So What Are the Odds? A Look at a Recent Poll on Government Reform, Privacy and Wall Street

It has been said, both on air and in print, that Donald Trump's election as President is proof positive that America is at the very least a "right of center" country now, but is it? A poll done by the (admittedly) liberal leaning Progressive Change Institute seems to claim that America is actually moving toward becoming a democratic socialist nation (whatever that actually means). I've taken a look at the results, and based on the responses, it would appear those surveyed would support measures to take this country to the Left...a lot...but that's far different from saying we are already there. For instance, the poll shows 71% would favor corporate disclosure of all money donated to political campaigns and on lobbying (including "soft" or indirect donations). When broken down by registration, 77% Democrats favor full disclosure while 62% of Republicans did. 77% of Independents, who are the nation's largest voting bloc and growing, support full financial disclosure. So, while it sounds like a "no brainer", bear in mind that corporations actually control the government at all levels, which is why we are now a de facto oligarchy. So, what are the odds of this happening? Not much I'm afraid.

Speaking of money, 58% of those surveyed favored breaking up big banks and other financial institutions, like those responsible for the near total financial collapse, who received taxpayer bailouts over the objections of those same taxpayers thanks to their political lobbying and the "revolving door" between government and Wall Street. So what the odds it won't happen again? A fool's wager. These same money and power brokers were also successful in defeating efforts at enacting financial reforms. In fact, several of the these corporations took the taxpayer bailout and paid themselves multimillion dollar bonuses. Nevertheless, the survey question broke down with 71% of the Democrats favoring the breakup along with 51% of the Republicans and 50% of Independents.
Of note is that when the same question was modified slightly by asking about breaking up financial institutions deemed "too big to fail", the results were a bit different. Slightly less, 55% favored ending "too big to fail" banks and other corporations, which broke down to 61% of Democrats and 60% of Independents. However, only 47% of Republicans supported the idea. I wonder why? Could be their dominance of these boards of directors? So, what are the odds? By the way, on a related question, 67% favored ending the ability of Wall Street and other corporate firms to deduct government fines and penalties from their tax liabilities.

Yelp, you read that right. Breaking the law and getting caught is considered just part of the cost of doing business, and it's tax deductible. As for the breakdown, it was a majority across the board---68% of Independents, 64% of Democrats, and 70% of Republicans agreeing. So, what are the odds of that little loophole being closed? I would say between slim and none. Most of these laws exist to appease various grassroots groups. Since corporate lobbyists usually write these bills outright and submit them to appropriate individual, the wording to bypass its intent is always incorporated into the bills. If not, then a rider is tacked on near the end the legislative process to circumvent any real change. However, should the occasional bill get through, corporations get a "free pass" thanks to loopholes mentioned above which allows them to write off any fines or penalties simply as another expense like any other.

How about this one---ending gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is how political parties (and certain key political players) get to ensure their party (and themselves) keep control of a given district. They do this by periodically redrawing districts to ensure as many of their fellow party members as possible are included. This gives them a statistical advantage come election day, and it's not the Republicans or Democrats responsible for this political version of "numbers racket". Both parties cooperate with each other in the process, especially if this means capping or limiting the growing influence of third parties and Independents. So, who are in favor of ending gerrymandering? According to the poll, 73% of those who responded wanted gerrymandering stopped. Of this, 81% of the Democrats and 70% of the Republicans agreed, along with 67% of Independents. So, what are the odds of both corporate political parties willingly giving up the ability to control or at least strongly influence election outcomes? Remember that power is never willingly given up.

Well, if we can't get corporate money out of politics and we can't end gerrymandering, how about trying to increase voter turnout? One of the questions asked about enacting a Comprehensive Voter Empowerment Act (CVEA) which would make election day a national holiday; perhaps even making it part of a three day weekend and/or making Saturday election day. It would also automatically register everyone as of their 18th birthday (registration would be left blank). The idea is to find ways to increase voter participation. Not unexpectedly, 56% of those surveyed liked the idea of the Comprehensive Voter Empowerment Act. 78% of Democrats favor the CVEA, compared to 50% of Independents. Interestingly, only 38% of Republicans liked the idea. When asked simply about election day being a national holiday and a day off, only 45% overall supported the idea. When broken down, 61% of Democrats still supported the notion. However, 54% of Republicans opposed it along with 46% of Independents.

