A Question; An Observation, and An Outrage

On the 26th of December, Bernie Sanders sent the following Tweet:
Bernie Sanders @SenSander
"You have families out there paying 6, 8, 10 percent on student debt but you can refinance your homes at 3 percent. What sense is that?"

The question: Can Senator Sanders really be so economically illiterate?

Senator, loans backed by assets have lower rates because they are lower risk. If you default on your mortgage, they bank can take the house. If you default on your student loan, can the government confiscate your brain?

The Observation
I saw an article the other day reposted on Facebook from the liberal online site www.manymanyadventures.com entitled, "The Top 7 Countries To Move To If Donald Trump Becomes President".
Here is the list:

7. Ecuador

6. Bahrain

5. New Zealand

4. Germany

3. Luxembourg
2. Singapore 

1. Switzerland

 

These type articles and "I'm moving" claims always make me laugh. All are pretty nice places to be sure but there are just a couple problems. One is most Americans can't speak a foreign language and 6 of these 7 are non-English speaking countries. People speak English there but it isn't the first language. Good luck Yank!

 

The other is most Americans have never lived outside the U.S. or even traveled to a foreign country (No, an all inclusive week at Sandals in Jamaica doesn't count) nor do they even have a passport. I'd also be willing to bet they couldn't pick out any of these countries on a world map.   

 

No, none of these people ever actually leave the country but we can still hope, can't we?

 

The Outrage

US Attorney declines prosecution of former VA execs  Published December 29, 2015 Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/29/us-attorney-declines-prosecution-former-va-execs.html

Federal prosecutors have decided not to press criminal charges against two former executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs who were accused of manipulating the agency's hiring system for their own gain. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said Thursday it has declined a referral from the VA inspector general for criminal prosecution of Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves. The inspector general said in a report this fall that Rubens and Graves forced lower-ranking regional managers to accept job transfers against their will. Rubens and Graves then stepped into the vacant positions themselves, keeping their pay while reducing their responsibilities. Rubens had been earning $181,497 as director of the Philadelphia regional office for the Veterans Benefits Administration, while Graves earned $173,949 as leader of the St. Paul, Minnesota, regional office. Before taking the regional jobs, Rubens was a deputy undersecretary at the VA's Washington headquarters, while Graves was director of VBA's 14-state North Atlantic Region. Rubens and Graves were accused of obtaining more than $400,000 in questionable moving expenses through a relocation program for VA executives, the inspector general's report said. The U.S. Attorney's office said it has "referred the matter to the VA for any administrative action that is deemed appropriate." Rubens and Graves were demoted in November, but their demotions were rescinded this month after a paperwork mix-up. The VA has said it will reissue the demotions after the problem is resolved.

In a conversation with a friend, I predicted this would happen. I wish I had written about it in this blog at the time.  So they were demoted? Big deal! They should have been fired and sent to prison!!! It has also been reported that the government can't do anything to recover the $400,000 these two embezzled and will probably eventually be permitted to retire with all their benefits.
This is like something from a Third World Banana Republic - there is no rule of law in America anymore.

 

 

Just Another Liberal Hypocrite

Bette Midler tweet: “Dec. 22, 2015, 63 degrees in NYC. I would like to thank the ignorant selfish climate deniers for all their goodwill toward the planet.”

Does anyone think rich liberals are going to be inconvenienced or affected one bit by any climate change regulations?  Those are only for the little people!

"Ms. Midler, your gas guzzling limo awaits to whisk you off to Teterboro airport so you can catch your gas guzzling private Gulfstream G-5 jet to fly off to a "champagne wishes and caviar dreams" destination most of us can only dream of."

Be sure to say hi to Al Gore for us when you get there!

American Kleptocracy: Government of the Thieves, by the Thieves, and for the Thieves

During my daily commute to work, I recently finished listening to a very interesting book on CD entitled Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security by Sarah Chayes. I just happened upon it while searching the county library collection to find something interesting to give me a break from the radio. As it turns out, I couldn’t have found this book at a better time.

Ordinarily, Chayes would not be someone with whom I would see eye to eye on the issues. She is an NPR reporter which places her at the polar opposite end of the political spectrum from me. However, her experiences dealing with corruption in Afghanistan and as a consultant trying to help our government develop policy to combat terrorism there and elsewhere as part of a wider global security strategy are very much in line with what I experienced and observed first hand in my overseas service.  Chayes argues that much of the rise of radical Islam is more of a consequence of the peoples’ frustration and sense of hopelessness due to having no recourse to wrongs inflicted on them by their deeply and systemically corrupt governments. Radical Islamists hold themselves and religion up to the common people as the only incorruptible option to combatting corrupt government and establishing justice, harsh though it may be. Her book details the kleptocracies in Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan among other places. She also discusses the circumstances leading up to the Arab Spring which began in Tunisia and spread across North Africa and unfortunately it has failed to live up to its promise for the most part. In explaining corruption, she describes its many forms and the characteristics of each. In its most egregious form, the corrupt government is so involved in fleecing their country that they have no interest in governing whatsoever.  It is not until her epilogue that Chayes moves from corruption in the developing world and begins to show how it is growing in the developed countries of the West. This is when I had my epiphany: America’s government has become a kleptocracy. Just as Chayes describes the different methods used by Third World governments to steal from the citizenry, the establishment American political class is no longer interested in good governance. It has become obsessed with enriching itself.

Both Democrat and Republican elected officials (though by different methods: Democrats through “big government” socialism and Republicans through crony capitalism) are completely consumed by the business of corruption and stealing America’s future. Obviously, there is no one-to-one correspondence between how corrupt governments in the Third World operate their kleptocracies and how our corrupt government runs its. One cannot simply connect the dots or draw a straight line through all the data points to prove the model describing our government is a kleptocracy. Our government runs a much more subtle and sophisticated crime syndicate. However, borrowing from mathematics and applying the least squares method to the data point shows that the model that best fits what our government has become is a kleptocracy. Ask yourself the following questions. Why would Republicans pass a massive $1.1 trillion budget that gives their political opponents nearly everything they want? Why would the Republicans wait until September every year to get their budget together and thereby guaranteeing a yearly crisis and threat of a government shutdown? Why do Democrats refuse to enforce existing laws, ignore the massive fraud, waste and abuse that always accompanies the bloated programs they enact, or fail to hold those politically connected accountable for crimes and abuses that would result in lengthy prison terms for ordinary citizens? Why would both Republicans and Democrats (until recently) exempt themselves and their relatives from laws against insider trading which allowed them to make millions in the stock market or accept patronage jobs from big donors for their relatives, friends or themselves following their political careers?  Taken separately, there could be several plausible explanations; taken together, there is only one conclusion – corruption and each party's method of theft allows them to benefit. I could provide specific examples of these and many more but in fairness, given my political leanings, they would all be examples of liberal Democrat abuses. I leave it to the reader to read Chayes’ book and then do their own honest inquiry and I guarantee there are plenty of examples from both sides of the aisle.

