From Olympics to Armaggeddon In 1500 Words or Less

As I set here watching the 2016 Rio Olympics, I’m amazed at the level of competition we show in all our events.  If you listen to the rhetoric that comes from our political leadership and the direction we’ve taken in education, you’d be amazed too. Doesn’t seem like we’re teaching our children to compete, in anything! Then we watch the Olympics, we see our people competing and winning. Now, if you’re one of the “everyone gets a trophy” set, I’m left wondering what, if any, pride you have in our Olympic Team. Sorry, but this kind of goes against everything you preach. What’s with that?

I’ll admit to being skeptical of Michael Phelps entry into the 2016 Rio Olympics. I figured it would be great to go out on top. Coming to the Rio Olympic Games felt like addiction to the spotlight. As I think back now, I suppose Michael may have felt the same way, with one revision. He wasn’t finished in his climb to the top of the Olympian Medalists food chain. (See what I did, bringing in a competition reference? That’s a clever bit.). Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian in the history of these games. He excels in both team and individual events. However, it’s his competitive “human” nature and not some touchy-feely “everyone’s a winner” approach that gave him his success.

A big shout out to our women’s gymnastics team, Olympic Gold Medalists. That’s two Olympic Golds. We also took the gold in London 2012. We dominate the swimming events and now the women’s gymnastics as well. These are “our” sports. Many countries have a sport or more they dominate. The Chinese dominate diving. And after watching some of their performances, I can see why. The Chinese Olympic diving team is fun to watch.

Of course, there are some disappointments. Our Olympic Teams beach volleyball performance, top of that list. How can you play undefeated through all the beginning games and then lose when it counts? Both the men’s and women’s team losing to Brazil. Our Olympic Teams were favorites for gold, but when it came down to the wire, we couldn’t win. Kerry Jennings-Walsh, the superstar of this Olympic event and undefeated in Olympic play, finally loses one and it knocks us out of gold. Not the time to lose. I’ll give her credit though. She’s 38 years old and the mother of three. Don’t think to rest of us can really compare.

I don’t know enough of the equestrian events to be able to hazard a guess about our medal chances in the Rio Olympics. I’m going to assume we have at least an outside chance. And I can only watch so much running. Maybe they could show some of the other events. They move along faster.

So, how about the equestrian events? Who else thinks the horses are the real athletes? They do the running and jumping. The humans job seems to be to stay on the horse and keep a posture that would make any mother proud. A difficult thing to do, I’m sure. But, considering there’s are human version of this, doing the running and jumping without a horse. Them be athletes.

We, as a country, are a team. We need to remember this fact. Because as a team, we need to work together. Towards what you ask? Winning, on the world stage, of course. Whether it’s in the political arena, economic strength, or military might, we need to win. Winning would fulfil “The Donald's” vision of “make America great again”. And wining should pull us together, covering Hillary’s “bring America together” slogan. See, winning is good. I know that’s not what you’re being taught, but maybe it should be.

Unfortunately, our leadership doesn’t see it that way. This started with “Cowboy Dumbass” and the “bunker” mentality his administration adopted. Give what happened on 9/11 I’m not surprised. Let me make something clear at this point, I thought going to Afghanistan and eliminating their military and political leadership was a good move. We scattered an enemy that had proven their ability to kill us. We even went a step further and attacked Iraq. What? I’m sorry but this one was a huge mistake. Iraq was a belligerent state, but hardly a threat. We could have hit North Korea. I know, what about that.

We had a treaty with North Korea during the Clinton administration. (Just a thought, I suppose if Hillary gets elected President, I’ll have to put some kind of clarifier so readers know which Clinton admin I’m referencing.) President Cowboy Dumbass did recognize the danger this treaty represented. Too bad, he was a little late on pulling out. It seems that helping North Korea’s civilian nuclear program allowed access to technology and procedures that ultimately helped them develop a nuclear weapon. Exactly what was supposed to NOT happen.

Along comes President Professor Dumbass. What does he do? Enters into a treaty with Iran. The same “you promise not to develop an atomic weapon” and “we’ll help you build your civilian nuclear program”. Iran was already getting help from the North Koreans and Pakistan. Both nuclear armed powers. Sure, that help was with weapons programs and not civilian power generation, but why do we need to get involved. Admittedly, I don’t think the North Korean treaty had as many hidden details as the Iran treaty. If your curious, Google it yourself. I’m putting a thought together, not researching my manifesto.