So, what are the odds of something like this happening? First, you have to understand that while political parties talk about increasing voter turnout, the truth is that they oppose it. Why? Because they are less able to control election outcomes with larger numbers, be it for an issue or candidate. They know approximately how many people they can get out to vote based on a wide variety of factors (popularity of a candidate and voter demographics---which has their own set of factors---not to mention transportation availability and road conditions, weather, "hot topic" issues, etc). They know how many they can expect from their side and from the other side, and how much they have to have from the swing voters. The larger the numbers, the harder the outcome is to manage. Sometimes, when they're unsure of the outcome, political parties will insert "ringers" into the race; be it the opposing side's primary or sometimes into the general election. I know, not only have I've seen it in my nearly 40 years of political experience, I've had it happen to me when I ran for Metro Council. The idea is to draw voter from the stronger candidate by confusing voters through disinformation in order for the handpicked or clique candidate to win.

On the topic of personal privacy (which I strongly support), 71% of the respondents favored restricting what the government (including the NSA, FBI, and other security agencies) and well as the Internet has access to and can collect. In nearly a unanimous response, 71% of both Republicans and Democrats agreed along with 73% of Independents. Let's face it, nobody wants to be spied on. Interestingly, previous polls claim to show that Millennials value privacy the least among the various age groups. Some claim that the under 30 Millennials would willingly surrender practically any piece of personal information in exchange for anything up to or greater than a Subway sandwich coupon.

Personally, I disagree. Millennials are the first totally digital generation. They're use to sharing information. It comes automatically to them. However, I think they are just now becoming aware of the potential damage they are doing to their credit ratings and employment potential, especially as they become more directly integrated into society. So, what are the odds that these socially awkward digitally connected young adults has thought this through? What about all those little wannbe anarchists and radicals we see and hear about? I think they will shortly learn what it means to have an FBI, NSA, Homeland Security file on them, especially when they seek investment capital, apply for grants or loans, passports, and so forth. America is, as I've said before, an Oligarchy, and with that we are increasingly becoming a police or surveillance state. Under the "Patriot Act", ordinary American Citizens can be stopped, searched, questioned, and held on the most flimsy of "probable cause" excuses. They can have their property search and/or seized, not mention their assets frozen. In some cases, they can be held in undisclosed secured locations without the benefit of notifying a loved one, friend, or even a lawyer...indefinitely. Why would anyone willingly give the government and their corporate overlords additional ammo (pun intended)?

The poll included quite a number of other questions, but the responses were mostly all just as interesting. It seems that, at least among the respondents, there was quite a bit of agreement between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Naturally though, we aren't the ones controlling how the government is run. We're just merely the voters. However, if the results of this, and other polls are correct, it appears that if we were in charge things would indeed be quite different. But then, what are the odds?

Want to know more? You can check out the poll at Progressive Change Institute

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/

Campaigning On The Public's Dollar

Did you know that the cost to fly Air Force One is just over $228,000...an hour? That covers fuel (they carry their own extra fuel), food, water, supplies, and crew. Plus, the engines are inspected while on the ground and after each mission the engines are overhauled while Air Force One itself gets a nose to tail and wingtip to wingtip inspection. Can you guess how much it costs to fly the President of the United States around? Well, the 2012/2013 Christmas flight to Hawaii and back to Washington cost US taxpayers $4,086,355.20. A trip to Ireland in July of 2013, which included a sightseeing tour for Mrs. Obama, their daughters, and usual entourage cost taxpayers just under $8 million dollars. When they all decided to take a break and fly to Africa the same year, our tab was over $15 million dollars, and we didn't even get a lousy T-shirt! But, of course, that trip included US fighter escorts because we all know just how popular the American President is globally. In August of 2013, the cost for the Obama's to fly to Martha Vineyard for their August vacation and back to Washington was a little over $1,164,000---and that doesn't include lodging, food, or even souvenirs.

In fact, flying the President of the United States around is an expensive operation...a very expensive operation since the President travels with a battery of special armored plated vehicles, a small army of Secret Service personnel and advance security agents to scope out and secure the areas where he will be traveling, speaking or staying. Overnight stays requires that the White House chef must go along to prepare his food (often, they also bring food from the White House kitchen in order to insure it hasn't been "tainted" in any way. This goes for beverages as well) as well as doctors and surgical equipment (complete with blood supply matching the President, his family, and key personnel), speech writers, military personnel, office staff and equipment such as teleprompters, microphones, speakers, podium with the Presidential Seal, and much more.

