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.

On Capitol Hill, it's business as usual.

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

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

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

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

A close look at Texas District 21 is a reminder as to why I'm running for Congress.

Why would anyone chose to run for Congress?  Some people really get a kick out of being in a position of authority.  It can be an addiction, especially for people who need constant positive reinforcement.  There are folks who truly enjoy the political process itself, including statistics, advertising, and the adrenaline rush that can come from campaigning.  Polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe people run for Congress as a means to financial enrichment, although a quick review of the requirements to get a successful campaign off the ground make it apparent that access to resources needs to present before the election, not just after.  Then we have the participants of conscience, people who get involved for the purpose of defending the Constitution and protecting our freedoms.  Not surprisingly, everyone claims to fit into the last category, especially during campaign season.

Until I embarked on a book tour to promote the publishing of my memoir, Mukhabarat, Baby!, I had no idea how angry people had become.  After two terms of Barack Obama, I wasn't necessarily thrilled with politics at the time, either, but folks were showing up to my speaking engagements prepared to ask very thoughtful and intelligent questions regarding the actions of both the Obama Administration and Congress.  Because I had experienced the frustration and anger of average Americans first-hand, I can't say I was surprised when an outsider, Donald Trump, won the presidency.  On the other side of the coin, an outsider also gave Hillary Clinton headaches.  In fact, many on the far-left still claim that if the Democratic establishment hadn't manipulated the rules here and there, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee.  From my optic, that's a bit of a stretch, given that Hillary did win a substantial majority of votes in the combined Democratic primaries, but one thing is for certain, just about everyone seems to be pissed off about something.  Although it was unexpected, I was ecstatic when Trump won the election.  I've never claimed to appreciate his elitist background, brusk manner and dismissive attitude, but I sure did embrace the Trump Agenda.  Border security, standing up to law-flaunting sanctuary cities, re-negotiating eight years of awful trade agreements, repealing Obamacare, and respect for our military, police officers and first responders- what a package!  I was ready to see President Trump Make America Great Again.  I was disabused of any notion I had that things would progress smoothly for the new administration almost as soon as Hillary called to concede.

We've got multiple investigations about alleged Trump collusion with Russian efforts to impact the 2016 election with absolutely no evidence, the Washington Post and NY Times publishing leaked, classified information on a daily basis, and a GOP-majority House and Senate that seem ready to impeach their own president, and the Trump Administration isn't even ten months old.  After completing my book tour, I continued to speak to various conservative groups regarding the history of espionage and what I considered abuses of the FISA law by the Obama Administration.  At every event, I was approached and asked to run for Congress.  Conservatives in Texas District 21 have been re-electing Republican Representative Lamar Smith for over thirty years, but I was sensing that patience was finally wearing thin.  Voters in District 21 voted overwhelmingly for the Trump Agenda, and it was obvious that Congress was very interested in making Trump's campaign promises a priority.  Where did Lamar Smith stand on the Trump Agenda?  No one seemed to have a clue, but it was clear that he wasn't looking for an opportunity to stand up for President Trump.  Representative Smith appears content to follow the lead of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and defer to politics as usual.  After discussing the issue with my family and close friends, and keeping in mind the desire for change that was so apparent to me during my speaking engagements throughout District 21, I decided to run against Lamar Smith in the Republican Primary in March 2018.

I am not a politician, and can safely say that I belong to that group of candidates that is running for the purpose of protecting our freedoms, defending the Constitution and the rule of law, and keeping the American people safe from government overreach, crime, and terrorism.  When I first decided to run, I was told that I would need to write myself a check for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or I had no chance of winning.  I did not write myself a check for thousands of dollars, although if it had been possible, I would have.  I retired with a full disability after having been poisoned while working for the CIA in 2001, and like many of you, I live on a fixed income.  Having me in Congress would be a return to Representative Democracy, as I'm not an attorney, nor am I a millionaire.  Everything I have done up to now, I 've done either by myself or with the help of a small group of supporters.  I've learned so much about the electoral process, and I'm convinced that the rules and regulations that exist are intended to discourage "average" Americans from participating in elections.  This reality wasn't a huge surprise, but I have to admit I was shocked when I discovered that Democrats are much more quick to get involved in the causes they feel are important, and much more willing to donate to candidates whom they support. 

