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.  

    

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.  

Without the media, the Democratic Party might just cease to exist.

Donald Trump has been in office less than two months, and efforts to impede his Administration show no signs of abating.  Late in the 2016 presidential campaign, the press asked candidate Trump if he would be willing to accept a Hillary Clinton victory.  Its becoming more and more apparent every day that the press should have been addressing the question to candidate Clinton and lame duck President Barack Obama, because the left is determined to impede all Trump efforts to establish a working government.  Aside from the anticipated nasty, rude, and politically motivated questions asked of Trump appointees, Congressional Democrats have besmirched the reputations of former friends and colleagues.  Since it became obvious that Donald Trump would win a substantial electoral victory, the left has resorted to one road block after another.  In the beginning, these efforts were little more than sideshows, as recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania actually added to the Trump victory.  While Elizabeth Warren and her flock of progressive activists were getting plenty of media exposure, the Democratic establishment, no doubt to include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, circled the wagons and crafted a strategy to at least cripple the new administration.  This plan includes making use of every political opportunity to stall and embarrass President Trump, and also relies heavily on the military arm of the Democratic Party, the media.

Last week, President Trump made the mistake of sending out an angry message on his Twitter account.  Trump has seriously difficulty refraining of shooting out Tweets when he seems to be the most frustrated, and I'm not the only American who wishes he would hang up his Twitter account for good.  The message to which I refer openly accused former President Obama of wiretapping Trump's office in Trump Tower last year during the 2016 presidential campaign.  When I read the Tweet, I immediately understood that Trump was referring to the Obama Justice Department as being responsible for the alleged wiretap, but the media as literally as possible, and CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times published the story as a direct accusation from President Trump to President Obama.  We will eventually discover that indeed there was a wiretap in Trump's office, and I'm guessing it will be connected to a Justice Department FISA approval signed by a Judge, and justified by concerns of Russian interference in the campaign.  I think we will also discover that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was also the target of a FISA wiretap, hence the leaked information that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador when he was still serving as a U.S. Senator.  Regardless of the investigations and the leaks, not one shred of evidence has been discovered that points to the Trump Campaign's involvement or knowledge of Russian efforts to impact the campaign.  What the media should be most concerned with are the never ending leaks coming out of this new Administration, all of which are obviously intended to damage President Trump.  Before all is said and done, someone is going to ask, "where is the evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by the Trump Campaign as it relates to Russia?"  The media and the Democrats can't produce the evidence so they focus on Trump's unfortunate Tweet(s).  Again, when will the Feds start focusing on the countless illegal leaks that are coming out of both the Administration and the Justice Department?

For eight years, Conservatives such as yours truly, followed established protocol for the political opposition.  I didn't hesitate to express my disagreement with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty, President Obama's precipitous removal of the U.S. military from Iraq in 2010, Obamacare, the appointment of unqualified political activists to the Supreme Court, Federal involvement in the Gay Marriage issue, the Treaty with Iran and subsequent, sneaky one-hundred forty million dollar payoff, and many other actions taken by the Obama Administration.  I wrote blog posts and spoke publicly when the opportunity presented itself, and in 2012, I volunteered on behalf of the Romney campaign.  I did not assault Pinata-effigies of President Obama, nor I did not refer to him as a Nazi or any other derogatory name (does Socialist count?).  Were we idiots for not protesting in the streets and breaking windows?  I hope not.  What I do know is that we played by the rules, waiting patiently until 2016 and the opportunity to put the nation on a different course.  We won the 2016, and had every right to anticipate the opportunity to see our ideas and our leaders put into action.  But somewhere in DC, in mid-November and December 2016, the Democrats were putting together a plan to disrupt the will of the American people by making it impossible for Donald Trump to govern.