On long trips, the total number of people travelling with the President (in accompanying airplanes of course) may be as high as 500. On shorter trips or "sorties", the number may be only a hundred or so. So, any trip by the President or even the Vice President, will cost taxpayers one million dollars minimum every time the wheels leave the ground (for short "day trips", the President may opt to use "Marine One", which flown by Marine Helicopter Squadron 1 or HMX-1 at a cost of approximately $2760 an hour. When caring the President, they usually fly with 3 to 5 diversionary helicopters. . The squadron is comprised of VH-3D and VH-60N "Whitehawk" helicopters). In fact, travelling with the President can cost as much at $200 million per day when you factor in the backup C-747, multiple C-17 cargo planes which carries all the goodies such as armored vehicles, the President's limo and the President's helicopter, not to mention security assets which can include fighter support and naval assets when travelling overseas. The Vice President travels in his own special plane with back up security at just slightly less cost.

My point in bringing this to your attention is this. Have you noticed the number of times that President Obama or Vice President Joe Biden has been out on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton? Well, the answer is about seven times for Obama and around five times for Biden. That's not an inordinate number of times I suppose, but when you consider that this amounts to 14 trips (seven out and seven back) and ten for Biden (five out and five back) at $228,000 an hour each time Air Force One goes wheels up plus security and so forth, we're looking at $1 million+ 14 times (24 times if you add in Biden). Now, I have a couple of issues with this. First, the President of the United States (as well as the Vice President) is suppose to represent the People of America.

The President should be above petty partisan politics. Secondly, according to the US General Accounting Office (GAO), the President, Vice President and/or their family, when using Air Force One for private, personal, or political purposes, is to reimburse the White House budget for the complete cost at the current commercial rates. For instance, if the President is using Air Force One for a holiday, he is to reimburse the White House budget at the same rate as a commercial plane ticket (I assume first class, but it could be business class just as easily), along with the costs for any family or friends. The President and his guests are responsible for their food, lodging, etc (I imagine someone else, like lobbyist or deep pocket donor, picks up the tab). Of course, the President's food as well as his family's and presumably that of any personal guests are to be purchased by, inspected, and prepared by the White House chef regardless of where the meal takes place. Therefore, we have to presume that the food and lodgings the GAO is discussing would be that acquired away from Air Force One.

Anything of a personal nature, such as hairdresser, clothes, and so forth, are paid for separately or from the White House personal budget, of course much of the jewelry and clothes are often donated. The GAO summary goes on to state that all other costs pertaining to Air Force One is picked up by the Air Force (and, thus, by taxpayers) regardless of the nature of the flight. Secondly, since this is the President after all, all security and support details accompanying the President and/or his family are charged to the White House budget. As for the guests, I'm sure that incidentals are paid for individually. I doubt that you get a bill for sleeping accommodations or meals onboard Air Force One. So, basically you're responsible for your own hotel rooms and private meals (naturally, I seriously doubt anyone travelling with the President or his family is worried about the cost of a room or meal).

So, while the President, who is supposed to represent all of us, is MIA from the White House and doing what we elected and paying him to do, is out campaigning in a partisan election on our dollar, and I think that's wrong. Now, don't get me wrong and assume I'm picking just on Obama. I'm not. This has been a practice of presidents of both political parties for decades now, and regardless of whom, I still thinks it's wrong and a violation of the public's trust. We elect an individual to do a job---a very tough job. Ok, I get that, and I have no doubt they need a break to get away from the stress and smell of Washington politics, and even then, they're not entirely removed from it---they're on 24/7/365 but they knew that when they campaigned for the job so they can't claim they didn't what they were getting into. I do have an issue with excessive breaks (for instance, more than two 10 day vacations a year) and at that, when the vacation is going to costs taxpayers some outrageous amount.

When the President, however, takes off from doing what we're paying him to do in order to get involved in some partisan political race, he isn't doing his job and he's obviously not representing the People. He's representing a political party which means that at least 2/3 of the public aren't being represented while he's out working on behalf of some candidate (for example, Obama is a Democrat yet 43% of Americans are Independents and around 27% are Republicans, so while he's campaigning for another Democrat, there is a majority of citizens not being looked after). I have no doubt this happens at the State level with governors, Senate President's and House Speakers, with the latter two being part time jobs, so they may not be on the public's dollar while the governor is a full time job. Thus, he or she would have access to the State's aircraft or helicopter and while the costs to taxpayers would be substantially less, the same principal applies.

To me, this is a misuse of public funds and of the public's trust. Of course, I also happen to believe that once you're elected to office, you are no longer a Democrat or Republican or whatever. You're a public servant, and the public is who you represent. You don't represent any political party or belong to any special permanent committees exclusively based on gender, race, political party, or even a religion. Your membership in these special interest committees says these groups deserve more attention than others; they are somehow more important than other groups. In this country, every group is interconnected to others. What affects one group affects other groups. Maybe not to the same degree, but it affects all nevertheless. You can't try to solve a problem for one and not all. Each individual elected to office is there to represent every citizen in their district or State equally. Let's stop with this built-in partisanship paid for at the public's expense.



