How much longer is this nonsense going to continue?

In 2003 and 2004, I served in Iraq as a CIA Operations Officer.  The focus of my career was intelligence collection, so when I learned that former soldier Bradley Manning was serving in Iraq as an Intelligence Analyst for the U.S. Army when he committed treason, I couldn't help but feel a professional connection to the story.  In 2010, Specialist Manning leaked over 750,000 sensitive and classified documents to WikiLeaks, an online organization that is dedicated to publicly disseminating classified material.  There is no doubt in my mind that some of the information leaked by Manning eventually compromised sensitive operations and contacts.  Its very possible that people were thrown in jail or even executed after their confidential association with the United States was disclosed in the documents leaked to Wikileaks.  It's impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of his actions, and probably just as impossible to gauge how much damage was done.  The US government does not classify information without justification; it is vital to protect the identity of persons who provide us with valuable national security intelligence, and just as important to keep secret the details of military operations.  Unfortunately, our history includes a number of persons who have chosen to betray their country.  In 1953, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed after having been found guilty of leaking information on our Atomic Energy program to the Soviet Union, and former CIA Operations Officer Aldrich Ames is serving a life sentence for providing secret information to the Russians.  I fully expected the U.S. Army to adjudicate Manning's Court Martial with the seriousness that his crime demanded.  Actually, Manning managed to avoid a life sentence, as the Court, while convicting Manning of seventeen charges, chose to acquit on the charge of "aiding the enemy", and decided that a thirty-five year sentence was appropriate.

Following the Court Martial, I looked forward to no longer hearing about Bradley Manning.  Sadly, the drama was just beginning.  When the story first took hold, the media latched on to the image of  homosexual Manning trying to survive bullying by his fellow soldiers.  Could the stress and pressure of daily harassment been part of the reason he chose to commit treason?  Eventually, homosexual Manning morphed into transsexual Manning, which made him even more of a victim in the eyes of the media and the left.  I still have problems reconciling myself to the reality that following his conviction as a traitor, the U.S. Army paid for prisoner Manning to have gender reassignment surgery.  Who made this decision, and why?  How can anyone justify using taxpayer dollars to address a personal problem of a convicted traitor?  And yes, it is a personal problem.  Anyone who is unfortunate enough to suffer from gender dysphoria is suffering from a personal condition.  You and I can be sympathetic if we choose, or ignore it all together.  Either way, its still the personal problem of the individual in question.  How can the U.S. Army justify paying for this procedure?  The US taxpayer wasn't responsible for Manning being born in the wrong body.  Instead of taking it up with the Joint Chief of Staff, Manning should have addressed his issue to God, who, from my perspective, is the only one responsible for the original decision.  If and when Manning decided to have the surgery, there seem to be plenty of wealthy celebrities who support his situation.  How about THEY pay for the surgery......

Regardless of my opinion on the matter, the US Army paid for prisoner Bradley Manning to become prisoner Chelsea Manning.  The circus didn't end with Manning's transformation.  Before leaving office, President Obama decided to spit on the persons whose lives were destroyed by Manning's actions by commuting his sentence.  Today Chelsea Manning is a free woman, with, no doubt, a nice million-dollar contract with a New York publishing house.  Two weeks ago Manning took to social media to brag about being named a "visiting fellow" by Harvard University.  Following criticisms from many influential and respected persons with connection to Harvard University, the decision was made to rescind the honor.  I wonder if the taxpayer can get a reimbursement for the sex-change surgery that we funded?

