The Race to Beat Trump

I have to admit that I'm perplexed and to be honest, a bit amused. Why you ask? The Republican Primary and race to defeat Donald Trump. I've never seen anything like this and I've been involved in politics for a very long time. This is much more than just an attempt to dethrone a frontrunner. It goes far deeper than that. There is an organized and concerted effort by both the Democrat and Republican Establishment to defeat Trump before the May 17th Primary, and if they can't do it then, the GOP party boys seem intent on using "small print" convention rules to deny him the nomination.

As a few political observers have noted, a party nominee isn't determined at the conventions by the candidate with the most delegates(i.e., who the people want). The nominee is chosen by the party leadership, who may, at their discretion, ignore the wishes of the voters through the use of so-called "super-delegates", which were built into both parties by-laws in ensure control, along with more than a little backroom intimidation and bribery. I think this is something most voters were unaware of previously; that their vote doesn't necessarily mean anything, which seems to play right into Trump's hands since part of his campaign has been about just how corrupt both political parties are.

Almost from the outset, the GOP leadership, the candidates themselves, the corporate media (including several at the once conservative Fox News), and naturally, the Oligarchs who now run this country, have been behind a no holds barred campaign to belittle, bully, distort, and harass Trump and his supporters. We would expect this from the Left leaning wing of the corporate party, the Democrats, and the Left leaning (but corporate controlled) media, but not from the those on the Right. We've even had candidates try and team up against Trump, such as Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz in various configurations. When did that last happen? Just recently, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, who is still nominally a candidate though mathematically eliminated, publically agreed to join forces to work against Trump. A few days ago, after losing all four races in the same night, Cruz, acting "as if" he was the party's frontrunner, announced that former candidate Carly Fiorina was going to be his choice for Vice President. Seriously? Cruz has no chance of catching Trump at this point, so why is he announcing Fiorina as his running mate? Is he counting on the party boys to engineer his nomination? Is this a "Hail Mary" effort to pick up at least a few more delegates so he doesn't look so bad going into the convention? Is it to deny Trump the opportunity of asking Fiorina (though doubtful) to be his running mate?

Then there are all the protestors showing up all of sudden at Trump rallies. Again, when was the last time that happened? I'm reminded of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, when there were a large crowd of anti-war protestors down the street and the Chicago Police were given approval by then Mayor Bill Daley to go ape on the protestors, which spilled over into the convention itself and police "thugs" went after a few reporters and camera crews they disliked (the incident later became known as the 1968 Chicago Police Riot). A lot of people were seriously injured by the Chicago cops; something which I think they have yet to live down. Now, we have individuals sneaking into Trump rallies, trying to shout down speakers, start fights, pushing people around, tearing up signs, and whatever else they can to do. It reminds me of the ways the Nazi "SA" or Brownshirts, the Italian Fascist Blackshirts, and the Communists used to do back in the 1930's (as did corporate hired thugs to break up union meetings); anything to disrupt, embarrass, or intimidate their opponents. The corporate media presents the disturbances "as if" it was all Trump or his supporters fault by cherry picking what they say and how they edit the footage. No wonder people don't believe the corporate media anymore.

Recently, the violence has increased. We have protestors breaking through police barricades and attacking Trump supporters, throwing bottles, rocks, tearing down signs, blocking entrances and even trashing police cars and assaulting police officers. Of course, the corporate media bends over backwards to blame Trump. All of this is, naturally, to create a negative image of "The Donald" and keep supporters away, all in an attempt to sway voters to Cruz or at the very least, get them to lean to towards Hillary should Trump get out of the Primary with the GOP nomination. What they've accomplished, however, is in making themselves look like punks. In fact, I think we've long passed giving them the legitimacy of calling them "protestors", which implies at least a measure of order. What we are witnessing aren't "protests". These are political riots like what you would expect to see in Third World countries or places with dictatorships who order opponents and their supporters to be harassed (Paraguay and Egypt come to mind). Is that what we've become? Is that how our political system functions how?

In just the past few days, we've seen thousands of these "political rioters", including hundreds of apparent illegal immigrants and others with dozens of Mexican flags, breaking through police and security barricades, overturning police cars, burning the US flags, violently attacking individuals who simply came to hear Trump speak---leaving several beaten and bloody, blocking traffic for miles (which has become a favorite tactic of late); forcing Trump and other speakers to cross a footbridge, cut through a fence, and come in a side door...to his own event! Even during the worse of the riots of the 1960's and 1970's, this never happened, not at least to this degree!