Under Obama, Air Force One costs per hour jumps 27% to $228,228
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/under-obama-air-force-one-cost-per-hour-jumps-27-to-228288/article/2544831


It's ridiculously expense to fly Air Force One
http://www.businessinsider.com/price-to-fly-on-air-force-one-2015-2


Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf



When President's Travel...Updated 10/30/16
http://www.politicaldog101.com/2012/06/22/when-presidents-travel/

Temperance: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Temperament. I think it's the key to success. The best educated individual can be a complete disaster if they fail to understand and adapt to the nuances of a particular job. I'm sure you've heard the expression about a "clash of personalities". Well, there is also the clash of social environments, whether it be in business, the classroom, or (and especially), in politics. One has to be adaptable and sociable to be successful. It has long been said that politics is the "art of the possible" or "game of compromise". It was the great former US Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn who once said "to get along, you have to go along" or John Kennedy's famous remark that "success has many fathers but failure is an orphan". We are face to two main choices for president in November, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (there are to other individuals worthy of consideration too, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, however for the sake of brevity, I will focus on the first two).

What kind of person is Hillary Clinton? We've all seen her, either in person or on TV. To some, she comes across as friendly, genuine, and honest while others see her as hateful, arrogant, vindictive, and as crooked as a snake's back. Let's briefly take a look at Ms. Clinton. She was born Hilary Diane Rodham on October 27, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois and raised a United Methodist in a conservative middle class household with other two siblings. The former Brownie and Girl Scout was a Barry Goldwater volunteer in his 1964 Presidential campaign and strongly anti-communist like Goldwater like her parents, their minister, and their friends.

In 1965, she attended Wellesley College, where she majored in political science and was president of the college's Young Republicans. She supported GOP centrists John Lindsey for NYC Mayor and Ed Brooke for US Senator in Massachusetts. Her attitude toward social issues changed, and she soon found herself as supporter of the far left Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Nevertheless, she interned at the House Republican Conference and helped GOP moderate Charles Goodall's efforts to elect another moderate, David Rockefeller. She attended the 1968 GOP Convention but was disappointed by Richard Nixon's portrayal of Rockefeller and "veiled racism". She cemented her departure from the Republican Party with her senior thesis on radical organizer Saul Alinsky's tactics on community organizing (as First Lady, access to her thesis was restricted). She graduated with a honors BA in Political Science in 1969.

After graduation, she held a variety of typical jobs before enrolling in Yale Law School where she served on the Yale Law Review. She was allowed to work on cases involving child abuse as part of her studies. She worked on Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee of Migratory Labor. She interned for the law firm of Treuhalf, Walker, and Burnstein in Oakland California which was then known for its work on constitutional rights and civil liberties issues (allegedly, two of its four partners had links to the Communist Party). She received her law degree in 1973, while she was dating Bill Clinton. The two campaigned together in Texas on behalf of Democrat George McGovern. She also worked for the Children Defense Fund. By 1974, she served on various committees during the Watergate Hearings (and fired for unethical behavior according to her former boss, General Counsel and Chief of Staff, Jerry Zeifman), afterwards returning with Bill Clinton to Arkansas to teach law courses at the University of Arkansas. She continued to remain involved in child advocacy issues throughout the 1970's into Bill Clinton's election as Governor. In 1979, she became the first female to made a full partner at local law firm, from where she would continue to earn more money than her husband until his election as President. During this same time period, there was several questionable investments such as Whitewater Development Corporation and cattle futures, which would haunt the Clintons for decades.

That brings us to the point where the Clinton's entered the White House, with its ups and many downs, including disclosure of Bill's numerous affairs throughout the years and failure of a national healthcare plan, which was headed up by Hillary. After the Presidency, Hillary ran successfully for US Senator from New York and then made her own run for President; ending unsuccessfully against an unknown upstart, Barak Obama. Hillary struck a deal for Secretary of State as part of an apparent deal to support Obama's run against John McCain, the Republican Senator of Arizona, Navy veteran and former POW. Her tenure as Secretary of State was marred by serious controversies over the decline in relationships with Europe, Israel, Russia, and China and efforts to revive the Cold War, the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other individuals in Benghazi, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the disintegration of Syria, increased illegal immigration and expansion of the drug cartels, as well as a failure in judgment concerning her mishandling of government emails and refusal to use secured servers, FBI and Senate investigations which revealed a complete lack of empathy, sense of non-culpability, misjudgment, self-entitlement, and arrogance. More recently has been the shadow of "election rigging" in her Primary race against Bernie Sanders due to dumping of email exchanges involving her campaign and DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was since been forced to resign.

