A Snapshot of US Politics: Where We Are and What We Can Do About It

As most of you know, America is no longer the democratic republic established by our Founding Fathers. Over the decades, but especially since the end of World War II in 1945, the US has morphed into an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with a near permanent political class comprised of politicians, professional staffers, bureaucrats who manage agencies with little oversight except by their fellow insiders (and certainly with little to no public accountability), and the ever present corporate lobbyists, which nearly every politician aspires to become, and in the background, the corporate and financial elites.

Corporations nowadays essentially run Washington via their messenger boys and girls, the lobbyists, which means they run America, especially with the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" fiasco in 2010 which defined corporations as "people", or "Frankensteins" as I prefer to call them. It also declared money to be "free speech", except that these Frankensteins have unlimited "free speech" while you and I are still capped in how much say we have when it comes to elections. It's often been said that money is the life blood or mother's milk of politics. Personally, I think it's more the "crack" of politics; everyone always wants more and more is never enough. For example, in 2017, lobbyists gave Congress, government officials (including congressional staffers, the DNC and RNC, agency heads, etc ) $3.37 billion dollars not including perks like golf outings, hotels, use of private jets or cost of airfare, dinners, or help writing or summarizing legislation (along with their recommendations on how to vote), and so on.

Nevertheless, the mind boggling amounts of money and perks provided to Congress (and indirectly to the Judicial branch as well, not to mention the presidency) by lobbyists far outstrips what ordinary Americans can donate. In fact, it's practically made it impossible for the average American, who is often just as well educated and experienced as their multi-million dollar counterpart to run for office. As a result, we are forced to cast our votes for who may be the least qualified candidate, but certainly the richest.

Of course, primaries are all about the two corporate owned political parties choosing which puppet they'll put up for election. I liken it to a beauty contest among prostitutes (you can take it from there). General elections aren't much better. We're stuck with mostly one dimensional cardboard cutouts posing, glad handing, and pretending they're having a good time. It really comes down to whose meaningless populist platitudes we dislike the least. As far as their corporate paymasters are concerned, it doesn't really matter. They own them both. We're just picking figureheads while the media tries to make it into political reality show.

Think of the two corporate political parties this way. Corporations own it all. Money trumps everything. The two parties are both literally owned by the same corporate elites, but in slightly different configurations. Basically, it's one corporate syndicate comprising certain special interest groups versus another corporate syndicate with its special interest groups. Their agendas are similar, but ranked slightly different, but regardless, they work together to get did what their key players want done. The hubbub we see on TV or read about is usually over the crumbs and details.

For instance, both needed to weaken labor unions in order to make it harder for workers to fight back and to reduce costs, and so they did! Unions bosses went along in order to avoid seeing whole sectors either closed or moved overseas rather than a few plants or hundreds of jobs. Legislation was written, mostly in conjunction with the lobbyists, to provide tax breaks to underwrite the cost of jobs being sent overseas and return finished products sans import tariffs, all at taxpayer expense naturally. Want another example? Both politicians and their corporate overseers needed to artificially keep down unemployment numbers and boost the economy, and so now we have the eternal "War on Terror" to drain off "excess" job seekers while making a killing off of military contracts which affects a whole host of peripheral industries. Thus the economy grows, employment remains artificially high as we continue to operate at near wartime production rates.

Seriously, do you think that if they weren't working hand in glove? Why hasn't a tax code favoring working class Americans been written by now? That there hadn't been serious campaign finance reform and an end to corporate donations, as well as an end to gerrymandering and establishing term limits? With all those lawyers in Washington, do you really think those loopholes are accidents---legal "boo-boos"? Nah, those people are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. How do you think they can pass laws which apply to us but not them? Why is it that out of a ten hour work day, the average Congressman spends only two hours working on bills and other issues and the other eight raising money?

Of course, the smartest thing they can do is to keep us divided, and they seem to be pretty good at that. They promote, albeit quietly, animosity between Left and Right, between races, between genders, between white collar and blue collar, and in every other way they can think of. Various groups are formed (and paid) to foment chaos in the form of inflammatory speeches or interviews, inciting riots and trying to silence anyone who disagrees with whatever their position happens to be. Meanwhile, there are arguments interjected to curtail this or that law or Constitutional Amendment which they claim will solve everything. The political center, where the majority of Americans live, is virtually ignored or even ridiculed by both political extremes and the media, even during general elections; once they gravitated toward the center during the general election and spun back to their respective extremes. Not anymore! Now they barely bother. It seems both camps have lost their fear of the electorate thanks in large part to Citizens United.

Meanwhile, the police are militarized and increasingly taught, even if unofficially, to view the public as the enemy, and to respond as such. The result is often excessive violence when a little patience would do. The courts, almost as a matter of course, find the police officers "innocent" and that ends the matter. That in turn results in individuals not trusting the police and either fighting back, running, or ignoring the police, and so the cycle repeats. At the same time, the corporate puppet masters use their influence to expand the monitoring of groups and individuals through social media and national intelligence agencies; to build not just individualized consumer buying profiles, manipulate and control content, but also to build profiles on potential resisters and independent thinkers who are not buying into the whole scam.

The media, of course, plays along and why not? As I previously reported, over 90% of all media--- TV, radio, social, newspaper, etc---is controlled by just six corporations. They decide what is and isn't news, manipulate the facts, decide how it will be spun, and above all, create public opinion. And if that isn't enough, they decide how we'll be entertained, be it sports, video games, game shows, movies, TV shows and so forth; much of which also containing subtle political content designed to influence our opinions on various subjects. More recently, some corporations like Nike and Levi Strauss have stepped directly into the political arena by promoting various issues or agendas so that sporting a certain look or product will now express or imply a particular political outlook. Perhaps the hope is to shame those who don't adhere to the same look through peer pressure.

Elections are controlled by keeping Independents, who are the nation's largest political bloc, as well as third parties off ballots. Why? Because they won't play the game. They can't and won't be controlled by corporate handlers. They also had a high degree of uncertainty to election outcomes, that means they can't count on either of their political puppets winning; someone with a different agenda or who will think independently might "accidentally" get elected and that must never be allowed to happen. That's because after Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 (and again in 1996) and did so well that he embarrassed both corporate candidates (Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush) the DNC and RNC came together to amend the Commission for Presidential Debates to make it virtually impossible for Independents and third parties to qualify to participate (and many states followed suit).