In 2018, the Democratic Party will be running a number of Congressional candidates that don't resemble what we've recognized in the past as a typical Democrat.  The Democrats purposely searched for retired military and law enforcement to run in conservative districts, and nationally Democrats have been putting a great deal of money behind these candidates.  One of the announced Democrats running in Texas District 21 is a retired Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran and a Bronze Star recipient, and a graduate of West Point.  I thank him for his service and I appreciate his willingness to get involved in the process, but his politics are way to the left of the citizens of District 21.  I spent my time in warzones, including Iraq and Kosovo, and I've sacrificed for my nation.  I can think of nothing that I would appreciate more than debating this guy, as long as he promises to take of the ubiquitous UT baseball cap he seems to be always wearing.  But his candidacy is a good example of the problem pro-Trump candidates like myself are facing.  He's raised over three-hundred-thousand dollars, including quite a bit from out-of-state donors.  Democrats in California and DC really like this guy.

One advantage I have, which can't be bought, is that I represent the heart and soul of the Texas Hill Country.  I'm from here, and my connection to this community is a source of great personal pride.  District 21- Comal, Real, Bandera, Gillespie, Blanco, Kerr, Kendall Counties, with significant sections of Bexar, Hays and Travis Counties as well, is home to as diverse a group of Texans as you will find.  San Antonio and Austin are two of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation, but travel an hour west of Austin or an hour north of San Antonio, and you will find countless ranches and farms decorating our beautiful hills and river valleys.  Retired military families are a tremendously vibrant and important part of the district, as is Texas State University, one of the largest in the state.  The folks that live in District 21 are honest, hard-working, and generous; they don't have much time for foolishness, and they tend to see government nowadays as wasteful, intrusive and over-reaching, and I'm in complete agreement.  District 21 is one of the most consistently Republican districts in Texas, and if you're from here, you know why.  Families are the priority, and religion is the bedrock of this basically conservative community.  Be that as it may, people are very welcoming to new neighbors, and I've never seen one example of intolerance or racism.  Simply put, the voters of District 21 voted overwhelmingly for the pro-family, smaller government, support for rule-of-law agenda of Donald Trump.  I am much more reflective of this community than my opponents, and as a member of Congress, I will address their concerns and expectations.  Its not so much about us anymore, folks, its about the generations who follow.  Congress has been using their credit card for years, and its just about at its limit.  We must be accountable to our children and grandchildren, and leave them with real opportunities for success and the pursuit of safe, free and happy lives.  

    

Lets take the argument over Confederate Monuments to its logical conclusion, shall we?

Last week was not the first time I'd heard someone complain about Confederate War Monuments, but it had never really galvanized the left in this country until the disgusting violence that occurred last week in Charlottesville, Virginia.  I'm not really sure why, but some folks believe that the actions of a handful of absurd, lunatic racists, including one now charged with murder, is somehow connected to the existence of Confederate War Monuments that have been standing, many of them, for over a century.  All pretense aside, the truth is, the left has taken advantage of this tragedy to push the Confederate Monuments debate to the forefront simply to keep alive the flow of criticism directed at President Donald Trump.  Initially, President Trump was attacked in the press for not singling out "white supremacists" in his commentary condemning the violence.  Never known for letting an opportunity slip by, the left used this event to bring attention to the existence of numerous Confederate Civil War Monuments across the nation, but mostly in southern cities.  Anticipating that President Trump would not throw his southern supporters under the bus, the media's insertion of this topic into our cultural discourse was perfectly timed to keep the criticism of the President at a fever pitch.  Democratic leaders could not wait to express outrage at the continued existence of these statues and memorials, even though most, including House Minority Leader Nancy Polosi, have been working around Confederate Monuments for decades and only now are finding reason to complain.