The issue of Russian interference in the 2016 elect has been carried from one goal-line to the next by an aggressively partisan media, which provides us with a perfect example of what the Democrats intend to do.  During Congressional Confirmation Hearings, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked by Minnesota Senator Al Franken (a guaranteed embarrassment for Minnesota year after year) if Sessions had any knowledge regarding Trump officials and contact with the Russian government.  Sessions replied that he did not.  Since that time, it has been determined that Sessions met the Russian Ambassador with a group of other dignitaries at the GOP Convention, and had a one-time personal meeting with the Ambassador at his offices in DC.  Sessions claims that the meeting in DC was in the context of his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator, and not as someone affiliated with the Trump campaign.  Two other U.S. military officers were present at the meeting, during which, according to Sessions, nothing remotely related to the election was discussed.  Thanks to the media, the issue is no longer about Russia trying to impact our election, but about a Trump appointee "committing perjury" (my quotation marks).  More than a handful of Democrats have publicly called for Sessions to resign, and even more are requesting an Independent Counsel!  How easy it is for these career politicians to waste taxpayer money.  The hypocrisy is reaching levels never before seen.  Do you remember when Bill Clinton and Attorney General met on the Tarmac at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, when, coincidentally, the Justice Department was knee-deep into Hillary Clinton's server investigation?  The Independent Counsel Act was written for just such a circumstance.  To the person, the Democrats opposed an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and today, to the person, they are calling for an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The daily barrage of leftist propaganda has found a permanent home on the front pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and just about every other newspaper that represents a major metropolitan area, not to mention the countless blogs and internet sites.  When I was younger, I realized that the press tended to side with liberal causes, but over the past decade, the issue has lost all sense of perspective.  The last non-aligned study that I reviewed listed the bias at something near 88% pro-Democrat; and the press wonders why they are no longer trusted.  There was a time when unabashed bias would put a newspaper out of business.  People can discern when someone is trying to sell them a load of horse crap, and what do you know, subscriptions would crash.  Things have changed, folks.  Today, newspapers are rarely exclusively dependent upon their own sales to survive.  Companies like the Hearst Corporation own a number of papers, and success in one location can offset failure in another.  Also, big money has become more involved with the media.  To put it bluntly, newspapers are no longer dependent upon the bottom line.  The NY Times has been in a downward spiral for years, and the Washington Post isn't breaking subscription records either.  The owners of some of the nation's biggest newspapers are much more interested in promoting a particular message than they are in profit margin.  The same can be said for CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, and MSNBC.  Since its arrival roughly two decades ago, Fox News has rewritten the instruction manual for televised news. Actually, Fox News is the one News source that attempts to regularly provide a representative for both political perspectives.  Its true that Fox News does have a conservative orientation, and thank goodness.  The score is still eight or nine to three (Drudge and Rush Limbaugh certainly deserve a mention, but Breitbart is still finding its footing).  The fact the Fox News routinely destroys the opposition when it comes to viewership is a clear indication that conservatives watch the news as well.

While waging war with both the media and the Democrats, the Trump Administration appears more determined than ever to follow through with its campaign promises.  Thank goodness that I have lived long enough to see a candidate keep his word with such sincerity.  I support delaying refugee resettlement for ninety days, until Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Intelligence Community are able to ensure that we aren't welcoming terrorists into our communities.  The media and the Democrats continue to characterize this effort as a "ban on Muslims".  The Times, the Washington Post, Pelosi, and Schumer need a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of the word "ban".  What Trump is attempting to do has been done before, including by President Obama, albeit on a smaller scale.  In fact, the country targeted by Obama was also a Muslim nation, not that it matters to the media or a number of liberal, activist Judges.  The Trump Administration needs to put a moratorium on Twitter and stay solely focused on following through with the promises made during the 2016 campaign.  Those promises put President Trump in the White House, and the American people expect results.               

Whose fault is this mess?