Requirements to get any non-Democrat or GOPer on ballots were also set so high as to be nearly impossible, even though both parties know it would likely fail any Constitutional challenge. However, the problem of course is the costs to do so in court. Both parties are banking that no one will spend that kind of money to take the matter to court. In addition, the media, which is owned by the same corporate interests, have stopped treating Indies and third parties as "legitimate" candidates and also stopped covering their campaigns; treating them as sideshow entertainment and someone not to be taken seriously. Naturally, the big donors, who also happen to be these same corporations, ensure that their money keeps flowing to the two pre-approved candidates. The same goes for endorsements, which are valued for their cash and in-kind donations as well as for volunteers. Doesn't sound very much like a "free" country do it?

Lastly, I want to discuss something which, frankly, irks to no end, but I also think it's important for you to understand. As I mentioned before, there's a lot of effort being put into dividing us by the ruling Oligarchy. They don't want us to come together and peek behind the curtain so to speak. one of the ways they are trying to divide is by name calling. Specifically, by one side or the other being called "socialists", "Nazis", "Communists", "social democrats" or "fascists" as if the names and terms are interchangeable. They're not.

Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production by the workers. Think of it in terms of worker co-ops, ESOPs, credit unions, etc. Workers/employees come together to decide on how the business will be run, how much everyone will be paid and so on. In terms of government, committees are formed from these groups to decide how to manage the town, city, or community. Participation is not mandatory, but then you also don't get a voice if you don't Each committee elects someone to a larger committee to manage the larger state. Of course, there are other variations, but that's the general idea. Basically then, the workers/employees control the state through direct democracy.

Communism as we know it isn't Marxism as Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels wrote it. Communism as we know it was based on Stalin's corruption of both Marx and Lenin ideas. Thus, Communism came to be State ownership and control of everything---corporations, jobs, houses---you name it. You may be employed at some job, but your employer was the State, and the State was the party. You participated whether you wanted to or not. The State controls your life from cradle to grave. Democratic Socialism is something of a mix between the two, and despite claims to the contrary, it has been very successful in Scandinavia. Under democratic socialism, the State exists exclusively to serve the people, with the people approving what the States does through referendums or voting. While Communism is very undemocratic, democratic socialism is highly democratic while socialism is more communal. All of these are on the Left side of the political spectrum (although the Left/Right spectrum is completely out of date and not very accurate).

Nazism, which is short for National Socialist German Workers Party, is generally considered a far Right ideology, although that's not entirely correct. First it's nationalist whereas Communism is internationalist; in this case Germany or Germanic countries. It socialist, but not the way we think of socialism. It founder, Adolf Hitler, said that "socialism" for Germany meant a community of Germans only. Here, Hitler means "Aryans" or pure Germanic People. It also means creating an community of mutual support for Germans. In this, Hitler promoted a classless society between the old nobles and Junkers (the elites) and everyone else as well as distinctions between regions or occupations.

It meant equality between Catholics and Protestants, equality in hiring and education, promotion of similar ideals such as proper health, hygiene, and fitness. German Worker meant just that. German society would be dedicated to ordinary workers, artisans, craftsmen, farmers the same way it was to the banker, business owners, or academia. He dissolved individual unions, and created a single State union, the DAF or German Labor Front, into which everyone would belong. Of course, Hitler also choose the specific wording to attract as many people as possible away from the other political parties (his biggest political competitors was the Communist and Democratic Socialist parties on the Left, the Catholic Center Party, and the German National Peoples Party on the Right). Thus on our political spectrum, the Nazis would be more center Right than anything.

Lastly, Fascism. Modern Fascism was created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini. Essentially, it's a merger or partnership between the State and key corporate entities which cooperate for their mutual benefit. Individuals may work for a given company, but that company serves the State as its partner. The State operates along the lines of a corporate board of directors who elect their chairmen or President (in this case, Mussolini. In fact, in 1944, Mussolini was voted out of office by his Fascist board of directors). Like Nazism, Fascism borrows from the ideological Left and Right, but it varies depending on the history and tradition of that country. That's why the fascism of Italy was different from that of Bulgaria or Spain which was differed from that of Argentina or Hungary or Romania. Thus, Fascism can come from the Left or Right whereas Nazism is strictly conservative and socialism is strictly liberal.

The Oligarchy or plutocracy which controls our government now, and to a greater degree, much of world's economy, come closest to fitting the description of fascism than anything. It is very much the merger (or perhaps takeover is a better word) of the government for the sole purpose of controlling assets, resources, production, and yes, even us. They use our tax money as their own slush fund. They use our military as their own enforcers against nations who won't cooperate. We have been transformed from nationalist citizens to international consumers. Our loyalty is less to country and more to a product (ever notice how often commercials use words like "family", "trust", or "love"?). We are encouraged to buy the latest this or that and thus incur debt, which in turn becomes our shackles. We are their economic serfs or as some people prefer, "wage slaves".

The only way out of this is by not cooperating; not drinking the blue or red Kool-Aid they offer us during the election cycle. Supporting Indies and third parties, including demanding equal ballot access. By insisting that non-policy or lawmaking elected offices become non-partisan. By organizing employee associations or cooperatives. Changing your voter registration to Independent or third party. By finding common ground to bring diverse groups together. By demanding a voice when it comes to raising taxes, rate hikes, fees, or salaries for elected officials. By becoming more economically independent like shopping local, buying at farmer markets, growing your own garden, installing a rain barrow, solar panels, home schooling, and so on. By ignoring news media endorsements and doing your own research. Seeking out alternative media. They are beatable although they try to convince us otherwise. All we have to do is refuse to cooperate and to think and act for ourselves. But in a fascist state, even a benign one, that can be a dangerous thing.


Total lobbying spending in the United States from 1998 to 2017 (in billions U.S. dollars)

How Third Parties Are Kept Out of Presidential Debates

U.S. Presidential Debate Rules Out Third Party Candidates

Hillary's New Book "Stronger Together": A Would-be Caesar in a Pantsuit?

