Sunday, November 18, 2018

The Four American Paths

Four choices. Four distinct paths. We have them. The questions become, "will we choose the path? Or, will it be chosen for us?"

Let's start with the first path; the path preferred by career politicians: "Let's do nothing; things will work themselves out. They always do." In other words, let's "react, not act." We'll return to choice "A" shortly.

Choice "B," amounts to "we should take a more literal approach to the 10th amendment. If the constitution doesn't assign a specific function to the federal government, it is presumed that the function is reserved for the individual state." It's probable that "Dixiecrats" would be overjoyed!

Choice "C," would conclude that the country was simply too divided to continue as one nation and "peacefully separate." We have seen a lot of evidence that some of the states are already considering this. California stands as a prime example.

Choice "D" would rebuff separation ideas. It would be a war for all the marbles, likely making the first American civil war look liked a church social.

Choice "D" appears unlikely(albeit 15% of the country would disagree). It stands to reason that the nation doesn't have the stomach for a 1860's vintage bloodbath! It's probable that those living then would have opted out, had they enjoyed a 21st century media!It is now believed that as many as 750,000 American casualties were inflicted, up from 600,000. This is more than in all other wars COMBINED since the revolution...

Choice "C" would amount to "giving up," by many Americans. Yet, there is support from both the left and right. For argument's sake, let's briefly assume that separation was the verdict. In a 2016 post, I covered the geographical divide that might come if Hillary Clinton had been elected in a disputed election.

In that post it predicted that the split would cross the northern border. It also predicted that Tim Draper's "six Californias" would become a reality. At this writing, smart money would suggest that the Great Lakes States would join the lower Midwest, far West, South and three of six Californias, as defined by Draper.

The Western half of Washington, Oregon and British Columbia would become the nation of "Cascadia." The cultural distinction already exists.

Ontario and Canadian provinces East of the Rocky mountains would join the "flyover American" states.

New York and New England would be joined by Canada's Atlanta provinces forming the "Peoples' Democratic Republic of America."

Quebec would achieve their long dream of independence, and join Honduras and El Salvador as "third world counties" in North America.

Three of Draper's six California's would be joined by the Big Island of Hawaii to form "Pacifica," AKA "Elysium."(The remaining islands would stay with the money) If you haven't watched the Matt Damon movie, you should; if you want to see the illustration.

Compared to choices "C" and "D," choice "B" would certainly be preferable. In short, America would rediscover the 10th amendment. Much would be the same as now. The military, border security, social security and medicare would continue to be handle from Washington. Other issues, such as abortion, marijuana and prayer in the public schools would be determined at the state level. It's possible that housing and urban development, the environment, energy and education might all return to the states. Money utilized would be divided proportionately, based on contribution.

Choice "A" is obviously preferred by lawmakers. It's the easiest! Yet, we may not have the luxury of resorting to choice "A."

When you have Socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez spouting "rabble rousing rhetoric" as they are and there are contested elections as we are experiencing, the latter three options become more imminent.

Not because we chose then. But, because the choice was thrust upon us.







Sunday, November 11, 2018

Voter Fraud Must be Eliminated at all Costs

What is currently taking place in Florida confirms why voter fraud is, or should be, a top ticket issue.

For those who read "E" is for English, you recall that the issue was discussed thoroughly. A solution was offered. At the time of publication, opposition suggested that the methodology might have been "too extreme." Today, more Americans are seeing the wisdom of the proposal.

Essentially, the proposal called for the requirement of "passage of a fourth grade English proficiency test" as a prerequisite for a voter Identification card. No pass. No card. No vote.

Opponents quickly proclaimed that any form of literacy test would "return America to the days of Jim Crow and voter suppression." At first glance, they might have a valid argument.

In Robert Caro's "Lyndon Johnson-Master of the Senate," stark examples were given of literacy tests designed to disenfranchise African American voters. The proposal detailed in "E" is for English, had a different objective.

The exam would be standardized nationally; by professionals who do it for a living. Specifically, the same people who create the LSAT, the GMAT, GRE, SAT and the ACT, who sit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The objective would be single minded: "Insuring that all voters could English at a 4th grade level."

The argument against was seemingly valid: "It would disenfranchise large blocks of the population."

The counter argument stated, "if you cannot read at a fourth grade level, it's probable that you will not be capable of reading a complicated voting ballot.

The conclusion was "a paradigm shift" in America would need to occur. In short, Americans would need to see "voting as a privilege, not a right."

As expected, the cost of such an exam would be exponential. A "five-cent per household "residential access tax" levied on commercially and politically oriented direct mail," would pay for the measure.

Included in the measure would be the prize for passage of the exam: A "voter I.D. card, complete with photograph and thumb print."

The "E" Amendment also addressed two other "thorny" problems that have recently arisen.

One was "birthright citizenship." The "E" amendment called for defining birthright citizenship as "any person previously born in the United States who had been engaged in involuntary servitude or had held no previous status." The 14th amendment's framers had intended to include freed slaves and people of color who resided in America but enjoyed no status.
Unfortunately, manipulation followed.

Some concluded that American citizenship amounted to "flying over to have a baby," subsequently taking advantage of the easy "chain migration" standard. Others concluded that it translated to "making a mad dash across the desert" in hopes of getting through border security, with the goal of "knocking out a baby."

When Donald Trump took exception to both practices, he was called a racist, bigot, fascist, NAZI, white supremacist and everything in between!

The amendment required that all voters be United States Citizens.

It also called for basing congressional representation on "U.S. Citizens not persons." This idea actually was introduced a decade earlier by then Louisiana Senator, David Vitter. If adopted, California would lose six House seats, New York two and Illinois one. Oregon, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina,Georgia, Texas, Nebraska and Montana would add a seat each.

The "E" amendment proposed a "points" system for immigration, beginning with English proficiency and age. It also gave points for levels of education, profession and/ or a trade. Lastly, it gave points for country of origin. Those applicants from N.A.T.O. countries would be given a preference.

The proposed "American English Unification Amendment," AKA the "E" Amendment, would make English the official language by constitutional amendment. The previously named measures would be included.

Then Pro-English Director, Jayne Cannava called the proposed "E" Amendment, "a magnificent way to accelerate assimilation." U.S. English Director, Mario Mujica added that "87% of Americans favored" making English the official language in the country..

As expected, the American left would vehemently object to the proposed amendment. Mainly because it would eliminate "cheating" as a path to citizenship! Not to mention, winning elections! In their minds, those favoring passage of the E" amendment would be nothing short of "racists, bigots, fascists, NAZIs,and white supremacists."

Anticipating violence, the book called for "Eagles for America," a grassroots, nationwide support base, who would counter any insurgency that would be certain to spring from this amendment. While the book called for "non-violence," it is predictable that the "Eagles"would become the counter balance to ANTIFA.

The book suggested a concerted lobbying effort, designed to encourage politicians to pass the amendment, heavily relying on social media. In reality, "Eagles for America" could become a counter balance to the ANTIFA mobs.

From a constitutional perspective, it is easy to argue that 38 states would ratify this amendment. I have not heard from the President as of yet. But, he was mailed a copy of "E" is for English. I would think that if it makes it through his handlers, he might be the first to advocate it.

One thing is for certain: If "E" were the law of the land, there would be no Florida controversy at hand at this writing.

Also a definite is we would have a "stronger, smarter, more secure nation" as the book promised.

























Sunday, November 4, 2018

America's Four Choices

These storied midterms will essentially come down to four choices for America.

Republicans will do must better than predicted by pundits. In addition to comfortably holding the House of Representatives, they will add six Senate seats. Trump will enter 2019 with unsurpassed confidence, calling it a mandate.

Republicans will win a disappointing but satisfactory three Senate seats, and hold the House by the most narrow of margins: four seats or less. There will be anger demonstrated by the Democrats. Hopefully it won't result in violence.

Republicans will win a disappointing, yet effective three to four Senate seats but watch the Democrats pick up a 28 House seats, a thin yet decisive win. Democrats are faced with a quandary: Stay with Nancy Pelosi and risk the majority again in 2020? Or, go with a fresh face?

Democrats shock the world by picking up one Senate seat, bringing their total to 50. In the House, they notch a strong 38 seat pickup. It would be hard to imagine not hearing cries of voting fraud with this outcome!

Let's start with choice four. It will be difficult for Democrats to win in Texas or Tennessee. People are scared! There is more concern about open borders than ever before in Texas. Tennessee's largest city, Nashville is booming! The capital is in Nashville. Marsha Blackburn is their girl! East Tennessee has always been overwhelming Republican.

Democrats might sweep Arizona, Nevada and Montana. But, chances are better that Trump sweeps them. Two out of three is more probable both ways. Republicans only need to win two out of three.

Indiana and West Virginia? I don't know about the latter. Joe Manchin is likable. His opponent is competent and committed. Tt comes down to "how truly uncomfortable" people are with either candidate. If Hooster state Libertarians decide to break for one of the major parties, Donnally will lose.

I think both North Dakota and Missouri are lost causes for Democrats.

Which brings us to Florida. This may be the most important state of all. If Scott ousts Nelson(which he should) and people figure out Andrew Gillum, (which most are doing), both Scott and Ron Desantis will win. Unfortunately, a lot of Floridians have already voted. The Governor's extra time spent with disaster victims in the Panhandle and Trump's visit to Pensacola, may prove pivotal with turnout.

When casting this analysis, it is easy to see why the third scenario looks most likely. In fact, it could set the table to a 2020 landslide, if the Congress retains Nancy Pelosi as speaker and plays the obstruction-impeachment game!

Choice two is what most Republican operatives optimistically predict. Maybe it's wishful thinking. I would think that a three seat Senate pickup might spell doom in 2020, because it would likely not include Florida. Retaining the House by narrowest of margins would be good news for Republicans wanting Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker.

Choice one would set the standard for future presidential midterms.