While we suffered through the Bradley/Chelsea Manning drama, something else was occurring involving the US military.  Soldiers were being prosecuted at an alarming rate for decisions made during battle, a disturbing and unprecedented event in the history of the Armed Forces.   Just as the Obama Administration has attempted to paint the law enforcement community as being infected with bigots, it has also gone to great lengths to prosecute members of our Armed Forces, most of the time on questionable evidence.  All the while, many veterans were facing one difficulty after another trying to get treatment.  Its obvious that President Obama was opposed to both the conflict in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.  But his opposition is a political issue, and I find it reprehensible that he never took real action to assist our veterans as they returned from overseas deployments. Its not just an issue of the heroes who return home with terrible injuries.  The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have left many soldiers dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD).  We haven't done nearly enough for these men and women who went to war, putting themselves in harm's way, to protect our freedoms and way of life.  I'm pleased that a real effort is underway to fix the problems at the Veteran's Administration, and that long-awaited treatment is becoming more readily available, but we must do more.  We have to be diligent regarding the mindset that the previous Administration adopted, including the marching orders given to the Justice Department and the Pentagon, encouraging the domestic prosecution of our soldiers.  I can't think of anything more shameful than these heroes being obliged to defend themselves at home, after defending themselves against terrorists day-in and day-out during overseas postings.

A few reasonable observations regarding President Trump and "Covfefe".

(We always welcome guest bloggers to Mukhabarat, Baby!, especially young folks with a unique, concise perspective.  This is 11 year old Zach's second guest appearance.)



"President Trump's tweet is the latest example of his ability to draw attention on social media, and keep the public guessing as to the meaning of his remarks", says Joshua Berlinger, Digital Director for CNN's Hong Kong Bureau and author of the article "Covfefe: When a Typo Goes Viral".

But maybe President Trump was simply thinking about coffee.

Having just returned from a long trip, he was probably really tired.  More than likely, he he wasn't thinking clearly, and instead of typing "coffee" or "conference", he wrote "covfefe".  My question is, have you ever done something similar?  If so, then maybe you shouldn't be so critical of someone for doing something you yourself have done.  Of course, you probably didn't have thousands of people ready to mock you.  I'm addressing that one particular group of voices who find fault with everything about our president, and of course, could not leave the "covfefe" issue alone.

My next question is, why is this news?  Some people think of the president as a demigod, a perfect being who does not make mistakes.  Presidents are mortal, believe it or not.  Donald Trump is no different.  So why then, does it become such a big deal when the president makes a typo? This is nothing more than an effort to make President Trump feel like a fool for doing something very human.  Becoming president should not mean that a person can no longer make a simple typo.  In fact, by making the typo, President Trump has provided a reminder that he is an imperfect American, just like the rest of us.

Its also a reminder of just how different President Trump is from previous presidents, and the traditional, carefully orchestrated pronouncements typically associated with the office, an important point made by Berlinger in his article.  Yes, he tweets....but who cares?  Just about everyone gets news from one social media source or another.  If President Obama had tweeted a "covfefe", it would have been treated as just another example of how down to earth he is.  But this is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, so it must become a big deal.  Honestly, if "covfefe" is to be considered "breaking news", then I should be famous by now, along with every other American who struggles with spelling.  That being said, we can't exclude the possibility that maybe the president simply hit the wrong key.  C'mon now folks- I'm eleven years old, and to me, he must have just hit the wrong key.  Its seems like a simple, forgivable mistake.  Don't you think that journalists should have better things to do than writing about a typo?  I sure do.    

As part of the effort to silence the leaks, President Trump needs to question how personnel were hired in his Administration.

Link: Trump incensed by continued White House leaks.


Last week, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he was met with a barrage of hostility and criticism, at first from the predictable Democratic loud-mouths, and followed up by the media, which now editorializes everything.  Not surprisingly, many Republicans in Congress took their marching orders from the Democrats and the media, and joined in the criticism.  Would President Barack Obama have face this type of response?  Of course not, but the "eat your own" Republican Party, many of its members singularly focused on re-election, leave President Trump with no real political support.  Some will blame President Trump, but the problem is much more a symptom of why Trump chose to run for president in the first place.  He should be able to rely on a Republican-controlled Congress for support, and to leave the criticisms and calls for Independent Counsels to the Democrats.  But GOP Senators and Representatives have become so worried about getting re-elected, that they obsess over the vagaries of public opinion.  First and foremost, President Trump had every right to fire Comey.  The Democrats had been calling for his head ever since Hillary Clinton announced to the nation that Comey is the reason she lost the election.  Recently, many of Trump's supporters started questioning why the FBI wasn't tackling the problem of leaks more aggressively.  Since former National Director of Intelligence James Clapper and Comey had publicly stated that no evidence has yet to be discovered linking the Trump Campaign Staff to Russian efforts to impact the election, why is the FBI still knee-deep in that investigation?  Just when was Comey planning on winding things down?  It had become a serious distraction, especially when the only illegal activity that had up to now been uncovered was the politically-motivated "unmasking" of 1,934 citizens, in an investigation which had yet to find even a scrap of evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump team.