Not that I am a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but the former First Lady and Secretary of State released a new book recently entitled "Stronger Together"; a fanciful trip down "what if" she had won the election and some of her policy decisions would have been . While she really needed to get over the fact that she didn't win and politics is not a static sport, so much of her statements are strictly speculative. Nevertheless, Hillary does go after her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, pretty hard even though she helped rig the Primary to ensure that she handily beat the self-defined "democratic socialist".

In addition, even after securing the Primary victory, Clinton and the head of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC, like its counterpart, the RNC, runs the internal party machine), Deborah Wasserman-Schultz worked to keep Sanders' supporters from having any input into the party platform or from voicing their anger over procedures (Wasserman was fired from her position but was immediately hired by the Clinton camp). Ironically, her replacement, Donna Brazile, would be fired too. She was accused of feeding Hillary debate questions prior to a debate with Trump. Although the Sanders' camp would file a class action lawsuit, Federal judge William Zloch, would latter rule that the party could do as it pleased with respect to the primary; even rigging the outcome.

Think about that for just a moment. Let that statement simmer in your mind for just a minute. Bernie Sanders, a duly filed Democrat candidate filed to run in the Democratic Primary. He campaigned hard throughout the United States. Whether you liked his proposed platform or not (and many Millennials did), was denied a fair shot so scared was the Clinton camp and her supporters within the DNC that they were willing to rig specific primaries to ensure that Hillary won, and won big. The hope, of course, was that Sanders would get discouraged and drop out. Sanders didn't, and in fact, his message hit a cord with voters, especially younger voters. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp was hoping (to say the least) that one of the pre-vetted and pre-scripted Republican candidates would finally take out "the circus clown", Donald Trump.

The actions by the DNC, and reaffirmed by a federal judge, is that our votes aren't all that important. The party ultimately decides who it wants and then gets behind that individual. In this case, it was Hillary. In the case of the RNC, they clearly didn't want Trump. However, "The Donald" was clearly the strongest candidate based on his ability to attract crowds to speaking engagements and generate voter turnout. Although the RNC did entertain the idea of throwing out a Trump Primary victory and selecting a candidate through its executive committee (some of you will recall that Mitt Romney offered his "services" while this was being discussed), the RNC decided to hold its nose and allow Trump to become their nominee. Why? Because the Trump camp had dropped several not-so-subtle hints that their candidate would run as third party if the RNC pulled any shenanigans. The RNC knew that given Trump's popularity and ability to self-finance, they simply didn't have a candidate strong enough beat Trump. Besides, a divided conservative ticket would all but guarantee a Clinton victory in November.

It would also convey the message which the Democrats were struggling with, namely, that what the voters wanted didn't count. Both parties had sought to protect the illusion that voters still mattered, even though both parties include the provision in their by-laws to ignore the voting results and select a candidate of their own through the executive committee. Given the mood of the country, this may attract even more support for Trump, while on the Democrat side, they were hoping this would be downplayed. It wasn't, and accordingly, Sander's camp filed suit only to lose as stated before.

On a related matter, one that's sure to play a central role in any story about or by Hillary, is Benghazi. I'm sure everyone knows the story of Benghazi by now. Benghazi has gone down as one the worse attacks on the United States, not because of the number killed (there were four individuals who lost their lives), but because it was one of those situations which should not have happened, both before and the shameful cover-up by the Obama Administration, and especially by the State Department, afterwards. The official line was that it was a unplanned random attack by a small group of Libyans on the American Embassy in Benghazi. What, we were told, raised their ere was an obscure film with a anti-Islamic message. Of course, this was a complete fabrication created by Hillary's staff.

Over time, through bits and pieces, as well as the occasional admission, the public was able to piece together what really happened, despite the efforts of the Obama Administration. We now know for instance, the Hillary had (illegally) authorized gun running through the embassy, which was also done without the knowledge of Ambassador Stevens. The guns, as well as military intelligence reports, were run under the cover of the embassy to aid rebels in Syria and possibly, on to other groups in Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere. We've also learned that the presence of radicalized Muslim fighters had been increasing over the preceding weeks. We learned that the security forces recruited locally were of dubious loyalty and that US personal were unarmed (weapons and ammo were available, however, they had been locked away in a secure vault). Repeated requests for additional security personal were largely ignored or declined by the State Department, as were requested for US personnel to be armed. As for the "obscure movie", it was so obscure that it hadn't even been shown yet. In fact, it had been produced by an independent producer who was strapped for money and was unable to finish the project.

During the attack itself, which lasted approximately seven hours, repeated requests for assistance were denied, including permission to evacuate US embassy personal to a more secure area or to the nearby airport where a charted plane was prepped and ready for takeoff. US military forces were monitoring the situation as well, and despite repeated requests to come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and other members of his staff, were instructed to stand-down. We've learned since that the Navy had fighter planes fueled and armed and only an hour or less out from Sigonella Italy, as well at bases in Avlano Italy (U.S. Air Force and NATO) and Souda Bay Crete (US Navy).

The Army too had fighters fueled and armed sitting on the runway waiting for permission to launch. At the time of attack, we learned that two CIA operatives at nearby communications station within the embassy did had some light firepower to hold off the attackers briefly. Meanwhile, one of the individuals was "painting" targets in anticipation of a rescue which never came. We have since learned that flying in the vicinity was an AC-130 returning from a mission (an AC-130 is an ultra modern version of what we used to called "Puff the Magic Dragon" AC-47). The pilot had also been monitoring the situation and requested permission to lay down suppression fire until the cavalry came. He too was ordered to leave. In addition, the US had drones flying overhead during the attack. In the end, Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods were left to die. Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 and US Army General Carter Ham, Commander of United States African Command, were both relieved of command by President Obama for their insistence on sending a relief operation to the embassy on the recommendation of Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense.