Should Republicans hold the House in comfortable fashion(15 to 25 seats), chances are we'll see Jim Jordan as House Speaker; nine to 15 seats, possibly Steve Scalise. Six pickup Senate seats would probably include Florida, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana. The GOP would hold serve on the rest.

Almost certainly, scenarios one and two will result in the wall being built. Immigration reform will finally happen. We will have a market based healthcare system that will lower the costs for everyone. The roads and bridges will get fixed. The trade deals will be finalized, to America's benefit. We will improve relations with previously hostile countries.

Finally, options one and two will allow the "swamp to be drained."

Make no mistake! Allow options three and four, and the swamp will survive and thrive.

These are the choices.










Sunday, October 28, 2018

2018 Midterms Most Pivotal in History

It is unfolding in front of our eyes!

The battle for America. Faith based National Populism versus Secular Global Socialism.

How it ever come to this?

Not surprisingly, it started with greed. And, a lust for power. What else is new in the the worlds historic, if not poignant journey?

Next question. How?

For the longest, America has been enmeshed in a very basic question: "Are we a Republic?" Or, "are we a Democracy?"

Both Republicans and Democrats use the term "Democracy" so loosely. Yet, there is a distinct difference. Democracy translate to "rule by the majority." Republican amounts to "rule by a set of adopted laws."

Why is one better than the other?

For those advocating "Democracy," it is easily explained as "one person, one vote."

Republicans maintain that a doctrine of law is established and we live by it.

Sounds simple enough. Herein may lie the problem.

"The "one vote, one person" standard would be perfect, if we lived in a perfect world. But, we don't. History has proven that if an individual or small group can control the masses, they can effectively influence these voters. They call this an "oligarchy."

This defines the modern Democrat party. Case in point: Florida. Three "Oligarchs," Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros have collectively poured tens of millions of dollars in the Florida Gubernatorial race. Their candidate: Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum.

Why? Power. Control.

The Republican candidate is Ron DeSantis. DeSantis graduated from Yale before earning his J.D. at Harvard's Law School. He later received a reserved officer's commission, subsequently assigned to the Judge Advocate General Corp(J.A.G.). From there, it was on to Iraq in the 2007 surge. DeSantis ultimately received a Bronze Star and and Iraq campaign metal for his service

Then, it was on the United States Congress where he was one of the original founders of the Freedom caucus. Most recently, he served on the House Judiciary Committee and was a key challenger to Robert Mueller's investigation. Not surprisingly, he drew President Donald Trump's endorsement.

Whew! Sounds like a future Presidential candidate!

Conversely, when examining Gillum's resume and the growing corruption that has epitomized his stay in Tallahassee, one would conclude, "this must be a joke!" Yet, at this writing, the race is too close to call! The infusion of Oligarch cash can do that!

In Texas, these same Oligarchs have poured tens of millions into Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's Senate challenge to Ted Cruz. Experts are predicting that this will represent the most expensive Senate race in history.

And the list goes on and on! Even down to the Kentucky 6th District House race, where transient Democrat challenger, Amy McGrath is attempting to unseat incumbent, Andy Barr, a staunch Trump ally. Practically zero of McGrath's financial support has come from inside the Commonwealth.

With careful analysis, it's easy enough to conclude that these Oligarchs indeed have an agenda: To get even more wealthy than they already are. In the case of Warren Buffet, it amounts to retaining tax credits that return millions into his personal coffers! Ditto for Bill Gates and Mark Cuban.

Thus, Congressional control will determine if the Trump agenda moves forward. Or, more specifically, if we stay on course to return control to America's middle class. OR, stop this trend in it tracks; with hope for a return to the Obama standard of "A protected place for the privileged few, and Socialism for the rest."

Too stark of a contrast? Not hardly! Here is your clue.

Estimates as high as 94% assess the mainstream media's coverage of the administration has been negative. 94%! Not acceptable!

In a previous post, we undertook the history of communications, including over-the-air television in America. A possible solution was introduced. In a future post, we will expand on this remedy. Unfortunately, at least for now, the MSM remains in the hands of the Oligarchs and those promoting Secular Global Socialism.

The good news for those opposing "a protected place for the privileged few and socialism for the rest," is Donald Trump. The president has essentially given the main stream media the "middle finger," taking his case directly to the American people. Never has a president worked so hard to make certain that his allies were given a "level playing field."

Will it be enough? If turnout is a consideration, it just might be. Should the Republicans hold both House and Senate, we should be set for a final accounting. In short, "draining the swamp" amounts to "flushing the snakes from the woodpile."

Most mysterious is the "doglike deference" continuously demonstrated by some life long Democrats to these Oligarchs and their ultimate plan for America. If they were true to their fathers and grandfathers, they would be talking about a conspiracy theory; a massive plan to undermine the American idea by these Oligarchs. Instead, they remain silent, in hope that they might receive some of their "crumbs."

Former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi had the word "crumbs" right. She merely directed it to the wrong people.


Sunday, October 14, 2018

Democrats Pushing Lottery, Chain Migration, Open Borders

Donald Trump has a gift of taking a confusing subject and translating it into laymen's terms.

In Richmond Kentucky last night, I saw the greatest argument yet against chain migration.

The President started with a man who had entered the country via the immigration lottery. He subsequently committed a crime that left numbers of people dead or maimed. He then "lawyered up." Some are now predicting "fifteen years" of motions, appeals and delays that will precede ultimate sentencing.

Meanwhile this man immigrated 19 people, via chain migration. They included his parents, sister, grandparent,three aunts, two uncles and ten cousins. Nineteen people! And literary every single one got on the entitlement rolls. Not one went into the work force. NOT ONE!

For three decades, the Democrats have relied on political correctness, to maintain this malignant practice. To make a stink about it would suggest racism and bigotry. Republicans, as a whole, remained silent.

Donald Trump didn't! In fact, he went one step further. He proclaimed that most countries were limiting applicants for the American lottery to people they didn't want.

I recall an enlightening discussion with Ed Brankey, a Charleston, Illinois based immigration attorney. Brankey made it clear. "Half the planet would immigrate to America is so allowed."

That's the heart of the immigration debate. Two questions that each American needs to ask. "Should we allow all who want to come here? Should we continue to make luck and proximity our primary standards for immigration?"

Democrats say, "yes."

Republicans say, "no."

Laura Ingraham took enormous heat when accusing Democrats of "wanting to change the demographics in America.." She immediately met self righteous howls from Nancy Pelosi and others, accusing Ingraham of being a racist and a bigot.

Yet, the porous Southern border has become a major campaign issue. Those saying "no" to a wall are increasingly seen as "advocates for a change in American demographics." P.C. or not, it just is.

Trump's practical analysis amounted to, "we are creating record numbers of jobs. But, we need qualified immigrants to fill many of these jobs. That's why we need a "merit based" immigration system.

This is sound rationale!

We are bringing jobs back to our shores. But, we may be short on people who can fill many of these jobs. This was the Obama Administration's position; and reason for allowing high tech jobs to be shipped offshore. "We don't have the skilled workers."

Trump is saying, "I have a better idea! Let's bring those skilled workers here."

Trump's argument is valid. Since "half" the planet wants to come to America, why not take advantage of it! Let's get the world's best! Not, the world's unwanted and their extended families!

Tough to counter this position!

The type immigrants Trump is talking about are the ones who would immediately be included on the tax rolls. They might even become, God forbid, "new Republicans!"











Sunday, October 7, 2018

Kavenaugh Hearings Unmasked Left Wing Fascism

The enemy is real.

The last few weeks, American Conservatives got a front row seat into what could have been an inevitable fate. Left wing fascists sought an end to "presumed innocence." It is now up to us to insure no follow-up action is possible.

The midterms mean everything. Literally the whole enchilada! If Pelosi is speaker, we will have two years of gridlock. At best! If the Senate slips away... Too horrible to even think about!

American is experiencing another dreaded "clash of perceptions." The last such clash took place in the early 1860's.

"Faith Based National Populism" versus "Secular Global Socialism."

With the former, it's "living by law outlined in our Constitution. The latter favors "mob rule, emphasizing coercion through intimidation."

The President is canvasing the country, hitting every possible congressional district, pleading for turnout. Most dreaded is the thought of Democrats stealing enough districts to eek out a slim margin. 218 is the magic number.

Trump thinks that he can tip the scales in at least a half dozen of these districts. It might prove to be enough. If he can't, well...

The Senate is looking better. Tennessee has apparently awakened to the fact that good guy, ex-Governor, Phil Bresden may be on the wrong side of history. Joe Donnelly will not be re-elected in Indiana. Heidi Heitcamp is "dead meat!" Claire McCaskill should be collecting boxes; she'll be cleaning out her office in a few weeks.

Searching for an issue that would win support with South Florida environmentalists, Republican Gubernatorial Candidate, Ron DeSantis joined Incumbent GOP Congressman, Brian Mast to take on "Big Sugar."

Historically critical of Big Sugar's practices as Governor, Senate candidate, Rick Scott has joined them, blaming much on Incumbent Bill Nelson's laissez-faire approach to the industry. My money is on all three to win. Trump's passionate endorsement won't hurt!

Remaining are three Western States. Republicans hold two of them: Arizona and Nevada. Both are considered toss-ups. So is Montana, where Jon Tester is hoping that strong Republican turnout doesn't happen. While "two out of three" would be good for Republicans(and highly possible), a sweep is not out of the question!

And then there are those "what if" states, such as Minnesota and New Jersey. Remember, we're talking Al Franken's seat in the Gopher state. Former Lieutenant Governor, Tina Smith is no heavyweight! The state is trending to "purple" status.

New Jersey Senate incumbent, Bob Menendez narrowly avoided prison in a recent racketeering charge! His well funded, self funded, opponent, Bob Hugin has launched a barrage of recent television ads detailing the list of Menendez' scandals. They are extensive!

Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have well funded, liberal, incumbent Senators. They should survive. Yet, with this recent unmasking of the left, "walk-a-ways" are highly possible. There are growing numbers of Independents in all four states. All four Senators voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation.