"The Donald" as he is known, is an icon of glitz, overindulgence, glamour, New York City street smarts, brashness, and yes, arrogance. Trump is also known for his overreach, misjudgments, high dollar bankruptcies, abrasiveness, and hyperbole. He is the epitome of the New York real estate tycoon and star of his own "reality" TV show with its catchphrase, "you're fire" a part of our lexicon. He founded a now defunct university to teach people how to be successful, authored numerous books, and even has board games (I have several of his books and the board game. He was also required study during my undergraduate days while working on my degree in international economics, along with some of the other modern day "robber barons" like Carl Ichan and T. Boone Pickens).

Donald John Trump was born with money. His father ran a small but successful real estate development business, but it "the Donald" who turned it into an empire. He was born June 14, 1946, the fourth of five children, and grew up Jamaica Estates in Queens. He attended an upper-class "prep school", Kew-Forrest. By age 13, he had enrolled in the New York Military Academy and obtained the rank of captain. Trump went on to attend Fordham University in the Bronx before transferring to the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a BA in Economics. Trump didn't serve during the Vietnam War; having received several deferments, first because of "heel spurs" and then because he was enrolled in college (Bill Clinton also received deferments and didn't serve). Later, however, he was found fit and though he received a high draft number, was never drafted.

While attending Wharton, Trump had already begun to try his hand in real estate, beginning with the revitalization of the Swift Village Apartments in Cincinnati, Ohio. By 1971, he had moved to Manhattan and jumped into what would become a very successful career and soon developed a reputation for bold, over the top projects which usually involved properties no one wanted and turning them into highly desirable (and profitable) developments, such as the Commodore Hotel which was later to become the Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Bonwit Teller department store which became the site of the Trump Plaza, other investments weren't always as successful. While Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy, some of his holdings, including a few casinos have been included in one of the four chapter 11 bankruptcies filed. Trump revamped the Wollman Rink in Central Park, $750,000 under budget and operated the ice skating rink for one year with all profits going to various charities.

Despite the setbacks, Trump continued expanded his empire into boxing promotion, golf courses, the "Miss USA", "Miss Universe" and "Miss Teen USA" beauty pageants and even a football team, "New Jersey Generals", in the now defunct USFL. Trump is no stranger to controversies. In addition to the bankruptcies, Trump has been involved with several lawsuits beginning in 1973 with the Department of Justice over claims of housing violations, the Trump University (later named the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC), the various pageants and television networks, including NBC and Univision), and several others. Then there are the personal spates with individuals such as Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg, and more recently, Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Nevertheless, Trump keeps rolling along with financial interests in books, a magazine, board games, modeling management, mortgages, air shuttles, perfumes and cosmetics, television production, vodka and steaks, bottled water, an online travel search engine, men's accessories that include watches and clothing, catering, a line of coffee (and yes, even a line of ice cream), plus investments in banks and financial institutions, construction equipment, hedge funds, and even substantial shares in Facebook. All told, his estimated net worth is somewhere between $2.9 and $3.3 billion, give or take a hundred thousand here or there (to be fair, neither Hillary or Bill are exactly paupers. They have an estimated net worth of just over $32 million for Hillary and $80 million for Bill---that's a lot of cigars). Much of Hillary's income comes from speaking fees which are all in the six figure range, along with heavy investments in banks, hedge funds, pharmaceutical and financial services companies as well as in telecommunications.

Politically, Donald Trump has been a member of the Reform Party during the days of Ross Perot, a Democrat, and a Republican. He appears to base his political affiliation more on his personal relationships than on any ideology, such as with the Clintons and the Reagans, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, which isn't unexpected for a businessperson. Trump has, on occasion, left based on personalities too, such as David Duke's or Pat Buchanan's involvement with the GOP. He has also given freely to various political causes and candidates. However, when it comes to ideology, Trump considers himself a "populist" and appears to be fairly conservative, especially on foreign policy, gun control and social issues like illegal immigration and pro-life, with a ban on late term abortions. He supports "traditional marriages" but isn't necessarily opposed to same-sex marriages. He favors the death penalty on capital crimes. Trump supports lowering the corporate tax from its current 15%, replacing Obamacare with a as-of-yet undefined "free market" program, opposes Common Core and supports school choice with local and/or state control. He would like to see improvement, if not overhaul of the VA system. He favors "fair trade" and considers himself a "protectionist". He calls NAFTA a disaster to US businesses and unions, and opposes the super-secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and calls the EPA "a joke". In foreign policy, Trump defines himself as a "nationalist" and while preferring non-intervention, believes that if we must be involved, to be aggressive and decisive, especially when dealing with terrorism. Trump would also halt immigration from nations currently involving with terrorism and all individuals seeking to come to this country must be thoroughly vetted and be willing to swear allegiance to America. As stated before, Trump strongly opposes illegal immigration and believes immediate action needs to be taken.