Recognizing the problem is important but finding solutions is critical if we want to save America from self-destruction. So what can be done? For starters, I suggest the following:

1. Repeal the 17^th Amendment and return the election of Senators to the State legislatures as they were prior to 1913. This would reduce the influence of donors and make Senator accountable to their States as the Constitution originally intended.

2. End baseline budgeting or the practice of automatically increasing the budget by a set amount every year.

3. Require Congress to pass separate budgets for each department of the federal government instead of lumping them all into an omnibus bill. There are only fifteen departments so there would be fifteen individual and digestible funding bills. This would make it harder to hide questionable spending and prevent disagreements over specific department or agency funding from shutting down the entire government.       

4. Set spending caps on election campaigns. This would reduce the influence money has on politicians and make them more accountable to their individual constituents. This would also put all candidates on a level playing field and heaven forbid…make them demonstrate they can budget and make wise money decisions.

5. Return powers not specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution back to the individual States as guaranteed by the 10^th Amendment.

6. Institute a waiting period before defeated or retiring politicians can accept a position connected with a donor – similar to the restrictions on other government and military personnel that prevents them from accepting a position from a company over which they had contracting or decision making authority.

I’m sure readers have other ideas. Comment and let others know your thoughts!

This is Why Conservatives Reject Banning Guns

I think it is fair to say that Progressives favor big government and that most of today's Progressives are either 60s and 70s misfits or have been influenced by them. Further, they have embedded themselves in all levels of our government and bureaucracies.

I have often said, "Give them enough time and Progressives will tell you what they really think." The recent statement by the co-chairman of the Colorado ACLU, Loring Werbel, http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TV06420151212 that suggests shooting Trump voters before Election Day proves my point. Now of course, Wirbel has said it was a joke and has stepped down.

Back when Obama pal, Bill Ayers, was in the Weather Underground, the FBI infiltrated the group. The undercover agent testified that if the group ever gained power, they planned to create re-education camps (where have we heard that before?) to deal with those who are uncooperative and they were completely comfortable with having to eliminate as much as 1/4 of the American population.

If people like this ever become "the government", who will protect us from "the government"? This is why the Framers insisted on the 2nd Amendment and today's patriots continue to support it. Could it also be why Progressives are so opposed to it? I don't know and I don't want to find out.

Trump Schools All on Negotiating

The hullabaloo surrounding Donald Trump's proposal to temporarily restrict all Muslim travel to the US shows Americans, in general, don't understand negotiating.

Example: If you want to buy a car listed at $15,000 but don't want to pay the sticker price, you need to start with a much lower offer. Of course, the seller acts offended by your unreasonable bid. You get a counter-offer and then you counter, etc until you arrive at some mutually acceptable price. Negotiating 101.

Trump is doing exactly that. He threw out a proposal that he knows full well isn't acceptable to anyone. He has already begun to walk it back a bit - without apologizing. Apologizing would give away the advantage. In the end, the deal that would result would be something more secure than the nothing measures currently in place but certainly far short of banning entry of all Muslims. My guess is it would be something more along the lines of a moratorium on all entry of those from high terrorism threat countries or those who had recently traveled to those areas regardless of what their nationality is.

Those losing their minds over Trump's statement clearly don't understand how this works. Those who continue to support Trump probably don't understand either but they instinctively feel that he would do something more effective then the current bunch of do nothings. It isn't racism or bigotry. It's "The Art of Deal".

ISIS vs ISIL

It has been suggested by some that the use of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) by the president and his administration is somehow meant to be a poke in the eye to Israel. Maybe but I really don't see it. A much simpler explanation in my opinion is that it is just pretense. We have a very pretentious and professorial man in the White House. It is just his way of continuing the narrative of how smart he is. It is his way of saying, "Hey all you dummies. I know most of you are not smart enough or educated enough to understand the term "Levant". Why don't you look it up. Then maybe you will be smart like me." Another example of  Obama's pretense is the way he pronounces certain words with their foreign pronunciation. Hey just a suggestion but unless you are speaking in that foreign language a la the equally  pretentious, John Kerry, use the English pronunciation. And while you are at it, call the radical Islamists in that region what the rest of the world calls them either ISIS or maybe even DAESH. Drop the pretense for heaven sakes.

Don't Talk About Trump or Hillary Then!

Oscar Wilde once famously said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."

Since I think much of the support for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is based on name recognition rather than their ideas (except for Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric and Hillary's anti-rich rhetoric), the way to oppose them is to stop talking about them.

For those concerned about who gets the party nominations, I propose supporting someone else rather than expressing opposition to someone. Otherwise, you end up actually supporting who you oppose by reinforcing the name recognition by the low information voters of both parties. Rather than connecting an idea you oppose to a candidate and thereby reinforcing the name recognition, support an alternative idea and be sure to connect that idea to the candidate you like. This would help increase the name recognition of the other candidates.

Yeah, I know I've been just as guilty of this as the next guy.

Let's educate and offer alternatives. I promise to try and do my part!

Intellectual Inconsistency or Is It Just Me?

So there are some in this country, we all know who they are, that have no problem with violating everyone's 2nd Amendment rights when they advocate confiscating all guns but become apoplectic at the notion of "Stop and frisk" because it might violate the 4th Amendment rights of a few?