What all this says to me is less about Trump and his message, and more about what the Oligarchs who run this country are afraid of. What is it about "The Donald" that inspires such fear on the part of the powerbrokers and their pawns? Is it the fact that Trump has enough money to fund his own campaign and isn't beholden to them; doesn't have to make any special deals? Is it because he is actually a political outsider, and not one of the usual insiders who pretends to be "one of the people" and will "stand up to the special interests in Washington"---that is, until the election is over (the only "standing up" they do is when their paymasters walk into the room and that's because many are too old thanks to gerrymandering and the absence of term limits to be able to get off their knees).

Ted Cruz and others like him like to pretend he's not one the Oligarchs' minions, just like all the rest in Congress. It's part of the game. They try to convince the American People they are "different"; that they really represent the interests of the ordinary Americans, just don't look to close at their records or who they get their money from. These are the vetted and pre-approved candidates who will do as they told, without question or conscience. They will foment wars, economic downturns, labor and social unrest, challenge traditional family values; whatever is required of them just so long as their Overlords, the Oligarchs, make a profit and enlarge their control. After all, control is the name of game, be it control over resources in some far flung nation or here at home. It's also control over us. We're are necessary liabilities. The more control they can exert over us, through control of the economy, our workplace, our credit ratings, social norms, and most of all, our privacy, the more they can maximize their profits and minimize their risks by manipulating and anticipating our actions and reactions. They control our elections through pricing ordinary---and perhaps more qualified---individuals out from the get-go. They buy who they want, thanks to Citizens United, and keep them for as long as they want, with thanks to gerrymandering and no term limits. It's how we went from being a democratic republic to a neo-fascist nation with an emerging police state. Welcome to the Machine boys and girls.

Perhaps all this is what frightens the Oligarchs the most about Donald Trump. He's unscripted, which makes him genuinely popular with ordinary Americans across the political spectrum. He's self-financed, so no backroom "sell-your-soul" deals. He's a actual outsider, not a Kool-Aid drinking Democrat or Republican follows party dogma over the Will of the American People (what a novel concept). He's willing to think outside of prescribed boundaries or act in pre-approved ways. He's willing to do what the American People want, not just either make empty and meaningless promises or simply ignoring us altogether. He will not take a stand, but make a stand, regardless of whether its popular with the 1% elites or not. Personally, I haven't been a particular fan of Donald Trump through the years; a bit to brash for me. However, if the Oligarchs, their corporate media, the K Street moneymen, the party boys on both sides are willing to go to this extent to degrade, belittle, harass, intimidate and bully, burn vehicles, attack and beat innocent people up, blocks highways and streets, assault police officers, burn American flags, bring out illegal immigrants, then there must be something they are terrified of and if that's the case, then Trump must be on the right track and that's someone I think we need to get behind.

Is Donald Trump Trying to Throw the Election?

Let's face it. There hasn't been this much interest in a Republican Presidential Primary in forever. It seems everyone knows who the leading GOP candidate is and everyone has an opinion (and usually quite a strong one). The Democrats and the corporate media see "The Donald" as akin to the Antichrist. Someone who could derail the Empress-in-Waiting, by which I mean of course Hillary Clinton, and keep her from fulfilling her "destiny". After all, she was previously delayed in fulfilling her place in the sun by the "Chosen One" himself; the messiah....Barack Obama, who rose like a rocket from local obscurity to national distain.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has proven he's no fluke...or flake. Bernie has become the voice of America's new favorite child, the Millennials. Back when a no name candidate with no experience from Chicago, Barack Obama, first ran for president, the Millennials were still coming of age. They hadn't quite found their political footing and like youth down through history, supported the "anti-establishment" candidate, along with significant numbers of minorities in America which included gays and women. But was that really unexpected? Just look who the Republicans had put up...John McCain. Sure, for a Republican he was maverick; a military hero from a lost war which produced very few national heroes, but for the country as a whole he was just another rich old white guy from the political class. In 2008, it was an obscenely rich white guy whose finger was more on his hemorrhoids than on the pulse of the American Public, Mitt Romney.