So, there we have it. Two former and possible future friends, bucking to become the "CEO" of America, Inc and manage this country on behalf of the Oligarchs, with whom both have not just close connections, but could actually be considered a member of. Both are well educated, successful, intelligent, wealthy, and have the arrogance to go with it. Hillary Clinton has the skill of a lawyer. She has political expertise, both as the wife of a former Governor and two term President, but in her own right as a Senator and Secretary of State. Donald Trump has a very keen business sense, exceptional negotiation abilities and can get "down and dirty" with the best of them when it comes to deal making or making a political stand. He is on personal terms with most of the world's elite. That means he can talk with them on their terms as friends, not as a term limited politician.

Hillary has suffered through a troubled administration and now, with the email revelations regarding the DNC Chairperson and her former opponent following on the heels of Senate hearings over Benghazi, illegal gunrunning, and the deaths of a US ambassador and CIA personnel (and her infamous "what does it matter" quote when questioned about the deaths), an FBI investigation regarding serious security violations concerning her mishandling of government emails (not to mention possible ethics improprieties between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton), Hillary has some culpability and honesty issues. She has demonstrated a rare arrogance and capacity for lying (even for a politician and Beltway insider), a surprising lack of empathy given her early and admirable advocacy on behalf of youth, when it came to military, veteran, Secret Service, or other government personnel along with a significant sense of self-entitlement. Maybe it was her earlier loss to a inexperienced and nameless contender (Obama) that stole her moment in the sun which has harden her, or the unwelcomed but politically necessary association with his often hapless administration that she feared would tarnish her (as it ultimately did). Perhaps it's her public humiliation by the repeated indiscretions of her husband or too many under-the-table behind closed door deals and compromises which has warped her integrity. Politics can do that to a person, especially if you make your living inside the Beltway.

So, what about "the Donald"? He too has much to answer for. It certainly wasn't his fault to be born rich or faulted for his excellent education (we all should be so lucky). Personally, I don't think he should be faulted for being a successful businessman, after all, that's part of the American Dream right? Without question he has made serious mistakes. Yes, he's had public martial issues, but then he's a public man, and none of his former wives have anything negative to say about him (he wasn't a drunk, a drug addict, child abuser or even a playboy). His children have all turned out terrific. They too are well educated, as down to earth as they can be, and each are rather successful on their own. Yes, he is vain. Yes, he has an ego the size of the Grand Canyon, but he also has a sense of humor about it too. No forced or faked laughter here. He has proven to be generous with this time and with his money. He has made so business mistakes, but then that's the nature of what he does. The trick is figuring out what went wrong and not doing it again, which he is very good at. True, he doesn't have the political experience that Hillary has.

He is a CEO. He is used to snapping his fingers and getting what he wants done...pronto. If you have an issue or question, fine, but Trump also expects you to prove a solution too. Whiners, excuse makers, and bellyachers won't do. In business, that's fine, however, this is politics. People don't jump because you say so. Things neither happen as you want or as fast as you need. People take credit where it isn't earned and place blame where it isn't deserved. There is a whole lot of give and take (mostly take), especially when you're dealing with individuals who are nearly as rich or powerful as you are and have egos that match yours. But, given "the Donald's" history as a dealmaker, it might just work. Given his attitude toward "the art of the deal", Trump may get along just fine with individuals like Russia's Putin or North Korea's Kim...or Congress. I'm sure ISIS and others out there will give pause.

This election cycle, amid America's deep disgust of the sellout of our democratic republic to the Oligarchs, wage inequalities, encroaching police state, endless wars-for-profit, declining quality of life, the illusion of the fair elections, and so on, will prove historic in not just whether a woman or a non-politician will be elected to President, but which direction will we go. Both candidates have very different ideas for us. One is very similar to what we've had for the last eight years. The other is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in many ways. Both choices contain a great deal of unknown too. As Betty Davis once famously said in her role as Margo Channing in the 1950 movie classic 'All About Eve"', "fasten your seatbelts. it's going to be a bumpy night" and it's still a long way till November.


Hillary Clinton Fired for Lie, Unethical Behavior form Congressional Job
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss


On the Issues: Hillary Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm


2016 Net Worth for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton
http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/hillary-clinton/


Bill Clinton's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/bill-clinton-net-worth/


On the Issues: Donald Trump
http://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm


Donald Trump's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/donald-trump-net-worth/

Heartbreak in Orlando: A Reflection of Our Future?