Is it me or does this seem to be intellectually inconsistent? What is especially troubling to me is mayors like Martin O'Mally and Mike DeBlazio ended the highly successful "Stop and frisk" programs in Baltimore and NewYork City which has resulted in a huge spike in homocides. It makes me wonder if stopping gun violence is actually the goal.

Why Doesn't Truth Matter To Some Anymore?

61% of potential voters say they associate Hillary Clinton with the words dishonest, liar, and untrustworthy. Why then is she still the Democrat primary front runner? Why are so many people willing to support her?

Could it be that we are arriving at a point in the U.S. where instead of truth leading to ideology that then results in policy, we are allowing some to use ideology to create "truth" and then implement policy.

This is a truly dangerous development indeed!

Ideological Blindness on Rise in America

Disease and injury are the typical causes of blindness but there is a new source of blindness on the rise in America - ideology.

Ideological blindness manifests itself in things like the following:

The president saying "These things just don't happen in other countries." when responding to the attack in San Bernardino. Apparently, it skipped Mr. Obama's mind that the French crowd before him had just suffered their own horrific attack that left ten times the number of dead and wounded than the U.S. attack; or

It taking American authorities nearly three days to be willing to call the attack terrorism despite clear evidence available early on such as huge ammunition stores, a dozen pipe bombs, numerous weapons, in the attackers home and the attacker arriving in full assault gear; or

It continuing to insist that climate change is a bigger threat than radical Islam; or

Citizens seeing suspicious activity but being afraid to say anything for fear of being accused of profiling as was the case with the neighbors of the attackers; or

The president calling for more common sense gun laws and citing the fact that current laws allow those on the terrorism "no fly" list to legally buy a firearm in the U.S.. Why would anyone rational person have any faith that the system that allowed this to happen in the first place is the same system that can fix it?

American needs to have the ideological scales plucked from its eyes before it is too late.

Conclusions About Colorado Shooter Appear to be Wrong

Well once again, in their rush to blame the Right, the Progressive Left jumps to the conclusion that the Colorado Abortion Clinic shooter must be a crazy right-wing extremist or some sort of religious fanatic. Turns out the guy listed his political affiliation as UAF - United Against Fascism. According to their website, www.uaf.org.uk, UAF is a British political party formed to oppose the British National Party and the English Defence League.
They state: "Countering the threat of Fascism
As a matter of the greatest urgency, we are calling for the broadest unity against the alarming rise in racism and fascism in Britain today.
Over the last decade, racism and Islamophobia in society have grown. As a result, we have seen an increase in racist violence and attacks on multiculturalism. This has culminated in the rise of far right and fascist organisations, in particular the British National Party (BNP)."
There are also reportedly a number of Communists and members of the Socialist Workers Party among members of UAF.

Equally as curious as claiming to be a member of a British political party, the shooter also lists his gender as "female".

I am tempted to commit the same sin I accuse the Left of and jump to my own conclusions about the shooter. I'd like to say the guys seems like a typically well adjusted liberal.

However, it would be better to say that it is more likely that this guy is mentally ill and leave it at that.

The Real Thanksgiving

It is easy in America today to lose sight of the real reason the Pilgrims held the first Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving isn't about Black Friday sales. It isn't about a parade in NYC. It isn't about the game on TV. It's not about the food. It's about gratitude to God. It's true the Pilgrims invited the local Native Americans but it wasn't to thank them. That was just being neighborly.

Today, as we gather for our great national feast, Americans should join hands with those present and symbolically with our fellow countrymen, praise God and thank Him for our many blessings, and ask that He continue to bless America. It only takes a minute and it's the least we can do.

Hillary Most Trusted to Handle Terrorism Threat - WTF?

In the Nov 15-19, 2015 Washington Post-ABC News poll, respondents said they trusted Hillary more than any of the Republican primary candidates to handle the threat of terrorism. I find this both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. If the poll does accurately reflect the opinions, what possible rationale could make these people hold this opinion? It can't possibly be her lack of action to provide the needed security requested by the US ambassador in Libya or her handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the subsequent cover up. How about her performance as Secretary of State? The world is a far more dangerous place following her tenure. As a member of the Obama Administration, she owns part of the disaster that has occurred as a result of the premature withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the rise of ISIS. Hillary's support for overthrowing  Muammar  Khaddafi is yet another example of her poor judgement. Because of her policy which included a "Let's see what happens." plan for what happens after Khaddafi is gone, Libya has gone from a country that was assisting in the fight against terrorism to a safe haven for ISIS and their affiliates. What about her reckless disregard for national security demonstrated by her use of a private server for her official State Department email. Lastly, most people identify Clinton as a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. How can anyone "trust" her on anything? I'm baffled. Some liberal please help me out here. Please! I'm serious!!! Comments welcome and encouraged.

What Was Secretary of State John Kerry Thinking?

Less than a year after the attack in Paris on the satirical French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, that left 11 dead and 11 injured, and only 5 days following the massacre that killed at least 135 people and wounded hundreds more in another attack on the French capital, Secretary of State John Kerry said the following during remarks at the U.S. Embassy in Paris:

"There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,...There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of - not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, 'Okay, they're really angry because of this and that.' This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate."

So mass murder is just a matter of magnitude? Wow, John! Mighty nuanced of you.

And this guy lectures and chastises other Americans about "our values"? I suppose I should just be the better person and give him the benefit of the doubt that this just came out wrong. Really, really, wrong.

Compromise Syrian Refugee Plan

Lest my readers and especially my critics think I am unsympathic to the plight of the refugees trying to flee the civil war in Syria, I offer the following plan that would provide safety to them while at the same time ensure our own security.

Accept the 10,000 refugees - Muslims, Christians,  Jews, Yazidi, etc.

Settle the women and children (all girls and boys under 15 years old) with the general US population. Place the men in refugee camps where they will be safe while we take the time to properly vet them to ensure they have no ties to terrorism. No time limit will be placed on this process - it takes as long as it takes. If they become impatient, we can offer to send them to another safe location in a different country.

Those that successfully assimilate into American society - learn basic English, have found productive work, have no criminal record, and are not on any public assistance - will be able to become permanent residents and even seek naturalization. Everyone else will be repatriated once it is safe.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise. How many, liberal or conservative, agree?
Be the first to comment by clicking on "Post a comment" below.