West Virginia? My guess is Joe Manchin wins and subsequently switches party affiliation, in exchange for a key committee chairmanship.

In short, Republicans have reason to feel cautiously optimistic!

House control will allow investigations of the Deep State to continue. This will lead to the ultimate "unmasking" of those who were behind the entire movement. That many of the greatest perpetrators were members of the Obama administration including Barack Obama himself, spells conflict.

At that point, America will know the truth. For many, it doesn't matter.

The adversary hates this country. They simply want to destroy it; make it into something our fathers and grandfathers feared fifty years ago.

This is the Marxist movement. It began with Political correctness, the essence of cultural Marxism. Next came ANTIFA, their violent arm. For decades they have appointed judges who have were influenced by the infamous "Frankfurt School."

Their terminology can best be phrased as "A protected place for the privileged few, and Communism for everyone else."

This is who we are facing. The question becomes, "should these anti-Americans have a place on this continent?"







Sunday, September 30, 2018

"Dark Side" Meant to Accommodate American Oligarchs

Last week, I received an invoice from American Express. When I closely examined the correspondence, it became apparent that it was an offer to settle.

Puzzled, I called the number on the invoice. A heavily accented voice that suggested India or Pakistan told me that American Express was making me "a one time offer;" accepting $483 to satisfy the alleged $1239 owed.

Craning the depths of memory, I recalled a different Jeff Willis who evidently was delinquent on an American Express card. It had been resolved then, in 2009. Yet here, nine years later, it continued to surface.

When I relayed these findings to the gentleman on the phone, he began asking the normal questions: "Birthday, last four numbers of my social, home address..."

I stopped him, realizing that I was witnessing a "phishing scam." Instead I reminded him that "no revolving debt was collectible in Kentucky after five years and no derogatory could be reported to the credit bureaus after 84 months."

His retort was that I only had to pay $483 and they would accept a 12-month payment plan. I told him to stop harassing me and hung up.

Unfortunately, there are many conscientious Americans, especially older Americans who aren't aware of debt recovery statute of limitations guidelines. And, they zealously guard their bureaus.

Also true is if one payment had been made, the clock would reset and they would be responsible for the debt. Because, in making the payment, they would acknowledge that the debt was indeed theirs.

Unbeknownst to many Americans are schemes and scams globally involving collection of old debt. Debt recovery companies can afford to pursue them because, the old debt may be purchased for "pennies" on the dollar and the offshore help used to expedite is cheap.

Worse still, by sharing Americans personal information, they expose them to identity theft, the world's fastest growing crime.

There are many who would say "that's just the way that it is." In other words, the whole system is rigged to screw everyday Americans and there is nothing that we can do about it.

Or is there?

In a previous post, I referenced a conversation with Congressional Aide, Kevin Wysoki regarding a "clean-up" of the debt recovery industry. Corrective measure included "precluding" any job that required use of an American's social security number from offshore outsourcing.

Sounds plausible. In fact, I haven't talked to a single person who didn't think that it wasn't a "brilliant" idea! Yet some oppose. Who are they? And why would they oppose?

The answers are "Fortune 500 companies" and "such action would reduce their profit margins."

A.T. & T., one of the greatest perpetrators, would explain that "rates would need to be increased" because of the high labor costs in America. In other words, "their unions" wouldn't allow it.

I pointed out to Wysoki, that A.T. & T. might "consider placing these mostly call center jobs in right-to-work states." Yet even then, we would be talking about minimum wage, which begins at $7.25 per hour which, according to A. T. & T., nobody would want anyway!

Think again!

There is a low cost labor market that isn't being utilized to the greatest extent. They are older workers, age 62-66 who are currently eligible for early social security. Unfortunately, it isn't enough to live on. However, an additional $18,000 per year is allowed without compromising the entitlement.

Suddenly, a $7.25 per hour call center job looks appealing. Especially when considering that this worker could become eligible for A. T. & T.'s very good medical and dental plan!

The Fortune 500 companies would argue that their offshore help works for much less; often $200-$300 per month, with no benefits. This math would effectively "quintuple" their labor costs.

Really? Has anyone ever dealt with this "help?" I have! I can tell you first hand, conducting business takes three to four times longer; because the offshore party is speaking in a second language and has difficulty understanding, or being understood by the American!

Thus, the "labor bargain" isn't really that big of a bargain. Or, at least, not for the American who is forced to waste time to accommodate the international service provider.

Then comes the vetting; or lack thereof.

The end result is an open door to "phishermen" and scammers!

Is there any relief in sight?

It won't be easy. Politicians are reluctant to take on these big companies. Not to mention Oligarchs such as Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet or Tom Steyer. These billionaires see such preclusion as a serious hit to their bottom lines. Congressmen don't welcome the prospect of being targeted by these interests.

People are now fully understanding what Donald Trump meant when he called our system "rigged."

Are there other remedies that could be used? Yes. It is called a "boycott."

A nation wide boycott of companies employing offshore help that "require use of all or part of a social" would gain traction immediately. In fact, the mere threat might force these companies to rethink the practice.















Sunday, September 23, 2018

Coastal Elites Funding Future Surrogates

Follow the money!

I was astounded to hear that Nevada Democrat Senate Challenger, Jackie Rosen had received 90% of her campaign funding from out-of-state sources. At least, that's what President Donald J.Trump revealed in Las Vegas earlier this week.

Trump was campaigning for Republican Incumbent, Dean Heller in what pundits suggest is a "toss up" race that could be decided by one or two percentage points. Those who were listening will likely be less impressed with Rosen, when comparing how much out-of-state money is supporting Rosen versus where Heller's financial support base largely falls.

Rosen's position mirrors the far left of the national DNC. We're talking, "Bernie people."

"Open borders. Healthcare for all, including those in the country illegally. Suffocating regulations. High Taxes." It's all there!

In 2016, Heller wasn't Trump's best friend! Fair to say is that while not a "Never Trumper," Heller was close! His views were more in sync with those of Mitt Romney. Yet...

Trump asked for a chance. He convinced conservative, Danny Tarkanian NOT to challenge Heller in the primary. He threw his weight behind Heller's fund raising effort. And asked Heller to look at his program with an open mindedness that befitted great men.

Heller did. So did other Neo-Cons, including Mitt Romney. Keynesian though they were, they grudgingly admitted that results are results!

They also acknowledged that "Rosen's bunch" were essentially like "Bernie's people." They are Socialists. A booming economy is meaningless, in their mind, if it not accompanied by universal health care for all, free college tuition, open borders and reduced law enforcement.

Here's what happens!

Open borders and reduced law enforcement will set America on a crime spree like never recorded or imagined. Only then will the public acquiesce! They will happily relinquish their hidden weapons, in exchange for the government's assurance that safety is guaranteed. Or, at least most of the women will!

People often forget that the Soviet Union, while awash with grievances, was relatively crime free. Once we reach that point, it will be too late.

Neo-Cons do recognize this as clearly as anyone. By nature, they are globalists. By culture, they are Keynesian. But, they do appreciate results and recognize threats!

Establishment Democrats fear this "coming to terms" of Trump's Populists with GOP Establishment. A fracture has opened within their party, pitting their establishment against "Bernie's people" and "Jackie's bunch."

There was hope that a bridge might come together with enough Republicans to neutralize the Trump agenda, while quelling the rise of "Socialist Democrats." That looks doubtful.

The question: "Can Democrats tell Americans who are doing better than they were in 2016, that they are actually not doing that well?"

Perhaps the country's most vivid illustration is the Kentucky 6th race. Incumbent, Andy Barr is attempting to stave off a well funded challenge from retired Lieutenant Colonel, Amy McGrath.

Amy McGrath was not initially supported by either Kentucky's Democrat Establishment or the DNC. Her primary opponent, Jim Gray, is the Mayor of Lexington. While beaten soundly by Rand Paul in the 2016 Senate race, he was hands down favorite to face Barr in the Congressional midterm.

McGrath quietly turned to her money sources.

When asked, the money is there; if you are committed to their agenda. Those who watched Bernie Sanders, 2016 campaign got a "whiff" of it. It's about Socialism and none of "Bernie's people" are denying it. Nor are "Jackie's bunch!"

Neither are young, "up and comers" such as NY Congressional candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tallahassee Mayor, turned Gubernatorial candidate, Andrew Gillum. It is in these quarters where we find Amy McGrath...

Her opposition has worked to "strip the bark off of her." It has uncovered a slick campaign, utilizing Amy's noteworthy military record to "camouflage" an agenda that mirrors that of Sanders. Or, at least, closely mirrors it...

Her stance on health care is literally a duplicate. It amounts to "single payer, health care for everyone." Never mind if they are legally in the country! How to pay for it? You guessed it! Higher taxes. McGrath opposed the 2017 tax cuts. Vehemently.

She was also obsessed with the United States staying in the Paris Climate Accord. In her thinking, "it isn't just about Kentucky." But, WHO is she asking to allow her to represent them?

Amy's position on the 2nd Amendment is literally a carbon copy of Sander's. In her thinking, "the government needs to know where every single weapon is."

Like Bernie, Amy is an outspoken advocate against building the wall. Her positions on border security are surprisingly in sync with Jerry Brown's...

Her money? Ever hear of a California billionaire by the name of Tom Steyer? How about George Soros? Amazingly, these are the same guys who are supporting Jackie Rosen's Senate campaign in Nevada and Andrew Gillum's Governor's run in Florida.

When Amy McGrath appeared on the scene, 6th District Democrat party bosses concluded that she would be too far out of the mainstream to be seriously considered. That's why they supported Gray. While sufficiently Progressive, he isn't in the "Orasio-Cortez/Gillum/Rosen" crowd. Amy is.

6th District isn't exactly a "purple" district. Donald Trump won it by 27% in 2016. In both '08 and '12 Barack Obama was soundly beaten. On paper, it would appear that McGrath would face long odds.