Just when we thought we had heard the last of Hillary Clinton's email controversy, on Friday FBI Director James Comey announced that the investigation is still active.  It appears that Clinton confident and Vice Chairman of the Clinton Campaign Huma Abedin had saved a number of emails on her home laptop that the FBI determined were pertinent to the investigation.  Huma Abedin's husband, former New York State Representative Anthony Weiner, is currently the subject of a sex crimes investigation.  Weiner is suspected of engaging in innapropriate "Social Media" conversation with an underage girl; the authorities were examining the Laptop he shared with his wife when the emails were discovered.  Apparently over one thousand emails that might pertain to the email investigation were discovered.  On Friday, Comey sent a letter to both Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders, informing them of this new development.  

Historically the FBI has chosen not to release politically damaging information during an election, but Comey chose to make this announcement because of the controversy surrounding his previous decision not to indict Clinton.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats, who previously sang the praises of Director Comey, are incensed.  The Clinton Campaign has accused Comey of purposely interfering with the election, and demanded that Comey release all information relating to the discovery of the new emails.  True to its nature, the media has jumped in feet first, defending Clinton and questioning Comey's motivation.  The Washington Post and CNN have taken the lead on this front, helping Clinton to circle the wagons by giving airtime to one Clinton apologist after another.  The one fact that they conveniently chose to avoid, is that this entire mess can be laid at the feet of one person: Hillary Clinton.

When Clinton chose to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, she was determined to have total control over all her correspondence and communication.  In furtherance of this goal, she chose to install a personal server im her New York residence.  While Secretary of State, Clinton knowingly passed classified information on this unclassified server, in direct violation of State Department policy.  Clinton was eventually subpoenaed regarding the issue of classified intelligence and her personal server, and she responded by having a technician "bleach" the server, which effectively erased as many as thirty-three thousand emails.  How many of those emails were classified?  We will probably never know.  In addition, Clinton destroyed all thirteen of the Android cellphones and Blackberries that she used during her time as Secretary of State.  Not only is that wanton destruction of taxpayer's property and evidence, it is the type of action taken by someone with something to hide.

If Hillary Clinton is looking for someone to blame for this new development, she need only look as far as the nearest mirror.  Its not just hyperbole when I say that just about anyone else would have been arrested for security violations of this caliber.  Knowlingly destroying evidence pertinent to a Federal Investigation is a Felony.  How else would you describe bleaching of the server and the destruction of the communication equipment?  Expect Clinton to respond with both barrels.  With only nine days left before the election, and Donald Trump threatening to sprint past Clinton in all the battleground states, you can be sure that the Clinton Campaign has cooked up a personal attack on Trump.  As is their modus operandi, the media will take whatever they are given and use it to bury the email investigation.  You may recall that the last time Trump started getting traction, we were inundated with women accusing Trump of innapropriate behavior.  Every one of those accusations have been discredited, but the damage almost cost Trump the election.  We can only hope that in the end, people will remember the issues and vote accordingly.  This election is about change versus the status quo.  If you are happy with the direction we are headed, then you shouldn't vote for Donald Trump.

Trump denies allegations of innapropriate behavior and identifies the mainstream media as being in collution with the Clinton Campaign.

I'm relieved to see the Trump Team responding aggressively to last week's slew of allegations.  In all, seven women came forward to accuse Donald Trump of innappropriate behavior in unrelated incidents covering a thirty-year time span.  A simple background review identifies at least four of the women as being actively involved with Democratic politics and another as being a donor to the Clinton Campaign.  Unfortunately, it's not possible to erase all the exposure which was allocated to these stories.  It would be like trying to return a fart to its originating location, and asking folks to forget the smell.  The most important question we should be asking ourselves, is what was accomplished by this circus?  Sadly, some voters who may have been undecided will assume that where there is smoke, there is fire, and conclude that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.  What else was was achieved with this well-organized, false, slanderous attack?

As NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, the Wahington Post and the NY Times were running the allegations on a loop, the Wikileaks organization was releasing more emails from John Podesta, the Chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.  Podesta had previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and as a "Counselor" to President Obama.  The Clinton Campaign and its allies in the media knew in advance, as we all did, that Wikileaks would be releasing emails this week.  More emails will be made available over the next few weeks, but what has already been examined should have been the main story on all the evening news broadcasts.  We are discovering why the Obama Administration was so anxious to assist Hillary Clinton in avoiding prosecution.  Emails between Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills remind us that President Obama was also sending emails over unclassified systems.  If Hillary goes down, then Obama mght be called to task as well.  The emails provide a glimpse into the activities of the Obama White House vis-a-vis the unfolding Clinton email controversy, and reveal collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department that demand a Special Prosecutor.

The American people were basically kept in the dark about the latest chapter in the email saga.  Again, thank goodness for Fox News, the only mainstream news resource that instead of strict editorializing, actually presents both sides to controversial issues.  But one against seven are tough odds, even for Megyn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace and crew.  Last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday were all about the "locker room talk" video, and since then its been a steady stream of allegations, with not a hint of journalistic imtegrity present.  Are these the issues that the press keeps telling us that we should be demanding of the candidates?  Hillary Clinton's email scandal is an issue that should be discussed, as are her actions as Secretary of State.  The allegation of a Democratic activist who claims that, thirty years prior Donald Trump lifted the armrest on her first-class plane seat to grab her breast, isn't.  Within seconds I knew this accusation was questionable, because I have flown enough to know that first-class seats have never had moveable armrests.  These allegations are so absurd (one claims innapropriate behavior by Trump at a concert that never even took place) that they wouldn't have survived any decent journalist's smell test.

We have not seen the last of the Wikileaks document dump.  Rumor has it that we will be hearing about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's efforts to find foreign donors for the Clinton Foundation.  We can also expect more details regarding Bill Clinton's "coincidental" meeting with Justice Department boss Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac in Phoenix ("we spent forty minutes discussing our grandkids"...my quoatations).  There is no doubt in my mind that a Quid Quo Pro agreement was discussed between Lynch and Bill, that would ensure no prosecution and the continuation of Lynch's job in a Hillary Clinton Administration.  I just can't accept that Bill Clinton is so stupid that he would have taken the chance to meet with Lynch in this manner (they were almost able to keep the meeting secret) unless something truly important was at stake.  Keeping Hillary Clinton from being prosecuted is very, very important to these folks.  What Hillary Clinton did was against the law.  You cannot knowingly create a method of communication that puts the confidentiality of classified imtelligence at risk.  She wanted to have her cake and eat it too.  The fact that she ordered the destruction of all thirteen of her Blackberries and Cellphones is criminal.  Those devices belong to the American people, and at the time of their destruction, the investigation, in one form or another, had begun.  Destroying devices and bleaching hard drives has one purpose: to cover up evidence.  In this case, I'm sure some of the missing thirty-three thousand emails are involved.

The media has no qualms about agressively disseminating false accusations against Donald Trump; of this we are aware.  Be prepared for a daily dose of this garbage.  We will do our part by ignoring the media and encouraging our family and friends to vote Republican.  The Trump Campaign must also do it's part.  Someone has to get Donald in line.  You can't respond to false accusations of sexual misconduct by inferring that the reason the allegations are false is because Trump would never have approached such ugly women.  Monitoring his Twitter feed would also help.  It's going to be a very rough ride, folks, but we must do whatever we can to bring change to DC.  I will take an ill-mannered businessman with the right ideas on any day, over a corrupt, life-long politician with Marxist sympathies.

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.  

ISIS hopes for anti-Muslim backlash; can ISIS be defeated by a conventional army?

Link: ISIS hoping for backlash against western Muslims.