Two Very Different Concepts of Impossible

Which of these positions makes more sense?

When it comes to securing the border, liberals and Democrats claim building the wall is impossible. People have been building walls for 1000s of years.

When it comes to allowing 10,000+ Syrian refugees to come to the United States, conservatives and Republicans claim it is impossible to properly vet these people who have no passports or no documentation from a country with a heavy terrorist presence and a hostile government.

To my mind, masonry construction, regardless of the scope of the project, seems less daunting than modern intelligence and counterterrorism work.

Obama's Keystone Decision Purely Political

So President Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline deal but what did this actually accomplish?

Well first of all it succeeded in ruining a deal with Canada - our close ally, good neighbor, and number one trading partner. It succeeded in killing potentially thousands of good, high-paying jobs for for mainly middle-class Americans. It might not be the numbers that proponents claim but there can be no denying that jobs that would have otherwise been created have just been prevented from seeing the light of day.

It prevented additional greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wait! No, actually it won't do that at all. As a matter of fact, it will probably result in a net increase in greenhouses gases. How you may ask? The answer is perfectly straight forward. The Canadian tar sands oil isn't going to be left in the ground. That much is certain. The Canadian government indicated that they wanted a decision from the U.S. government so that if America chose to not go through with the deal, Canada could pursue other options. Most likely the Canadian government will sell the oil to China. At best, that would be a net sum zero. However, that won't be the case. Petroleum refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than in the U.S.. Further, when the crude oil is converted into its end products, those that will be consumed in China will be used far less efficiently there than they would be had they been sold and consumed in the U.S. or Europe. Remember the scenes from the Olympics in Beijing? The smog there was so thick that one could barely see and people has to wear masks to protect themselves from the filth in the air. Events even had to be delayed or moved because the air was unsafe for the athletes to breath.

At least the environmental impact to America will be less. This was the major objection to the project by environmentalist groups. Again, actually it won't. Since the prevailing winds go from west to east, the pollution originating in China ultimately makes its way to America. Additionally, it will be potentially more dangerous as the risk of oil spills will increase dramatically. The reason again is simple. Crude not going through  a new, modern Keystone pipeline will either be transported by rail, truck or existing older, less safe pipelines. Once that crude makes it to the Canadian coast, it will be loaded on old, single hull construction Chinese tankers which, if involved in an accident such as a collision or grounding, will result in catastrophic spills. Moreover, rail and truck transportation is far riskier than pumping crude through a modern pipeline with its numerous safety features such as automatic monitoring and shutdown. Environmental activists like liberal billionaire Democrat donor, Tom Steyer (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/billionaire-has-unique-role-in-official-washington-climate-change-radical/2013/02/17/23cdcf4c-6b26-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html) argue that the Keystone project posed a risk to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides drinking water to millions of people, plants, and animals. However, based on this concern, the route of the pipeline was changes to mitigate the danger which led to both the EPA and the State Department as well as other government agencies approving the project. 

It is pretty clear that killing the Keystone deal was more about politics than economics or the environment. For example, Mr. Steyer has fossil fuels and green energy business interests that stand to gain greatly from the death of Keystone and he used his influence to help elect candidates who opposed the deal. Steyer's supporters on the Left will be quick to point out that Mr. Steyer has divested himself from those businesses but aren't those the very same people who said Vice President Cheney was personally benefiting from the Iraq War because of his past association with Halliburton even though he no longer has any dealings with the company?

Politics - pure and simple! 

The 3rd and 4th Republican Debate: What a Contrast!

I didn't get to watch the debate last night because I was working. I did catch part of it on the radio during my drive home. Now I am watching the recording on my DVR. All I can say is "What a contrast from the prior debate!"

Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal did a fantastic job. It was moderated by true professionals - Gerard Baker (WSJ), Maria Bartiromo (FBN), and Neil Cavuto. Unlike their CNBC counterparts from the previous debate, these moderators asked substantive questions, remained objective, maintained order, and allowed the candidates to be the focus instead of injecting themselves and their own views into the debate.

How refreshing! A debate where the candidates are asked fair, pertinent, and meaningful questions on important national issues by grown-ups and then allowed to give their answer. This is exactly what a presidential primary debate should be - a dignified, informative, and civil event.

Hopefully the next Democrat primary debate will follow suit instead of being another softball lobbing, journalistic slobber fest as we have seen from the "journalists" who have run those debates in the past or the Sunday morning talk shows. The American public deserves it!

Tonight's 4th Republican Debate

Tonight will present an opportunity for the Fox Business Network to show what it truly means to be "Fair and Balanced" and, unlike their CNBC counterparts who moderated the last debate, ask questions of the candidates that give them the chance to detail their economic plans and policies. It will allow them to compare and contrast those ideas with the ideas of the other Republican primary candidates and more importantly, it will provide them with the opportunity to suggest solutions based in reality instead of the fantasy-based policies that have been presented by the Democrat primary candidates.

If all goes well, the Republicans will get the relevant, unbiased questions they say they want and the voters deserve. They might regret getting what they ask for though. There won't be any feel good, softball questions. The candidate had better have their facts and figures down or this might be the last time they get to participate in the main debate. Fumbling around for the numbers and/or a poor command of the math will translate directly into precipitous down movement in the candidates' poll numbers.

I wonder if anyone will grant the Democrat candidates and the voters the same opportunity? I wonder of they actually want it.

The Basic Econ of the Minimum Wage in Pictures

Believing a Known Liar is a Sign of Desperation

Why would anyone believe what someone who 60%+ consider to be dishonest, untrustworthy or a liar promises them? Even if you agree with what they say, why would you expect them to do what they say? Character matters folks and Hillary lacks it!

CNBC's Moderation of the Debate - An Epic FAIL!