The Millennials are more experienced now. More sure of themselves as a political force and Bernie Sanders represents the kind of change the Millennials want to see. However, Bernie has two key factors which I don't think he can overcome. The first is the fact that the corporate powers-that-be who control American politics want, for some unfathomable reason, to complete the crowning of Hillary Clinton as the first female president of the United States. This means the media, which is owned by these same powerbrokers, will do everything possible to make sure that happens. It will build her up. It will downplay or hide her many flaws and possible treasonous or criminals acts, it will inflate or manufacture her accomplishments, and make it appears that her coronation is everything but a fait accompli. The second handicap facing Bernie Sanders is Bernie himself. While Bernie has shown himself to quite energetic, he's no Spring chicken and sooner or later, his age will catch up to him. Bernie also lacks the charisma, good looks (not that Hillary scores any points here either), and engaging speaking style which are critical in today's politics. Perhaps a third problem, which is connect to the other two, is a lack of sufficient money which is the life blood of politics.

While the corporate media unquestionably supported Obama in 2004 and 2008 just as they now do Clinton, let's face it, they didn't have to do much heavy lifting when it came to McCain and Romney. Now comes Donald Trump. Known to many simply as "The Donald". A classic New York real estate mogul. Brash. Cocky. Exuding confident, and rich--some of it inherited but much of it self-made. Someone not afraid to take chances or speak his mind. A one man publicity machine. He is entertaining. He says exactly what the majority of the American People are thinking, and most importantly, he is primarily self-funded; something candidate's have wet dreams about. But to the oligarchs who now rule this country, that is something to be feared. They can't cut off his financial tap so to speak. He can buy time on TV, the radio, and the Internet at his leisure. He can afford to hire the very best experts from policy to media. He can't be excluded from the presidential debates because he has the money to make sure he can't be ignored. What scares the oligarchs the most I think is that he is a unscripted candidate. He's not "pre-approved". He's not been vetted. He's not "packaged". He's not a "cardboard" candidate. They can't be sure he'll follow the script or do as he is told, and I strongly suspect this keeps them up at night.

At first, many in the media (especially at Fox News), thought Trump as some novelty candidate; something of the comic relief before the "serious" candidates take the stage. In fact, other candidates such as Ted Cruz often remarked that it was time for the "circus to leave town" or for the "court jester to get off the stage". When that didn't work they started pressuring Trump; assuming it couldn't take the heat. They were wrong. Then they started trying to bully or intimidate him. Big mistake. Then they started trying to tag team him where everyone would gang up on him in order to force him to quit. Well, it ended up that most of them had to quit or back off, but not before forcing out those who wouldn't go along like Dr. Ben Carson, starting with the Cruz campaign lying about Carson quitting a race on election night and calling voters to get them to switch their support to Cruz. It was damage Carson couldn't recover from. Rubio even tried to strong arm Trump and ended up out on his kiester.

Throughout all of this, the media did everything it could to make Donald Trump look unbalanced, a fringe candidate, a racist and a crackpot. Even the commentators at the presidential debates, who are supposed to be neutral, targeted him. Lately, various Leftwing and race oriented groups have been starting fights at Trump rallies. Storming the stage, attacking pro-Trump supporters, trying to shout speakers, blocking road and highways, blocking entrances to buildings, hitting vehicles, and threatening violence while the media does its upmost to put the blame on Trump and his supports. It political spin at its best...or worse in this case. This not only shows just as seriously the powerbrokers don't want Trump as the Republican nominee and how seriously they see him as a real threat to Hillary Clinton's coronation, but just how badly the political system itself is broken beyond repair.

No matter who wins either the GOP Primary in May or ultimately the general election this November, politics in America won't be the same although it may take the media and party hacks to realize it. I believe the Republican Party has done irreparable damage to itself and I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see it implode and perhaps fracture into a third party. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be the party of the Establishment and not of the people. Trust in either party, as well as the media and government in general have been in a sharp decline in this country for decades, I believe we will see an even sharper decline just before and certainly after the general election. As it is, voters have been leaving both parties in droves for years. Independents how represent the largest political bloc in the US with 43% and hold a large lead over the Democrats with the Republicans trailing in distant third place. Yet despite this, the media still continues to act as if we have only two choices---their pre-approved and scripted Democrats or Republicans. That must stop. We do have other choices and we must prove it time and again until they finally get it. We won't be blindly led or manipulated anymore.