There was obviously so much more to Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and, of course, to run for President. However, even when taken as a whole, her record isn't great. Something happened to Hillary Clinton since the days when she was a bright idealist; one filled with passion for women's and children's issues; of when she served as an aide on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeach Inquiry Staff during the Watergate Hearings. Somewhere along the way, she was corrupted by the very system she, and other of our generation, sought to change. Her idealism became cynicism and ultimately, perhaps the end really did justifies the means. Perhaps the hand of History will write that Hillary Clinton was another reminder of Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . I think her book, and any that follows, will be her attempts to rewrite history in order to justify her actions or perhaps her lack of actions not just for posterity's sake as much as for herself. I believe too that it shows how far government has strayed from the ideals of our Founding Fathers.


Sales of Hillary Clinton's New Book Are Off To A Slow Start



Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders



Benghazi: Military Commanders "Relieved of Duty"


Contractors say Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses

The "Pile On" Circus Is Coming to Town/ The Trump Trip: A Documentary

I just saw a poll online which claimed that just over half of all Americans---52%--- would prefer to see Barack Obama back in office as President. The poll further claimed that, of their 725 participants, only 43% were glad to see Donald Trump occupying the Oval Office, while 5% "weren't sure". The poll, which showed up on AOL, was conducted by the Public Policy Polling ("PPP") in January of this year, so basically it allegedly reflected the opinion of a small number of registered voters , with Trump having served only a couple of weeks. The president of PPP, Dean Debnam, stated that despite Trump's rather brief time in office, that the President should be at "peak" popularity at this point in their term.

AOL ran the article as if this was some sort of major poll, when in fact, it was a rather small sample of voters. There was no mention as to the makeup of the chosen few, such as their party registration, frequency of voting, racial, gender or ethnic identifiers. So, as far we know, based on the article, all or most of the 725 individuals could have been registered Democrats, Hispanics, and/or women; all of whom were historically part of Obama's voter base. Of course, we can't and shouldn't forget that the corporate media has been on an all out campaign to discredit and besmirch Trump at every turn since this election began, and they've doubled down since Trump's inauguration. It's a 27/7 media "pile on" circus. Rumors are presumed to be true until repeatedly proven otherwise.

Naturally, a newly elected Obama never had to experience anything quite like this. The corporate media did nothing but try and sell the made up credentials of this man to the American People in spite of the fact that he, Obama, had no political experience, no business or foreign affairs expertise. His academic history was more than suspect; it barely existed. He wasn't even a "law professor" as claimed. He was an occasional part time lecturer on Constitutional Law. He was a community organizer for an organization which got in trouble with FBI and IRS for some---allegedly---shady dealings involving voter registration. The corporate media is trying to made a molehill into the proverbial mountain by claiming that Trump is maintaining a loose connection with his various business interests. I hate to break it to them, but there's nothing new or shocking about that. Every president has maintained some type of arms length involvement with their previous business interests, be it a law firm or a communications empire (like LBJ had), peanut farming (like Jimmy Carter's) or whatever.

Of late, we've had numerous (and well staged) protests, ranging from the somewhat vulgar "Women's March" with women protestors walking around topless or wearing vagina shaped hats and customs, to carrying signs with some rather sophomoric expressions on them. Then there's been all the protest which actually seem more like free-for-all riots than anything, complete with looting, destroying property, attacking people with bottles, rocks, fire bombs, and even physical assaults. All the while, they chant "tolerance", "freedom", "love Trumps hate", and "free speech". I guess they see themselves as worthy successors to my generation---the Babyboomers---but to us and the rest of the world, their deeds don't match their actions and they seem to be spoiled little brats who didn't get their way.

Well, sorry to violate your "safe place" but Bernie lost thanks to being screwed over by Hillary and the DNC in the Democratic Primary. Hillary lost because she was a lousy candidate and Americans didn't want a criminal in the Oval Office. The Establishment Republicans lost because we were tired of empty suits. Donald Trump won because he spoke to us as real people. Some of what he said we didn't agree with, or even necessarily like, but at least he didn't try to pander to us. So, put on your big boy underwear and your big girl panties (assuming you know the difference) and act like adults. Don't like Trump? Ok, great. Do something about it, and by that I mean don't act like a bunch of thugs and punks. I mean organize a new political party to challenge both of the corporate controlled parties; find a truly worthy candidate who isn't beholden to the corporate lobbyists and the Oligarchs who run this country. Do something constructive for a change. Work to change laws; get petitions signed have them introduce to the mayor or your State governor and legislator, or to your Congressman.

While I personally think Obama was all fluff, he was supposedly a successful community organizer, so if you really do idolized the ole sod that much, then follow in his footsteps and become a community organizer yourselves. Take control of your neighborhoods and learn to run them in such a way as to reduce localized crime and gang activity, or improve housing for the poor, helping the homeless, or by creating community vegetable gardens to keep feed the least among you. But I can assure you that protesting against someone who was invited to speak at a college campus, and then follow up it up by trashing local stores and assaulting people simply because you don't agree with them, is about as lame and excuse as it gets. The same goes for doing the same thing on order to try and prevent a comedian---a standup comic for crying out loud---from doing his routine because you're afraid of what he might say and you won't like it (or is it that you're afraid that you may like it?). One thing is for certain, if this keeps up, somebody somewhere is going to really mess up big time and you'll trigger the one thing you and everybody else doesn't want...martial law, be it local or national. The crackdown will be brutal, without mercy, and strictly enforced. All your temper tantrum behavior won't do a thing for you, and there aren't any "safe spaces" in jail.

So, why don't you all take a few moments to think about this? Don't you think there's a better way to get your point across than destroying the businesses of people who've done absolutely nothing to you or attacking people for speaking their mind...just like you're doing...just because you disagree with them? Granted, some of these protests are purely manufactured; bought and paid in order to create chaos and division. The only ones who benefit from this are the elites and they don't give a rat's patooy about people like you and me. They only want control because control means money and power, which they can get through martial law because they know martial law sometimes has a way of becoming permanent, especially when you already have a surveillance and police state in the making. Think about it people.

Poll: More than half of U.S. voters would rather have Obama as president



The Trump Trip: A Documentry
by The Sound Headquarters

As many of you know, I often do book reviews on behalf of several publishing companies and the occasional independent author. It's not often that I get to do a review of a documentary. About a week ago, I was contacted by Greg Raposa of The Sound Headquarters, who sent me a documentary, "The Trump Trip", to take a look it.