The Debate
If you missed the third Republican primary debate last night, don't worry you didn't. It was so poorly run that it didn't even resemble a debate at all. Being a business network, I had better hopes for a more professionally run debate by CNBC. However, as I watched the pre-debate show, it became clear that there was a strong bias against those who were about to participate in the debate. There was open hostility and disdain for the candidates. Furthermore, the pre-debate discussion was unorganized, rambling and it telegraphed what was to come. This attitude carried over into the debate itself and the moderators - John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintilla - became participants in the debate themselves representing the Left. To make matter worse, they were often not in command of the facts even when they had their facts straight. In one example, Quick challenged Trump on his stance on H-1B visas. Turns out, as Megan Kelly pointed out afterwards on her show The Kelly File, Quick had Trump's position right and Trump had it wrong - at least according to his own website. However, she was so incompetent that she didn't even know the source of her information and when Trump provided a quick (no pun intended), disarming retort, she folded and later even apologized to Trump! It was unbelievable.

The purpose of a primary debate is to help potential primary voters decide which of their candidates should get their vote to become their party's presidential candidate. It should be a forum for the candidates to compare and contrast their views to substantive issues and to the same questions. Instead, what viewers saw was the moderators inserting themselves and their views into the debate as defenders of left-wing policies which they framed as reasonable, normal, successful, etc. as a part of each of their questions and then challenged the candidate to defend their "extreme" views. It was so completely transparent and one personal "gotcha" question after another. Fortunately, I think any fair-minded person saw this charade for what it was - progressive members of the left-wing mainstream media against their Republican enemies. Hopefully what will come of this will be to no longer allow journalists act as moderators for future debates. They have clearly proven themselves to be incapable of doing the job.

The blame isn't solely that of the moderators and the media. They are what they are - full time lobbyists and spokespeople for progressivism and the Democrat Party. Much of the blame needs to fall squarely in the lap of the Republican National Committee for allowing this to happen.

Win/Lose/Draw
In spite of the fact that the debate itself was a complete fail on the part of CNBC and the moderators, it was possible for the candidates to advance their standing, fall behind or maintain their position.

First, those who were able to make gains. In my opinion, the clear "winners" were Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina. Each of these candidates were able to demonstrate that they are principled, understand the issues and articulate them in a clear manner. Additionally, in the case of Cruz and Rubio in particular, they were able to counter-punch those who attacked them to great effect and highlight just how awful and hypocritical the media are. Fiorina helped advance her candidacy by insisting on getting her time to speak and clearly discussing the issues. Time will tell, however, if the performance of any of the candidates translates to higher numbers in the polls. I suspect we will see at least a moderate bump for Rubio and Cruz. I don't expect much impact on Fiorina's numbers because between debates she has had a tendency to remain largely out of sight which caused a slip in her numbers following a strong performance in the first two debates. To a lesser extent, I think Chris Christie had a pretty good night. He also effectively made his points and slapped around the moderators; delivering what I found to be one of the best lines of the night: "...even in New Jersey, that question would be considered rude."

Next, those who maintained their standing - Trump and Carson. Trump was somewhat less the center of attention during this debate but he continued to promote himself as only Trump can: using the same hubris, bravado and running as an insurgent that has led to his popularity so far. He was also able to  delivered some effective counters to the moderators who seemed to have it in for him in particular even though some of his facts weren't exactly straight. Perhaps most importantly, Trump delivered a stinging rebuke to criticism of him by John Kasick by pointing out Kasick's connection to Lehman Brothers where he was a board member when it collapsed; nearly crashing the entire US economy. Even though he gave supporters what they like to see, I don't think there was enough of it to change his numbers much. On the other hand, I don't think Carson had a particularly good night. He was measured and under control even while under attack by Quick but he didn't come off as confident of his budget plan numbers as he needed to be. Fortunately for Dr. Carson's, his best assets have been that he isn't an insider, he is likable, principled and a gentleman which continued to come through during the debate. I anticipate that will continue to serve him well following this debate and his poll numbers will remain steady.

Last, the losers (in addition to the aforementioned CNBC and the media) - Paul, Kasick, Bush, and Huckabee. Of these candidates, Paul and Huckabee just didn't garner enough attention although Huckabee did deliver a positive message and give a pretty humorous analogy comparing our bloated federal government to the runaway aerostat that broke away and rampaged across rural Pennsylvania earlier in the day.  Speaking of our current problems he said, "It is the perfect example. It's something the government made - basically a bag of gas. It cut loose; destroying everything in its path, left thousands of people powerless but they couldn't get rid of it because they had too much money invested in it so we had to keep it." Spot on!
Paul made a few good points but I just don't think it was enough to matter. Kasick went after his fellow candidates and tried to paint their views as crazy. Thanks John, that was helpful! After getting slammed by Trump for his role at Lehman, Kasick tucked his tail and slinked back to his corner to lick his wounds. In my opinion, he is done. Likewise, Bush really didn't impress. He just hasn't seemed to have gotten the memo that most Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, are fed up with "establishment" types. Spouting off past political accomplishments isn't what Republican primary voters are looking for. It just reinforces the notion that Conservatives have been betrayed by the establishment types they sent to the House and Senate in the last election and Bush is a kindred spirit with them. They aren't going to make that mistake again. His attack on Rubio citing an editorial from the left-leaning Sun Sentinel was ridiculous and a serious unforced error - a proverbial hanging curve ball right down the middle that Rubio knocked right out of the park by pointing out that neither Bush nor the Sentinel had any problems in the past with Democrats when they ran for office and had even worse records for missed votes. Money or no money; ground game or no ground game; establishment support or not, I think this is it for Bush. He might last a bit longer but he has all the traction of a "donkey" (or maybe RINO) standing on the ice in the middle of a frozen lake.

That's how I saw it. I invite reader thoughts and observations. Comment by clicking where it says, "No Comments" or "Comments" and feel free to share this with friends. I enjoy hearing from those who agree or disagree.

And Trump is the One Out of Touch?

In response to a question from a supporter about his success, Trump characterized a million dollar loan he received from his father as a small loan. Democrats are sure to try to turn this around on him in their effort to further their politics of envy and war on producers. Keep in mind, to someone with a multi-billion dollar net worth, a million dollars is a small loan. Additionally, it was a loan [i.e. It was expected to be paid back with interest] made from one private citizen to another. The Donald turned that into a highly successful business that employs thousands.