This brings me to another point; one which could demonstrate just how seriously things have gone awry. Donald Trump has been running as the "anti-establishment" candidate throughout this race thus far. He has hit just about every cord, but there's increasingly something just not right. For some reason, Trump, whose campaign is under enormous pressure from the media, both parties, and the powerbrokers, have been making some serious mistakes. Just recently, Trump said in an interview with "Hardball's" Chris Matthews that he thought women who had abortions should be criminally prosecuted while the men who got them pregnant had no responsibly. He's made some unflattering comments about former candidate Carly Fiorina (whom I personally like) and Fox's Megyn Kelly (he also made some less that complimentary remarks about Whoopie Goldberg and Rosie O'Donnell, though I suspect he was probably justified). He's also made statements insulting some the leaders of our allies, about building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out and making Mexico pay for it, about his willingness to use nuclear weapons against ISIS and other terrorists (while it shouldn't be ruled out, just at least be downplayed a bit), he stated that we should export "more jobs", plus China, Putin, the Pope, Mussolini and the list goes go. He's even made some particularly rude comments toward some of those attending his rallies. True that either Trump or one of his cheerleaders almost immediately stepped in a correct or "clarify" what Trump meant to say, but it is still happening too often.

This makes me wonder whether "The Donald" is a little more nervous or stressed than he lets on and is mishearing the question or confusing what he intended to say with what he was coached to say or is even thinking a question ahead and not really paying attention. Regardless, it's providing fodder for the very media out to get him and for Hillary Clinton's camp who are looking past Bernie Sanders and to her potential opponent in the Fall campaign. Trust me, should Trump win the Republican nomination in May, this will come up again (and again) this Fall. All this brings me to a central point---could Donald Trump be actually trying to throw the election? Let's think about that for a moment. Most everyone on the Left and Right (including the media) thought Trump's entry into the race was a farce; another publicity stunt by "The Donald". They thought he'd come in, make a few points, stir up the pot and leave. But that didn't happen. He actually started getting backers, and not just from the so-called "lunatic fringe" of the Far Right, but from ordinary conservatives who were tired of a broken Republican Party; from Tea Party and Pro-Constitution supporters, as well as from moderates who were purged from both political parties, and from Independents. To paraphrase a quote about General George Patton's run to the Rhine in World War II, give Trump a headline and he's good for another 30 days.

Perhaps suddenly, he thought he could actually win this and went into his hyper-competitive "win at all costs" mode for which "The Donald" is world famous. Then, perhaps just as suddenly, Trump realized that (yikes), he really could win this, then what? He wouldn't have support from either party, and certainly not the leadership. The oligarchy who controls the government would ensure that his initiatives are defeated or watered down and in the end, he's powerless and publically humiliated. That's something Trump's ego just couldn't stand. So he starts doing and saying things that are increasingly outrageous (either intentional or subconsciously) to cause him to lose supporters and ultimately the nomination.

He could always claim that he was the strongest candidate; he held the lead throughout the race; he gave voice to most Americans, but was declining the nomination for the "good" and/or "wellbeing" of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in the United States. It gives him the acclaim he lives on and makes him look like the good guy to the status quo powerbrokers. This would avoid a brokered convention which could force another unsuccessful run by Mitt Romney. The nomination would likely go to Ted Cruz and some other pre-approved Vice Presidential party boy (or gal). In the end, Cruz would likely lose to the "Empress" and the coronation would proceeded as planned all along while Trump's run fades into a election cycle anomaly; a lesson to anyone who challenges the machine.

Of course, I could easily be wrong. Maybe he is simply misspeaking or maybe he is actually saying what he really thinks, but if I'm right, it would certainly make sense in light of what's been happening with the Trump campaign, and let's not forget that he had a long private meeting with senior GOP leadership on March 31st; the very leadership that he has so often spoken out against. It would also makes sense in light of just how far this country has fallen; of how much our elections and the candidates are bought and paid for; and just how truly broken the system is. Perhaps the spotlight has become too bright even for "The Donald" himself.



Donald Trump's 3 biggest leadership mistakes
http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/donald-trumps-3-biggest-leadership-mistakes/



Five critical mistakes made by Donald Trump...thus far
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/todays-buzz/sfl-five-critical-mistakes-by-donald-trump-20160128-story.html



The 16 Worst Donald Trump Quotes...
http://www.bustle.com/articles/90679-the-16-worst-donald-trump-quotes-are-all-the-evidence-you-need-that-hell-never-and



Why is Donald Trump had for America?
http://theodysseyonline.com/tcnj/why-is-donald-trump-bad-for-america/154425



Here's why Donald Trump won't win the Republican presidential nomination
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/22/donald-trump-wont-win-republican-presidential-nomination


Trump meets with Republican leadership
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0WX1V6

When did you stop beating your wife?