It's not very long, just over 37 minutes, which seems about right for program of this sort. The topic too caught my attention since it is a cross country search for individuals who for voted for Trump and why, especially among those who typically would not have supported someone like "The Donald" such as dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, Millennials, and Establishment Republicans. In addition, the team involved in this adventure are very liberal Democrat types, so they brought along their own preconceived ideas as well.

The results of their road trip are truly fascinating, especially to political types like me. But I think this documentary is also for anyone regardless of their political leanings who are interested in trying to come to terms with the results of our most divisive election since Lincoln vs. Douglas. Combine this was excellent production quality, and you've got something people should seriously take time to watch. So without further ado, here's the link to The Trump Trip. Let us know what you think.

My 2016 Review Which Didn't Go As Planned

I had originally thought about writing a nice summary of the year's event; you know, kind of a wrap up for 2016. However, whenever I started to sit down and get started, something else would catch my attention, usually relating to this, for lack of a better expression, systematic shock by the Left that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton, despite the near foregone conclusion that she would crowned as the first female American President, lost and the subsequent trauma which has ensued beginning with denial and then quickly into the anger stage. Now, we seem to be well into the blame stage where, in an effort to find some reason---no matter how absurd or illogical---how America was denied its "queen", how "The Donald" won (never mind the mood of the country for the last eight or even 16 years with Establishment politics), the open takeover of the country by the Oligarchy not to mention international embarrassments--American officials don't bow damn it---and apology tours, a never-ending wars complete with illegal gun deals, the murder of an ambassador as well as open borders for illegals and potential terrorists and so on and so on.

So, now, in a quest to ignore the obvious and distract Americans (again) from the reality of what's actually happening, the DNC and members of the Democratic Party Establishment have, at Hillary's urging, started to fix the blame for Hillary's loss (and there has to be somebody to blame other than the candidate herself) on the Russians. Apparently, according to the current narrative, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directly Russian intelligence agencies to find ways to "rig" the election against Hillary (you know, like she and Debbie Wasserman did against Bernie Sanders) and to find ways to discredit her (like her failure to use secured servers and cell phones, using the office of Secretary of State to garner "pay-to-play" donations to the Clinton Foundation, attempts to cover-up unauthorized arms deals, failure to come to the assistance of a US Ambassador in Benghazi resulting in his death, the death of three other high value Embassy individuals and destruction of the Embassy itself and the subsequent cover-up, and literally thousands and thousands of pages of other "trivial points" in her words).

The story the current Regime is trying to sell to us via the corporate media, Russian intelligence operatives were able to bypass the National Security Agency, which is the largest and most powerful global communications monitoring network on the planet bar none and can literally monitor, record, and analyze every piece of electronic communication on in near real time; they broke through the communications net of the FBI, Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and its electronic monitoring capabilities, as well as the internal security features of the DNC, the US State Department (Hillary's repeated refusal to use secure cell phones or servers surely didn't help). Of course, let's not forget that most of what was released was from the very fingers of Hillary, her campaign staff, her SoS staff, the DNC, and so forth. In other words, what repeatedly damn them was their own words from their own sites, not manufactured emails or other electronic communications---but themselves. Yet, their complaint has been that someone else sabotaged Hillary's chances. Their arrogance is simply amazing, and then to demand an Congressional investigation and enlist the help of the aforementioned intelligence agencies to help find a scapegoat, and who better to blame than the one world leader who saw through both Obama and Hillary than Vladimir Putin.

According to Mr. Putin, he was less than disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost, especially given her oft repeated promises of continuing with President Obama's foreign policies, which has seen a refreeze of relations between Russia and the US, especially in the Middle East where Obama has repeatedly pushed for "boots on the ground" against Russia long standing regional ally, Syria. In addition, Russia has proven to be very successful with the efforts to target and remove terrorists operations, namely ISIS and Al Qaeda, in Syria while the US regards them as "allies" and refers to them as "rebels" since they are opposing President Assad's government and continued to arm and equipment them while outside Syria these same groups are the our enemies. Trump has expressed a willingness to work with Putin in eliminating these individuals wherever they are located or under whatever name they are currently using.

Nevertheless, Putin has repeatedly stated that neither he nor Russian intelligence was involved in rigging the US Presidential Election. Besides, if Russia could bypass our national intelligence network to this degree, I think our priorities need to be reexamined and we need to be more concerned how we could have a failure of this proporation than Hillary's loss. Next, we have Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks who, you know, actually leaked the information in question. According to Mr. Assange, Russian was not involved in any way in helping WikiLeaks in obtaining any of the volumes of emails and other documents which they've been making available to the public. Mr. Assange has stated, however, that most of his sources have been disillusioned staffers at the DNC, former Clinton associates and campaign volunteers, as well as former Bernie Sanders supporters. Huh. So, here we have a organization with the history of obtaining and releasing information and its presidents admitting to the leaks but this isn't acceptable to Hillary, the DNC, and the Political Establishment? I always thought that the keys to solve any crime were "motive, means, and opportunity", which WikiLeaks has, and here we have a public confession too but that's somehow not acceptable? Could it be that Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible for her own failure?

Lastly, we now have what I'm calling the "Revenge of the Talking Heads". From early on in the presidential race, it became more than clear that this was going to be about the two Establishment parties going through the formulated campaign with all the usual sound bites, glad-handing and scripted speeches as one cardboard candidate pretended to get indignant with the other cardboard candidate, and in the end you and I got to go vote for the one which sounded like they cared the most but didn't. You know, "the illusion of choice" which is American Politics these days. In this case, it was corporate owned Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. whoever the Pretender-to-the-Throne the other side would present. In the end, Hillary would emerge victorious after a "hard fought" but "honorable" race and call for the country to "come together" behind her administration and policy...blah, blah, blah. Well, it didn't work out that way did it?

Instead, we had a political outsider who the Establishment called a "clown", "the circus", and "didn't deserve to be there". Interesting. I thought anyone could run for President and it was up to us---the People---to decide who "deserved" to be there or not, but perhaps I'm mistaken. That must have been a cartoon from my youth. Throughout the campaign, the corporate media and its "talking heads" couldn't have been more non-transparent in their contempt for the non-establishment candidate or in the foregone conclusion that this "formality" of the election process was just the prelude to Hillary's coronation. No one, and I mean no one was any more dumbfounded than the camera perfect heads on NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBS, CNN, and the rest of the corporate owned media outlets, but of those who were actually listening to the American People---the non-traditional media (including yours truly), we weren't surprised at all. In fact, most of us had been saying so all along!

