Media wastes little time in going to battle for Hillary Clinton.

Recently a Democrat friend complained about the media focusing on Hillary Clinton's email server mess.  Not surprisingly, when I asked him to produce negative reporting regarding Hillary, he was only able to offer reporting from Fox News.  It seems that Democrats have come to the conclusion that Fox News is the only source that matters.  As a point of curiosity more than anything else, I still visit CNN and occasionally ABC, CBS, and NBC.  I rarely hear any mention of Hillary's email server on any news station other than Fox News.  During the GOP and Democratic primary season, for the most part the media focused on congratulating the Democrats for the Bernie Sanders phenomenom, and trashing Ted Cruz.  I was a bit surprised that the media stayed away from Trump during the primaries and debates, until I realized the intention.  I kept waiting for CNN and NBC to dig into the Trump University scandal and various other stories.  I should have been patient.  The media had every intention of dumping all the scandals, bankruptcies and dirty laundry on the Trump campaign, but not until Trump had comfortably won the Republican nomination.  Is it any surprise that since Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, it has been one negative story after another on Trump?  In fact, I don't think an hour goes by without one of the major media outlets reminding Americans that Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a crook.

The real irony is that In his personal life, Trump doesn't appear to be any of these three negative characterizations.  Trump has been an outspoken supporter of Visa worker programs that target specifically skilled individuals, and he has actually called for an increase in legal immigration.  Regarding the accusation of bigotry (or misogyny, which is the term I previously used to describe Trump), a review of Trump's hiring history over the years indicates that he aggressively recruits and hires qualified women at a rate greater than the US government.  As for my earlier issues with Donald Trump, I was really focused on his comments regarding Carly Fiorina and Fox News presenter Megan Kelly.  In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Trump opined that Fiorina was too ugly to be president.  He also inferred that Megan Kelly targeted him unfairly because she was dealing with her "monthly female issue" (my quotes).  Trump claims that the Fiorina comment was in jest, but he has yet to adequately account for his hypothesis rebarding Kelly.  The truth is, Trump is an uncouth man.  He lives in a world of very aggressive business practices, and he has yet to learn the importance of discretion and respect for one's political opponents.  I think it is reasonable to assume that he is trying to adjust to a learning curve, given that he has apologized and made peace with both Fiorina and Kelly.  Don't think for one second, though, that you've heard the last of these two scandals.  The media is determined to follow a daily template to make Trump look like a bigot and a racist.  The media originally avoided dumping on Trump in the primaries because they had determined that he was the Republican which would cause Hillary Clinton the least amount of difficulty in a national election.  So the media focused on stories abiut Trump"s primary opponents.  Now that the media has succeeded in picking the Republican candidate (for the third
consecutive cycle), the time has come to go after Trump with guns blazing.  Be prepared, Trump suppprters; some of the garbage that will be disseminated by the likes of MSNBC and ABC will be hard.to ignore.

Fortunately, the Democratic establishment did Trump suppprters a favor by smoothing the way for Hillary to get the Dem nomination.  Unlike most politically active people in DC, Trump has no fear of the Clinton machine, and certainly no respect for Hillary.  Buckle up, folks- this election is going to get nasty.

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

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

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

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

The media is driving this election season right off a cliff.

The media in the United States has found it difficult to cultivate a reputation of non-bias. The political right accuses the media of actively promoting liberal candidates and causes, and the left either points out the conservative sympathies of the dominant Fox News Network, or scoffs at hearing the same complaint once again.  I was raised in Europe in a multi-cultural household (meaning French-American), and my brother and sister and I developed an international perspective to life at an early age.  I have always attempted to stay abreast of political developments in far-off places, and chose an occupation that would ensure a healthy dose of unique environments to live in and absorb.  In particular, I have enjoyed international politics.  That being said, I rarely commented about politics in other countries unless I had accrued some living time in said location.  I may devour the statistical results of Burkina Faso's last Congressional election, but I will keep my comments to myself.  Why?  Because the political events in most foreign countries do not directly impact me (I said most, not all), and frankly put, it's none of my business.  I have spend two decades of my life battling against the specter of "The Ugly Anerican", who continues to expect everyone in Paris to speak English and to have a McDonald's on every street corner of Tbilisi.  I refuse to add to the problem by telling people how they should run their own country.  In fact, except for providing basic information, I rarely notice U.S. media editorializing about foreign elections (the unavoidable exception being any French election which includes Marine Le Pen and the National Front political party).

That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy.  Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene.  The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew.  The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date.  On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say".  The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics.  I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased.  The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted".  I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever.  The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".

I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator".  Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars.  If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share.  Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed.  Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016.  The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally.  The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans.  The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire.  The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits.  President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues.  As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008.  Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq.  Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.


These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE).  The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt.  Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change.  The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary.  Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.

I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note.  We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless.  They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses.  What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop.  Who decided that we needed editorials anyways?  When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us.  In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well.  Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job.  So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots.  Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.

PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)

You don't have to look for ISIS to find a war against Christian

Its not necessary to search for ISIS, Boko Haram, atheist North Korea or Al Qaida to find a war against Christianity.  Just turn on your television, open your local newspaper, or spend a couple days sitting through public school classes with your kids.  Disparaging, belittling and insulting Christianity and Christians has become not only acceptable in the United States, it is now considered an admirable  course of action.  What makes this development all the more pathetic is that the citizens of the United States continue to be Christian by a substantial majority.  According to a July 2015 ABC News poll, 83 percent of Americans identify as Christian.  I chose the ABC poll result, but other polls available in the media offer similar results.  Why does a nation of Christians basically sit back and watch as the younger generations show no understanding of life and teachings of Jesus Christ, except as something to mock and disrespect?  I realize that there exist many exceptions to this trend.  Many Christian Churches continue to offer young adherents the opportunity to proselytize both within the United States and overseas.  But more and more we read stories of these young people being refused entry into business estsblishments and secondsry school grounds.  The targeting of Mormons, who we all recognize as they politely make their way in ties and on bicycles, has caused the Church to reconsider its intended destinations for outreach.  Its not difficult finding episodes of Christians being descriminated against and Christianity being insulted, but is it really all that bad?

I started noticing the trend a few tears ago.  The ACLU had succeeded in forcing another municipality in some midwestern state, to remove a nativity scene from its holiday display.  Christmas was a surprisngly easy target, as Christmas trees became Holiday trees and Christmas break at school became Winter break.  When approached, the municipal leaders all repeated the same comment: because of the separation of Church and State, it is uncomstitutional to mention anything religious on government property.   And for those who didn't abide by this perspective, the ACLU was ready with deep pockets to take things to court.  Frankly, most folks just didn't want to fuss with it; we'd dealt with these latter-day hippie types before, and they usually end up just going away.

That has not been the case.  The political left in the United States, with the complicit support of the Democratic Party, have turned this issue into one which they claim has caused untold damage to religious minorities and must be addressed immediately.  Not surprisingly, no one was required to back up this argument with proof.  That is the current state of affairs in our great nation these days: those on the left no longer have the obligation to support their argument with anything other than accusations of bigotry and racism.  For those who are interested, the numbers of immigrant applications to the United States who claim to be in search of religious freedom are not declining.  People want to emigrate to the United States because we protect a person's right to practise the religion of their choice.  Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists are not injured by a community expression of the majority's traditional celebration of the birth of our savior.  When I have been in traditionally Islamic or Hindu nations, I was not offended or injured in any way by public displays of religious expression.  Most people in the United States agree with my point of view; so why does the situation seem to become more absurd every day?

This last Monday, on everyone's fsvorite daytime show, "The View", panelist Michelle Collins (who?), when discussing the recent National Enquirer claim that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz had cheated on his wife at least five times, described Cruz as living by a "crazy moral code".  It was obvious that Collins was referring to Cruz being a Christian.  Collins was relishing the idea that another "Christian hypocrite" (my quotations) had been caught cheating, even though Collins herself considers the Christian code of morality to be "crazy", regardless.  Normally, televised daytime talk-shows wouldn't touch the Enquirer with a ten-foot pole.  But the media, which has gladly become the sword of this anti-Christian effort, loves any message that claims to show evidence of prominent Christians being hypocritical.  The problem is, even the National Enquirer realizes their story is false, which they are quick to declare at the beginning of the piece.  They are smart enough to play the game and not have to face a lawsuit.  The Enquirer announced the accustations on page one, as if the case was aleeady closed, then reiterated that the story was simply something provided to the Enquirer by a Trump supporter.  The glee with which this Collins person commented on the accusations of infidelity by Cruz, is something we see all the time in our press and media.  Non-Christians who behave immorally are given a pass, because, of course, they don't pretend to be ethical.  Its the hypocritical Christians that must be outed!

Forgive me for getting in the weeds just a bit, but it can be occasionally necessary.  Its past time that the Christian community in this great nation stop applogizing for itself.  The pioneers who suffered untold hardships building this country, many times were obliged to survive rough times on Faith alone.  During the dark years of slavery, many suffering Americans relied on Faith in Jesus and His love, to make it from one day to the next.  The people who built this country did not shy away from their Christian Faith, as is evidenced by its inclusion in our National Anthem, our Constitution, our songs, school books  and our literature.  It is only in the last half-century that Academia in the United States has allowed itself to become the lightening rod for the anti-Christian movement.  Do not misunderstand; a healthy application of the principle of "separation of church and state" is essential in our Republic.  But we have allowed this battle-cry to move us away from the truths by which we arrived at this particular place in time.  I am a Christian, and I am a better man for it.  I make no apologies for my Faith, and I will speak up when I see history being rewritten and the will of the majority of this country ignored.  I can only hope that I'm not alone in my sentiments.

So many Republican candidates, so little time........

Links: A. Jeb Bush running for President.
           B. Donald Trump running for President.