Is it foolish to think we’ll get the same results with Iran that we had with North Korea? The same final results? (Love the Olympics.) North Korea has nuclear weapons and continues to relentlessly pursue advanced missile delivery systems capable of attacking our country. Even as dangerous as this predicament is, it’s nothing compared to the threat a nuclear Iran represents. True, North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, is nuttier than squirrel poo. It runs in the family. His father, Kim Jong Il was truly ill in the head. In fact, he was a complete “looney-tunes”. But even with congenital insanity running in the dictators’ family, they're still a secular state. The North Korean powers want to stay in power. Not going to be easy if they start using their nuclear weapons.

Their ally China has stated publically any nuclear weapons use in their sphere of influence would be seen as an act of war against them and they would respond appropriately. Much of this bluster was directed toward India and Pakistan, but the sentiment was not lost on the North Koreans. So we continue the status quo. That’s to say, North Korea has nuclear weapons but no way to profit from their use. Iran, while not lead by rulers with insanity running in their bloodlines, are religious extremists. This particular religious extremist sect of Islam is responsible for much of the terrorist bloodshed throughout the world. Yea, let’s help them get a nuclear weapon.

What do you thinks going to happen when Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Day One, they threaten their neighbors. Those neighbors gather to discuss what happens next, now that Iran is a nuclear power? Well, obviously, they start their own preparations for developing nuclear weapons. A new nuclear arms race. Yea racing!!! And that’s just on day one.

It’s not hard to imagine that in just a short time, somehow, a terrorist group associated with the radical elements of Islam will acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it within Israel’s borders. Most likely, Tel Aviv but can you imagine Jerusalem? I honestly think they’d hit Israel before the U.S. More bang for their buck if they do it in their own back yard. Of course, the Israelis will determine it was a weapon made by Iran or at least the components and materials came from the Iranians. Shortly thereafter, Iran ceases to be a viable country. From there it snowballs out of control. Thus does our civilization end.

Perhaps we shouldn’t have gone down this road again. It didn’t work with North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. It won’t work with the Iranians. They will develop nuclear weapons just as the North Koreans did. They will, unlike the North Koreans, use those weapons. They are acting from religious extremism. Iran's religious extremist leadership isn't concerned with furthering its’ power base. Instead, they’d like to bring on the end of the world, Armageddon. No kidding. That's their definition of winning. They’re like the James Bond villain. It’s conquer and global dominance for their religion and its’ practices or death to all. Bring on the twelfth imam (go on, look it up).

Of course, that’s just my opinion. You could be wrong?

P.S. How did we get from Olympic competition to Armageddon? No idea. Yea to rambling manifestos!

The Dems Convention: Day ONE part ONE

                 So, it’s time for the Democratic National Convention. What to say about that? First, I think the Democrat’s convention will be much less orchestrated than what the Republicans gave us. Sure, the Republicans had some missteps, which I think were organized by “The Donald” and didn’t accidentally happen. However, that’s just my paranoia talking. Bernie Sanders will almost certainly put his support behind Hillary Clinton. Probably far behind. The trick for that pony will be to get his supporters behind her.

                Thanks to WikiLeaks, Bernie supporters now have proof the Democratic elites did everything in their power to keep him out of contention for the Democratic Party’s nomination. With the release of DNC party emails making it clear Bernie Sanders wasn’t going to be given a fair shake by the Democratic elites, it’s going to be a hard sell for Bernie to make a case for supporting Hillary Clinton. At least one that his supports can get behind. After all, she is the parties “elite”.

I think you’ll see plenty of Bernie supporters stay home. I seriously doubt they’ll migrate to Donald Trump. While Sanders and Trump had similar issues defining their primary contests, their plans to achieve those issues are just too far apart. For example: both Sanders and Trump want affordable college education for everyone. Sanders plan, to make if free (meaning someone other than the students will pay for it) and “The Donald’s”?  Make sure graduates have good paying jobs after college so they can pay back their students loans. See what I mean?

                In all fairness to the Democrats, they’ve always been up front about their nominating process. It’s rigged. What I mean by that is: The Democratic Party elites set up a process that allows them [elites] to control who the party nominates.  But they’ve never pretended otherwise. For that I’ll give them credit (small pat on back). So, I suppose we didn’t actually need to hear it from WikiLeaks. However, seeing proof from WikiLeaks made it real for the millennials and they make up a substantial percentage of Bernie supporters. They [millennials] could no longer profess, to themselves anyway, that all was on the up and up. After the WikiLeaks disclosures, they had to pull their collective heads out of the sand (or would that be their ass?). Now they’re showing up in scores to protest.