Attorney General Sessions needs to take the lead in putting a stop to the leaks.  Trump needs to explain to his staff that all phone calls to the Washington Post and the NY Times must stop, and make a point of finding the next culprit and summarily firing said person.  Frankly, President Trump needs to revisit the list of people who have become his closest advisers.  The media continues to claim that much of the leaking can be attributed to the Trump Administration's hiring of so many people who are unfamiliar with the White House and politics in DC.  The last time I took a good look, most of the mid-level staff in the White House are professional political workhorses.  What about draining the swamp?  I am truly surprised by the number of highly qualified loyal Trump supporters who applied for positions with the Transition Team, and never so much as heard a burp in reply.  I happen to be one of those individuals.  As an author with a successful career in the CIA on my resume, along with time as a Federal Agent, and a vocal supporter President Trump during the election, I am just the kind of person the Transition Team should have considered for one of those mid-level positions, which doesn't provide the opportunity to speak, but allows one to observe and listen.  I believe the majority of the leaks in this White House comes from the numerous unspoken bodies in the room, who stand in the background in case their Cabinet member boss needs something.  Once previously I wrote a blog questioning the hiring methods of the Trump Transition Team, and I received hundreds of email responses from persons in positions similar to my own.  Professionals in the Department of Justice, Department of State, and in the Department of Homeland Security, who had chosen early retirement because of their unwillingness to continue working for the Obama Administration, but had volunteered to return in support of the Trump Administration and his desire to Make America Great Again.  Why weren't we considered for any of the thousands of jobs that were supposedly being filled?  The truth is, most of those jobs were filled with former Obama officials and others who have no interest in seeing President Trump succeed.

President Trump needs to re-evaluate the team he has put in place to hire the staff which has access to the daily routine of the White House, and ask his Cabinet members to take stock as well.  Anyone with Obama on their resume should be given the boot.  In addition, Cabinet members and anyone with similar access, including the CIA and FBI Directors, need to monitor their personal staff with the goal of identifying anyone engaged in leaking.  For President Trump to be distracted in this manner is as devious as it is unfair.  Those opposed to the Trump Agenda, with the media at the front of the pack, are using this access to paint whatever picture matches their narrative, of an administration in crisis and a White House in conflict. I don't believe the Trump Administration is in crisis and I certainly don't believe the juicy tidbits about Bannon arm-wrestling Jared Kushner for the President's ear.  Anyone who has had the pleasure of ever knowing President Trump understand that he expects a lot from his team, as he tackles the real challenges of North Korea, Russia, Syria, ISIS and our broken immigration system.  Everyone in the White House who is truly loyal to this administration needs to prioritize the identification and removal of leakers, and whatever mechanism is currently in place to hire qualified persons who will support this President without reservation, needs to review the stacks of resumes they received in December and January.  We haven't gone anywhere.

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.          

A reasonable solution to the debate over President Trump's Executive Order on refugees.