Compare this to how liberals run things. The Obama Administration gave $535M in federal loan guarantees [i.e. Essentially a grant - Never expected to be paid back] using taxpayer money to a bunch of political cronies. They used it to build a solar cell manufacturing business, Solyndra, that included a lavish factory in the Silicon Valley complete with plush offices and fitness facilities and high salaries for its executives. Today, Solyndra is bankrupt, the money is nowhere to be found (probably lining the pockets of political doners) no jobs were created and not a single solar cell was produced.

Liberals will try to paint Trump as the one who is out of touch.

The Movie "Truth" Has Nothing to Do With Truth

In September 2004, Dan Rather of CBS 60 Minutes II reported on a story based on four memos reportedly taken from the files of George W. Bush's former Air National Guard  commanding officer. They were memos regarding Bush being absent without leave and his poor performance. It was a clear effort to discredit Bush and influence the upcoming election. The problem was the memos were obvious forgeries. It was easily shown that they were created using a word processor because the font they were typed in is a "computer" font that didn't even exist at the time the memos were claimed to have been written. Had Rather or the producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, bothered to do their journalistic due diligence, they would have easily discovered this and never run the story. But either because of their political motivation or zeal to get a juicy story, they didn't fact check their information and it cost both of them their jobs and reputations - as it should have. A former network news executive called this scandal the worst in American journalistic history.

Now apparently Hollywood feels as though enough time has passed in order for them to re-write history and tell the story they way they wish it had happened rather than the way it actually did. To be fair, Hollywood and the media having a certain bias is nothing new and it hasn't always been left-leaning. However, manufacturing evidence, rigging tests (as NBC did with GM) and forging documents is a dangerous new development that imperils a free society.

Hopefully moviegoers will be savvy enough to see through this shameless piece of propaganda and not financially reward those who were responsible for making it. Hollywood needs to be taught a painful lesson - lies don't sell.

Thanks for Reading!

Just went over 10,000 views!
I'd like to thank all of you who visit this blog and especially those who take the time to weigh in with their thoughts and opinions and those who click on the ads when they interest you. Please feel free to follow Political Carnivore, like it on Facebook, and share it with friends. I truly appreciate the support!

Yesterday's Word of the Day

Yesterday my dictionary app sent "kakistocracy" as the word of the day.
Kakistocracy: noun
1. government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.

As we anticipate Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Benghazi committee, see our President threaten to veto the Defense Appropriations bill, watch the establishment Republicans in Congress vilify and attack members of their own party and presidential candidates, I can't help but think this word of the day wasn't just random.

Impressions on First Democrat Debate

Here are my impressions of the first Democrat debate by candidate.

Before I start with the candidates, I'd like to offer some general thoughts. First, I think Anderson Cooper did a good job as the moderator. His questions were tough and he really seemed to make an effort to get the candidates to answer them. Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, those being questioned often just refused to answer. Cooper could have done a better job with follow up questions and I was disappointed that he allowed Bernie Sanders to derail his question for Hillary Clinton regarding her emails. Overall, I was pleased with how Cooper and CNN conducted the debate.

As to the candidates themselves, much of what we saw was long on left-wing ideology and short on solutions. There was the typical politics of division and envy; populist appeal replete with promises of free stuff paid for by someone else and rants against the usual suspects: big business, capitalism, and of course the Republicans. What was offered was more government without much in the way of acknowledging that government played a significant role in causing most of the ills against which they railed. Further, many assertions made by the candidates were allowed to be offered as fact instead of being challenged. Chief among these was the continued claim that climate change is "settled science". This is mainly based on a survey that was conducted that states that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and it is caused by man. The facts behind this claim are far less convincing. The poll has since been shown to have been "cherry picked" more like a high school paper rather than a peer reviewed scientific study. It is produced by an activist woman with a master's degree, not a PhD researcher, who initially polled a large and diverse pool of the scientific community - physicists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other earth scientists. When the first results returned a roughly 50/50 split in opinion, the pollster did what any respectable researcher would do: begin throwing out responses that didn't support her hypothesis. In the end, thousands of responses from the scientific community at large were reduced to about 79 responses from mostly climate scientists and wonder upon wonder, 97% of them believe in the work they are doing - a surprising result to be sure.
I also found it very telling that nearly to the person, all the candidates named groups of their fellow Americans as enemies with the exception of Jim Webb who actually named an enemy.

Now for the candidates. I'll start with the lessor knowns.

First, former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee. He basically said, I have been in politics my whole life and I have never been involved in a scandal. In a sane world that should be a given not considered a selling point - so next!

Then there was former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. He is polling 4th in Maryland which says something about how his own State feels about him. He left the State deep in dept and his gun control laws have resulted in a surge of gun violence throughout the State especially in Baltimore which is already well ahead of previous years in gun murders.

There was also James Webb. Webb is a fellow Naval Academy alumni so I have a bit of a fondness for him. He is what one would have traditionally called a Southern Democrat and he was truly the odd man out as the only one on stage who wasn't clearly far left. During the George W. Bush years, I lost some respect for Webb for his belligerence towards the president. He wasted much of his time to comment complaining about not getting equal time - time which would have been better spent making his points. Webb is highly educated, experienced, and accomplished which makes him more than capable of making compelling arguments for his views.

I'll discuss the two better known candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Clinton next. Sanders is a self-described socialist. He promised loads of new domestic spending which the GAO estimates would cost about $17 trillion and said it would be paid for by the rich. The problem is the entire net worth of all the billionaires in the US would only amount to about $7 trillion and then that source is wiped out. Then what Bernie? He also proposed free college for everyone. As someone who has lived overseas and traveled extensively, I can tell you that highly educated people without jobs to apply the knowledge to results in unrest. You see it throughout the developing world where college educated young men sit in cafes all day long growing angrier and angrier because there is no opportunity. Additionally, much of what Sanders said about economics demonstrates he has no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Lastly, there was Clinton, a progressive, who spent much of her time railing against business, the wealthy, of which she is one, and claiming as achievements among other things, the US action against Libya which has left that country in complete chaos. Much of the rest of the world is similarly far worse off now as a result of her tenure as Secretary of State. Her one big applause came when she refused to respond to the implication by Chafee that she is dishonest. Despite the thunderous applause by the audience, I have been very pleased to see that her debate performance has failed to lead to a bump for her in the polls. Character does still matter.

