided added impetus to the argument that for all practical purposes, the election is over.  In addition, many conservatives have lost hope because of the barrage of news stories regarding electoral fraud.  People realize that the Obama Justice Department has no intention of investigating the federal crime of electoral fraud, and they are left wondering, just how does Trump plan to win against Clinton's money, Hollywood, the national media, and widespread fraud?

Donald Trump will win this election.  You heard it here first, folks.  Has it been that long since Trump demonstrated his appeal by racking up at least fourteen million primary votes?  Trump voters are motivated and the Democrats are not.  Polls don't amount to a hill of beans if folks can't be bothered to vote.  Many Democrats who answer the all-important question with "Hillary Clinton", were Bernie Sanders supporters, and many of Bernie's folks are having real trouble bringing themselves to vote for someone who stole the nomination from their candidate.  There is no doubt that the buses provided by the Clinton Campaign to get Democratic voters to the polling stations are going to be less-than half-full.  Not to mention, we still have two weeks left of Wikileaks email disclosures.  Again, let me stress: Julian Assange is a showman- he will save the best for last.

So please don't get discouraged.  When the non-stop ads start to get you down, find something to watch on cable (not CNN or MSNBC).  Just because Hillary Clinton has decided to spend some money in Texas, don't be fooled into considering that Texas might vote Democrat.  It ain't happenin', folks.  I'm also convinced that on election day, my good friends in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will make sure Donald Trump gets all of Utah's electoral vote.  Evan McMullin tries to convince us that his sole pupose for being in this race is to be the next President.  Excuse the cliche, but I wasn't born yesterday, Mr. McMullin, and neither were the people of Utah.  The singular reason McMullin is in this race is to keep Donald Trump from collecting Utah's electoral votes.  McMullin has been co-opted by DC establishment Republicans, who are petrified that Trump will win and shake lose all the career bureaucrats and entitlement-junkies from the GOP.  If you know any Utah voters, please make sure they understand the real motivations behind McMullin's candidacy.

The next two weeks are going to be full of media distractions.  Expect to see a daily parade of women accusing Trump of innapropriate behavior.  Last Saturday, Trump introduced a contract with the voters of America, which details his positions on major issues and his strategy to achieve his goals.  Instead of covering Trump's announcement, CNN spent the weekend giving airtime to another person making easily-refuted accusations.  The media has no interest in a debate over the issues.  Their only interest is seeing Hillary Clinton in the White House.  Be prepared for the daily personal attacks on Trump and his advisors.  The Democrats understand that its not necessarily the accusations and personal attacks that do so much damage to Trump, its his responses.  From this point on, Trump needs to have a two-front focus.  He must continue talking about jobs, our crippled economy, veterans, terrorism and immigration.  The American people support Trump on those issues.  Trump's second focus needs to be on the latest Hillary Clinton controversy.  Right or wrong, Wikileaks still has some big suprises to inject into this election.  Don't hesitate to stand up for what you believe is right.  Hillary Clinton may already be plotting the continued Socialization of our government, but the (legal) votes still have to be counted.