In the intelligent, thought-provoking editorial that I have linked, Harleen Gambhir, a contributor to the Washington Post and a counterterrorism analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, explains  
ISIS' plan to create a backlash against Muslims living in the west.  Gambhir predicts that recent attacks against civilian targets in the United States, Paris, Spain and over the Sinai, is intended to cause fear and anger towards Muslims living in western communities.  When western governments, in response to ISIS attacks and demands by the majority of their citizens, cracks down on Muslims living in Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, London and Sydney, young Muslims will feel marginalized and ISIS will benefit through increased recruitment.  History has already proven Gambhir to be correct; after each terrorist attack in a western city, law enforcement has increased its focus on Muslim members of the community.  At first, it would appear that this focus is necessary to identify any additional terrorists that may be concealing themselves amongst their neighbors.  The truth is, after a terrorist attack which leaves civilian casualties, both the government and law enforcement are under tremendous pressure from the populous to at least "appear" to be aggressively working against the bad guys. If law enforcement doesn't have any real leads, then it becomes even more tempting to increase surveillance and random searches against persons who share the religion and ethnic background of the terrorists.  Intelligence reveals that recruitment numbers increase for terrorist groups in the period following high-profile attacks similar to the recent shootings and explosions in Paris.

On a separate subject, an important issue that is currently being discussed by political commentators and some politicians involves the supposed difficulty in defeating ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  One of the GOP candidates for president (Ben Carson) remarked that the U.S. military had the capacity to destroy ISIS in a relatively short period of time.  I believe that President Obama may have taken exception to the remark, and the conversation was started.  Actually, defeating a terrorist organization requires a tremendous amount of patience and planning, and ideally, regular access to time-sensitive intelligence.  Normally, locating the terrorists is half the battle.  But ISIS is a completely different animal altogether.  The Islamic State, or ISIS, has developed a conventional military capability.  In other words, they have an army, and that army is currently fighting on two fronts: Iraq and Syria.  In order to destroy ISIS, the conventional army must be annihilated, and the more traditional network of operatives hiding in cities all over the world (and also in rat holes and caves in Sudan and Afghanistan) must be identified, located, and wiped out.  Ideally, both incarnations of ISIS should be targeted simultaneously.  The United States, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, China and probably a half-dozen other nations have the military capacity to destroy ISIS, but it won't be a localized affair and a few diplomatic toes might get stepped on in the process.  You would think that anyone who stands up and announces a willingness to single-handedly destroy the nastiest bunch of assholes the world has ever seen, would be given a pass, as far as diplomatic obligations go.  Vladimir Putin stepped up and announced Russia's intention to destroy ISIS, but within a few days we discovered that Putin was more interested in keeping his ally, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in power.  After a few days of Russian bombing raids obliterating the Syrian indigenous opposition to Assad with nary a fart in the direction of ISIS, it became clear the regardless of the outcome, Russia's entry into the Syria sweepstakes was about much more than fighting ISIS.

Again, Russia is one of a number of countries who have the military capacity to destroy ISIS.  It can't be done without a commitment to using ground troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it may be necessary to take chances where civilian lives are concerned, when an important target has been located.  ISIS will use every opportunity to hide themselves amongst women, children and the elderly, because unlike ISIS, we are a bit squeamish about killing innocents.  But make no mistake; in order to destroy ISIS, there will be civilian casualties.  It might also be necessary to use weapons that are frowned upon, and interrogation techniques that are much criticized.  Some great military leader once said (I can't remember who), that when a country enters into a war, it must do so with a willingness to use its total military might, and every weapon at its disposal.  The enemy must be given no quarter.  This will end the conflict soonest, and limit the number of casualties for both combatants.  I remember that comment because it truly makes great sense.  The longer the war, the higher the number of casualties.  We need to throw the book at ISIS.  The Marines, Special Forces, Navy Seals, and whoever else we can squeeze in.  This group thinks that it can outmatch any opponent for ruthlessness.  When it comes to the battlefield, we need to prove them wrong.  Right now, we are still fortunate enough to have ISIS limited to Syria and Iraq, at least as far as its conventional capabilities go.  Eastern Syria and western Iraq is basically one big, occasionally rocky desert.  ISIS has no place to hide from our satellites, spies in the sky, and spies on the ground.  While our military deals with ISIS on the battlefield, our intelligence forces will track down and wipe out each and every cell, regardless of country, until there are none.