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.

A few observations on polling.

Once political season rolls around, their is no way to avoid the non-stop polling.  We are currently less than a month away from the most important election in our political cycle, one month from knowing if we will have a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump.  We also have other elections taking place simultaneously, which will decide the makeup of the next Congress.  One group of organizations that have grown fat in recent years because of politicking are the polling companies.  Not long ago, most Americans would be lucky to recognize three separate pollsters, but lately, the media has decided that the American people just can't get enough of polls.  I can count at least twenty companies right off the top of my head.  Granted, pollsters collect and analyze data about far more than just political opinion; but in today's hotly contested electoral environment, the money is in the current campaigns that are coming to a close in early November.

Campaigns utilize polling information to determine candidate weaknesses and strengths.  They are also useful to help campaigns decide where and when to spend advertising resources.  Why would a candidate continue to buy airtime in a state in which he/she trails by twenty percentage points, when other states are much more competitive.  For instance, Donald Trump isn't spending money in California and Hillary Clinton has no ads running in Kansas.  But polls are also used to manipulate perceptions.  You see, polling organizations are inexorably tied to the big media corporations.  Many broadcasting companies, including Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN all have their own polling capabilities.  Sometimes they work in tandem with newspapers, for example Fox News/Wall Street Journal Poll, and the CBS/NY Times Poll.  It should come as no surpirse that polls have become a major weapon in national politics.  Lets take a look at how it works:

Its possible to manipulate people with the framing of the polling questions, but in this instance, lets keep it simple.  The question is, if the Presidential Election were held today, and you had to choose between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?  As the poll is constructed, the sample must be created.  Polls are scientific, so people can't just be called randomly.  you must first create a sample.  How many Republicans are you going to include, and how many Democrats? How many Independents?  What percentage of males and females?  If you chose to structure your poll by picking a specific percetnage of African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, you can certainly impact the end result.  How you structure your polling sample is called the methodology.

When it comes to polls, it always benefits to read the small words at the end of the survey results. This is where they usually hide their methodology.  For example, you may discover that the sample included 39% Democrat,  30% Republican, 5% Independent, and the rest "no affiliation".  Common sense tells you that the Democratic candidate has a big advantage because more Democrats participated.  Believe it or not, I took this particular sampling example from a major poll published this week and broadcast on every news channel.  Surprise, surprise, Hillary Clinton has a big lead.  The pollsters will justify their methods by arguing that their sampling is in line with the "latest" information regarding what percentage of the electorate is Republican or Democrat.  If the country is 39% Democrat and 30% Republican, then it only makes sense that hou would use the same percentages in your sampling.  The problem is, the percentage fluctuates dramatically, not only nationally, but locally.  And if you are polling for the state of Ohio, wouldn't make sense to try and determine the percentages of Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, instead of defaulting to the perceived national figures?

To sum it up, don't think too much about poll numbers.  Back in 2012, we were told that Romney was going to win a close election.  Romney lost, and it wasn't really close.  Not only are polls subject to manipulation, they can be innaccurate for a host of other reasons.  Sometimes people get annoyed when their dinner is interruptd by a phone call, and they lie.  Other times, people don't understand the process.  Our recent political history, going back to the famous "Dewey vs. Truman" election in 1948, is replete with examples of polls that produced results different from the actual election.  This particular Presidential election is a hard one to handicap.  Although everything appears to be falling Clinton's way (including the polls), there continues to be that feeling in the back of my mind, that we are in for a big surprise.  Trump voters are angry and motivated- they will flock to the voting booths.  The Clinton voter continues to be less-than inspired.  Also, I think its safe to assume that we haven't heard the last about Wikileaks emails, imvestigations, and the extra-curricular activity of former President Bill Clinton.  So don't take the daily deluge of polling information too seriously.  Unless, of course, the figures point to a Trump victory.  😉

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

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

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

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

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

Enough about me; why YOU need to vote for Donald Trump.

Each time that I decide that I've written enough about Donald Trump, our nefarious media does something which persuades me to write just a bit more.  I knew early on that the media/press in the United States, otherwise known as the Armed Wing of the Democratic Party, was conspiring to assure  that Trump would win the Republican nomination for the office of president.  Why wouldn't they be? The same media worked wonders is persuading an easily confused Republican voting base to nominate first, John McCain in 2008, and second, Mitt Romney in 2012.  It was obvious from the beginning that these two milquetoast candidates would never be able to energize the conservative vote, so mission accomplished: two terms for arguably the worst president we have ever had: Barack Obama.  Once I realized that Trump ws the likely GOP candidate, I realized that the USA-hating, race-baiting, deficit building, entitlement loving Democrats were going to put Hillary in the Oval Office.  I didn't think Trump had a chance in hell of convincing enough independent voters to support his candidacy.  Eventually I made the decision to vote for Trump, because even though he strikes me as a pompous bully, I admit that I agreed with EVERY policy position he announced.  Immigration is a priority for Trump, as is redeeming our reputation internationally.  Lets be honest; all any of us have to do is watch Hillary for a few days; you will come running to Trump.