Lets take this discussion in a logical direction, shall we? I'm willing to accept that many Americans are uncomfortable with Monuments to people who were slave owners and were fighting to uphold that inhuman practice.  But if we're going to get rid of monuments to men who supported slavery, lets at least be consistent.  Instead of singling out Civil War Generals Robert E. Lee and John Bell Hood, and statesmen like Confederate President Jefferson Davis, lets make a clean sweep of things and start at the beginning.  Lets go back to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of our nation.  We need to remove all statues and public acclaim for our most historic military hero and first president, George Washington; he was a slaveholder who made no effort to include abolition of slavery in the writing of the Constitution.  Neither did James Madison, James Monroe or John Adams.  Heck, Thomas Jefferson not only owned a plantation full of slaves, he kept a few females as concubines.  Has anyone thought about what we might call Washington State and Washington DC, now that we are abolishing all honorifics for persons who supported slavery?  Time to rename James Madison and George Mason Universities.  What will we do with our currency?  Shall we put Ronald Reagan on the dollar bill, and Bill Clinton on the nickle?  Who gets the honor of dynamiting half of Mt. Rushmore?

Better yet, lets include avowed segregationists on this list as well.  During the 1950's and 1960's, there were a number of high-profile politicians who put up one road block after another in an effort to block integration and the Civil Rights Act.  What about William Fulbright, famous for the Fulbright Scholarship?  President Bill Clinton dedicated a statue to his mentor Senator Fulbright, in a ceremony at the University of Arkansas in 2002.  Fulbright was a dyed-in-the-wool southern segregationist; do you homework so we can add him to the list, which will be a mile-long by the time we're finished.  I'm guessing somewhere along the way, someone from the left is going to suggest that we only focus on Civil War racists.  I'm okay with that, as long as you explain it to me and the American people.  Why is a slaveholder in 1861 more evil than one in the late 1700's?

At the end of the day, this is all about politics, which is disgusting, because I believe that many Americans truly are hurt by the idea of monuments to slave holders, and I sincerely respect their emotions on this issue.  But history is history, and we can't erase the past arbitrarily.  The Nazis were good at picking and choosing what parts of German history to trash and what events to embrace.  But don't hold your breath on this one.  As soon as the public gets a bit tired of this headline, the press will have another Trump-related scandal for us to digest.  These distractions have one true goal- the destruction of the Trump agenda.  Democrats are petrified not of Trump, but of the agenda on which he campaigned.  They realize that tighter border security and immigration reform will make our nation safer, that re-negotiated Trade Agreements will boast our exports, and that a stronger military will make us the most respected nation in the world, as opposed to Obama's effort to make us the most popular.  More jobs and less obsession with the fringes of our society is Making America Great Again.  Why is the Trump agenda so dangerous to Democrats?  Because after its implemented, and the economy takes off and real jobs return, we may not see another Democrat in the White House for some time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.    

Reuters releases a story on the recently-announced Special Prosecutor which clearly demonstrates how close they are to becoming a second-rate distributor of left-wing talking-points.

Link: Reuters has access to people who know "how the White House thinks".

 For decades, conservatives and Republicans have groaned about a perceived liberal bias in the news.  Poll after poll confirms that the great majority of journalists support the Democratic Party, and to be fair, most members of the media have never denied this reality.  During the 1980s and 1990s, those of us on the right had to put up with the media's almost ferocious defense of Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but the public at large seemed to understand the media's inclination to sympathize with liberals.  Some people unforgivably associate conservatism with fascism, and I've noticed many left-wing thinkers like to promote the idea that Democrats are the defenders of free-speech.  In truth, the actions of numerous groups who have been supported by the Democrats in the past, which include forcibly preventing guest speakers from delivering their addresses, call into question the left's true intentions regarding the First Amendment.  Not surprisingly, the media has been all-but silent on the repeated instances of conservatives being denied the right to speak, which falls in line with the less-than-fair way President Trump has been treated by the press.  Since his arrival in Washington DC, the media has attacked President Trump on a daily fashion, and from many different directions.

