Conjecture-based Fear or Fact-based Fear?

Americans who fear Trump do so based on what they think he may do. That's conjecture. Those who oppose Hillary do so because of what she has done.  Those are facts!  Which is more rational?

Trump Disaster vs Hillary Disaster

If a Trump presidency leads to disaster, it will be because he doesn't know what he is doing; with Hillary, it will be because she does!

A Very Sobering Experience - My Visit to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum

I just spent a very sobering 2 hours walking through the Holocaust Museum. I didn't get to see nowhere near what I wanted to see. I definitely will need to go back again. How these things can happen seems unfathomable. Everyone vows never again but I'm sure nearly everyone also thinks that could never happen here and yet it does!. You name the era, the country, the ethnic group, etc..

For anyone wondering how these things happen, the answer is almost always the same - a centralized government with too much power. Something to keep in mind before you vote for a candidate promising to take this away from that group, or make this or that mandatory, or place one more thing under federal control, or who describes their political rivals as "enemies". I'm not talking about what someone else said they said. I'm talking about hearing it straight from the candidate's mouth, in context - not some nefariously chosen sound bite. Otherwise, it just may be propaganda which is a main tool of those who wish to strip you of your freedom and it doesn't have to come from the government. Beware of political commentators in journalist's clothing pushing an agenda. There are those luring you to the edge of the slippery slope, hoping to give you a push.

Serious Immigration Question

If the vast majority of illegal immigration is due to visa "overstays" as pro illegal immigration types claim, then why do I only have a choice between English or Spanish on every automated telephone system menu in America today?

Any thoughts Jorge Ramos?

Thanks for Nothin' Lindsey!

On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham announced he was supporting and fundraising for Sen. Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination for president but admitted he preferred Marco Rubio who suspended his campaign following his disappointing performance in Tuesday's primaries. Well thanks for nothing Lindsey! Not only is this a half-hearted endorsement for Cruz but it is quite ironic since it was his influence over Rubio that helped sidetrack if not completely derail Marco's political future. As a junior Senator, Rubio joined Graham as a member of the comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) group that has come to be known as the Gang of Eight. This group also included Arizona Sen. John  McCain (R) and ultra liberal senators Durbin (D-IL) and Schumer (D-NY). Rubio's membership in this group infuriated his supporter who back him in large part because he campaigned for his senate seat on a strong anti-illegal immigration stance not a "path to citizenship" position proposed by the Gang of Eight. This change of position plagued Rubio's bid for the Republican presidential nomination to the point that his campaign was never able to gain any traction.

The decision to flip on his stance on immigration was Rubio's responsibility alone but as a senior senator, Graham could have been a better mentor to the young, impressionable and perhaps naïve Marco. Maybe then Lindsey wouldn't have to make his apparently unpalatable decision to back Cruz and the rest of us might still have another good choice for the Republican nomination.

Again, Thanks for nothing Lindsey!

More Worry Over Trump than Hillary Nonsensical Unless....

The Establishment types who seem more worried about a President Trump than a President Hillary Clinton are very shortsighted when, if they play their cards right, they could easily accomplish both.

By opposing Trump now, they will almost certainly aid in the election of Hillary. Over the last seven and a half years, they have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to oppose the liberal agenda and they stand no chance of opposing a President Hillary. On the other hand, if they step out of Trump's way (or even Cruz's for that matter) and actually support him, they will be able to control him. Unlike with a President Hillary who Republicans can expect no support from their Democrat colleagues if they oppose a policy, they can certainly count on liberal support to block any Trump policy they don't agree with since the Democrats will reflexively oppose all policies and initiative from a President Trump. This gives them a win-win.

The establishment Republican's fixation on stopping Trump, against the will on so many Republican primary voters, is self-destructive, foolish and shortsighted. Not only will it ultimately get Hillary elected but it will destroy the Republican Party. It will confirm what so many conservative Republicans already suspect: the establishment-wing of the Republican Party sees no place for them in the GOP and Conservatives will leave in droves. The establishments-types need to respect the will of the primary voters, respect the process and focus their attention on beating Hillary.

Opposing Trump at the expense of losing the 2016 election and the destroying the future of the GOP makes no sense unless the Establishment-types actually want to see the Leftist policies of Hillary implemented but want some level of plausible deniability.

So You're Considering Socialism? Consider Venezuela First!

Bernie Sanders is a self-professed socialist. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive who knows nothing about economics which essentially means she too is a socialist. Before deciding to vote for either of these two candidates based on their promises of free stuff, spreading the wealth, and making "the rich" pay their fair share, one should consider a case study of the most recent experiment with socialism - Venezuela.

When Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America. Then Chavez set about implementing his program of "Socialism of the 21th Century" which consisted of massive spending on the poor and nationalizing most of the country's industry including its number one source of wealth - the petroleum industry. For a time, Venezuela's economy managed to continue to lumber along mainly due to the inertia of its great oil wealth. Eventually, the effects of the huge increases in social spending and the adverse consequences of the socialist economic policies combined and compounded causing government revenues to plummet. The Chavez government continued to spend (promise everyone everything) even as the ability to pay for it became increasingly impossible. It borrowed and continued to spend in an economic death spiral feedback loop that today has Venezuela on the verge of economic collapse. It has dropped from the number one economy in Latin America to number 6; even below Cuba - this despite still having tremendous oil reserves. As a result of the implementation of socialist policies, the country's petroleum production capability has fallen dramatically as management was taken out of private, profit driven hands and placed under government, crony control.  The government is unable to negotiate deals to get raw materials or conduct international trade so there are chronic shortages of food and consumer goods including that bourgeois commodity - toilet paper. Inflation is running around 720% a year. Does socialism still sound good to you?

To be fair, "Socialism of the 21th Century", did keep one promise. It did redistribute wealth. Today,  Chavez's daughter is a multi-billionaire!

Now there's change you can believe in!

Personal Reflections on Nancy Reagan

America lost a national treasure last Sunday when former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, passed away at the age of 94. Despite being vilified by those who hated her husband, she showed incredible style, grace and class. Justice Department statistics show that during the Reagan presidency, drug use among young people was cut by 50% - an obvious result of Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign. Contrast that with the current liberal decriminalization push by progressives that is coinciding with a spike in heroin overdoses all over the country. Coincidence?

On the world stage, her standing up for America in meetings with Russian First Lady, Raisa Gorbachev, couldn't help but influence the relationship between their husbands and ultimately the two rival nations - remember in dealing with the U.S.S.R., Reagan made his opinion clear: "We win; they lose." which is exactly what happened.

Most importantly, as First Lady, she gave unconditional support to her husband. After his passing, she spent the remainder of her life working to preserve the legacy of her husband's presidency.

On a personal note I'd like to relay the following. Reagan spoke at my 1985 Naval Academy graduation - his address lasted about 30 minutes or so. As I sat there on the football field of Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium just yards away from the president listening intently to his words along with my classmates, Nancy sat behind him, slightly to his right (the audience's left) and she too listened intently. Her eyes never left the president which I found remarkable. Later, as I walked across the stage, received my diploma and I shook the president's hand (one of the highlights of my life), I think now I wish I had also paused to shake her hand. What a missed opportunity.

We will say goodbye to Mrs. Reagan on Friday. I'd like to add, Fair Winds and Following Seas, Nancy. Rest in Peace with your beloved Ronny!

More Hillary Accomplisments

I can't take credit for the following post however,  I think the information provided is very good to get back out there the the voters as they consider the next presidential nominees. I believe the original author is someone Kent Larson.

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

         She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they
         settled with Ms. Jones.

         She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as
         Special Prosecutor.

         After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica
         Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

        Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under
        oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

        Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation
        by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times
        while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

Republicans in Danger of Letting Losing Become Habit

Americans appreciate the ability to lose with grace but when losing becomes a habit, their feelings turn from respect to disgust. Republicans need to keep this and the following in mind as they consider their options for the future.

 "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." 
          
         - Vince Lombardi

Spit Take Averted; Computer Saved

A liberal progressive reader recently posted the following response to one of my blog entries regarding the reasons behind the success to date of Donald Trump's primary campaign: "I find it unbelievable that any American would even consider someone as crude and rude as Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. The president is the face of America. Is Trump's scowl and "potty mouth" the way we want America represented to the world? If so, then we are in deep trouble."
Fortunately, I wasn't drinking anything at the time or the resulting spit take would have ruined my computer. The comment is so ridiculous on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.
First, a progressive lamenting "potty mouth" is beyond absurd. Since Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." in Gone With the Wind in 1940, progressives have spent the last 76 years polluting our movies, literature, TV, music and culture with so much filth and violence, most of the rest of the world sees America as a cultural cancer on the planet. Today, virtually all PG-13 movies have to have an obligatory f-bomb. I doubt an American political candidate's occasional potty mouth will really have much impact on a world already being deluged with filth from the US courtesy of liberals.
Next there is the "crude and rude" concern. There are 196 countries in the world today and the vast majority are run by either murderous, brutal dictators, criminal thugs or leaders who are both. It would be quite arrogant of us to believe that much of the world has time to concern itself with the demeanor of an American politician when they are living in squalor and oppression or being brutalized by the government. Additionally, we spend millions every year for cultural sensitivity training. As someone who has attended more than my fair share of cultural training, I can tell you it is nearly impossible to generalize how an American's "crude and rude" behavior will be interpreted. Factor in language differences and I guarantee it.
Lastly and related to cultural difference is the concern over that scowl. I don't find world leaders to be a "smiley" crowd in general to begin with. Putin is not exactly a "Cheshire Cat". Further, many cultures equate smiling a lot as a sign of being a simpleton.

Look, there are many reasons to be concerned over Donald Trump as a presidential candidate but "crude and rude", "potty mouth" and that "scowl" are nowhere near the top of the list for me and I seriously doubt they are for most of the rest of the world who see the "face of America". Potty mouth? Really? Are you sh**ing me?