Still, money is key. When candidates are willing to promise anything for funding, they generally find a bottomless reservoir of ready donors.

With those funds they can fill the airwaves with lies and irregularities. It will come down to how people feel today, as compared to this time two years ago.

The President knows this better than anyone. Look for him to place double emphasis on "who" is funding these Democrat candidates and "where the money is coming from."










Sunday, September 16, 2018

Media Bias Must be Addressed

Media fairness has become a "hot button issue!"

It is also an extremely complicated issue. Primarily because much of today's media is "for pay."

In "E" is for English, I proposed a "media fairness board" which would determine if a certain media slant would constitute bias. Later, I pondered over the question, "how would you do this?"

The 1st Amendment is where it begins. Which translates to "no censorship." That's the law; as it should be! No matter what we may think about an opposing opinion, that person or organization rending that opinion has the constitutional right of free speech.

People often forget that much of our media is for pay. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, One America News, News Max all will cost you a few pennies per month as part of a Cable T.V. package.

Viewers may not like Morning Joe, Chris Mathews or Don Lemon any more than they like Sean Hannity, Heath Ledger or Laura Ingram! But because they paid for the programming, there is no recourse for bias, other than not buying.

Same holds true for Newspapers and Magazines. If there is even the smallest purchase price, access is for compensation.

The rub comes with the "over the air" broadcast vehicles. Namely, the networks. In about 30% of America's homes, there is no cable TV. "Free" stations that can be accessed by simply having a television, are the options.

Why is this relevant?

As an industry, Broadcasting has not been with us for a century. At inception is was a curious new entity that could reach masses instantly, simultaneously. Soon there was a mad scramble for frequencies. By the mid- 1920's, the airwaves were becoming endless static from too many people trying to broadcast.

In 1927 Congress passed The Radio Act, which required licensing of a frequency. The Federal Radio Commission, which initially oversaw the Radio Act, later gave way to the Federal Communications Commission seven years later.

Most of the rest is history. The original act did not allow censorship. Programming could not include "obscene, indecent or profane," language. I recall as a boy watching public service announcements detailing "the Television code."

In the late 1930's New Dealers were successful in implementing "the Fairness Doctrine." This was later abolished because it proved to be a method of censoring paid sponsors that otherwise complied to the "code."

The sixties roared in with the Kennedy-Nixon debate and later with graphic footage of the Viet Nam conflict. America became better informed. In many cases the results were not welcomed.

I recall watching the 1980 Republican primary, only because I was hospitalized while recovering from an automobile accident. Mississippi Baptist Medical Center had only ABC, NBC and CBS. All three networks were covering the convention, non-stop. If you weren't interested, you were simply out of luck!

All of them were there: Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Sam Donaldson and the big names of the time. Subtle was their assessment of Ronald Reagan and what was dubbed, "The Reagan Revolution." The message that I seemed to get from all was that Reagan's ideas, while curious, were neither feasible or practical.

The decade closed with bumper stickers mildly touting a perceived bias toward the left. The bumper sticker most remembered was "Rather Biased."

The 1990's will be remembered as a time when millions of over the air viewers departed the networks in favor of cable news. Fox News immediately set themselves apart as the "only true conservative voice." It attracted millions of news viewers with this positioning statement. Meanwhile, CNN lost it's lead in the Cable News world.

By the middle of the last decade, an astonishing number of Americans had left network news altogether, disgusted with perceived bias.

Today, it a fair statement to say that CBS, ABC and NBC are at best, "left leaning." Dangerous is when 30% of the American population only has access to these sources for their national news.

The original 1927 act stated that the "airwaves belong to the people." That could be interpreted that they can exhibit no political bias. The question becomes "where" you draw the line between "prohibiting bias" and "facilitating censorship?"

There is no easy answer!

I recall the oath that took in joining Sigma Delta Chi(The Society of Professional Journalists). It specified "serving the public in a measured, responsible and unbiased manner."

Today's mainstream media advocates "Globalism." This is an opinion. The MSM positions it as an axiom, essentially the norm in a world growing more interconnected.

Do they have the right to do this? Actually, no! Unless they fairly illustrate the alternative: "Nationalism."

Same holds true for "faith based" versus "Secularism."

The airwaves belong to the people, under original and existing law. All, of the people.

How do you police this? Or, CAN you even police it?

I don't think we can NOT police it.

How?

Nineteen(19) non-partisan media veterans would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They would swear an oath to defend the standard specified by Sigma Delta Chi. It would apply only to the broadcast networks.

Local affiliates would be exempted; unless they owned more than a total of seven television properties, seven a.m. and seven f.m. stations. This condition would greatly anger media giants such as Clear Channel Communication and Sinclair Broadcasting.

First citation, the offender would be given a warning. Second offense, their license would be revoked and sold to the highest bidder. For stockholders, this would amount to nothing short of a "financial holocaust." The stock would be worth only what the real estate was worth. Many would be out of work, with no recourse.

Too excessive?

Hot hardly! These media "elites" are effectively influencing millions to one way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with information. But, it must be made available in a fair and balanced manner.

We cannot place one opinion above another, when the airwaves belong to all of us.





























Sunday, September 9, 2018

Who Benefits From the Tax Cut. Who Doesn't

A friend from Los Angeles County recently told me that his Malibu Home was assessed at $7,000,000. His property taxes per year were north of $87,000.

"Up until the Trump tax cuts, I could deduct it all. Now, I am limited to $10,000. I am screwed!" He professed.

He was speaking of the historic 2017 legislation that cut corporate taxes from 35% to 21% and average American's about $2100 per year. The $10,000 limit was a cumulative tax exemption that could include property and state income taxes.

A low taxed state, such as Florida, Georgia, Tennessee or Texas benefited. High tax states such as California, Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts didn't.

As President Obama reminded, "elections have consequences."

This will be a big piece of the Republican midterm message going into the homestretch.

Kentucky is a good testing ground. The Commonwealth has a property tax that hovers between eight and twelve mills. Translated, if you live in a $450,000 home in Richmond, you pay nine mills, or $4050 per year. If your family makes $119,000 per year, you will pay $7,021 in state income taxes.

This family deducts $1107 less in state and local taxes than under the old plan. However, a married couple, will see their standard deduction jump from $12,000 to $24,000.

In Miami, a $450,000 house will generally run about $8,000 in property taxes. But, there is no state income tax.

The gentleman in Malibu was making $250,000 per year. His state income tax tab was $27,250 or so. More local taxes, excluding gasoline taxes kicked in another 5k. In all, he was paying almost $120,000 per year in state and local taxes. Previously, this could all be deducted before the paid his federal taxes. Now, it is capped at $10,000.

"All roads lead to Nashville!" This was the Malibu gentleman's assessment!

So goes the high taxed states!

Now, we look at a married couple with two children in Fayetteville, Arkansas. They make a comfortable $140,000 between them. They live in a home in the Northeast end of he county assessed at $395,000. Their total property tax tab is $3400 per year. Their total state income tax is south of $2900. Other taxes including personal property taxes add about $700 to the total.

Clearly, the people in the high tax states took a pounding! The people in the low tax states benefited.

Returning to Kentucky 6th District, where Richmond falls. Most people don't live in $450,000 homes. In fact, most families don't live in $225,000 homes. The average household income is less than half of $119,000 per year.

Kentucky's 6th district has a lot of small, "Mom and Pop" type business'. They are mostly Limited Liability Corporations. Now, corporations are taxed at 21%, instead of 35%.

Interestingly enough, Kentucky 6th Congressional Midterm reflects very different views held by Democrat Amy McGrath and Republican, Andy Barr.

Barr supported the President's tax cuts. As he pointed out, the average person in 6th district greatly benefits. A couple making $119,000 per year, living in a $450,000 house comes out ahead. And they represent the top 5%. Families earning less benefit even more.

McGrath opposed the tax cuts and wants to repeal them. This might appear curious, considering that the cuts benefit nearly all of the district she seeks to represent! But, Amy's financial support comes mostly from the East and West Coast. Without question, repeal would greatly benefit San Francisco and Boston!

Many, if not most in America, are unclear of the consequences in repealing versus making permanent the tax cuts. Boston and San Francisco seek to "hoodwink" sufficient numbers of "deplorables in flyover America" into voting for their implanted "moles."

In Kentucky 6th's case, they bank on Amy's impressive military resume to effectively camouflage her liberal agenda. Her positions on the tax cuts are the litmus test.

Kentucky won with Trump's tax cuts. Big!

California, Massachusetts and other high tax states, lost. Big!

As they say in Richmond, "often it comes down to flushing the snake from the wood pile." Replacing Barr with McGrath would be a classic example of 6th District "shooting itself in the foot."

The tax cuts amount to a wealth transfer, from state to state. The low tax states got tired of making allowances for the high tax states to exempt themselves from proportionate federal income tax contributions.

"Why high tax states should simply cut their taxes," is another topic for a different post. Change comes grudgingly, if at all.

The midterm results will come down to "how many moles," like Amy McGrath, will the coastal elites successfully place in low tax districts. It won't take many.






Sunday, September 2, 2018

The Dark Side of America

My friend, Tom(a pseudonym) shared a frustratingly familiar story.

"I get a call from someone from Direct TV. He tells me that I owe $397. When I asked him to explain "what for," he said he could not discuss the account with me. I asked to speak to his supervisor.

"Forty-minutes and four transfers later, I was speaking to someone who explained, in a cultured far east accent, that the bill was for equipment not returned." Tom mused.

"And?"

"I was ready for them this time!" Tom produced a wrinkled certified mail receipt from his wallet. It was dated April 2010.

"You kept it all this time?" I couldn't help but smile.

"Damn sure did." Tom laughed caustically. "When I bought my house, it came up. They would have made me pay it, had I not produced this piece of paper. They were saying that I didn't return the box. But, this showed proof that I did. Someone had signed for it."