Now, we the corporate media with its image and credibility irrevocably tarnished, has launched an all out campaign to shut down sites it regards as promoting "fake news". This includes not only trying to ignore them but removing them from sites like Facebook and YouTube because, well, you know, you can trust them with telling the "truth" not independent bloggers, writers, talk shows and other alternative news sites. Of course, to be sure, there are more than a few news sites, etc who put "questionable" stories out there---some of which sounding quite legit---but then so has and does the corporate media. Kettle meet pot, although I think those of us in the alternative media are more honest since we aren't often beholden to a paycheck and making some corporate powerbroker happy or necessarily towing some party line.

Regardless, I find it dangerous that the very same media outlets, 96% of which who are controlled by just six corporations---yes six---and beholden to corporate interests just like the two primary corporate political parties are should be allowed to "police" those who are trying to do an honest job and provide real news which they aren't even trying to report. To me, and I admit that I'm obviously biased on this point, but it reminds me of when the old Fascist and Communist regimes began imposing their propaganda machine on the countries, be it Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's Russia, Tojo's Japan or more recent dictatorships in Libya, Iraq or some of the countries in Latin America. As I think everyone knows by now, America isn't the Constitutional or democratic Republic it once was. It's an Oligarchy, and like most oligarchies, it's neo-fascist in its political ideology though it really doesn't care as long as they obtain and maintain control, be it the economy, the government, the military (which it uses as its enforcer), or control over our lives and, ultimately, our thoughts---our opinions and values---because as long as this illusion of choice continues, they still need to go through the formality of elections. It's, of course, much easier if they can predict our behavior triggers on certain issues and channel that in a certain direction to get the "official" results they wanted in the first place.

By the way, there's also another shift taking place which most Americans may be unaware of. In addition to this "witch hunt" against alternative media, there is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempt to delegitimize Trump and his incoming Administration underway; innuendos, understated questions, backhanded slurs against certain individuals, attempts to place doubts and undercut public trust going on by the corporate media. It's "as if" they are trying to plant in the mind of Americans that somehow the Presidential election was "stolen" or wasn't "legitimate" and that Trump isn't the "real" President. Some have started campaigns using the slogan "Not my President" and encouraging members of Congress, the military, the political bureaucracy to ignore Trump, his polices, and Executive Orders; a kind of passive aggressive resistance. Even Obama has been doing his best to undercut Trump by taking steps, especially in regards to foreign policy and immigration, that will hamper the new administration. Traditionally, the outgoing President didn't do much of anything as a courtesy to the incoming President, knowing firsthand how difficult it is hitting the ground running. It's part of the "peaceful transition" of administrations that we were known for. It appears those days are gone and we're witnessing yet another attempt by the Obama Regime to divide and disrupt America.

So, instead of looking back at the year, I decided that taking a closer look at how it ended was an excellent coda to the year and look forward toward 2017, and perhaps beyond. Of course, if we were to look back, I might suggest something more appropriate...like 1984. Have a healthy and safe 2017 everyone.

Hillary's Presidential Campaign Failure: The Russians Did It!

This is getting beyond amusing and into the realm of the absurd. Hillary Clinton, in one of her first talks since losing the 2016 Presidential Election, is now claiming that the reason for her loss was that Russia's Vladimir Putin had a "personal beef" with her. Seriously? Her loss had nothing to do with Benghazi and the deaths of an ambassador or three former Navy SEALs and CIA operatives? It had nothing to do with her repeated lying to Congress, or the Senate or the American People? It had nothing to do with arrogant disregard for security procedures regarding classified emails and other communications: her attempts to withhold or destroy evidence? Her defeat had zero to do with using the office of Secretary of State as a gatekeeper in a multimillion dollar "pay to play" scheme involving countries and corporations and their bribes....err..."donations" to her Clinton Foundation, not to mention attempts to avoid taxes by making substantial donations to her own fun. How about doing illegal arms smuggling deals to groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda (you know---9/11 and the butchering of thousands of Kurds, Christians, and Yazidi or the selling of hundreds of young women into sex slavery). What about the selling of uranium to Russia? Do you think that miffed Putin?

Let's not forget that all of this started off with allegations by the CIA and others in the intelligence community that Russia somehow manipulated our federal election system against Hillary. They also allege that the thousands of WikiLeaks originated from the Russians and more recently, since Putin was a former KGB station chief, that he had both the time and expertise to be directly involved in helping to the "throw" the election to Donald Trump. And if that wasn't enough, we've had to endure efforts to "recount" votes in key states and cities, which was initiated by Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein, who almost magically was able to raise some five million dollars in a week whereas she could only come up with three millions for her campaign during the entire course of the election! What's more, it appears that much of the money raised for the recount came from the Hillary supporters. When it turned out that the recount wasn't going to work (and was resulting in the loss of votes mistakenly counted for both Stein and Hillary), it was quietly dropped. Of course, Stein got to keep the money left over. I wonder what you would call that anyway---a payoff? Whatever it's called, it destroys the credibility of not just Jill Stein, but the Green Party too, not to mention the integrity of the third parties who may now be viewed as pawns of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and Republicans (I guess if Trump had lost, it would have been Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson who would have demanded a recount on behalf of the Establish Republicans, though I would hope he has more character than that).

Now if that wasn't a big enough farce, the corporate media has been nonstop in their attempts to delegitimize Trump's victory and criticizing every move Trump or someone in his camp makes, from who he interviews for various Cabinet posts to opting to conduct the interviews in the privacy of his own residence (Trump maintains a luxury apartment in Trump Towers, which he owns). Naturally, they'll do the same to anyone he chooses. Finally, with their failure to generate any interests in the recounts, Hillary supporters and members of the DNC, as wells as members of other groups, are trying to intimidate the members of the Electoral College into not doing their sworn duty and casting their votes for the winner of the election, Donald Trump. Some, if not all by this point, have received thousands of death threats, harassing phone calls, letters, and emails. They are demanding that they vote for Hillary Clinton instead.