I'm sure everyone remembers that old joke about misdirection and innuendo, which came to mind recently when I read an article by Courier Journal political reporter Joe Gerth, who recently wrote an article about gubernatorial candidates Jack Conway and Matt Bevin attending a private meeting being sponsored by the Kentucky Coal Association which excludes the media (specifically the CJ).

Even the date, time and location are something of a secret. The hosts of the meeting said that the absence of the media would encourage a more open and honest debate between the candidates and the association, which is what they want given the precarious status of coal these days. They went to claim that the presence of the media would hinder the ability of the candidates to provide blunt and direct answers without the media attempting to their answers (or the other candidate) out of context. Mr. Gerth even insisted that since the media (read "Courier Journal") were not invited, both candidates should boycott the debate. He then went on to take umbrage regarding the Republican candidate, Matt Bevin, who refused to answer questions from reporter because of the alleged nature and tone of those questions, which he---Bevin---deemed as unfair or biased. Given the climate of today's politics and lack of impartiality from the media, perhaps Matt Bevin was justified. Just look at the latest Republican debate hosted by the supposedly "fair and balanced" as well as "conservative" Fox News and note the differences in questioning between the status quo GOP candidates and Donald Trump (especially the questions from Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly).

In what's the worse kept secret in Kentucky, the CJ has often been accused of acting as the unofficial mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. It's so bad that it's become part of local lore and the butt of countless jokes. For years the CJ editorial staff has black listed me ever since I began reviewing and critiquing their "endorsement" process. Previously, they published practically everything I wrote---sometimes in separate box with an illustration added---and even gave me the byline at the top of the Editorial page! Then after I began questioning their process the only way I could give my opinion was on their online site, which was generally deleted. So I or someone else had to "like" my comment to avoid it's near immediate deletion. On the upside, one of my "demands" was to publish the entire unedited transcript of the endorsement interview or at least video tape it and make either available to the public, which the Courier Journal is at least occasionally doing now.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not implying anything about Joe. He's a great guy and a pretty darn good reporter. Personally, I haven't had any problems with him and Joe isn't involved with his newspaper's "endorsement" process so far as I know . However, too many
times I heard stories from conservative candidates who claimed answers were wrongly attributed, misquoted, or "correct" answers or "wrong" answers deleted for the opponent not to mention endorsement made without so much as an interview---phone or in person--or

familiarity with a candidate's positions! I was never really sure if I should believe any of this until it happened to me personally...twice...as well as to personal friends of impeccable character who were running for office, but apparently on the wrong ticket. That's not how you go about trying to find the right person for political office or any job for that matter (the other part of my "demand" by the way has been to publish the names, titles, and party registration of the interviewers so the public knows the political leanings of the questioners, the nature of questions themselves, and maybe understand why endorsements often go the way they do. The voters deserve better. Now, it seems that some folks like me, who openly challenge them, can't even doing that. So, here's my comment that would have otherwise been directed to the article:

I've always thought candidates should respond to the press with direct and honest answers to honest and direct questions. However, when the media puts itself into the active role of trying to create the news or manipulate public opinion, candidates have a civic duty to either call that reporter, editor or manager out or by simply declining to answer the question after explaining to those present why and then moving on to the next reporter who will be hopefully "fair, balanced and honest". Of course, candidates shouldn't assume every question they don't like is necessarily biased. That's just as unfair to the public. Questions should be relevant to the race and issues being discussed.

Naturally the media has ways around that such as the innuendo. Fortunately there are some candidates, like "The Donald", who couldn't care less what the media pundits have to say and has the wherewithal to give as good as they're giving as well as having the financial means to respond to any attacks or negative reporting. Bevin may or may not have the bank account to get out his version of the truth in response to any media attacks, though I have no doubt that he and his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, have the financial ability to get their message out against each other (if not them directly, then certainly the partisan oriented PACs do). From the content of Mr. Gerth's article, I have no difficulty understanding Bevin's decision not to respond. Nevertheless, perhaps other candidates of either political party might want to follow suit and demand honest and impartial reporting without the misdirection. Maybe someone will get the message.