                What will grow from these protests? Probably nothing. However, it will make the Democratic National Convention “TV worth watching”. If only because “liberal” protesters tend to be much more disruptive then their “conservative” counterparts. The head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, has already fallen on her sword. Scheduled to “gavel in” the convention, she has withdrawn and plans to step down as head of the DNC after the convention. Undoubtedly, being shouted down when speaking to the Florida delegates, her home state BTW, had something to do with it. So, I guess, something has come of the protests. But really, nothing’s going the change.

                I kind of feel sorry for Hillary Clintons’ campaign. I mean, here they have an historic event, the nominating of a women for President of the United States by one of the two political parties. Yes, I know there are more than two, but that’s just on paper, in reality (that’s where we live people, in case you need reminding) we are a two party political system. On a side note, communism is a one party system.  Just wanted to throw that out; doesn’t really have anything to do with what I’m talking about. So, where was I?

Instead of the media throwing themselves at the first women running for President story, it’s become all about the Democratic National Party “elites” and their concerted efforts to keep Bernie Sanders out of contention for the nomination. And the protests this is sparking? They will be the major stories oozing (yes, I too have a thesaurus) out of the Democrat’s convention this week. The paranoid voices in my head hint at a deliberate attempt to divert attention from their candidates’ numerous scandals. But I’m sure that’s just me?

                To add insult to injury, for the Clinton campaign, Hillary should have been able to position herself as an outsider, being a women and all. I’m serious here. Political supporters of all makes and models tend to buy into the rhetoric their chosen candidate spews. You and I know when people talk about power within the Democratic Party they’re talking Clintons. However, as I’ve already mentioned, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

Why is this important? This need to be the outsider candidate? In the current political climate, the outsider candidate has a big advantage. Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the Republicans nominated a true outsider. Not since Eisenhower’s nomination (look it up) has either party put forward a candidate for President that hasn’t held elected office. I’m going to go out on a limb here (not) and say this makes “The Donald” the outsider candidate.

                I want to put this out there. I know it doesn’t exactly flow, but I think it’s important. Do actions speak louder than words? I was taught they [actions] do, but I’ve come to believe this is NOT the case. Take, for example, Hillary Clintons rhetoric that she’s a champion for women. I guess she gets to claim that because she’s a woman. It’s most definitely NOT supported by her actions. During Bill Clintons sexual scandals back in the 90’s, Hillary blamed the women coming forward. She called them liars and blamed them for what happened. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. Obviously, her actions don’t reflect the rhetoric of a champion for women. And she has, at least in the past, disgracefully paid her female staff less than she pays the men. Again, don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself.

                And what about “The Donald”? He’s said some rather obnoxious and unpleasant things regarding women. The most notable? His comments regarding Carly Fiorina’s, one of his opponents in the primaries, physical appearance. However, his actions reveal something different. He hired the FIRST women construction supervisor in New York history! His companies employ more women in executive positions of power than any other in that industry. And he pays them the same as their male counterparts. Who’s actually putting their money where their mouth is? That’s a rhetorical question, people!

So, look for lots of rowdy protesting at the Dem’s convention this week. And blaming the republicans for it. Should be entertaining, especially if the protesters manage to get inside the convention center and onto the floor. I doubt security will let that come to pass. Too bad really, would significantly increase viewership if it happened.

As always, that’s just my opinion. You could be wrong?

Republican National Convention: Days Two and Three

What to say about day two and three of the Republican National Convention? I really liked Governor Chris Christies speech. It was tremendously entertaining. NBC’s Matt Lauer challenged “The Donald” to tone down the rhetoric and personal attacks against Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention. He said he would and the convention followed suit. During Governor Christie speech, he put back on the federal prosecutor’s hat and point by point attacked Hillary Clintons record like a prosecutor going for a guilty verdict. And the audience ate it up. Yelling “guilty” after every attack on Hillary’s record and often shouting “lock her up!” Of course, this didn’t stop the talking heads from claiming Governor Christie’s speech was a personal attack on her. But good for the media, (quick pat on the back for them) they quickly dropped that load of shit.

All the speeches delivered during the convention, thus far, have attacked Hillary Clinton relentlessly. But they consistently went after her record, which is absolutely horrible. How Hillary Clinton thinks she can tout her record and say she has the experience to be president is beyond me. I mean, if all your experiences lead to failure and bloodshed around the world, well…WTF!