"Smart move." I applauded.

"Yeah, but it stayed on my bureau until a couple of years ago!"

Tom was noting the "84 month rule." Any reporting to the credit bureaus, not bankruptcy related, must be deleted at the end of seven years.

Tom's poignant recount brought back a similar experience. In this case, a 78-year-old man with respiratory issues was admitted to an Eastern Kentucky hospital. When checked in, he told the admittance clerk that he would be turning the claim over to Medicare.

Three days later, he was released. The hospital's charge for the services was $4500. The Medicare pricing schedule reduced them to $3200. The man and his wife had an excellent Medicare supplement policy, which picked up co-pays and deductibles.

One month later, the wife received an invoice from the hospital. It was billing the couple the difference: $1300.

Angrily, the woman called their insurance agent, who had sold them the supplemental policy. She was surprised to hear his response.

"Don't pay it." The agent retorted."You don't owe it. The hospital signed a waiver, conforming to Medicare's pricing schedule."

The woman happily called the hospital, letting them know that she didn't intend to pay it. Three months later, she received another call. It was from Midland Credit.

"Yeah, there was this fellow,' the man chimed in, producing a letter from the San Diego based collection agency. "I couldn't understand him very well. He told us we owed $1300."

"And then?" I had an idea where this was going.

"Well, I was "peeowed" with our insurance guy!" The woman snapped. "He had told us that we didn't owe anything. And now, this Jerry guy, or whatever, from this Midland company said that we owed $1300. That's a lot of money."

"Jerry from New Delhi, as we called him." The man guffawed.

"Did you say something to your insurance man?" I asked.

"We certainly did!" The man continued. "And he said that Jerry was wrong and he would get to the bottom of it. And.."

"He called the hospital." The woman interrupted. "He said he couldn't get through to anyone. Finally, he sent a certified letter to the doctor who had done the treatment."

"And?"

"The doctor called in the Head of Accounting." The man remembered. "Come to find out, a nine-dollar-an-hour clerk had taken it upon herself to turn the account over to a collection agency."

"What happened then?" I asked, guessing he answer.

"The Head of Accounting didn't even know of the action." The woman picked up the saga. "She called that clerk in, asked her why she had taken the action and she said, "those people said they weren't going to pay." So, I turned them over for collection."

"From what our insurance guy said, both the Doctor and the Head of Accounting were furious that the clerk had turned the account over to a collection agency without first getting clearance. They fired her." The man concluded.

"Yet, all three bureaus are still reporting a $1300 unpaid balance." I sympathized, having experienced Midland previously. "90% of Midland is automation. 99% of their live help is offshore. Even when they learn something is wrong, they do little to correct it."

"These companies know that a $1300 unpaid debt can ruin your credit." The man nodded ruefully. "They figured we'd just pay regardless."

According to Salt Lake City based, Lexington Law, 79% of Americans have at least one error on their credit bureau. 67% have more than one. In most cases, the reporting is either a cell phone, cable company, utility company, municipality or medical provider. In some instances, the amount allegedly owed is less than $50.

An FHA Underwriter, Nancy(a pseudonym)echoed. "When we see a medical on a collection, we do not require a borrower to pay it. But, it noticeably impacts their score. A 625 score versus a 725 score can result in a person paying 12 or 13% versus five or six percent for a car loan.

"These Fortune 500 companies say they are sensitive to these issues. But, they are crying crocodile tears, laughing all the way to the bank!"

One often wonders "how much extra" are Americans are paying for their money, due to artificially lowered credit scores...

It's true that the three major repositories, Trans Union, Equifax and Experian are huge, mostly automated "ivory towers," where access is limited, if not non-existent. Even, for the best of Financial Services professionals! The Average American? "ROTSA RUCK!"

Last spring, I broached Kentucky 6th District Aide, Kevin Wysoki on the subject. Congressman, Andy Barr does sit on the House Financial Services Committee. It would appear to be the ideal place to start.

Barr faces an unexpected Midterm challenge from Bernie Sanders surrogate, Amy McGrath.

Wysoki listened attentively to my proposal. I am not well acquainted with the young, New Yorker. But, he mentioned that the issue had come up, unexpectedly from Minnesota Congressman, now Attorney General Candidate, Keith Ellerson.

I am uncertain if the proposal went anywhere. I have not heard back from Wysoki.

The proposal included some key points, that if implemented, would correct what some are now calling, "Americas second greatest national problem," only surpassed by the health insurance question.

A. No, non-bankruptcy reports after five years(Currently it's seven years).
B. Reports not allowed for debts under $100
C. No deficiency settlements reported.
D. $1000 fine per line for any satisfied debt setlement not reported 30 days from rectification.
E. 100% preclusion for any and all "offshore" debt recovery agents.

Article "E" may be a bit confusing. Many debt recovery representatives are not stateside. Same holds true for a lot of employees of Fortune 500 companies, ranging from J.P Morgan Chase to A.T & T.

Many of these employees have impeccable credentials. But they are not vetted with the same rigor as those working stateside, in the same capacity. I work in the Financial Services industry. Every two years, I must be fingerprinted. My prints are subsequently sent to the FBI in Washington, D.C., to check for felonies or misdemeanors involving banking, real estate, insurance or securities fraud.

"Jerry from New Delhi" isn't subjected to this kind of scrutiny. Best of all, Jerry is inexpensive; $200-$300 per month! From the C.E.O.'s table, "if Jerry screws up, it'll amount to the consumer paying more for his money."

In essence, the consumer loses! This is another example of Donald Trump's assertion that "the system is rigged against average Americans."

As Tom acidly praised, "The Fortune 500 companies are compromising both accuracy, and the security of Americans, for a buck!"

This is truly, "the dark side of America."

Concerning my proposal to Congressman Barr's aide? Who knows!

Kentucky's 6th District Constituents are mostly a mixture of Conservative Populists, Conservative Evangelicals, Traditional Southern Democrats(AKA "bluedogs") and a tiny contingent of mostly transient left wingers who have recently settled in Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky. Amy McGrath falls in the latter group.

Andy is being positioned by his midterm opponent to be in the big corporations camp. Yet Andy is on the right committee. If he were to sponsor legislation "attacking America's dark side," he would essentially "let the air out of Amy McGrath's campaign," while cementing his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

How his financial supporters would react is unknown. I would think that they would want what was best for 6th District and country.



















Monday, August 27, 2018

Session's Unexpected Ploy Could Spell Destruction for ANTIFA

ANTIFA has Marxist orientations.

For those seeking insight into what's unfolding, please google www.agendadocumentary.com

Former Idaho Congressman, Curtis Bowers spells it out. This extremely well done, 93- minute documentary is worth every penny of the $15 dollar investment.

I recall chatting with Bowers, one night in Louisville at an American Family Foundation seminar. He told me at the time that he planned a sequel. I haven't seen it. But, it might exist. What the Congressman revealed in his initial offering, "Agenda-Grinding America Down," was not pretty!

Essentially Bowers translates "Socialism" to "big government."

ANTIFA is violent.

Socialism plus violence equal Communism.

In a previous post, we discussed Attorney General, Jeff Sessions and his apparent reluctance to do his job. Most Republicans are resigned to the fact that nothing can be done until after the midterms. After that point, his resignation, or termination, looks imminent.

Session beats to his own drum. Why he has turned a blind eye toward the Mueller probe, while virtually ignoring infractions committed by both the council and the other side, cannot be fully explained.

His agenda? I'm not sure that even the President knows! I don't often agree with Lindsey Graham. But, I am totally with him in that Trump, or any President, deserves to have a cabinet that is consistent with his agenda. The American people elected Donald Trump. Not Jeff Sessions!

Still, Sessions might take the heat for what could be the most controversial move in modern history. Here is how it could unfold.

Sessions appears committed to upholding the current immigration laws. It would not be inconceivable for him to issue a mandate to sanctuary city mayors: "Turn over all criminal illegal aliens in seven days. Or, face arrest on the grounds of "aiding and abetting criminals" and "obstruction of justice."

Could Sessions legally do this? Absolutely!

Let's think about this for a minute. Imagine Sessions issuing warrants for the arrests of Gavin Newsom, Rahm Emanuel and Bill de Blasio. If those criminal illegals aren't delivered as ordered, it could happen!

ANTIFA would react. Suddenly, there would be terrorism on the streets of San Francisco, Chicago and New York. Their immediate targets would be the local police forces and ICE. Overwhelmed, law enforcement would appeal to Washington for help.

Then what?

What is uncertain is what Sessions might do. Especially if he met resistance in the manner anticipated.

Donald Trump would not back down. ANTIFA is violence manifested. They are Marxists seeking to overthrow the United States of America. Nothing less. In all likelihood, the President would view resistance as the culmination of a long festering feud between the left and the right.

The measure of "great" versus "good" is defined on how a crisis is confronted. Sessions would light the fuse. Trump would pull the trigger. He would have millions of allies.

We would be at the ultimate crossroads, a hair's breath away from Civil War. The President would first summon the National Guard to assist law enforcement maintain order, while the Attorney General's order was carried out. From a legal perspective, this is the correct move.

He could further his case for denying federal funding from sanctuary cities. ANTIFA's action would add fuel to the flame. But this would take months, a new Congress and might never get out of the chute!

The wildcard in this entire scenario is if California opted to secede. There is certainly support for "Calexit." In the event that the state did go that route, they would be handing the President a "gift," beyond imagination!

Suddenly the President would be on familiar ground. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion. If Trump called for "volunteers" to suppress the rebellion, the numbers would likely top one million! They would see it as their patriotic duty to "preserve the Union."

These would not be Sunday soldiers! 90% of them would be men, ages 18-50 of all colors, races and national origins. Many would be veterans. While CNN would have you believe that "only white people love America," the American idea is as diverse as the love of a hamburger!