In all, those on the far left got what they were looking for - more promises of free stuff, vilification of other groups of Americans, global warming hysteria and America continuing to lead from behind in international affairs. For those of us on the right, there was a collective yawn.

Jump on in Joe; The Water's Fine

As I have been getting my thoughts together on the Democrat debate, the news keeps on coming. Now several credible sources report that VP Joseph Biden will announce that he will enter the presidential race. What does this say about Hillary's prospects? Obviously the Democrat establishment is concerned about her viability as they should be. Her upcoming testimony before the Benghazi committee could be very damning and the Chinese water torture drip, drip, drip of her email scandal continues to erode her credibility. But seriously, Biden? The White Knight riding in to save his party?

Biden is a decent fellow albeit an amiable dolt with a perchant for skinny dipping in front of his female secret service protection and whose far left views lay outside the realm of reality.

Please, by all means VP Biden, run. The gaff a minute fest we will be treated to will be priceless!

Spike (Putin) and Chester (Obama)

This old Warner Brothers cartoon reminds me of the relationship between Putin and Obama.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg

In Australia, How Can This Be?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/04/world/australia-shooting/index.html

But they confiscated all the guns in Australia? Apparently some didn't get the memo.

Presidential Bernie Sanders First Offical Act

Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed new programs that have been projected to add $17T to the debt. Sanders say the ultra wealthy will pay for it. The only problem? The math! The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, has a net worth of roughly $50B. There are an estimated 100 billionaires in the US. Even if they all had the same net worth as Gates - not even close to reality- and the government confiscated all their wealth, not just impose a 90% income tax, that would raise only $5T. And that would be a one time only shot. That's it!

So his first official act as president will have to be the establishment of the Ministry of Magic. He will tap Lucius Malfoy to run it. Liberals and their fantasies!

Boehner is Just Plain Wrong

When the Democrats won the White House in 2008, they also had the House and the Senate. When it came to objectives, they got everything they wanted. In 2010, the Republicans took back the House but still the Democrats were able to achieve their objectives. Then in 2012, the Republicans were able to retake the Senate and still the Democrats were able to find ways to push through their agenda. So on the Sunday morning talk shows when Speaker Boehner claimed there was no way the Republicans could defund Obamacare or block the President's illegal executive amnesty for illegal aliens, he was just plain wrong. The Democrats proved time and again that if you want something bad enough, you can find a way to get it regardless of the odds. They are just better politicians and parliamentarians with better leadership.

The problem is that unlike the Democrats who spend time well in advance plotting, planning and scheming to find Plans A, B, C and D in order to achieve their goals, under Boehner's lack of leadership, the Republicans wait until the last minute, lay out a single often not well thought out strategy, and when it meets the first bit of opposition, they preemptively give up. They just don't seem to have the same desire to win that their opponents have.

Whether it is due to a lack of courage, commitment, laziness, limited imagination, or any number of other possible faults, the responsibility for the failure of the Republicans to achieve any of their goals or even block any of the Democrat's misguided and dangerous agenda items, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker. It was a complete failure of leadership and it cost him his job as it should have.

Boehner isn't alone in his lack of leadership. Senate Majority McConnell probably isn't far behind him on the way out. Again, completely justified due to his abject failure to lead effectively. Hopefully, those elected to take Boehner and McConnell's place will have the ability to lead so that when the Democrats complain about the obstructionist Republicans, there will actually be some evidence to support their accusations.

Bill Maher is Right about the Clock/Bomb

I hate to admit it but I finally agree with Bill Maher on something. Ahmed Mohamed's clock does look like in his words, "...a f-ing bomb."

And this isn't about Islamophobia; it's about reality. In 2013, a white 2nd grader was suspended in a Maryland public school which went on his permanent record for this: a Pop-Tart chewed in the shape of a gun.

In the next Bond movie, if Daniel Craig is frantically trying to defuze the top picture, are you going to say, "Hey James, stop messing with that! It's just a clock!"

Or would you try carrying it through airport security in your as your carry-on?

Would you put you hands up in terror if a 2nd grader pointed the object in the bottom picture at you?

No? I didn't think so!

Really, Hillary?

Last week shows once again why Hillary's campaign is in a tailspin.

On Monday, in a speech at the University of Northern Iowa, Clinton said the following about campus sexual assault: “I want to send a message to all of the survivors, Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.” This was an obvious effort to try to regain support from women which has plummet to 42%. What makes this so remarkable is her history on sexual assault victims. After all, she was the architect of the "Bimbo Eruption" strategy used to defend her husband, President Bill Clinton, against numerous claims ranging from unwanted advances by Paul Jones, assault by Kathleen Willey and a rape by Juanita Broaddrick. Perhaps the difference in her mind is none of the accusations against her husband were reported to happen on a college campus?

Then came the dust up about Trump not correcting an attendee at a town hall meeting when he claimed that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American in his lead up to his question. Hillary wasted no time attacking Trump for not correcting the man's assertions that Mr. Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the United States. What makes this so ironic is that during the 2008 Democrat primary, Mrs Clinton gave a lukewarm defense of Mr. Obama when questioned about his religion by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. In her response to Blitzer, Clinton said she had no reason to believe Obama is a Muslim - hardly a strong statement of support. Further, it has been widely reported that the 2008 Hillary for President Campaign was the source for the birther movement that claimed Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. 

What a deeply flawed candidate. What a troubled campaign. What a misguided party.

In the Debate, Attacking Trump Will Help But...

Ahead of tonight's second GOP presidential debate, I thought I'd share some thoughts on strategy for those wishing to unseat Trump as the frontrunner. Many, especially those in the Republican establishment, hope the other candidates will attack Trump. This tactic will help the attackers but unfortunately, it will also help Trump. The problem is that in these televised debates, barring any big gaffs, face time is everything. Therefore, for every minute a challenging candidate like Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush attacks Trump, they are giving twice as much face time to Trump as they are getting - the time they are attacking him plus the time he is allowed to give a response. The end result is one step ahead for the challenger; two steps ahead for Trump.