Gov. candidates should demand open coal debate
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/gerth/2015/08/15/gov-candidates-demand-open-coal-debate/31780119/

Playing the Trump Card

If you didn't see the debates, I'm sure you've heard all about them by now. For days before, all I heard was how Donald Trump was going to be the comic relief; not to be taken too seriously while the corporate media barely was able to hide both its puzzlement as to how Trump could be leading the pack of these prepackaged "empty suits" so handedly (he was leading with 27% pre-debate; close to 3 times that of his closest opponent) and their contempt for "The Donald".

While I don't think the gloves were on in the first place (given the not-so-subtle negative buildup and steady innuendos), they were definitely off by the time of the debate; while the other candidates were asked mostly policy type questions, the three Fox moderators went after Trump's personal life and past statements; some from years ago. Now, I will agree that in some instances personal questions are important since they go to character of the individual, however in the Donald's case, it was almost all personal. It seemed clear that the intent of the moderators was to make Trump look like an amateur up against the professionals, which in some ways I guess he was.

Trump defended past remarks---some made in jest or off the cuff---with all the "in your face" finesse we've come to expect from New York developer. Trump made it crystal clear that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Meanwhile, the other candidates were asked a few character defining questions, but for the most part, seemed to get off light in that respect. Most tried to pretend they weren't professional politicians or were mere humble servants of the working class. All, without exception, touted their political accomplishments, which is certainly fair enough (a few carefully omitted the part about undertaking their newly found "Man of the People" exploits while planning their presidential run. But you know what? That's just politics. All politicians prestaged their races with calculated acts to make it look like they're not a part of the political class. They talk about sponsoring bills to do this or prevent that without mentioning they never made it out of committee or were never voted on by the House and so forth. Others like to talk about "taking the lead" for some cause or another, when all they did was lend their name (if that) or happened to mention it in a talk or speech. Of course, all of them love to take credit for popular projects they either had little to do with or just happened to fall in their lap.

I remember back around 2001, after spending months working to preserve a badly needed bus route which was used by seniors and low income individuals, an opponent of mine stepped in and took credit for the effort right after the election to the amazement of the other nine or so individuals on the board; some of whom never even had heard of him (TARC, the quasi-government transportation company shot it down anyway, citing insufficient usage). He went on to try and take credit on a neighborhood drainage issue I had had spent a year or so working on. I think the only ones who bought into it was his core cronies! But, as I said, that's just politics and that's what most of these characters were doing. At least Trump was honest. No spin. No "PC". When he liked someone else's answer, he acknowledged it. How wonderfully unscripted!

The big take away from the debate was that except for a few of the candidates, most of these individuals looked plastic. A few did stand out. Notably Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee with some outstanding comments (though Dr. Carson's nervousness showed through), while a few others, including Chris Christie, Rick Sanatorium and Kentucky's Rand Paul didn't do themselves any favors. Christie and Paul came across combative (some critics were calling Paul "Napoleonic" presumably because of his size and almost angry tone. He would be better served by relaxing more and showing more of his personality). Christie too was competitive, which, while people like his straightforwardness, seemed more spiteful than explanatory (which conjured up images of the big traffic foul-up undertaken by his staff, and allegedly with at least his tacit knowledge if not approval, over an unintentional slight by another politician. Vindictiveness never looks good in the light). As for Rick Sanatorium, he just seemed unprepared and ill at ease, which is not what you want in a potential candidate. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, he had a few good remarks as well. However, his lack of charisma shined through as did his Establishment demeanor (there's been some persistent rumors that somehow Jeb Bush or someone on his staff were given an advanced copy of at least a few of the questions. I suspect that will remain unproven. Nevertheless, it's seems that Bush is the Establishment's "boy". The rest, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and company reminded me of the old Second City comic team, "The Not Really for Prime Time Players".

Yet with all of this, the pressure was on to make Trump look unstable, volatile, and not a team player (by that, I mean the "go along to get along" sort as former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn used to say when talking about backroom politics). When Trump fired back, the Fox mediators tried to make it look like he was too unpredictable to be president. When the candidates were asked if they'd support the party nominee, everyone raised their hand except Trump. Moderator Brett Baier jumped on that and kept repeating the question as if Trump had admitted to committing some major crime (I guess in the eyes of the oligarchs who run the media and this country, his response could be viewed as crime). Trump made it clear that if he significantly disagreed with whoever the nominee was, he'd at least consider a third party run. Even after the debate, Trump wasn't invited to a follow-up event and now, apparently, one of his campaign managers has decided to leave. There's is no doubt that this kind of pressure isn't for everyone, and you can bet that the media and power elites are going to try to find Trump's "Achilles heel' anywhere and anyhow they can.