As for my previous opinion that Trump couldn't win, all it took was a bit of serious analysis to change my mind.  First and foremost is the fact that Trump has won more votes at this stage than either McCain or Romney.  Trump has energized and agitated conservative voters with tremendous success; how?  Because he says what we think, and what the Republican establishment (short of Ted Cruz) has been too balless to fight for.  I will never be comfortable with the manner in which Donald Trump fought his campaign.  He came across as a bully and a misogynist.  In truth, he may be a bit of a pushy blowhard, but I don't believe he is a misogynist.  The fact that the hatchet appears to be sheathed with regards to Ted Cruz, Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina is a great sign.  I also have changed my mind about Trump's chances of winning the election.  Donald Trump will continue to energize conservatives long after our struggles are ancient history, while Hillary has to run with some serious baggage, including the old codger Bernie Sanders, who hasn't campaigned this hard since the Ice Age.  Imagining the hurdles that the GOP have waiting for Hillary is like a walk through time, present events first: Hillary's email server; Benghazi; the rise of the Arab Spring and the terrible New Start treaty with Russia, both under the watch of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; comments in defense of her husband's predatory behavior, blaming "vast, right-wing conspiracies"; her insider tip regarding a stock option that made her a wealthy woman in her own right overnight; and Whitewater, the crooked land deal that Hillary concocted during her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock (Bill was Governor at the time).  Believe it or not, I've left out some things, but I think you get the point.  Donald Trump is a master of hitting people where it hurts.  He knocked out one GOP opponent after another by putting them on the defensive.  Sure, the media is gonna hit out on Trump.  You will hear all about Trump University, Bankrupt companies, and countless rumors of infidelity.  Trump will handle these attacks the way he always does....with an immediate counter-attack.  Hillary, once she is finally able to retire that nasty old Marxist Bernie "Booger" Sanders from the race, will get hit immediately with an accusation that must be countered, and she won't be given time to breathe before another scandal shows its familiar face.  All the while, Trump should be assuring the American voter that there is no shame in opposing "Black Lives Matter", and its OK to be angry that the Obama Administration attempted to force a Christian couple who owned a small Bakery to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians.  Our national conversation is not about a twenty trillion dollar deficit or a no-growth economy/no jobs, its about transgender folks and the rights of terrorists.

I'm beginning to believe that the American people need to send a message to DC, New York City, and Los Angeles, that we are taking our country back, and Donald Trump is just the sledgehammer we need to make our point loud and clear.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Excuse The Tinest Bit Of Politics

Links A. Will Hillary Clinton Run In 2016?
          B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
          C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office


The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama.  The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time".  In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum.  A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat.  All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate.  Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended).  So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course.  I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney.  Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?

And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side?  Jeb Bush.  As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge.  I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush.  I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon.  I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen.  I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run).  Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away.  I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016.  I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith).  I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run.  Oy Vey!  Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation.  Rick Perry?  Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.

On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker).  In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will.  Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons.  Give me a break.  Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office.  Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature.  She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position.  Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement.  I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi.  Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh.  Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).

The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016.  For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire.  In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners.  Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow.  Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes.  At least the GOP has a few new names on the list.  I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.

The Politization of the ISIS Threat: Business as Usual.

Link: Juan Williams says ISIS will Benefit Democrats in Midterms


Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout



The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise.  IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan.  It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue.  By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS?  Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow?  Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment).  As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value.  This part of the world is known for drama.  Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office?  In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words.  The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics.  Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections.  I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting.  I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama.  But it doesn't make me happy.

I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012.  Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue.  I really like Juan Williams.  I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion.  But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election.  I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies.  Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint".  Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years.  This is not a GOP-doctored number.  Check it out for yourself.  Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)?  The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending.  Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics.  In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well.  As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place.  In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly.  Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections.  No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy.  And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.

U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news.  Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff.  But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election?  Why am I so cynical?  I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers.  More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors.  One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives.  I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week.  Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide?  Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond.  I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war.  But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus.  Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible.  If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria.  We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group.  It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on.  Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy".  I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful.  And this is where the problem begins.  What if our surrogate is successful?  Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government?  Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?"  Again, no answers.  Actually, that's not true.  Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.

Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President".  But its an illusion.  We all know that Obama is no Hawk.  But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election.  I hope Juan is wrong.  I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years.  President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS.  But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield.  I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy.  Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws?  Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science.  So it becomes an issue of National Security.  The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate.  It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally.  If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation.  And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty.  President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy.  Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.