A better tactic would be to provide better answers to the questions without attacking another Republican candidate. Once again Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." is wise advice. The goal needs to be to prove oneself the better future opponent of the Democrat candidate not that you are better than Trump! However, the challengers can take a hint from "The Donald":  skip the politically correct BS and give better solutions to the county's problems than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or any other potential socialist "Democrat" offering. In the real world where the majority of us dwell, giving better solutions than the magical world of make believe answers of the Democrat party is not that tall of an order.

Why the Appeal of Trump?

Don't interpret my attempt to explain Trump as me supporting Trump. I haven't made up my mind yet. There is still a long way to go until the Republican Convention and many debates in between so we will be a lot of opportunities to see what each of the candidates have to offer.
So here goes. I think the appeal of Trump is that he doesn't put up with the non-sense. I think he is the end of compassionate conservatism which is a bunch of crap. Nothing is more compassionate than the number of new jobs, economic growth and number of people, especially minorities, who entered the middle class under Ronald Reagan. What Trump refuses to do is allow the Leftists, especially in the media, to define the narrative about Republicans, Conservatives, or those in business. He doesn't stand for questions that start off with a false premise. The "I know all Republicans are racists but how will you be different?" or "Of course all Conservatives are anti-women, Hispanic, gay, science,..." or other more subtle implied lies. When a candidate allows those to stand or somehow tries to sound more middle of the road in response, it comes off as defensive or as a sign of lack of conviction.

I think Trump is the only candidate who has figured out what the Conservative voters have known for a while - Republicans have been doing political Tae Chi and the Progressives have been doing full on MMA. The other candidates better take off the gloves and discard the Marquis de Queensbury rules or we will lose and the rapid decline of the country will continue!

The Delusional Iranian Nuclear Deal

Apparently only the Obama Administration and a small band of "true believers" actually consider the Iranian nuclear agreement an actual deal. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals don't, most of Congress (just not enough to over-ride a presidential veto) doesn't, the Israelis don't, 81% of the American people don't and most importantly, the supposed partner in the deal, the Iranians themselves, don't think this is a deal. When asked about any aspect of the deal that could be considered beneficial to the U.S. (by definition, both sides of an agreement must receive some benefit in order to make something a deal.), the Iranians adamantly deny that it is part of the agreement. It baffles me how anyone can believe that there is an agreement when one of the parties doesn't agree to any of the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to deter the progressive, "we are just smarter than you are" crowd. Their delusion is complete.

Liberals Embarrassed by Trump

I find it amusing but also sad the state of affairs in our country. I've seen a lot of posts on social media and opinion pieces in the mainstream media by liberals saying how embarrassed they are by the current Republican front runner, Donald Trump. Apparently they aren't at all bothered by the fact that the Democrat party's leading candidate could actually have several felony convictions in her future and to add insult to injury, yesterday's Quinnapiac poll asked respondents to list the first word that comes to mind when they think of Hillary Clinton. The top four responses were:
"liar," with 178 people mentioning the word; 123 responded  "dishonest"; "untrustworthy" was mentioned 93 times and the first positive word, "experience", was number four with 82 responses. Talk about embarrassing.

Chinese Economic Numbers: Why Does Anyone Care?

I understand that the market reacts to world events. The stock market is very sensitive to emotion. But why does everyone panic when the economic numbers coming from China are bad? They are a Communist country. Their economic numbers are all BS anyway. Do you really think their economy has grown by 7% over the last 10 years as they claim? Really? Compared to what? There is no basis for comparison. They just make this crap up! That is what Communist governments do. My advice? Don't make any decisions based on what is going on in a phony communist economy. It has no relevance in the real world.

Hill May Trade Green Pantsuit for Orange Jumpsuit

It looks like the Hillary email scandal is continuing to reveal new damaging facts about the former Secretary of State's negligent handling of classified material. There are several potential felony violations of the law. She may end up trading in her signature pantsuits for orange jumpsuits if you know what I mean. Any one of us regular folks sure would be!

The Purpose of Government

The purpose of government isn't to dole out benefits to the people. After all, everything the government has, it already had to take from the people. No. The purpose of government is to protect the liberty and freedom of the people so they can benefit from themselves - their labor, industry, creativity, and innovation.

Please share if you agree!

Women May Decide the 2016 Election ... For All the Wrong Reasons

The women vote has been a key factor in the last several presidential elections and is shaping to play an important role in the 2016. The recent "dust up" between Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly however demonstrates that their influence may be a deciding factor for all the wrong reasons. While it is understandable that women would be upset with Trump''s treatment of Kelly and his previous insensitive comments, the country isn't threatened by disrespectful treatment of women. If that were that case, Bill Clinton should have been completely unacceptable to women voters yet they supported him overwhelmingly. Similarly, Kelly's pressing of Republican candidates over their stance on abortion is emotionally charged but irrelevant. The next president will have little influence over the future of abortion rights in America. Since Roe v. Wade, any rollback of abortion rights in the U.S. would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which is very unlikely. Lastly, many women appear to be ready to support Hillary Clinton largely because many feel it is time for a women president of the United States. It may be true that it is time for a women president but Hillary would be a terrible choice. A huge percentage of those polled find her untrustworthy and dishonest - for good reason - she is untrustworthy and dishonest and despite her list of non-accomplishment "accomplishments" she is not qualified. We can't afford another unqualified "it's time for" president. If women feel compelled to vote for a women, they should take a serious look at Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard - a candidate who has real accomplishments to her name.

At a time when 90 million Americans have given up looking for work; 45 million Americans are on food stamps; 1 in 5 children in the U.S. are living below the poverty line; we are 17 trillion dollars in debt with 160 trillion in unfunded liabilities; ISIS is expanding unchecked in the Middle East and murdering Christians by the thousands; Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, and Russia and China are aggressively increasing their influence around the world, there are far more important issues than disrespectful language. American women need to vote with their heads in 2016 so that their hearts will be rewarded with a safer, more prosperous, and more just America for themselves and their families in the future.

Thought on First Republican Debates

Regardless of what anyone thought of the first Republican debates - the 5 pm undercard  and the 9 pm main - and the performance of the candidates, at least none of the GOP candidates are currently being investigated by the FBI. Because of their front runner, Hillary Clinton's, email scandal, the same can't be said for the Democrat party. In a sane world that would be a problem.