                Full disclosure here: I firmly believe Hillary Clinton should go to prison for her reckless, careless and criminal handling of America’s classified information. If you or I behaved this way, we would be locked up for life! If there really aren’t different rules for the rich and powerful, why is Hillary Clinton not only free but running for President? I can’t believe you, the reader, actually think if you treated classified information the way Hillary Clinton treated it, you’d get the same pass. BTW, if you do think this, then you are a special kind of stupid. I mean the kind that took the short bus to school and wore a helmet in the sandbox stupid!

                Other than Governor Christie’s courtroom drama, the speeches were the political rhetoric I’d expect from Republican elites. With the exception of Lying Ted Cruz. Before I say anymore on that I want to congratulate “The Donald” on his masterful manipulation of Senator Cruz and his uncanny ability to instantly size up someone and peg their biggest vulnerability. Had Lying Ted Cruz come out in support for Donald Trump, Senator Cruz would have had power in the next presidential administration. He would have been in a position of power on the Republican side of the isle. Trump, as President, would have had to deal with the Senator when trying to pass his administrations agenda. “The Donald” understood this and gave Lying Ted Cruz enough rope to hang himself. Basically taking away Senator Cruz’s power. And he didn’t have to do anything himself to make this happen. I really like the quote from Charles Krauthammer, Cruz’s speech “was the longest suicide note in U.S. political history”.

Senator Ted Cruz likes to call Donald Trump the liar. But Lying Ted Cruz will stand up holding his Bible, look you right in the eye and lie his ass off. WTF! He took a pledge, in writing, before the American people, and swore to support the Republican nominee for President. He gave his word. And what happened when it came time to honor his oath? He refused. Again, WTF!!! Lying Ted Cruz in the kind of slippery, underhanded, greasy politician that gives other politicians a bad name. Given the asshats we call our political leadership, that saying something!

Let me wrap up this Lunatic Rant by clarifying something. I think our choices are between two steaming bowls of shit. One is the same old shit and the other is “new and improved” shit with extra smell. I think the only way your vote counts, is if you don’t cast it. And even that wouldn’t matter. What would the political landscape look like in this country if “we the people” didn’t vote this November? It would look just like it does now. Nothing would change. One of the two steaming “bowls of shit” we have to choose from would be President, just like what is going to happen. How’s that for a critic on the American political scene?

Whether you vote or not, one of the two poor choices we have will be our leader. Will it be “traitorous” Hillary Clinton, or will we have “you’re fired” old rich white guy, Donald Trump. Either way, nothing much will change. Sure, one of the candidates will keep the status quo and the other will try to turn it upside down. But really, how much of that crap will actually make any difference in your or my life?

As always, this is just my opinion. You could be wrong?

Republican National Convention - Day One

                It’s the Republican’s convention this week. Time to make the parties presidential pick (the pee, pee and pee, which is odd since it’s all a load of excrement) official. Since it looks like it will be Trump/Pence, the TP’s covered like the house of a teacher no one likes. It’s also time to see which party elites will get on board with “The Donald”. So far, the unifying theme: anyone but Hillary. The Never Trump movement did try to get some traction on day one and force a rules vote. However, behind the scenes political maneuvering killed that dead in its tracks. (Ok, enough with mixing and torturing metaphors. Bad writer!)

                What can I say about the Republican convention? Snore comes to mind. Like many, I was hoping for some drama. Fistfights on the floor and Preacher Cruz (I mean, doesn’t Senator Ted Cruz sound like a southern televangelist?) trying to pull a rope-a-dope and steal the nomination through political favors. At this point I’d settle for a little mayhem and malarkey. (I just wanted to use malarkey in a sentence.) I do think we haven’t heard the last from Preacher Cruz. Regrettably, whatever he pulls out his ass will amount to nothing more than political theater, and not very entertaining.

There are plenty of protests outside the venue and the Never Trump movement tried to make a scene on day one. Unfortunately, conservatives just don’t have the same level of passion as liberals. Not to mention the violence. Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliana did do a reasonable impression of Howard Dean and screamed his speech. Not sure why he chose to deliver it that way. His speech was all about respecting law enforcement. I guess speeches about that subject need to be screamed at us like a swat team yelling commands as they execute a raid. Who knew?

After day one of the convention, the best the opposition could say was that Melania’s speech was similar to First Lady Michelle Obamas’ 2008 speech and hint at plagiarism. Mountains out of mole hills, people. On a side note: I will now refer to “The Donald’s” wife and Melanoma. I’m a busy person with shit to do. I’m not stopping to try and remember how to pronounce her name correctly. That seems to be the big news, speech plagiarism that is, not my nickname for “The Donald’s” wife.

