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

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

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

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

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

Why I can't support Hillary Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do our most important elections always turn out so nasty?

Not surprisingly, this year's presidential election between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump has had its share of personal attacks and name-calling.  I knew it would happen, and so did you.  In fact, I can't remember the last major election in our country this didn't eventually end up in the gutter, and my memory of political involvement at one level or another stretches bsck to 1984 and President Ronald Reagan up against Democratic challenger, former Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota.  Why deos this happen?  Every election, both candidates begin their campaigns by publicly pledging to focus on the issues, and to run a clean, respectful and positive race.  Sometimes certain candidates are able to keep their pledge, as lomg as there is a Political Action Committee (PAC) on their side to sling the mud instead.  In fact, politicans are using PACS more and more to trash their opppnents, so they can have what is called, "plausible deniability".  Regardless, at the end of the day we seem cursed to suffer through hateful, cruel, invasive personal attacks as part of every important election.  If the citizens, the press, and the candidates all disavow this type of campaigning, then why deos it just seem to get worse all the time?

It doesn't take a microscope to uncover certain incriminating facts regarding this year's Presidential election.  Roughly three weeks ago, befroe the first Presidential Debate, polls showed Trump ahead in the battleground states of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.  National polls showed the race a statistical tie, with the trend moving in Trump's favor.  Then we had our first debate.  Trimp began by focusing on job creation and the need to renegotiate certain trade agreements.  Sometime during the debate the moderator (not Hillary Clinton) introduced the issue of Trump's taxes.  Trump explained, as he has repeatedly to the same journalists, that he is in the middle of being audited, therefore he can't reelase his income taxes until the process is complete.  Trump's response probably made no difference.  The moderator had successfully imjected an issue in the debate which had nothing to do with jobs, the economy, terrorism, the Supreme Court, or the National Debt.  Later on, Trump was asked about comments he made twenty years prior regarding a contestant in one of his Miss Universe Pageants.  Since a video clip appeared to show Mr. Trump referring to this particular contestant and her weight,  the inferrence that Trump is a Bigot was introduced into the debate.  Again, nothing to do with foreign affairs, ISIS, or the minimum wage, put the perfect set-up for new personal attacks on Trump.

For at least a week, the media feasted on the story of Trump and the overweight Beauty Pageant contestant.  Once the second debate rolled around, another video clip starring Donald Trump somehow ended up on the desk of the Washington Post (actually, the tape was provided to the Post by NBC).  In this video clip, Trump and TV host Billy Bush can be heard having a conversation about women that was lewd and vulgar.  Neither men knew that they were being filmed/recorded at the time, so this video is a huge invasion of privacy, but who cares, right?  Trump quickly apologized, and tried to explain his language as an unfortunate and regrettable example of "locker room talk".  Of course, moderator Anderson Cooper had to bring it up in the second debate, and again, the controversy had nothing to do with those issues that the media identifed as being important to the electorate.  The media continues to push the narrative that the candidates want to avoid the important issues and would just as soon engage in personal attacks on each other. The reality is, the media is driving this bus, folks, and no one else is allowed behind the wheel.

Every expose or new controversy, whether it be an interview with one of the women who has accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety, or some absurd story claiming that Donald Trump never pays income tax, has been released and promoted by the media.  If the media wants to keep the candidates focused on the issues, then they should refuse to accept advertising money for political ads that don't focus on the issues.  They should only broadcast debates and policy speeches that exclusively focus on jobs, terrorism, education, and the twenty trillion dollar debt.  Its just another example of the hypocrisy from the entity that jnfluences our electoral process in a very disturbing way.  On more than one occasion, Donald Trump has been criticized for spending time defending himself from a personal accusation.  The press publicly scold Trump for not addressing the issues that "the American people care about".  So the media releases the personal attack, advertises related follow-up stories, disseminates the story on every news source, and then slams the candidate for not sticking to the issues!

I know, its emough to bring on a nasty headache.  But we must be aware of all the equities involved in our political process.  The media will always differ to a sexy, colorful, or embarrassing personal story about public figures, as opposed to some segment about foreign trade or the price of tea in China.  They are convinced that the American public would prefer to hear about both candidate's dirty laundry, even if we are in the midst of a Presidential election.  The press is basically omnipotent in our society, because the oversight for the media is the media.  Folks have been wasting their breath for years, screaming about the obvious leftist bias in the American media (how about those even-handed questions from the debate moderators), and the problem just seems to get worse.  People talk about getting religion out of schools and out of government; how about getting activist journalists and editors out of the media?  Journalists in 2016 are comvinced that they are the only ones smart enought to make important decisions, thats why editotials and political endorsements have become such an important part of today's fading print media.

Advice to the media/press: just report the details, and trust the American people to have the common sense, intelligence, and consideration to figure things out on their own.  We don't care who the editorial staff of the Houston Chronicle supports for President in 2016.  As for the debates, why not have an equal number of representatives from both parties agree on the questions the day of the debate.  I'm not alone when I say that I feel as if my party's nominee for the past two elections has been selected by the opposing team.  

Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court....

Links: A. U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage.
           B. U.S. Supreme Court rescues Obamacare.