Already so much as been written about the murder of 49 innocent people at a gay oriented but not exclusive nightclub in Orlando Florida, along with 50 wounded. All were just ordinary young men and women there to unwind, relax, and have some fun. Then, like thunder tearing through the darkness of night, their lives were ended or forever changed. Who or what gave the shooter, Omar Mateen, a man of only 29, the right to end their lives? We're told he was a closet homosexual since he had been coming to Pulse, a bar and dance club for months. We're told he had been "radicalized" by the ISIS, the latest incarnation of psycho killers, and who have a habit of impaling or throwing gays off rooftops. He even took a break during the carnage to phone a local TV station to declare his allegiance to ISIS (and ISIS accepted responsibility) before resuming his "Allah Akbar" rant amid the gunfire. Now the CIA Director, John Brennan, has told a Senate Intelligence Committee that Mateen really wasn't aligned to ISIS despite the killer saying he was and ISIS giving their stamp of approval. I guess this is another example of who to believe---the murderer and those he's supposedly aligned with or the CIA Director and a government that has a habit of lying? He was married...and divorced. Supposedly he had a bad temper and was abusive. Supposedly he wanted to be a cop or INS agent, yet he repeatedly failed and ended up as a security guard at some point. He attempted to obtain large amounts of high powered ammo and weapons, but was refused due to his mannerisms, which gave him away as potentially a nut job (three cheers to the gun store owners for their careful observations of human behavior).

Be certain that the corporate media was quick with "the facts" of course, though as usual, mostly wrong. While Republicans and conservatives were quick with their standard "more security less Muslims" rant, the Democrats and Liberal didn't miss a beat with their usual gun control (read "seizure"), stronger restrictions and background checks. A few have even demanded that guns be taken from all current and former military personnel since they were potentially "mentally maladjusted" due to their military training and, thus, potentially "dangerous". Personally, I think those individuals need to be dragged out to the street and introduced to a can whoopass, but that's just me speaking as a potentially maladjusted former military guy. Some on the Left see this latest incident as an clarion call to at least remove "military assault" rifles like the AR-15, which was used in this and other shootings, along with high powered ammo from the marketplace.

Before I give my opinion on this, let's understand what "assault" rifles really are. These are basic ordinary hunting firearms in a fancy "cool looking" frame. Some come with longer clips, which means more bullets. They are the "street rods" of the domestic firearms industry. They are semi-automatic, which means they can only shoot as fast as your finger can pull the trigger. They are not full auto, nor do they have a select button or lever which would allow someone to go from semi to full auto like military grade weapons do. Most of these weapons use high powered .223 ammo since they are designed to take down larger game. Some of these weapons, however, take smaller caliber ammo like 22 longs. These would be for smaller game, and while this type of ammo is more economically for target shooting, any size ammo can be used for target shooting. So, by eliminating so-called "assault" rifles, they might as well eliminate ordinary hunting rifles in the same caliber too. But, even if they did, let's not forget that any rifle or pistol can kill or wound, regardless of what it's called, looks like, or caliber of the ammo. For that matter, what about BB or pellet guns? They potentially can injure or kill to if you know where to aim. So can crossbows, hunting bows, nunchucks, hammers, hatchets, knives, sticks, rocks, screwdrivers, ice picks, and so on. Let's face it, as a species, we're natural born killers. Give us about two minutes, and we'll find something to use. When it comes to death and destruction, we're the "MacGyver's" of the animal kingdom.

Besides, if the Left were to try to confiscate guns, they would likely be unsuccessful since they would have to search damn near every single house, not once, but repeatedly as people will hide whatever it is that they have, even if they've never used it or ever plan to use it since the very thought of surrendering our guns---or 2nd Amendment right----goes against our collective nature as Americans. Then there human nature. We instinctively know that without guns, the bad guys---the ones who are trying to rob, beat or rape you---will have guns. I mean, c'mon, they're called crooks for a reason! Do you think they are going to turn in their guns? Do you think that when they see a "Gun Free Zone" or "No Weapons" sign they are going to turn around and leave? As for expecting the police to arrive in time to save us, it ain't gonna happen. Can you imagine asking some burglar to wait around for 15 or 30 minutes for the police to arrive? More often than not the police are there just for the cleanup and taking reports. Another likely scenario, should the Left attempt to seize our weapons, is that they will not find a willing populace. People will vigorously defend their right to own and possess a gun. I could see this getting ratcheted up in a hurry to an all out civil war. But, then again, we know the police have been getting militarized for several years now and increasingly see ordinary people as "potential criminals" as they tool around in armored personnel carriers with battle grade body armor and helmets. We know too that every single federal agency has been on a hand-over-fist ammo buying frenzy, and they aren't buying low power ammunition either. They are buying high power ammo. Their explanation has been that they've simply been buying in bulk to save on costs and/or for target practice, yet this type of ammo is way too expensive to use for target practice and is being acquired by agencies that have little or no practical use for it in the first place. So, perhaps this is simply in anticipation for a possible civil war and/or the imposition of martial law.