It doesn’t matter that the theme for day one was “Make America Safe Again”. All the speeches revolved around this theme. Although, I think, given the recent violence against police, they meant “Make Police Feel Safe Again”. If they want that to happen, it’s probably best the police stop murdering, on camera, (not that I’m saying they should do it off camera) black people. It does look like the new normal is retaliation. Simple math here, police murder black people and some of the less savory among the black population murder police. I’m not condoning violence on either side, but really, what do we expect to happen?

Check back tomorrow for a recap on day two. The nomination of “The Donald”? Maybe we’ll get a little drama out of that process. Preacher Cruz is scheduled to preach; I mean, deliver a speech. And where is former Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner when we need a crier? I’m just saying!

As always, that’s just my opinion. You could be wrong!

Let's Talk Conspiracy Theories

Personally, I love a good conspiracy theory. At least ones that make me think. Though usually, I’m thinking these people are nuts! I’m not talking about the “aliens did it” theorist. There is absolutely no way our government could ever keep secret, for so long, something of this magnitude. Think about the ass hats in Washington purporting to represent us. You can’t honestly believe that any of these complete dumbasses kept THAT secret all these years? I mean, evidence of extra-terrestrial life? Come on, you wouldn’t trust them with Grandma’s secret Sunday biscuit recipe, let alone something of this magnitude.

                I don’t mean our government can’t keep secrets. They can, just not very well. Usually, our government slaps a classified label on the information or “evidence” and that’s that. If the evidence is unusually controversial or explosive? Then it’s time for the miss-information and defamation campaign to begin.

Case in point, the terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi and murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. You can read more about the details here. A lot, and I mean a lot, has been proposed by the talking heads dominating media coverage of this incident. Given that one of the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, was Secretary of State, and therefore in charge of security for our ambassadors and embassies around the world, I can understand the interest.

My problem with the coverage and dissection of this attack? Aside from the miss-information and defamation campaign orchestrated by President Obama’s administration? And jumped on by the talking heads? We’re missing the point!

This is the conspiracy bit here. Our current President, who I’ll refer to as “Professor Dumbass” and should not be confused with his predecessor “Cowboy Dumbass”, made a decision. What was the decision? Not to send help. He made the decision to sacrifice our ambassador and his staff. (A bit understated, I know, but what ya gonna do?) The rest is just “smoke and mirrors” to keep his decision from “blowing up” in his face. (See what I did there?)

Why do I think this? How do I know? Well, you cannot possible believe our government is so impotent they couldn’t orchestrate a rescue? This attack, initially called a “protest” over an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims, lasted for hours. Hours people! Surely, we have the capability to respond with force in that timeframe. After all, while the Republicans protest the gutting of our military, the Democrats claim the administration was re-aligning our armed forces to address “current” or “modern” military needs. Such as the ability to respond to hotspots around the world. What happened with that? Did the administration just fail? NO!!!

Profession Dumbass made a call. It was a difficult and politically explosive call to make. Because we didn’t send in “the troops”, the situation didn’t escalate to all-out war. Not sending in “the troops” kept the bloodshed to a minimum. You don’t have to like Professor Dumbass’ decision, I certainly don’t, but we have to accept his call on the situation. He is our President, all of ours, something I think he forgets, a lot.

Unfortunately, and this is where I have a real problem, Professor Dumbass’ motivation wasn’t to keep the situation from escalating and the bloodshed from swelling into rivers. His administrations’ position on radical Islamic terrorism, not that they’d ever call it that, is we are winning. We’ve contained the Islamic terrorist state and they’re as good as finished. WTF? Delusional much? Because he wants to be the President of peace, good people were sacrificed! He won the Nobel Peace Prize for Christs sake! But to let good people die to further your agenda and pad your Presidential legacy and to allow radical Islamic terrorists to kill us without consequences, this is unacceptable! I know Professor Dumbass will never understand. It’s the problem all Ivory Tower Elites have, if it looks good on paper, it will work in the “real” world. While you and I understand this is almost never the case, the Ivory Tower Elites will never understand.

What about the two presidential hopefuls? Your guess is as good as mine. Sorry about that, but one was a major player in this conspiracy and has a track record that can only be looked on as suspect if not downright treasonable. She blamed an internet video for the “protest” knowing it was a planned attack. Later she took responsibility for the lack of embassy security in an interview with CNN saying “I’m responsible for diplomats’ security”. However, when questioned by the Benghazi House Committee she pulls a Sargent Shultz from Hogan’s Heroes and said “I know nothing, I see nothing”. So, what about the other one? He’s a mouthy blowhard who seems to speak in plain language, but doesn’t actually say much of anything. So, good luck with these two! We’re going to need it!