Taking a chance on public burnout, CNN, MSNBC, and the three traditional news stooges, ABC, CBS, and NBC, take turns printing front-page stories that detail a White House in absolute chaos.  Every third or fourth story, though, reminds the public of Trump's plan to outlaw Muslim immigrants in perpetuity, and to hide the "fact" that he and his staff colluded with Russian espionage to unfairly steal the presidential election from the oh-so deserving Hillary Clinton.  Actually, the media can take full credit for turning a non-story with absolutely no evidence, into an investigation with a Special Prosecutor, which will cost the U.S. taxpayer untold millions of dollars.  The Justice Department has a legal threshold that they are obliged to meet before enacting the Special Prosecutor option; that threshold certainly includes the existence of evidence.  Once this investigation is complete and the Trump Administration is vindicated, we all know that the media will bring up sources who claim that the Trump Justice Department "fixed" the outcome.  Regardless, I want to know which media billionaire big-shot is going to pick up the tab for the cost of an investigation that should never have been initiated.

The fact that the mainstream media is aggressively pursuing an agenda to discredit the Trump Administration is no longer "news", so to speak, to conservative listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.  That being said, the Reuters story that I've linked at the top of the page leaves me both angry and a bit perplexed.  I realize that there are folks on both the right and left who are going to believe the worst of the other side, regardless of the truth, as this is the nature of politics in today's day and age.  The problem of leaks emanating from the White House has become a full-blown crisis, and President Trump needs to appoint someone (Vice President Pence would be a great choice from my perspective, if not, I'm happy to do the job myself) who will focus exclusively, every day, on finding, firing or reassigning persons suspected of leaking.  Heck, why not just can everyone who has "Obama" written on their resume?  Also, keep Jared Kushner and Ivanka as far away from Operation Plug the Leak as possible.  There is no question that life-long Democrat Kushner elbowed his way into getting a few like-minded friends hired, and they may not actually be part of the problem, but I would look at those people very closely regardless.

Reuters claims to not only have sources in the White House who can report on conversations and events, they also claim to have sources who are familiar with how the White House thinks (see link, first paragraph, last sentence).  Are they referring to the White House as a living, breathing creature, or just certain people inside?  How long has Reuter's sources been able to tap into the thoughts of people in the White House?  Shouldn't this be an issue for the Secret Service and the FBI?  In a very bizarre way, things are beginning to make sense.  Since the Associated Press, the United Press International, Reuters, the Washington Post and the NY Times all have multiple sources in the White House, maybe we are dealing with only a handful of leakers, all with the ability to know what Trump and his closest advisers are thinking.  During my years with the CIA, I was not aware that this type of "information collection" was legitimate, but I can't account for what is now acceptable after two terms of Obama.

My tongue-in-cheek comments about Reuters is meant to shed light on the media and their self-authorized efforts to steal information from the Trump White House that is meant to be classified.  Shouldn't the President of the United States be afforded the opportunity to converse with his staff in private?  Why is the media allowed to repeat White House conversations involving the President of the United States?  Since the beginning of this embarrassment, we have assumed that these sources exist, and what they are reporting is accurate.  Since the media has no obligation and certainly no intention of disclosing their sources, how can we be sure that the details being printed in the Post and NY Times isn't all bullshit?  Is it beyond the pale to consider that the media might INVENT something?  Actually, history is replete with journalists doing just such a thing, as both the NY Times and the Post are aware.  In today's over-the-top, angry-left political environment, I have absolutely no reason not to approach everything I hear that has been published by Reuters, the Post or the NY Times, with great cynicism.  I voted for Donald Trump, as did enough Americans to put him in the White House.  He deserves just as much respect from the media in his first term as the Community Organizer got from me in 2008.  

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.

SHUT HER DOWN.

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


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

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

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

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

    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.