While I can see the logic of denying armor piercing shells from hunters (not many deers or Elk wear flak jackets, though I can think of one particular groundhog who should consider it) or the general public, as well as the ability to buy body armor, removing "assault" weapons or high caliber rifles and pistols won't change a thing; neither will the seizure of guns in general. Criminals will always find a way and they can be counted on to seek out the weakest target. What may help is more thorough background checks for used as well as new gun purchases, completion of gun safety courses (especially first time buyers), limitation of purchases for both guns and ammo (which is already being done), shorter clips, and no sells to anyone who can't prove citizenship or has a valid work permit (green card) with automatic reviews every six months in ensure that the gun wasn't bought for Cousin Louie who is here illegally). And while I'm making a wish list of sorts here, how about vigorous prosecution of government officials and agents who sold or sell guns to known criminals?

As for the terrible incident in Orlando, I expect we see more, though we've already had far too many. Despite being an obvious terrorist attack done in the name of ISIS and it's misguided ideology, President Obama continues to bury his head in the sand and refuses to call it what it was. Instead, he hides behind words like "domestic terror", "unstable", "localize", and so forth. Just as he did on other terrorist attacks, such as Fort Hood or San Bernardino. President Obama is afraid of calling these attacks on innocent Americans "Islamic" or "ISIS inspired" terrorist attacks. For some reason, he is in complete and total denial, which is a dangerous think for a president or head of a nation to be. A leader must be unafraid of naming the enemy, regardless of their personal feelings. If one is unwilling to acknowledge the enemy, we lose the advantage. We lose the ability to search for specific clues that might help us anticipate their next move. Thus, we leave ourselves open to more and perhaps worse attacks (what if FDR had said that we were attacked by possible Asians on December 7th, 1941 instead of the Empire of Japan?). Some, on both the Left and Right, have argued that Obama is a Muslim, and as such, his sympathies are with them. Personally, I don't know if he is or not.

From what little information that is available about his background, we know that his paternal side was/is Muslim. We know he attended a Muslim school as a child and that he identified as a Muslim through at least his teens, and that's something which is hard to overcome. We know he attended a black supremist or "liberation" church for many years which was sympathetic to the Muslim cause. We've seen how he relates to Muslim leaders and then how he relates to Israeli leaders. We've witnessed his willingness to bring Muslims from these the Middle East---though not necessarily from war zones--- and without adequate vetting while at the same time restricting Chaldean and Assyrian Christians as well as Kurds and Yazidis, who are the targets of mass murders for the majority and slavery for a few; a move still supported by some of in GOP, including House Speaker Paul Ryan who doesn't want a restriction either. We've seen how he has behaved with regards to the situation in the Middle East, and repeated attempts to get US boots on the ground in Syria against President Assad, which means supporting militia groups who are also on our national intelligence radar as terrorists. How can that be? How can these groups be potential allies on one hand and enemies on the other hand? Has this become our foreign policy in the region now?

Maybe the Obama White House is trying to justify its actions by bombing only the groups that Russia supports and who want Assad to remain in power and generally favor the West while the ones we support mostly hate the West but they hate Russia too. Personally, I think this is a bridge that should have never been crossed militarily starting with George Bush Jr. against the militarily impotent Saddam Hussein. With regards to Obama's self-censoring refusal to admit that the murderers who are committing these atrocities on US soil are doing so in the name of the faith of at least his youth may too be a bridge that Obama, as a man, is unable to cross, and that is dangerous for America. As the investigation into the tragedy in Orlando continues to unfold, many of the issues and questions raised here will begin to taken on increasing importance. Hopefully we can learn from them before it's too late.



No 'direct link' between Orlando shooter and foreign terror groups
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/16/no-direct-link-between-orlando-shooter-and-foreign-terror-groups/21396506/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-888708991_htmlws-main-bb


Orlando Gunman Was 'Cool and Clam' After Massacre, Police Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooting.html?_r=0


Orlando attack: 'I am the lone wolf who terrorizes the Infidels'
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2016/0613/Orlando-attack-I-am-the-lone-wolf-that-terrorizes-the-infidels


ISIS Statement on Orlando Shooting Attack
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-statement-orlando-shooting-attack-2016-6