As always, this is just my opinion. You could be wrong!

HRC - Hillary Rodham Clinton and Trust

Hillary Clinton is a very successful and extremely powerful political figure. A politician if you like. Does anyone think she’s telling us the truth? That her campaign promises are worth the sound bites the talking heads replay until our ears bleed? Of course not!

Let’s start off with a joke. Question: How do you know a politician is lying? Answer: Their lips are moving! I think that pretty much sums it up for the trust issue. In case it doesn’t, let’s look at the example of John Kerry. He’s the Secretary of State. He has Hillary’s old job in the Obama administration and ran for President against George W in 2004. Enough background. If you need more, you can google him. It’s what I did. That counts as research, right?

A week ago last Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, (see, more research right there, pat on back) Secretary Kerry floated the idea ISIS was ramping up its’ terrorist attacks against us because they were “desperate”. I kid you not. Of course the Republican side countered with, and this is from House Homeland Security Committee Chairmen Mike McCaul, (that titles a mouthful) a Republican in case you couldn’t figure it out yourself, “…absolutely defies reality”. Now I know the Obama Administrations position is we are winning the war against radical terrorism. Not radical Islam, but radical extremist. However, I don’t think the radical Islamists of ISIS are attacking across the world because they are “desperate” as Secretary Kerry suggested. It seems to me that as we curb their military expansionism, they grow their external attack capabilities.

Remember, ISIS promised to slip in fighters with the Syrian refugees the EU accepts. They promised that a while back. I have a feeling we are seeing the poisonous fruit of that labor. President Obama can claim we are winning against ISIS, and he does regularly, just google it. However, keeping them from expanding their territory is not the same as containing them. And the Obama Administration know this all too well.

 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when the Obama Administration labeled ISIS the “JV Squad” And what a winning squad they’ve been. Although I doubt that’s what the administration had in mind. If you underestimate your enemy, you will lose. And I think we are losing. ISIS continues to attack us and our allies with impunity. We only react. We clean up the mess and blame it on a lack of gun control. Or my personal favorite, “workplace violence”. Even though many of these attacks take place in countries where the only ones to have guns are the Islamic terrorists. Somehow, it’s our fault?

How does this relate to Hillary Clintons trust issues? All politicians have an agenda. Hillary Clintons agenda is Hillary Clinton. If, as Secretary of State, Hillary was going to toe the line, she was going to make us believe we were winning. This belief might be delusional, but that doesn’t stop them from promoting it.

Now, with the conclusion and recommendation from the FBI’s investigation that Hillary not face criminal charges, President Obama is on the campaign trail for her. I don’t know about you, but I knew Hillary Clinton wasn’t going to face criminal charges. When you hear talk about the Democratic establishment, that talk is about Hillary and her political machine. With the Obama Administration backing her stint as Secretary of State, no way was the FBI going to recommend charges against her. Even when House Speaker, that’s the position third in line for President, (best to keep in mind he’s a Republican) says “The finding of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions.”

If you, or I for that matter, treated classified intelligence with what FBI Director Comey calls “extremely careless”, we’d be locked up and the key thrown away before we could even ask for a lawyer. But not Hillary. She just says she didn’t know anything was classified and when pressed replies with the fact nothing was labeled “classified”. True enough on the face of it, but she ordered any classified labels removed. I’m guessing here, but I think she did that so she could say none were labeled classified.

At least I can say this: Hillary Clinton’s lies are completely transparent. So, maybe her administration will be too? She definitely plans ahead for them, the lies that is. But all politicians lie. Ok, they say things in just a way that it’s not quite a lie. Such as Hillary’s assertion that no emails were labeled “classified”, but come on, how stupid are we? We’re not really buying that line, are we?

As for the trust issue. If you trust a politician, you are a special kind of stupid. Donald Trump isn’t a politician. You can trust he believes he’ll do the things he promises. Currently, this seems to resonate with some of the American people, but remember this: if elected President, he will be a politician and the joke applies.

Don’t believe anything any politician promises you during this election cycle. Take everything said by the talking heads on the major media channels with a grain of salt. Probably should make that a truckload, and not a grain. Decide for yourself what you think the two candidates for President will actual try to accomplish if elected. And remember, Democrat or Republican, they’re just different sides of the same coin.