Less than three months into Donald Trump's Presidency, its become obvious that the opposition will oppose and obstruct everything the Trump Administration attempts to achieve.  I realize I'm wasting my time when I ask certain questions, but can you imagine the indignation of the Democrats if the GOP had behaved in the same manner to Barack Obama, who had his cabinet approved with no drama and his Supreme Court choices approved by near unanimous votes?  Regardless, President Trump will outlast his opponents because the Constitution is on his side.  For instance, President Trump's Executive Order delaying the resettlement of refugees for a three-month or less time period, while Homeland Security and the FBI complete thorough reviews of each applicant, is authority guaranteed the Executive Branch by the Constitution.  Barack Obama put a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011, and other Presidents also exercised this authority, with not a word of disagreement.  A quick check of Google will turn up volumes of commentary pointing out that Trump targeted a handful of nations, while Obama only focused on Iraq; but the issue is not about the differences in what Obama and Trump were trying to accomplish, this issue is about the legality of the Executive Order.  The fact that previous Presidents have delayed immigration and refugee resettlement for National Security concerns, makes it clear that such authority rests with the Executive Branch, not with District Courts. 

President Trump's original Executive Order included Iraq, which caused a great deal of inconvenience for Iraqis who had assisted the U.S. government during the last war, from legal resettlement in the United States.  After District Judge James Rodart in Seattle ruled against Trump, instead of pushing the appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court, Trump and his legal team removed Iraq from the Executive Order.  Actually, Judge Rodart wasn't that interested in potential injustices dealt to the Iraqi community.  His justification for ruling against the Executive Order was its "apparent" discrimination against Muslims.  Since President Trump had been quoted on the campaign trial occasionally talking about Muslim refugees and immigration, Rodart makes the assumption that Trump is a racist, and that the Executive Order purposely targets Muslims solely based on their religion.  Can we assume that if Trump added Norway and Luxemburg to the list, Rodart would change his ruling? Don't count on it.  As expected, President Trump issued a re-worded Executive Order, basically with the same intent, but with Iraq removed.  And as anticipated, Hawaii, a left-leaning state, and Obama-appointed District Judge Derrick Watson wasted no time in ruling against Trump once again, but with the same justification.  Both Rodart and Watson believe that President Trump's Executive Orders are motivated by racism and unfairly target Muslims.  The problem is, neither Judge has the authority to rule against the Executive Branch on this issue, just as any Republican District Judge who decided to rule against President Obama in 2011 would have been overstepping his authority.

Sadly, my argument will fall on deaf Democrat ears, but I have an idea that makes so much sense, we just might make a breakthrough.  If Trump would be willing to withdraw his Executive Order on refugees, and forego a Supreme Court showdown which likely would be won by the Administration, would Hawaii and Washington State, which seem oh-so proud of their District Judges, be willing to accept and resettle the refugees in their respective states?  At this point, the numbers don't seem to be overwhelming, and I know that the great Northwest has lots of space to fill up, so why not take on this responsibility?  Why should Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other "Red States", be beholden to an Oregon or Hawaii-based District Judge's ruling?  If Oregon and Hawaii can thumb their nose at a legal Executive Order from the President of the United States, then why should the twenty-some Red States have to accept refugees because of decisions made by two activist, progressive District Judges?  To get to the heart of the matter, I'm getting a bit tired of liberals who feel some obligation to save the world, trying to force the results of their agenda on everyone else.  If YOU feel that way, then YOU take the refugees!  Its actually quite simple.  California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois, Washington and Hawaii are all wealthy states in their own right, and are in a much better position financially to support an influx of refugees, as opposed to Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and South Carolina, who are not.  The important message here?  The latter states would no doubt approve of President Trump's Executive Order, and the former would not.  We have an opportunity to agree on something here, folks.  President Trump needs to forego any additional Executive Orders dealing with refugees, and the seven states mentioned above agree to accept responsibility for the refugees.  I see no reason why this shouldn't work, at least until some event forces us to regain our common sense, drop political correctness and all the nastiness that has replaced normal discourse, and start working together again.  Heck, maybe we can get President Trump to cancel his Twitter Account as part of the deal.  That might be too much to hope for......

Why its so important to defend President Trump's Executive Order dealing with refugees.