What a week to be a Conservative in the United States of America.  The Supreme Court of the land, in back-to-back decisions this past week, obliterated the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee how rights are protected in our Republic.  The first decision (6-3 in favor), which upheld each individual state's obligation to utilize and fund Obamacare, totally ignored the right of each state to govern its own commerce, a right which has been delegated to the states since the birth of our nation.  The second decision, which at 5-4 was much closer, was even more perplexing.  We live in the end of times for our own American Empire; I believe most people are coming to grips with that reality.  We are collecting debt at such a rate that within the next decade or so, our ability to borrow on the international markets will be decimated.  Ninety percent of this debt has been accrued during the last six years (and cannot been blamed on the military buildup and subsequent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan).  Simply put, the debt that is strangling the life out of our children and grandchildren's future, is because our of government's unwillingness to address and reign in entitlement spending.  That includes the need for Social Security reform; a new, simpler tax code would be welcome as well, but all we get from this administration is lip service.  Our media and politicians spent the week lecturing use about the issue of gay marriage.  Why does ten percent (at most) of the population get to monopolize the attention of our nation in this manner?  We have become the Republic that is truly led by the minorities.  If I hear another sob story about a transgender person I'm likely to lose my mind.  What did all of these trans genders do a century ago, or two centuries ago?  Would General George S. Patton have been able to tell the Nazis, "hold off on your Bastogne Offensive; I'm having my wiener removed in the morning."  And the pioneer family trying to homestead in Kansas in the 1870's, could the wife have woken up one morning and declared, "Cecil, I'm really a man.  I'm leaving you and the six children to go live my true identity."  Be that as it may, it has become the latest bizarre subject that the media and reality television are trying to force down our throats.  Personally, I want all of these people to find happiness.  Their body is theirs to do with as they please.  Messing with the institution act of Marriage, though, impacts American couples back to 1776.

My mother and father were married in 1962.  They entered into a union which had particular boundaries and guidelines.  It excluded NO ONE.  Every American had the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, as long as consanguinity wasn't an issue.  When people argue that this is an issue of inequality, it makes no sense.  In fact, they want to CHANGE something that has existed in its present form for centuries.  At least be honest about the effort!  But its the truth of the matter that really burns my ass.  Same-sex couples can enter into civil partnerships that give them the same rights as married folks, including those reasonable and sensitive rights relating to medical issues and inheritance.  But no, they want to force everyone to recognize them as being in the same type of relationship as the millions and millions of Americans who have been married up to this point.  Its about FORCING people to accept something.  This week's Supreme Court ruling is supposed to protect individual churches from the obligation of marrying same sex couples if it is against the teachings of that particular faith.  So explain this to me: if a baker in Colorado doesn't want to make a wedding cake for two lesbians because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, how is that different from the exclusion given the churches?  It doesn't.  That's the intention.  It gives these groups another battle to fight, and I can guarantee you its coming.  This won't end until every American has been forced to sign a letter of declaration that gay people are wonderful and that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle.  I for one believe that (most) gay people are wonderful, and I don't have a problem with their lifestyle.  But I do have a problem with being forced to accept something that is against the teachings of my faith.  What is it with the gay community anyway?  If you want to be accepted as part of our culture and community, why not GIVE BACK for a change instead of always demanding things? 

For those of us who call ourselves Conservatives, the funeral bells are tolling.  And its our fault.  We had a chance once, with the advent of the Tea Party movement.  But we allowed the leftist media to create a false image of Tea Party members as Jim Crow Racists and Bigots.  I have been to countless Tea Party meetings and I have yet to meet "a racist".  What have I seen?  A group of mostly older, middle-income folks who are worried about the economy and what will happen when they retire.  I have NEVER heard a discussion about race or sexuality.  But accordingly to the media (and even Howard Stern, who usually makes up his own mind but who has never taken the time to actually research the movement himself), the Tea Party is one step to the right of the Nazi Party.  The next time you hear a lefty besmirching the Tea Party, ask them which Tea Party meeting they attended, and when?  I guarantee you they will have never even met a Tea Party member.  Again, we have lost the agenda and the bully pulpit.  It is the left who are demonizing the issues and leaving people to consider their "guilt".  And for whom?  Where is their sacrifice?  Sure they had a struggle, and just like all of us at one time or another in our lives, were treated like shit.  It happens.  But no one owes you anything.  If you want to be part of the country and our history/traditions/culture, JOIN us, don't try and change things.  Here is an important question:  Has anyone seen even one study done on the marriage statistics of nations that have legalized same-sex marriage?  Try Canada for example...want to guess the rise in the number of divorces?  Or Holland?  Or maybe the argument is, since straight people have already started divorcing at a fifty percent clip, why not just put a nail in that coffin?

Obama and the radical left continue to set the Agenda and run this country like a dictatorship.  He has executive action and the Supreme Court, what else does he need to finish putting the last few holes in the hull of the U.S.S. Liberty?  Again, our fault.  I knew that electing Obama guaranteed that the Supreme Court would become rife with leftist activists, and what do you know?  He has the court he wants, and we have the court we deserve.  Just because we sent a message in the last election and chased just about every Democrat up for re-election from office obviously MEANS NOTHING.  I have yet to see anything from this Congress except whispers about getting a Republican in the White House in 2016.

By the way, did you see the White House bathed in the lights of the Rainbow Flag?  Those of you who oppose gay marriage, did you feel as if this government represented YOU at that moment?  There are more German-Americans in this country than gay Americans....will the White House change the color to Black, Red and Yellow during German National Day?  What about Mexican Americans?  I can only assume that there are more Mexican Americans in the United States that gay Americans....when will the Green, White and Red of Mexico light up the Oval Office?  Just curious.  Time for me to get off of my pedestal; my sister and I are headed to the City Hall to get a marriage license.  Why not?  How exactly are they going to refuse us, in this "anything goes" society?