What ANTIFA, and California's left, may be miscalculating is that this grassroots opponent has been longing for this moment for decades! Throughout America, in basements of all shapes and sizes, sit automatic and semi-automatic weapons. We are not talking about squirrel guns! More like assault rifles, automatic handguns and thousands of rounds.

A huge number of the "loyalists" would be Californians. In their thinking, "deliverance had come at last!"

The universal cry would echo from all parts of the nation: "Just tell us who to report to, Mr. President. Don't worry about transportation or weapons. We've got that covered. Our friends in those locales will take care of the rest."

You might say, Jeff Sessions would have opened up the "ultimate barrel of eels!"

While confrontational and pugnacious, ANTIFA would be no match for these ready made warriors. It is probable that the entire movement would cease to exist in a few hours.

Just imagine! A 39-year-old veteran showing up in San Francisco with a 12 gauge pump in his hands, an AR-15 over his shoulder, a nine mm in his belt and an Arkansas toothpick in his boot! Not to mention blood, in his eye!

The watchwords: "Let's cleanse the continent of Communist traitors."

Would not the mainstream media have a field day? I can only imagine how Chuck Todd would react!

At first they would! Then, they would face the grim conclusion that if they sided with ANTIFA, they would be lumped into the Marxist hopper. And, if they supported Calexit, they would be considered traitors and interned indefinitely. Lincoln did it.

Many in the MSM might see such action as their "journalistic duty!" Until, they received their pink slips! Speaking of CNN...Has anyone noticed that they have lost 25% of their audience over the past twelve months. Media companies won't lose money indefinitely.

At this point, many ANTIFA sympathizers would be heading for the exits! Don't be surprised if leftist college professors follow. There is already a nationwide movement for states to stop funding state colleges and universities who exercise bias.

Amazingly, the storm would pass as quickly as it started. These "millions of allies" would return to their homes quietly. Calexit would have been crushed. Those leaders of the movement would be given the same punishment as military and political leaders of the Confederacy were given: "They would be permanently disenfranchised and prohibited from holding future political office. The punishment would include their children and grandchildren.

Meanwhile, it would be business as usual in Washington. Except that many seats in Congress and the Senate would be vacant, as was the case in 1868 when "birthright citizenship" was introduced.

With the Communist element temporarily discredited, America would finally accomplish long coveted objectives. They would include, but not be limited to, a peaceful working relationship with N.A.T.O., Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and the Middle East. We would see Trump's wall built and an immigration standard that would be in the nation's interest.

Many more decisions would be diverted to the individual states, in accordance with the 10th amendment. This would result in the need for less government at the federal level.

English would become the official language. Picture voter I.D. cards would be required. There would be a requirement that "only U.S. citizens" would be allowed to vote. Congressional representation would be based on "citizens and not persons."

Taxes and health care would fall in, based on needs of the many as opposed to needs of the few. Because immigration reform would include new qualifications for entitlements, money would be freed up to shore up both Social Security and Medicare.

Sounds relatively routine. Maybe it would be. It goes back to Thomas Jefferson's pronouncement.

"The liberty tree benefits from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

Hopefully, there would be very little bloodshed. Smart money predicts that ANTIFA members would "run like scared rabbits."

Secession is another thing. The California left may think that the rest of the nation would let them depart quietly. I think the chances of that happening are slim and none! What they would do is give the rest of the nation an excuse to do what is needed in the "Golden State:" Reconstruction.

In the end, the problematic Sessions could ultimately position the President to destroy a destructive element. ANTIFA is Marxist in origin and has nothing save destruction in mind for America. Yet face to face with their enemy, those "god fearing, bible thumping, gun toting, deplorables," they will crumple like "cheese to a knife." Along the way, they will "stimulate implosion" of the corrupt left.

People should be careful what they wish for.








Sunday, August 19, 2018

Media Fake News May Have Impact on Midterms.

To hear Morning Joe or Chris Cuomo's American situation analysis, you would think that they had recently returned from Tijuana; accompanied by an ample supply of Mexican Mushrooms!

There is simply no other way to explain their departure from American reality. In the face of good times, both are experiencing a "bad trip."

Perhaps by design. Chris' brother made it clear, that he didn't think America was all that hot! The Governor of New York has a role to play. Especially if he has presidential aspirations on his mind.

Joe's lady friend, also known as "Bimbo" can only nod and wink. For those who were around during the "Peanut Farmers" fowl up tenure, it's remembered that her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski(our favorite meathead) advised the president that "the only thing that is saving America is world opinion."

It's fitting that "Meathead" would sire such daughter! I am certain that "Morning Joe" sees assets that don't include what's between her eyes. As far as his take on Trump's America, a four-ounce glass of Mexican dream potent will go a long way.

Fair minded people simply scratch their heads, wondering where these "Donald Trump hating" media pundits get their material. What they are reporting often doesn't exist, other than in the psychedelic world.

It's understandable that they don't like the president. But, does not their profession demand some semblance of objectivity. Apparently not...

Perhaps they are relying on the stupidity of Americans. After all, their mentor, Hillary Clinton referred to Trump supporters as "a basket of deplorables." It's fact that the majority of these "gun toting, God fearing, bible thumpers" are not Ivy League products!
Still, if "Morning Joe's and Chris Cuomo's" continue to repeat the fictitious and divest in the delusional, some of those assertions just might stick.

Democrats are counting on it!

Let's pause for a moment. Through a year and a half of his Presidency, Donald Trump has done everything promised. We see a massive tax cut coupled with regulatory relief paying dividends like only Trump imagined. 18 months ago, Democrats and few Republicans were saying that it couldn't be done.

Having finally admitted that the economy is exploding, Dems are trying to give most of the credit to Barack Obama, conveniently deleting that "regulation rollbacks are believed to be as much of the key, as the tax cuts." Besides! These tax cuts were just "crumbs" anyway! Right Nancy Pelosi?

Immigration reform? Trump's proposal included more than double the dreamers that Obama's plan provided for. But, it came with a price: "No Chain Migration. No Visa Lottery. Increased border security. A Wall."

Dems said "no."

It's fact that many in Trump's own party were initially appalled at normalizing the status of 1.7 million dreamers. Obama wasn't that generous. Evidently the President saw it as a good faith gesture. I did. But Paul Ryan didn't. Not to mention the Democrat leadership.

On the surface, it represented a bridge. In a true compromise, neither side is particularly happy. Donald Trump knew this. In his mindset, he concluded that it would be best to accommodate those in the country illegally through no fault of their own. It may also have been a ploy to force the Democrats true intentions to the forefront.

Paul Ryan's pitiful alternative drew only 110 votes. But it did starkly portray the difference in Trump's vision and Neo-Con priorities.

At the bottom of it all, almost all Democrat and Neo-Con agendas are found to be in conflict with American interests.

In Laura Ingraham's words, "Democrats want to change the demography of America." As expected, she was touted as a racist and a bigot. Yet, is it racism or bigotry to aspire to bring in the best qualified immigrants into the country? As in those applicants already fluent in English with advanced degrees who can't wait to assimilate?

Neo-Con's could care less about English proficiency or prior educational achievement. They simply want to keep that endless supply of cheap labor coming. Never mind if it keeps wages stagnant. Enhanced security and a border wall will severely curtail this source.

In short, both Neo-Cons and the Democrat leadership have something in mind, other than the best interests of Americans. Could it be that both see America as part of a much larger picture?

In Thomas Friedman's, "the World is Flat," America was portrayed as a spoiled, overly indulgent nation that had preyed and exploited on the rest of the world. The solution, according to Friedman, was to "level the playing field." This included, but was not limited to, "sharing jobs with less fortunate nations and paying the Lion's share for global initiatives such as the Paris Climate Accord.

In essence, "sharing the hegenomy."

Alarmingly, Democrat Leadership and most Neo-Cons are fine with this idea! Even more disturbing, the mainstream media has not only joined them but embraced the general idea!

Trump's "faith based, national populism" is "secular, global socialism's" polar opposite. Herein lies the conflict.

The President sees America as a "melting pot," where people from all parts of the world could come, marry and build a nation based upon freedom. Their strain would be "Americans," adopting the English language, American customs and traditions.

The other side sees America as a salad bowl. Every newcomer is welcomed, no matter what circumstance they left behind in their previous country. There is no urgency to assimilate. All are included in basic services. ICE can be eliminated, because the borders will be open.

The "sharing the hegemony" crowd is nervous, dying a little with every foreign policy gain or shred of good economic news. Immigration didn't work in a decisive way. In fact, some are finally questioning "who" the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship actually was intended for.

Then there are the trade deals. To "one world government globalists," what Trump is attempting to do is nothing short of heresy! How dare the President turn America's back on those less privileged countries, in favor of "a bunch of fat, lazy, American deplorables!

Odds are strong that the Trade deals will ultimately work to America's advantage. Trump and his crew are dealing with aces. Unfortunately, the true fruits will may not be fully felt until after the midterms...

Democrats have a good opportunity to reclaim the House of Representatives. But their chances in the Senate don't look good at all. Americans could see losing the House while picking up a "half-dozen" Senate seats. Republican Optimists insist that they will hold the House and pick up as many as eight to ten Senate seats.

Imagine a Nancy Pelosi led House, and a Senate where 57 seats were held by Republicans. I see a lot of wasted time.

Hopefully, the average American will take an inward look, questioning "if" Trump should be given a Republican Congress. It's a choice:

Giving Trump a friendly speaker will help implement his agenda, because what he's done so far is good, if not extraordinary?

Or, agree with Chris Cuomo, Morning Joe, and others, that Trump does not "jive" with one-world government objectives. Therefore, Congress will be in better hands under Nancy Pelosi, who's goal is to impeach him.

"Secular Global Socialism" versus "Faith based National Populism."

In retrospect, Paul Ryan was, and still is, an adversarial figure, who just happens to be in the same party. Any of the three Republican's vying for Speakership would be an upgrade.

It may come down to "how much credence" the average person places on "fake news?"