Last week during the Question and Answer segment of a speaking engagement, a young person asked me how I could be sure that I was on the correct side of any particular issue.  No doubt at one time or another, most people have considered this question.  When I was younger and knew very little of the world, I was very careful before pronouncing an opinion on political or international issues.  Frankly put, I didn't want to look foolish.  During my college days, if some group or another was protesting apartheid or speaking up on the issue of abortion, for instance, I would find the time to learn as much as I could before I put my credibility on the line by stating my opinion, and my audience was usually limited to my friends and family.  Today when I listen to the various groups protesting President Donald Trump and his actions since his inauguration, I frequently hear Trump and his supporters referred to as "Nazis and Racists", with the President himself constantly being compared to Nazi Dictator Adolf Hitler.  I'm willing to bet that the great majority of people using the term "Nazi" and making comparisons to Hitler, probably could not find Germany on a map, let alone accurately explain Hitler and his National Socialist movement.  Regardless, the name-calling and bullying won't be ending anytime soon, so those of us who support President Trump had better prepare ourselves for the long-haul.

When President Trump took office, he immediately went to work following through on a number of his campaign promises.  Anyone who followed the 2016 presidential election shouldn't be surprised by Trump's Executive Order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.  Contrary to what is regularly written by the left-wing press, the order does not "ban" immigrants from any country.  Instead, it temporarily freezes the process, to allow officials from the Department of Homeland Security to review and properly investigate each applicant.  According to Trump's own language, the review must be completed within a four-month window.  Actually, on two separate occasions, President Obama took the same action, albeit his effort included only two "Muslim-majority" nations.  What were President Obama and now President Trump intending when issuing these orders?

We have been incredibly fortunate in that significant terror attacks in the United States over the last decade have only occurred about once a year.  Europe, which is ground-zero for refugee resettlement, is basically at war with Muslim extremists.  The French have felt the brunt of violence, with the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind.  Terror-related deaths have also occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain.  Along with individual terrorist actions, Europeans have had to deal with rampant sexual assaults against women at public celebrations, including New Years.  It seems that Muslim extremists have decided that any woman wearing what they consider to be revealing attire, is a justified target fro sexual assault.  The terror attacks that fill the headlines of European newspapers are almost always directly tied to the refugee community.  Why hasn't the United States suffered the same frequency of terror-related events?  One reason is because we have just recently bought into the refugee "come-one, come-all" attitude that the left seems to believe is safe, intelligent policy.  President Trump's Executive Order was intended to prevent some of what Europe has suffered.  With so many refugees arriving on the borders of Hungary, Greece and Italy every day, it has been impossible for European law enforcement to adequately investigate each new arrival.  President Trump enacted his Executive Order so that our law enforcement would have the time and resources to accomplish what the Europeans have so far failed to do- protect innocent civilians from terrorists who have been purposely seeded into refugee communities.

The fact that one court in Washington State and another in California have ruled against the President should come as no surprise.  These activist, leftist judges believe that their authority overrides the Executive Branch, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.  If the President of the United States does not have the authority to control the border, then who does?  If you speak to rank-and-file Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers, those who are most familiar with Immigration Law (yours truly has a bit of experience in that area as well), they will tell you that the President absolutely has the authority to take action limiting immigration.  Interestingly enough, our Justice Department includes the existence of Immigration Courts, who are trained to interpret law relating to immigrants.  Instead, we have the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignoring the Constitution for the sole purpose of damaging a President whom they despise.

At the end of the day, those of us who call ourselves Conservatives must be more aggressive in support of our President and the policies for which he was elected.  At the moment, the left is running rampant, destroying property, threatening people and bullying our society into hiding behind our locked doors.  Their behavior, which has yet to be criticized by any national Democratic Party leader, is an attempt to overurn the results of the 2016 election through intimidation and fear.  But they may have a surprise coming.  Sixty-four million American citizens voted for Donald Trump, and groups within that block are beginning to mobilize, so that our voices may be heard.  At times I almost regret not behaving in such a fashion when Obama was piling up twenty trillion dollars in debt, destroying our reputation internationally, and leaving wounded veterans to die on the streets.  Hindsight is 20/20,  as the cliche reminds us, so I'm going to focus on the future.