Think about this for a minute. Here's someone who has more politicians who owe him favors than he owes them. He's also one of the very few individuals who could largely, if not totally, underwrite his entire campaign. He is also someone who is not willing to play

the usual political game of making promises he knows he cannot and never intends to keep. He's not "politically correct". He's saying what the American People have been saying all along. He's not letting those who control both political parties (as well as the media) dictate his responses the way they do just about everyone else. Trump isn't beholden to the powerbrokers. And despite how desperate the media tries to manufacture a negative image of Trump, he continues to not just lead in the polls, but is gaining momentum. That has to send icy cold shivers down the spines of the 1% the way another rich blue blood did to his fellow aristocrats nearly 75 years ago. I am, of course, talking about Franklin Roosevelt (one could even make a good argument for JFK who turned his back on the political establishment) who was labeled a "traitor to his class" by the Wallstreet elite of his time and more than a few newspaper editors.

So, what's the bottom line here? I think it's quite simple really. The American People know that our political and economic system is utterly broken despite all this "rainbows and sunshine" these candidates and the media are trying to blow up our collective rear ends. Bush talked about "raising up" Americans while Huckabee talked about "restoring" American values. You can't climb a ladder with missing rungs or rotten legs. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can't afford shoestrings---or even boots. Mega corporations like the kind which own Washington get rewarded for moving jobs overseas and slapped on the back for finding creative ways to steal from taxpayers or avoid paying their fair share of taxes while mom and pop shops are either regulated out of business or undercut by cookie cutter stores.

The Average American is struggling to make ends meet, and many aren't succeeding even by working two or three jobs. When adjusted for inflation, Americans are make less---far less---than they did in the 1970's. Young adults are burden with school debts that some may

never be able to pay off while the academic performance of American high school students continues to nosedive. Welcome to the Machine children. We hope you adjust to your serfdom quickly. We have a tax system which is out of whack and grossly unfair. Seniors are struggling and Obamacare isn't working. Crime is rampant. America is and has been invaded by individuals coming here illegally, not to become citizens or avoid persecution, and most definitely with no interest in integrating into the American Melting Pot or even learning our language (expecting Americans, instead, to learn theirs). Despite a decade or more of public outrage over illegal immigration by the majority of Americans, politicians of either party even bother to give us lip service anymore.

That's another point made by "The Donald". If it wasn't for him, the GOP wouldn't even have acknowledged illegal immigration. At least now they will have to pretend to care and offer up a make believe "solution". We are engaged in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in; particularly Iraq, which was conceived of and carried out as a bold face lie for the sake of "punishing" Saddam Hussein and to acquire control over Iraqi oilfields; such is the ignorance, arrogance and callousness of the ruling elite. Meanwhile, we find ourselves wanting to extend "political correctness" to our enemies while at the same time inviting them with open arms into this country and cater to their every demand lest they don't like us anymore (you would think hate filled chants of "Death to America. Death to all Americans" would be a clue as to their feelings), and all the while, we've been transformed from the democratic republic of our Founding Fathers to an oligarchy with a neo-police state to enforce it. Thus far only a small handful of countries have escaped this new version of WTO, IMF and Federal Reserve inspired corporatism (another term for fascism as defined by its founder, Benito Mussolini). The most noteworthy of which are China and Russia (wouldn't it be ironic if our Cold War bogeyman, Russia, proves to be the very nation most capable of saving America from our new fascist overlords?).

Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air. He's giving voice to what America believes. He's not politically correct. He's not prepackaged. Yes, he's part of the Establishment, at least in some ways, while he firmly stands outside the fantasy world of Washington's Beltway. Trump, at the very least, energizes the country. Will he win the nomination? In a word, no. The power elite who control the election process and the levers of power will never let a potential reformer anywhere near the Oval Office. Some of his less "extreme" ideas may be incorporated, at least into the rhetoric but rest assured, the powerbrokers will make sure their chosen one will be selected just as they will on the Democratic side. "The Donald" can attempt a third party run, but remember the two parties previously came together when third party candidate Ross Perot ran so successfully to make it impossible for no future independent or third party candidate to ever again challenge their cozy rigged system. So if nothing else, Donald Trump has reminded the American People of just how far removed the political system is from the ideals of our Founding Fathers and what it's going to take to restore our America.