Recently a well-publicized political cartoon highlighted a clown car, with one Republican presidential candidate after another stepping out of the car door.  I thought it was a clever cartoon, and I had no problem understanding the intended point: that the field of candidates on the GOP side has become so large, that its beginning to resemble a circus.  And who am I too argue?  Just a quick review of some of the occupants of the clown car explains why the media has no intention of taking the Republican Primary Election seriously, at this not until convention-time.  The first funny-face we recognize in the back seat is businessman and entrepreneur Donald Trump.  I have no idea why Trump us running for president.  He must realize that even if he were to somehow win the GOP nomination, he would never win a national contest.  So what is Trump's game?  Is it all about publicity, and hawking some new casino or television program? Obviously publicity is part and parcel of Trump's campaign; the guy can't have a bowel movement without a camera running in the bathroom.  Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but I have listened the few times that I've heard Trump actually discuss policy.  He comes across as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.  I see nothing new here, and certainly nothing very deep.  He claims to be worth nine billion dollars.  I assume, when you have that much money, that you don't need to fund raise, right?  If Trump announces that he will use only his own personal funds to run his campaign, then he just might win me over.  He is a very hard-working man, who doesn't like to fail.  I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments as a man and a businessman.  But I want Trump to pay for his own election, and I'm not holding my breath.

And in this corner of the crazy clown car we have a member of America's most esteemed conservative (?) political family, former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush.  Jeb Bush is a nice man.  I've never met anyone who would say otherwise.  He is considerate, polite and generous.  I'm sure he was raised well.  He was a fine Governor of Florida, and at the right time, would probably make a decent president.  I hate to join the chorus, Jeb, but I'm just not ready for another Bush (or Clinton, for that matter). I have to believe that our nation is deeper than that.  When I look at the line-up standing outside of the clown-car, I am astonished by some of the familiar faces that I see.  And Jeb Bush is the most recognizable.  For me personally, I am a bit insulted that certain politicians keep coming around for another shot.  Do they really believe that the United States can't survive without them?  Are they so important, that we can't find someone with less baggage and a newer perspective to be our nominee?  I won't vote for Jeb Bush unless he is the nominee.  Same rule applies for Mike Huckabee. I want new ideas, new visions and fewer reminders about the past.  I remember it well enough on my own, thank you.  For the same reasons, if I were a Democrat I wouldn't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Another look into the clown car takes us to Rick Santorum, whose been sitting on the jump seat.  Just like Jeb and Mike Huckabee, I really like Rick Santorum.  Of the three, he is the one most likely to get my attention.  I supported Rick in vain during the last few primaries in 2012, but if I'm not mistaken, Santorum was around in 2008 as well.  And this following an unsuccessful effort to hold on to his Senate seat in Pennsylvania.  This is a perfect example of the issue that I find so frustrating.  Rick, I know you love public service and you feel strongly about your ideas for our country, but it would do you well to find something else to do for a while.  I am not alone when I say I'm not looking for anymore politicians-for-life, regardless of their honesty, integrity and generosity, all of which Rick Santorum has in abundance.  If Santorum had taken a break in 2012, and spent a few years driving his own car, writing his own checks, and living the life of a middle class American, I would be much more predisposed to his candidacy.  But Santorum has basically been running for the GOP nomination since 2012, even though he hasn't had a whole lot of resources.  I have tremendous admiration for Santorum; I would have appreciated a Catholic nominee, and I agree with Rick on every issue.  But I made up my mind that in 2016, I would vote for the candidate that I believe our founding fathers would have supported.

Although I would be very comfortable with a Rand Paul nomination, or Ted Cruz, I am sticking with my original choice and voting for Dr. Ben Carson.  I am determined to support a non-politician, regardless of the comments I hear on Fox and CNN that Dr. Carson does not debate well or speak smoothly enough to win the presidency.  Bullshit.  I am really excited about the opportunity to vote for someone who has spent their life saving lives and bringing new life into this world.  I understand his ideas regarding the economy and our tax code because he takes a simple approach and like most Americans, I'm a simple man.  Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not the only other candidates that I respect; under different circumstances I would vote for Rick Perry and Marco Rubio (a few more years, Marco).  And Carly Fiorino would make a tremendous Vice Presidential nominee; I would love to see her in a debate!  I'm leaving off a few of the other announced candidates.  I really don't know what to make of Lindsay Graham.  Half the time I love him and half the time I'm convinced he's a closet Democrat.  Scott Walker is a solid Republican who has stood up to the best that the Unions and the left have to offer.  My issue with Walker has nothing to do with him, per se.  I can't support someone as the Republican nominee for president, who is the governor of a state that will never vote Republican.  It an important factor.  Carson will finally help the GOP make inroads into the African American electorate; Rand Paul is strong in Ohio and Rubio and Bush can deliver Florida.  From the perspective of the electoral map, what does Walker deliver?  Not even his own state of Wisconsin.  It unfortunate, but true.

So we've had our peak into the clown car, and the circus is getting ready to start.  The media is having a field day with the number and variety of GOP candidates, and I'm all for letting them have their fun.  When the Republican convention rolls around, the party will be united and our one candidate will be battle-tested and sharp.  I'm optimistic that those of us hoping for a more conservative administration in 2016 will see a GOP making fewer mistakes this time around.

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

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

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

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

Please Excuse The Tinest Bit Of Politics

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


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

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

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

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