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.

The effort to subvert the will of the American people continues.

This morning I had the misfortune of stumbling across an television interview with an actor named Kerry Washington.  I have no clue who Washington is, although she claims to have worked in the Obama White House.  Normally when I determine that an entertainer is lecturing on politics, I switch the station or shut off the television altogether, but in this instance, probably because of her claim to direct access to the White House, I listened in for a minute or two.  Washington regurgitated the usual crap that we get from the millionaire elite Hollywood community, including the claim that the American voter did not chose Donald Trump, and that President-Elect Trump only captured twenty-five percent of the vote.  These are just two of the bullets from a long list of talking points which is regularly disseminated amongst the Left, who have no interest whatsoever about the damage that this repudiation of our electoral system is causing.  You would think that Washington would take a few minutes away from polishing her Oscars to educate herself on the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, during which Barack Obama won less than thirty percent of eligible voters.  No doubt she considers those two election results to be legitimate and a reflection of the will of the American people.

A month or so before the November election, I stumbled across an offensive and absurd accusation leveled against then-candidate Donald Trump.  While perusing some radical left-wing, seldom-read website, I discovered a story involving Trump which was quite similar to the "Russian prostitutes" story released by Buzzfeed earlier this week.  This accusation, that Donald Trump paid two Russian prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed because the bed had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, had been shared with numerous journalists and media organizations previous to Buzzfeed's mainstream dissemination.  Why did the mainstream media ignore the story for so long?  Because it arrived with absolutely no proof, and contained numerous outright errors and bits of incorrect information.  In short, the mainstream media determined that the piece was just another example of "Fake News", which arrived during a presidential election cycle which had become overwhelmed with unverifiable accusations against both candidates.

Roughly one week before the inauguration, the story has resurfaced, and this time around, no one seems to care about validity, source identification, or verification.  In fact, it appears that since the Trump victory, both the FBI and the CIA have provided Bona Fides to this unsubstantiated, disgusting story by treating it as some threat to national security.  Of course, if a President-Elect had actually engaged in such behavior, that individual would be a prime candidate for extortion, and the FBI and CIA would be obligated to investigate.  The problem is, everyone knows that the story is garbage.  The U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities must require the existence of some verification or validity in order to conduct full investigations and feel the need to brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump.  Now that the issue has hit the headlines and could end up causing the incoming Administration no small amount of headaches, we need to know what about this story reached the threshold that would justify this kind of attention from the FBI and the CIA?  Actually, this is second time we find ourselves in this predicament.  The Obama Administration showed no hesitation in announcing that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin in particular, ordered its clandestine cyber operatives to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election in a manner that would benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump.  I assume that both the Russians and the Chinese were busy attempting to mess around with our electoral process (its called espionage, folks), but to make this announcement weeks before the inauguration supports the false idea that Donald Trump won the election because of Russian interference.  Last week the CIA was front and center with the Russian interference accusation, and now the Agency finds itself back in the headlines, by apparently treated an obviously fake story as a legitimate threat of some sort.  Thanks, CIA and FBI- you've given this absurd, false story the validity that had been lacking.

As I sit here at my computer, safe in my Texas Hill Country home, more than a handful of CIA officers are working in denied environments, putting their lives in danger to collect the intelligence needed to win the war on terror.  When I think of the CIA, these men and women come to mind, not Russian prostitutes.  I can assure you that everyday, FBI Special Agents are out on the streets, putting their lives at risk in support of national security.  I can only imagine what the rank-and-file of these two patriotic, indispensable organizations must feel, when they realize just how politicized our government has become. 

If you believe that President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because of hacking on the part of Russia, then I've got some cheap ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.

