Washington Is Not A Swamp

“Drain the Swamp” has become a rallying cry for Trump supporters to fix Washington. Referring to Washington as a swamp is very unfair to swamps. Swamps are very productive ecosystems and Washington is anything but.

A more appropriate phrase would be “Pump out the cesspool.”

Obama's DACA Was Brilliant - Unconstitutional but Brilliant

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was a brilliant move by President Obama. Even though he publicly said at least 7 times (it is documented on video) that he legally couldn't do it, he went ahead and eventually did it anyway. It took no effort on his part. He didn't have to expend any political capital. He didn't have to work with Congress or do anything to convince anyone. Since no one was actually being deported anyway, it did nothing to change anyone's life.

What DACA did do was create enormous goodwill for Obama and the Democrats. What it did do was  provide cover for Congress by preventing them from having to take a stand on the issue and possibly suffer the consequences at re-election time. What it did do was create a first step on a path to citizenship for 800,000 illegals and future Democrat voters. What it did do was violate the Constitution and create a situation that has now forced Republicans to do the right thing but end up appearing to be "the bad guys" for following our Constitution.

DACA was brilliant. Brilliant but unconstitutional yet still manages to achieve so many Democrat goals.

An Unsuccessful Trump vs A Successful Hillary

I predicted that if Trump won the election, all the dire consequences many feared would not come to pass. Not because the fear mongers were wrong about Trump but because his agenda would be blocked at every juncture; by all Democrats and a significant number of "Never Trumper" Republicans. Looks like I was right.

Even if Trump's presidency ultimately end up being a failure, I still believe that an unsuccessful Trump is far better for the country and the world than had Hillary been elected. She would have gotten 100% support from Democrats and the feckless Republicans wouldn't have the backbone to mount even the slightest opposition. Every crazy scheme that she would have cooked up in her head would have become law. She would have been extremely successful - successful at causing great harm to America.

I believe that no government action is far more desirable than bad government action. An unsuccessful Trump is still far better than a successful Hillary.

Opposing views are welcome.

6775 Americans A Day Will Die If GOP Healthcare Bill Passes

If the Republican Healthcare Bill passes, 6775 Americans will die per day. That's what Democrats would have you believe and the fact is - it is true! The problem is that's how many Americans die each day anyway.

An example of lying with facts. For other examples, check the NYT, WaPo or CNN on any given day.

Masked Rifle-wielding Gunman in Germany? Impossible!

So a masked, rifle-wielding gunman took hostages today at a movie theater in Germany. I must have missed something. Doesn't Germany have very strict gun control? Or is that "common sense" gun control? Apparently another bad guy didn't get the memo.

Also find it curious CNN didn't provide any details about the gunman who was killed by police other than to parrot German authorities who say they don't believe it was terror related.
I'm sure we will find out shortly that it was another one of those right-wing, Republican American, Southern Rednecks, who cling to their Bibles and guns just like the Orlando and San Bernardino murderers, right?

Hillary Defies; Redefines the Peter Principle

Most are at least somewhat familiar with the Peter Principle which was described by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in his 1968 book "The Peter Principle" and is usually quoted as something like, an employee will rise or get promoted to his or her level of incompetence. 

From her first job as a staffer on the House Judiciary committee investigating Watergate to her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has managed to defy the Peter Principle every step of the way. It's more than that however. She has actually managed to redefine the Peter Principle. Despite the fact that she is incompetent and is seen, even by her supporters, as dishonest, untrustworthy, and a liar, it seems that when it comes to their support for Hillary, the top principle is her lack of a Peter Principle. 

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!

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.

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

Even UNCLAS Emails Can Be Harmful

 OK, so 81 of the recently released emails from Hillary Clinton's server have turned out to be classified. The media is saying "most were at the lowest level". The problem - and most don't understand this - is that even pieces of unclassified information, collected from an authoritative source such as the US Secretary of State can be combined to reveal highly sensitive information. Hillary's email server didn't even have the most basic common sense protections. Regardless of whether or not it was classified, everything a US Secretary of State discusses via email should be protected. Despite what her supporters would have you believe, this is a problem and demonstrates a clear lack of judgment.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

Purging Hate in America

Yesterday, the South Carolina House of Representatives voted to remove the Confederate Battle flag from the state capital and the governor signed the bill into law. The flag will come down today. So over 50 years after the flag was raised by a Democrat governor and longtime U.S. Senator, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings and a Democrat controlled, white male state House and Senate, the flag seen by many has a symbol of racism and hate will come down under an Indian-American, female Republican governor, Nikki Haley, and a Republican-controlled state House and Senate. It is also interesting to note that South Carolina's senior U.S. Senator, Republican Lindsey Graham, continues to be elected despite lingering rumors that he is gay, and its junior senator, Republican Tim Scott, is the first African-American, elected to the U.S. Senate from the South since Reconstruction. Who knew South Carolina was such a hotbed of equality?

With the Confederate flag on its way out, as usual, those on the Left are not satisfied. Many, such as CNN anchor Don Lemon, are seriously questioning whether it's time to remove the Jefferson memorial from its place on the Tidal Basin and if, the nation's capital itself, should be renamed. After all, both Jefferson and Washington were slave owners so their place in American history is irredeemably tainted.

If that reasoning makes sense to you, I ask you to consider the following. Should someone be banished from the public arena if they supported slavery? How about if they were responsible for the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation? What if they formed a hate group that terrorized racial, religious and ethnic minorities? And how about if they opposed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act? What if they support policies that have had genocidal effects on the African-American population? Or if many in their leadership were former Klan members or spied on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and referred to him by the N-word? Would you associate with a group like this? Then why are some of you registered Democrats?

Here are the facts.
The Democrat Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation.
The Ku Klux Klan was formed as the militant arm of the Democrat Party.
The following prominent Democrat members of the U.S. Congress opposed civil rights legislation:
Richard B. Russell, Al Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert C. Byrd, to name a few;
President John F. Kennedy and his brother, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, illegally wire-tapped the phones of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
President Lyndon B. Johnson described King using the N-word.
President Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the U.S. military
A major policy of the Democrat party, legalized abortion, was advocated by Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, who in 1921 said it would, "...limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Today, 3 out of 4 African-American pregnancies end in abortion and the black population has remained the same as it was in 1973 - 13%. Prophetic, huh?

Maybe its time we really purge America of its hateful past. Let's start at the source and ban the Democrat Party.