How effective will Morning Joe, Chris Cuomo and other media personalities be in shaping the paradigms their audiences? They selectively discuss every conceivable negative tidbit, while essentially ignoring achievements and accomplishments of the Trump administration.The information they are spouting is "distorted at best, non-existent at worst."

Unfortunately, all too many people will not confirm actual validity.

Many don't want to know.

























Sunday, August 12, 2018

C.F.P.B. Not Up to Challenging Americas' Rigged System

Donald Trump called the American system "rigged."

GOP establishment scratched their heads. Rigged? How so?

When untangling the massive spider web that is indicative of the American financial system, it all but paralyzes the brain!

The plethora of Wall Street woes is another topic for a different post. It's comforting that discrepancies have been noted.Namely that Glass-Steagall was mistakenly repealed in bi-partisan fashion. The jury is still out on which chosen methodology will prove to be the ultimate remedy.

The mortgage industry is another thing. Attempts have been made, by well meaning, but essentially unqualified people. Dodd-Frank was intended to address the most flagrant of grievances. Even laws done under the best of intentions are only as good as those carrying out their implementation.

A Financial Consultant, formally with Washington D.C. based, Wiener, Brodsky, Sidman and Kider explained. "Ideally, you would have people who were on the cutting edge of the industry working at a regulatory agency such as the "Consumer Finance Protection Bureau." What you have are basically a bunch of political hacks who supported the Obama campaign. Most are non-industry people who see Elizabeth Warren as a "enlightened reformer" and the ultimate authority on how things work. Never mind that most agents have seen only the classroom."

As in academicians?

A friend from Boston once proclaimed about his fellow statesmen. "In Massachusetts, the Democrat party is tight. So tight, that many Massachusetts Democrats would vote for Adolph Hitler and his Jewish policies if he were running as a Democrat."

So explains how Massachusetts voters turned their nose up at a true centrist, Scott Brown, in favor of academician, Elizabeth Warren. Warren's orientation comes solely from the classroom. Yet her stamp is clearly evident at the C.F.P.B.

Perhaps the most glaring example is how C.F.P.B. prioritizes. Here is a prime example.

Dodd-Frank includes what are distinguished as the U.D.A.P guidelines. In essence, "Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Practices" exercised by banks. In theory, the agency is suppose to oversee banking activities ranging from loans to servicing that are considered "unfair, deceptive and abusive." Good idea,at least on paper! Implementation is another thing.

I recall a mortgage client who had been raked over the coals by his lender. Offered repeated modification opportunities, there was always something not quite right. His mortgage payments were returned. In frustration, he filed a complaint with C.F.P.B.

The response was unexpected. After filling out numerous on line forms, the C.F.P.B. agent responded. "You need to hire a lawyer."

My client countered. "What exactly do you do?"

The C.F.P.B. agent explained. "We build a case file. We document the complaint. Other than that, it's up to you to seek legal council."

Sorta like the "dental monitor who does not practice actual dentistry!" Big help!

The Commonwealth of Kentucky is one of the least consumer friendly states in the union. Exempted from the state's consumer protection statutes are mortgages. How could this happen?

"Because the people who write the checks want to keep it that way." A Lexington attorney explained.

Wait a minute! The state leadership has chosen to preclude itself from the U.D.A.P. laws? Isn't this nullification?

"It's the way that it's always been." The attorney continued. "Nothing will ever change."

My first thought was, "what about the state's two "progressive" newspapers, Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald- Leader? One would think that their editors would be on the warpath with such as standard!"

The attorney smirked. "Now Jeff, you gotta understand! Those guys don't think like Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy Democrats! They are more concerned with "transgender bathrooms and tearing down Confederate statues" than pointing out that the people living in Kentucky are subjected predatory lending and loan servicing practices. Not to mention scandalous debt recovery practices!"

A sobering thought!

In theory, the C.F.P.B. would be swooping down on Frankfort and forcing mortgage inclusion on the state consumer protection laws. Or else!

Evidently, it's not a priority for the agency...

As one Senate Finance committee aid phrased,"Everyone of the committee is "scared shitless" of Elizabeth Warren. She is a "bully and a blowhard." But when a real grievance surfaces, such as Kentucky practicing nullification, she is totally inept. I think she is over her head, in that she doesn't know where to start on something as obvious as a state catering to a few well heeled, insiders at the expense of it's residents."

In other words, Elizabeth Warren is the consummate "combination of impudence and impotence."

The U.D.A.P. guidelines are one of the few actual positives of Dodd-Frank. If the proponents of the act were truly competent, they would be addressing how our current system is compromising Americans daily.

Perhaps the most glaring example is how banks confuse and frustrate borrowers with automation, then bury them in bureaucracy. Here's an example:

Under the U.D.A.P. guidelines, borrowers are supposed to be assigned one loan councilor. But this never happens. A common complaint is "I am never able to talk to the same person twice."

There is also the standard practice of transferring a borrower to representatives literally all over the planet! As one frustrated borrower remembered, "My loan got sold. I sent in my payment, but it was returned. I called the new bank. I started out in Dallas, then I was transferred to the Philippines, who transferred me to San Diego, who transferred me to India.

"It was tough enough understanding the faulty English and dealing with the redundancy and seemingly endless hold times! What made things worse was that I was on the phone for more than one hour and never got my question answered!"

The compromising of Americans' privacy by Fortune 500 countries who employ cheap, unvetted, offshore labor is still another subject for a different post. This cheap help has contributed to "79%" of Americans holding mistakes in the credit repositories which subsequently resulted in lower credit scores.

Maybe this is what the President meant when he described our system as "rigged." Lower credit scores can mean the difference in securing a mortgage insurance free, conventional loan versus an FHA loan, which requires expensive Mortgage Insurance Premiums. Or, paying 18% for an auto loan, versus 6%. Or, 24% for a revolving account versus 12%.

A potent C.F.P.B. could put a stop to this practice!

For starters, they could force states like Kentucky to cease their nullification practices. They could likewise enact a statute that would "preclude jobs requiring all or part of an Americans social security number from off shore outsourcing."

I was never a supporter of Dodd-Frank. It placed too many restrictions on borrowing money for home loans, while making them more cumbersome and expensive.

The legislation also concluded that some banks were "too big to fail." Resulting were multi-tiered banks with international locations that are usually a nightmare to deal with. Unintended foreclosures have resulted; often because the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing."

The current housing shortage is a fruit of Dodd-Frank. Sanctimonoius, non-industry people will airily say, "but they kept consumers out of those crazy, predatory loans!" Never mind that those "crazy predatory loans" disappeared in 2008!

Sadly, the C.F.P.B, is as incompetent as their "enlightened reformer," Elizabeth Warren. Most of their players are as inept as the Massachusetts Senator. They could make a positive difference in American lives. The are in position to right many wrongs in the industry.

It's proof that "political partisanship" places a distant second to "experience and competence."








Sunday, August 5, 2018

Russia vs. China: Which is the Lessor of Two Evils?

June 4th, 1989. Tiananmen Square, Beijing. A protest largely orchestrated by students. Suppressed. Per the government, 200-300 died.
Years later, we learned that the actual death toll topped 10,000.

August 21, 1991. Red Square, Moscow. A coup d'etat was attempted by members of the Soviet government against Mikhail Gorbachev. Apparently inspired by the leader of the resistance movement, Boris Yeltsin, the army refused to fire on it's citizens. The coup attempted failed. By the end of 1991, the Soviet Union was history.

Why one coup attempt succeeded and one failed is a conversation that continues to surface. The Chinese militia that gunned down their countrymen, later bayoneting wounded women, was allegedly 60% illiterate. Unlike Russia, there was no single leader opposing the Coup.

Unlike the luckless Chinese, 99.9% of the Russian military was literate. When facing their countrymen, the human side prevailed. They refused to fire on their own citizens, disobeying orders from above.

I recall watching the Moscow development live on CNN. Young male soldiers were confronted by middle aged women, bluntly telling them to "shoot me if you must, but I am not moving." In spite of threats from above, the soldiers refused to accommodate their party bosses.

In actuality, these young soldiers had taken a giant step.

At first glance, today's China looks less threatening than Russia. But is it? There are more than one billion Chinese. Russia has but 139 million, down from 149 million twenty years ago.

Russia claims to be Democratic. Few believe it. In the eyes of most Americans, President Vladimir Putin is a "KGB thug and dictator." But make no mistake! Two thirds of the Russian people are solidly behind him.

On February 25th of this year, China's CCP(Communist party) announced that they were dropping term limits, allowing President, Xi Jinping to stay on indefinitely. China offered no explanations or apologies. Few, if any protests evolved.

For those who would like to see the electoral college abolished in the U.S., a quick look at Russia might motivate them to rethink their position. The country has a popular vote. But, the large cities(Moscow has more than 20 million people) control the outcome.

As a result, the standard of living is much higher in the cites. There are more millionaires in Moscow than in New York. Meanwhile, the national household income in Russia is slightly north of $2200 per year.

China does have a "protected place for the privileged few." There was an elite class in the former Soviet Union, as in China today. The idea that Communism levels the playing field for all is a misnomer. Most of the people are "equally poor! But there was always an extremely affluent upper crust of party "Apparatchiks" who had scaled the mountain.

China did slightly modify itself with injections of capitalism, but did it on a controlled basis. Much can be attributed to the expiration of Great Britain's lease on Hong Kong in 1997.

Russia's former party bosses took advantage of their positions and actually lead the transition to a market economy. As would be expected, there was high handed corruption.

Unlike China, there continues to be resistance in Russia. To hear the average Russian retort, these resisters are "mainly Gennady Zyuganov inspired Communists" who "aspire to reimpose the old order on the country."

Did I hear this right?

Isn't Putin a Communist? Didn't he say that the "breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century?"

No and Yes.

No. Putin may have been a member of the Communist party in 1989. Everyone in the KGB was in 1989. Today, he is thoroughly inoculated from that ideology. He has seen the numbers in his personal bank account explode and now appreciates the virtues of capitalism.