My intention was to take a bit of a break this past December, clear my head from the nastiness of the 2016 election, and let the Christmas spirit re-energize my batteries.  I've slowed the blog to a crawl, with the intention of refocusing in 2017 on the international spread of terrorism.  Unfortunately, I've been obliged to occasionally deviate from that plan in order to shed some much-needed light on the actions and intentions of the lame-duck Barack Obama Administration.  Proceeding on the idea that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact, the Democrats continue to use different avenues in an attempt to "delegitimize" the incoming Trump Administration.  The Democratic Party continues to utilize the mainstream media as its military arm by deluging the public with stories about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the Trump Administration's alleged ties to Russia.  Obama, never one to shy away from politicizing the tools of government, used sanctions against Russia and weak investigations by the intelligence community to validate the absurd notion that the Russian government, through the use of computer hacking, impacted the 2016 Presidential Election.  Juggling apples and oranges with great nerve, Obama managed to bring together three disparate elements: the WikiLeaks organization, Russia's history of hacking into US computer systems, and Donald Trump's 2016 decisive electoral victory.  Explaining the alleged plot takes a bit of effort, but I'm going to give it a try.

As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on.  Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials.  As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time).  The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp.  The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation.  Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta.  The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign.  The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails.  Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher.  By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts?  Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election?  I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.

Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation.  First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart.  So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran.  Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another.  The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government.  Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second.  Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment.  Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese.  In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions.  It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered. 

At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question.  In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.  Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition.  Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible.  This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst.  Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason.  Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay.  Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency.  I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!).  Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa.  I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target.  From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.

As the Obama Administration winds down, lets review the State of the Union.

As his term in office winds down, President Barack Obama is enjoying a positive approval rating, and taking advantage of every opportunity to remind the American people that his Presidency was a tremendous success.  Obama likes to mention a 4.9 percent unemployment rate and 70 plus consecutive months of positive growth.  He also pardoned 78 convicted felons and commuted the sentences of 153 others.  Pardons and commutations are the prerogative of every outgoing President; Obama focused on drug offenders with his act of legislative forgiveness.  Ever since President Bill Clinton chose to pardon political ally Mark Rich and to commute the sentences of sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists, I try not to pay much attention to this odd tradition.  Obama seems to be enjoying the last few weeks of his Administration, and his last minute decision to outlaw any new offshore drilling will certainly please the ecological fanatics who constitute a loyal part of the Democratic Party.  I am in favor of allowing the departing President to leave office with dignity and promote a needed sense of continuity from one Administration to the next, but I am beginning to get annoyed by the daily revisionist review of Obama's Presidency as disseminated by the mainstream media.

It is beyond disingenuous to publicly claim that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent.  Our economy is stagnant, and threatening to fall into recession.  The 4.9 figure includes only those persons who currently apply for unemployment.  Persons who have been unemployment for many months or even years no longer are included in this percentage.  I don't live in New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC, so I can't say if the job markets in those cities are healthy.  I can tell you that in the parts of the country of which I am familiar, jobs are scarce, and companies are not growing or posting profits.  Obama is correct when his states that the economy has grown over the past 70 odd months, but the amount growth has almost always been under 2.0 percent.  Economists will tell you that our economy isn't actually growing anymore, and certainly is in no position to provide jobs to the existing number of unemployed, let alone the never-ending number of new college graduates who enter the work force during the year.  To attempt to convince the American people that the job market is healthy and that the economy is just chugging along is perpetrating a fraud.  If you question my perspective as opposed to Obama's, do the research yourself.

Obama is able to stay popular with the majority of Americans, a fact which is difficult for me to comprehend.  But he isn't only popular stateside.  He continues to receive rave reviews throughout Europe and Latin America.  One of the most fascinating dichotomies of our time is Obama's ability to remain a figure of reverence in Paris, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Rome, Santiago, and London, while the United States remains resented more than ever.  Actually, the explanation isn't that complicated.  Obama has built a cult of personality for himself, and part of the effort included trashing his own country and its heritage.  It all began with the Apology Tour at the beginning of his Presidency, and has continued unabated ever since.  As Obama's international popularity increases, the United States as a World Power and instrument of positive change in the world seems less respected now more than ever.  From the first day it was all about Obama. 