As if this isn't insane enough, Hollywood's Leftwing; these so-called "celebrities" are also lending their voices to this hue and cry. Some, are even doing short commercials insisting that the Electoral College both be done away with (which would throw all future presidential elections to those states with the largest populations) and to ignore their state's election outcome and vote for Hillary. By law, the candidate who wins the most states receive that state's allotted Electoral votes. Approximately a month after the election, those members of the Electoral College gather to cast their votes for the winner in their state. In theory, they are under no specific obligation to vote the way their state intended, but traditionally they've always done so. Lastly, there has been threats by buttercups and snowflakes...I mean...Left leaning Millennial college students...to boycott classes, disrupt public activity (such as transportation) and hold protests. Some have promised to cause problems at the inauguration (wow, I hope it's not as bad as it was the last two times. Oh yeah, that's right. Conservatives and the GOP didn't riot, stage protests, disrupt public activity or makes jackasses of themselves at Obama's inaugurations). I swear, the Left is teetering on having a collective epileptic fit. So, let's get down to the point of all this.

First off, these are ALLEGED cyber attacks, and secondly, what a crock of BS. Now "St. Hillary" is claiming there was an international plot---lead by Putin--to deprive her of the coronation, to which she believes she was entitled. Wasn't it Hillary who said there was not rigging of elections? Yet, she and Debbie Wassermann-Schultz were found to be rigging the Primary and DNC Convention against Bernie Sanders (and for which Debbie was fired and then hired the next day by her ole pal Hillary)? And wasn't it Hillary who said "in our system of democracy, some win and some lose"? And wasn't it also Hillary who said that Trump had to accept the "Will of People" and results of the election? It's time for Mrs. Clinton to shuffle off to the "dustbin of History" where she belongs and let this nation try and repair the damage of the last eight years.

Secondly, it's time for Obama to acknowledge that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton loss. He needs to start acting like a President and stop with his efforts to stir up hated and discontent, which seems to be about the only things he's actually accomplished in his eight years. Enough with the implied threats and innuendos; of warning Trump to keep his hands off of certain policies and so on. Obama has been acting like a spoiled little brat who didn't get his way, and so now he's acting like a little snot. Obama is acting as if Trump's election was a personal affront; a reflection of his regime and is policies (well, actually it was, especially since Hillary said that she intended to carry on some of Obama's objectives). Well, like Hillary, it's time for Obama to put on his big boy underwear and act like an President (or at least an adult). Obama had his time. Now, like Hillary, it's time to go. "The Donald" may fall flat...or he might be one of America's greatest Presidents ever. Only time will tell, but we, as a nation, owe that to Trump for no other reason than the fact that he is the incoming President. Let "The Donald" prove himself one way or the other without trying to sabotage him before he even gets started.

Lastly, if any of what Hillary, Obama, the corporate media, the CIA says is true, then we have much more serious problems than worrying about the Electoral College. If...and that's a really big "If"...Russia did manipulate the election of an American President, then we have a complete and catastrophic failure of our entire intelligence infrastructure from the NSA, CIA, DIA to Homeland Security and the FBI. We also have an utter failure of the internal electoral safeguards from the manufacturers of the voting machines to the County Clerks who count the ballots all the way up to the offices of every single Secretary of State responsible for tabulating and verifying the votes casts in this country. I'm not saying that it is entirely impossible. There are numerous instances of paper ballots and sometimes machine ballots being miscounted, of the unregistered and occasionally illegal individuals voting, people selling their votes, and of course, the dead voting. Don't forget that the DNC worked to rig results in certain specific locations against Sanders, but still, there was no nationwide voter fraud as now being alleged by Hillary supporters.

Meanwhile, as some sort of punitive backlash, the corporate media is going after alternative news and radio media sites, including Conservative and Right leaning bloggers and YouTube Channel hosts. These are some of the same corporate media outlets which almost openly campaigned for Hillary and was often the source of actual "fake news". They are claiming that alternative "fake news" sites led to Hillary's defeat and Obama's dismissal approval ratings (and, I suspect, the pathetic approval ratings of Congress and Supreme Court which have been in the dumpster for decades). Therefore, in an effort to control public information content, corporate and some social media outlets like Facebook are joining forces. I know that somewhere both Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin have found something to smile about together.

So, let's face facts. The Russians aren't responsible for Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary was. It was her arrogance and her actions that caused her to lose the election. I think one could successfully argument that it was also Obama and his policies which contributed to her loss as well. Julian Assuage, founder of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have both said that their information did not come from the Russians, or any other government for that matter. It came from with the DNC and the political system that was fed up with the corrupt status quo. In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked Americans in his campaign for President if, after four years of Carter's Presidency, they were better now than four years go. The answer was no, and Reagan became our 40th President. A similar, but unspoken question was put to Americans again in this election, and once more, the answer was a collective "no". Yes, it's true that Putin doesn't like Hillary Clinton. He also doesn't like Obama, Joe Biden, or John Kerry but so what? It's time Hillary, the DNC, and yes, the Obama Regime, take ownership of their loss. They repeatedly ignored the American People, as has the Establishment Republicans.

Trump's victory wasn't your victory. You worked just as hard against Trump as did the Left. Both corporate parties assumed we were asleep. We weren't. We were vitally awake and we were tired of seeing our nation destroyed bit by bit. Trump might not do any better, which is ok. We'll vote him out too. We are tired of the Oligarchy ruling our nation. We're fed up with their corporate owned media which spins, misdirects and misleads us at every opportunity. We're tired of the "unsweetened blue Kool-Aid" Republicans and the "sweetened red Kool-Aid" Democrats; both bought and paid for by the neo-fascist Oligarchs who do everything in their power to divide us. Regardless of our political leanings or race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other factors, we must come together and focus our energy on rebuilding this country in our image; to serve our needs; to represent us, not the uber-rich or the political class, and most certainly, not the Oligarchy.