Putin has always regretted the breakup of the Soviet Union. Texas sized, Ukraine has 45 million people and is the traditional "break basket." The former Warsaw Pact countries are now NATO members. When combined with Ukraine's population, Russia is outnumbered; by people to the south and west who hate and fear them. Thanks to the United States, they are now heavily armed.

Here is another detail that the media has quietly ignored. The official religion of China's Marxist government is "Atheism." However, many Chinese continue to practice Buddism, Confucianism or both.

Russia has completely returned to the Russian Orthodox religion that was predominant prior to the Bolshevik revolution. For those unfamiliar with Russian and Eastern Orthodox, it is very similar to Catholicism. The main difference is the Metropolitan of Moscow and not the Pope is the spiritual leader of the church.

In the mid-1990's CNN produced a series called "Cold War." It included interviews with everyone who was involved, from George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev. One question that was answered by the latter, was revealing.

The former Soviet General Secretary admitted that "our youth were becoming robotic." He had come to agree with Yeltsin that the idealized Communist man was a myth; that people were not meant to function in that manner. Gorbachev thought that he could save the system by putting a "human face" on it.

What he did do was to arrest the trend toward young people becoming "robotic." Perestroika resulted in more "individualistic" and less "robotic" Russians. The Chinese were never granted that option.

As history proved, "robotic" people will gun down fellow countrymen, no questions asked. Individualistic people won't; if they believe that those giving the orders are mistaken.

Unfortunately for the countrymen of China, there have been no reformers like Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

True, Russian citizens remain uncomfortably(by American standards) deferential to their government. 70 years of Communism left behind it's residue. But, things are changing. Slowly. What is difficult for non-Russians to ascertain, "is the deference to Putin based on fear of Putin or fear of Communism?" If Putin is seen as their best defense against those advocating a return to the old system, things become crystal clear...

Telltale hints may come from two key Obama holdovers. Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian and a member of Obama's inner circle, admitted that the two historical figures that she admired the most were "Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa.." Former C.I.A. chief, John Brennan is an avowed Communist. Both loathe Russia.

Why does any of this matter to the United States? One side meddles with our elections. The other steals our intellectual property.

It may come down to a choice between choosing between a Communist Country and a country that was previously Communist and now will do anything to keep from returning to Communism.

The contrast between China and Russia is actually quite stark.

In China, you have secular, global socialism/communism. There are certain attributes of Capitalism found. But the country remains a solidly totalitarian state.

In Russia, you have largely "faith based, nationalism" that is and has been moving away from the old Soviet welfare state, in favor of Capitalism. In many ways, the country resembles a gangster state. Yet the country retains many pre-Soviet traditions, such as Christianity.

On the down side, religious minorities such as Jehovah Witnesses are being singled out for prosecution. Russia is arguably the "most homophobic" non-Arab country in the world. When it comes to anti-semitism, Russian hands aren't exactly clean. They have shared the recent anguish of radical Islamic acts of terror.

In many ways, the Russia-China contrast is reflective of our own differences in America. We have "Faith based, National Populism" on one side and "Secular, Global Socialism" om the other.

As dangerous as Russia may be, many conservatives conclude they are the lessor of two evils.

A secular, robotic nation with more than twice the numbers of the United States and Russia, combined, should be cause for concern! The problem rests with our own countrymen. They are quick to point out Russia's ugly tendencies. Yet, they've been slow to take exception to China's. Until now.

Donald Trump has made fair trade an issue, much to the chagrin of globalists. Starting a trade war with China is being positioned by the main stream media as a dastardly act, ultimately hurting the American middle class.

While Russia has "mountains" of weapons of mass destruction, their economy is no larger than Italy's. U.S. sanctions are taking their toll. Inside the country, there is hope that things will change, with Trump at the helm. But the President faces pressure from both sides.

Democrats naturally resent his undoing previous Obama initiatives, ranging from the Iran Nuclear deal to the Paris Climate accord. The "Occupation" of Crimea was unacceptable, never mind the circumstances.

Republican Neo-Cons concur. Can you ever remember any preemptive war that a Neo-Con didn't like?

In short, America is at a crossroads diplomatically. It comes down to "which" seemingly bad actor represents the biggest threat to the U.S.? This apparently depends on which side of the American fence you reside.

I only know that I am more comfortable with the President doing my bidding that John McCain or Lindsey Graham.



































Sunday, July 29, 2018

The Enemy Within

Grassroots America fully understands the need to take on the status quot. Yet, most Americans considered it a lost cause.

I recall a son of a former CIA operative who described the American political system as "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university." As he coined, "You just live with it, try to enjoy life, make some money and accept the fact that nobody, NOBODY will ever change it. It is part of us."

This seemingly resigned point of view was disheartening. Yet my friend seemed to know more about the inner workings of our DC establishment than I. My question to him was, "what if, some how, some way, somebody came in and said, "no, I am not going to accept this; there is an alternative!"

"Alternative?" My friend appeared puzzled. "What alternative? The only alternative that I can possibly imagine would be an outright revolution, at best a civil war! But, that won't happen. The United States is so intertwined with the rest of the world, you would be talking about a world wide readjustment! Believe me, Jeff! It won't happen!"

This was 2009. America had just elected Barack Obama. Obama was a fresh face, with an equally empty resume. He did have a strong, clear voice and appeared to be right on target with half of the electorate.

It helped that the Republicans had nominated a weak challenger. When John McCain took federal funds for his fizzling campaign in spring 2008, it signaled "end game." There was brief hope that a unified party might tip the sales against his inexperienced opponent. Then the meltdown came.

One Chicago friend had an interesting retrospect observation. "Had McCain handed the nomination to Mitt Romney at the convention, and Romney subsequently named McCain V.P., it might have changed the election. At least Republicans would have had a candidate who was a "financial specialist," without campaign spending restrictions! We now know that McCain's demeanor, would never have allowed this to happen.

Barack Obama ran as a centrist. To the average voter, he appeared nothing short of "Bill Clinton." Universal Health care was not new. The Democrats had sought it since the days of Jimmy Carter. Obama proved great at selling it; even though many of his promises turned out to be outright lies!

The promises Donald Trump made were mostly ridiculed and chastised by the political establishment, Republican and Democrat. His economic projections were scoffed. In 2016 Obama went as far as to say, they would happen only "if pigs could fly." Now that they are coming true, "experts" are suggesting that they are a "blip."

What's painfully evident is that so many members of the Washington establishment seemingly want Trump to fail.

Maybe it's because they are experiencing a giant "ripple" in the normally placid D.C. political pond. Yes, there have always been two sides, always more than one position. But it was all within limits. Suddenly their cozy nest was being threatened, by a bawdy, politically incorrect outsider, who seemed to have captured the favor of "Joe Six Pack."

A border wall? A merit based immigration system? New and revised trade deals, that would actually be "fair" for America?

No Trans Pacific Partnership? No North American Free Trade Act.? No Paris Climate Accord? Big Tax cuts for Individuals and Corporations?

A national defense that suggested that America was ready to take on anybody, anywhere? China? Russia? Kim and the Mullahs?

None of these initiatives should come as a surprise! Trump promised all when campaigning in 2016.

Donald Trump may be a lot of things. But, he is not a Communist. This is something that even Lanny Davis would acknowledge!

You can't say the same about some others, including Obama insiders John Brennen and Valerie Jarrett. We can safely conclude that the 44th president holds comparable views.

For dissenters, the Helsinki summit went over like a bowl of hot soup in the middle of the Sahara in July! Members of both parties were horrified at the apparent congeniality witnessed by Trump and Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Did our president actually suggest that he trusted Putin more than his own security team?

Contrary to popular opinion, Putin is not a Communist. He is a Fascist. He and Trump connect in two areas. Both are Nationalists. Both are Pragmatists. Both see advantages in attempting to accentuate commonalities.

Isn't this good?

Yes, unless your obsession is that Trump fail!

Sadly, there are a lot of Americans who hold this point of view. Didn't Bill Maher say that he would be "okay with a recession, if it meant getting Trump out of office?"

I was amazed that Putin immediately pointed out the division in America, actually sounding almost sympathetic with Trump's plight! Of course, Russia has been predicting that America would split into two or more countries for decades.

MSNBC contends that Russia aspires to destroy the American system. Which may translate to the American status quot. If this is true, they may not be alone!

Most illogical is how a stronger N.A.T.O., a revitalized American defense investment and total energy independence benefits Russia? No Democrat can answer this!

What Dems are quick to point out is that the Russian Foreign Minister proclaimed Helsinki "better than excellent" and that Russia welcomes continued dialog. In other words, "we have a starting point." In you hate Donald Trump, this is bad.

Perhaps most alarming to the D.C. establishment is Trump's premeditated plan to shake up the world order! He didn't mince words with China or the E.U.. We know how Mexico and Canada are taking it.

It seems that everything the President has done is either out-of-bounds, unthinkable or politically incorrect! We have heard his positions on immigration. Not surprisingly, the majority of America is with him! On everything from the Wall, to merit based acceptance, to no VISA lottery!

The key for Republicans holding the House this November is keeping suburban woman from straying. With a mostly partisan media hell bent on destroying the President, it won't be easy. "Democratic Socialists" want open borders. So do "Paul Ryan Republicans." Yet, most Americans do not. Border security is a winning issue.

Remember Willie Horton and the 1988 Presidential election? Creating apocalyptic images of open borders, violent illegals wrecking havoc in "pink house suburbia" might do it!

In short, Trump's foremost adversary is not Kim Jong Un, Iran's Mullahs or even Putin. It's closer to home! It is an entrenched Washington Establishment that we now label "the swamp."

These insiders are truly the "enemy within." Suddenly, we have a participant who is neither "red team" or "blue team." Maybe he is green, orange even lavender. What matters most is America has finally been presented with an alternative.

How we handle the coming 30 months will tell the story.