If I had the opportunity to ask the outgoing President one question, I would inquire about the twenty trillion dollar national debt.  Its a subject that never comes up in any of his rare Press Conferences or public speaking appearances.  If I could sneak in another question, I would want to know why he never addressed the national threat of gang activity in our inner cities.  I believe Black Lives Matter, and what occurs everyday in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Washington DC is nothing short of a threat to our national security.  The fact that on average ten to fifteen young black men are shot every day in Chicago, and it has never been considered important enough to convene a national conference of community leaders and law enforcement, is a disgrace.  The people living in our inner cities aren't able to play golf every week with one famous personality after another, nor are they getting dressed by the nation's most expensive fashion designers.  Heck, maybe they don't care about golf or fashion, but they do care about living.  They have just as much right as every other citizen to a threat-free living environment, and President-Elect Donald Trump will earn my respect if he addresses this issue early on in his Administration. 

The refugee issue underscores political division within the European Union.

Last Monday, December 19, less than one week before Christmas, an act of terror perpetrated at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany, reminded us that the struggle against Islamic terrorism has not abated.  In a scene rememisent of the terror attack in Nice, France last year, a large truck was driven into a cafe/market area which was packed with people enjoying the holiday festivities.  Parents, spouses and children of the victims are left to answer the question, "why"?  Everytime you turn on the news, one talking head after another is attempting to explain the motivations behind violence committed against civiliams; what a colossal waste of time.  Regardless if its ISIS or Al Qaida, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, Islamic terrorism has is intended to intimidate, frighten and murder Christians, Jews, and on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus.  Terrorism for the sake of Islamic Extremism is not a recent development, but the frequency with which these groups are able to strike in Europe and the United States is disturbimg to say the least.  No doubt Donald Trump appealed to many voters when he promised during the recent presidential campaign to aggressively combat ISIS.  Over the next year, voters in France and Holland will have the opportunity to decide if the current batch of Prime Ministers and Presidents have been doing enough in response to these attacks.  The refugee issue, which is directly related to concerns regarding terrorism, is presently the hot-button issue in Europe.

The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis.  The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis.  The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes.  The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees.  Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States.  The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe.  It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population.  The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.

The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe.  But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe.  Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe.  Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement.  Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt.  The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem.  Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"

The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria.  This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned.  Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home.  A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence.  The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible.  Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem.  Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution?  He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.  😉

Media bias- just how bad is it?

All of my adult life, at least the years during which I have been politically aware, I have noticed a definite bias in the media.  I am amazed when I hear folks denying this reality, or worse, criticizing Fox News for providing a Conservative perspective to current events.  Not a day goes by that I don't acknowledge my appreciation for both Fox News and the Drudge Report.  The playing field is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, but at least someone of my political persuasion is willing to put up a fight.  Frequently, though, I am reminded of just how powerful the liberal media has become.  The first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump provided just such a reminder.  Not surprisingly, the moderator feigned complete neutrality, and then proceeded to ambush Trump with questions about a former Ms. Universe Pageant contestant.  I expected the moderator to discuss Trump's income taxes and also his comments regarding the Obama birth certificate comtroversy.  It would only make sense, considering the Clinton email server issue and the controversy regarding influence peddling and the Clinton Foundation would surely be mentioed.  I was mistaken.  I can only assume that the first debate was meant to focus on sensitive Trump developments, and that the second debate would introduce Hillary's trouble issues; time will tell.

Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush.  Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time.  His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced.  Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere.  Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all.  Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations.  First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election.  I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries.  Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use?  I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well.  After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee.  Its not as far-fetched as you might think.  I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.

What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept.  What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular.  For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky.  Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition.  And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties.  Where is the hypocrisy, you ask?  When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations).  The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon.  Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now?  Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip.  They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal.  I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion.  The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip.  I don't need to read the transcript.  It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business.  Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee.  I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation.  I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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