Hillary Clinton talks election loss, Vladimir Putin's "personal beef" with her
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-talks-election-loss-vladimir-putin-personal-beef/


Obama says Russian 2016 election tampering ended after warning to Putin
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/16/obama-says-russian-2016-election-tampering-ended-after-warning-t/21629714/


Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/putin-trump-election-hillary-clinton


FBI back CIA assessment of Russian's 2016 election hack
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/16/fbi-backs-cia-assessment-of-russia-2016-election-hack/21629706/

The Republican Endorsement of Hillary Clinton?

Who says politics isn't a team sport? It seems everyone has a team. Of course, that team is theirs and how everything revolves about them. However, once in a while, these various "teams" come together in a common cause. In this cause, that common cause is Donald Trump and the team name should be something like "Who's Not Supporting the Republican Party Nominee?". I think people would be surprised by who isn't onboard with Team Trump. We know Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't. 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who had been in the "no" column has given a very lukewarm endorsement while 34 other Republican House members have said nope. Former Secretary of the State, Condi Rice isn't and neither are Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio. Former GOP Presidents George H Bush (and his wife Barbara Bush), Jeb and George W Bush aren't. Two time GOP loser Mitt Romney isn't and neither is John McCain. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn't. Neither is the Koch Brothers and many more. Most of those who have, with a few exceptions like Chris Christy, have given only a "limp fish" endorsement of Trump; many adding that they will not actively support or hinder his campaign. The Republican National Committee too has offered a less than stellar endorsement of their nominee.

In short, the Establishment GOP is not crazy about the guy who beat their handpicked candidates, so they intend to punish their conservative base (you know, the "common folk" who voted for Donald Trump over the "Rich Old Boy" network's choices) by not helping Trump. The GOP Establishment has taken every opportunity to take a swing at "The Donald" they can. 

It's even being humored that the now infamous "locker room tape" leaked to the corporate press came from within the Republican Party Establishment which wouldn't surprise me a bit. The same goes for many of these women stepping forward with allegations of sexual harassment by Trump (no police reports were ever filed or mention ever made to others). Some are wondering if these women are being paid to fabricate or exaggerate their claims. Regardless, they are getting their fifteen minutes of notoriety at just the right critical time for the Hillary camp. Coincidence?

There's been only a few times in US political history where a political party ruling clique has set out to sabotage its own Presidential nominee's campaign. The first came with the implosion of the Whigs which coincided with the breakup of several smaller "third parties" such as the Free Soil Democrats and the America "No-Knowing" Party, which later came together to form the Republican Party in 1856. 

The second time is when Republican Howard Taft failed to live up to expatiations (at least in Teddy Roosevelt's eyes) and when he refused to step aside to allow "Teedy" to run again, TR bolted from the GOP to form a new political party, the Progressive Party, or as was better known as, the "Bull Moose Party". In the first instance, it marked the end of the Whig Party and the other smaller parties and birth of the GOP. 

It's second Presidential nominee was Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the breakup of the United States and a civil war which followed. In the second instance, it severely damaged the Republican Party and split the conservative and moderate vote, which then threw the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who, despite his promises to the contrary, supported entry of the US into World War I.

As most political junkies know, and as common sense would tell you, fractions and factions in politics are commonplace. After all, you're dealing with super rich spoiled brats with ego's the size of Montana (sounds like professional sports). Everyone of them think their Wall Street's gift to America. But usually there are the backroom deals just before or during the party convention which attempts to plaster over these differences. 

It there that vice presidents are selected, along with cabinet post positions the other key offices in exchange for support, favors, or money. However, that didn't happen in this case; at least as far as we know, although Mike Pence as Trump's running mate could have been the result of a backroom compromise with the GOP elite (which may explains the bizarre behavior of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio afterwards).

I think that in the current situation, we have a similar recipe for disaster. First off, these current and former Republican "leaders", by their refusal (and ego driven temper tantrums) to support their nominee are making a de facto endorsement of Hillary Clinton. 

By the RNC not actively supporting Donald Trump, they too are endorsing Hillary by default. The others, with their tempt "endorsement" are saying to voters of all stripes that they have no confidence in their party's nominee and, thus, support the other candidate; in this case, Hillary Clinton. 

Either way, should Clinton win the election, the Republican Party and all of its elected representatives will no excuse to criticize either Hillary or the Democratic "leadership" over the next four years. How could they when they won't support their own nominee and are making implied endorsements of the other party's candidate? Of course, I'm sure some are just that hypocritical that they'll try.

But not all of this is on the Republican Party. The Democrats are facing a similar though less publicized problem. The Millennials, who are the nation's largest (and still growing) demographic voting bloc, strongly supported Bernie Sanders, or at least, Bernie's proposed political agenda. 

Many were highly upset when Bernie failed to do as well in the primary as they though he would, so needless to say, they were highly miffed when they learned that Hillary Clinton and the DNC (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in particular) had conspired together to fix the Democrat Primaries and later, the Democratic National Convention.

 True, Wasserman and some others were immediately fired, Hillary's camp turned right around and hired them as campaign advisors. The result has been more Millennials leaving the Democrat party and joining the majority of voters as independents (the GOP has already faced a similar exodus when it began forcing out its moderates in the 1980's who went on to join ranks with the Indies).

The end result is an electorate which strongly disapproves of either party's presidential offering combined with a sustain and exceptionally high disapproval of the Washington politics in general. 

The public has long understood that the political process was corrupt and broken beyond repair. Now it's being played out for all to see. Even down ticket candidates on both sides are trying to distance themselves from the two nominees and their party by emphasizing that they are "independent", "non-partisan" or "independent thinking" (which is not only an oxymoron since they are running on a corporate party ticket but disingenuous as well). 

The only real winners out of this will be the third parties such as the Libertarians and the Greens; perhaps especially so since most Millennials seem to gravitate to one or the other of these two parties in terms of their party platforms. I think too that the American People themselves may benefit by leaving the duopoly created and financed by Wallstreet and promoted by their corporate media. Meanwhile, should either of the two corporate sponsored candidates win in November, America is in for a very rough next four years.



Which Republicans Oppose Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet



List: Which Republicans oppose Trump and Why



Republican Party Spends $0 on TV Ads for Trump



Mike Pence "disappointed" with Republican leaders not backing Donald Trump