Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Left's Last Stand


The presidential election cycle is thankfully over, and for most of us things will return to normal and we will turn our attention to other things. It was a big win for conservatives, not only did we capture the White House but it was a big night all over the country for governors and state legislatures as Republicans cut a wide swath of victory across the nation.  But as recent election history tells us, hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned, or one who lost an election.
In the days and weeks leading up to the election, the hand-wringing du jour for the Left was would Donald Trump accept the results of an election that by their assumption was just a formality really, why even vote? Hillary was clearly going to be the winner. Let’s just save everyone a lot of time and just declare her the president. But that is not what happened. The American people profoundly fed up with executive orders, regulations, and candidates they did not like being shoved down their collective throats pushed back. And now, irony of ironies, that very question is being asked of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. The answer looks to be a big fat no.
On Nov. 25, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein presented to the state of Wisconsin a petition for a state wide recount. Stein also plans to mount a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania. This will be a costly endeavor; however the Stein campaign claims that they have raised roughly $4 million to undertake the recount. Because Stein only received 1% of the popular vote nationally, most political experts do not think this is anything more than a fundraising stunt for the Green Party. But could this just be a distraction for a much more sinister, more organized attempt to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and ignore the voice and the will of the American people?
Presidential electors from all over the nation are receiving letters, emails, and even phone calls urging them to change their votes to Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to officially elect Donald Trump president. Some electors are getting hundreds of these letters a day. As would be expected, these letters and emails are filled with erroneous information, all designed to cast doubt. In many states, there are laws against electors who change their votes to go against electoral votes that are awarded each candidate in every state. The penalties differ by state some will impose fines on what is known as “faithless” electors, others can carry up to a year in jail. But a handful of states have no such penalties. Those are the states in which electors face the most harassment, and in a few cases, there are even death threats being issued to electors.
So is there anyone who does not live under a rock that thinks this is a purely grassroots spontaneous movement? Is this really nothing more than just a bunch of left wing hippies rolling out of bed around noon one day and deciding then and there that they would launch this attempt to get their gal Hillary to the White House? Hardly.
What is a more likely scenario is the fact that this is one of those instances where the Left runs rings around conservatives. Even though six months or a year ago it would have not occurred to liberals that Donald Trump would today be the president-elect. But even the most unfathomable of outcomes must be planned for. And a safe bet would be that liberals started planning this effort long ago. They lined up their money guys, their IT guys, and their volunteers just in case. Whether or not the Democrat Party is officially involved is unknown. What is known is that at any time the Clinton campaign or President Obama could call off the dogs and urge their supporters to accept the outcome of the election. That will not happen because the dirty little secret is that Clinton and Obama are no doubt enjoying it. Anything that will weaken the Trump presidency or just make trouble for it softens the drubbing their Party took on Election Day. Chances are the only sound coming from the White House will be crickets. Call it unrealistic, naiveté, or something else, but for the most part conservatives are well aware how the Left operates, but they believe that everybody operates the way they do, by the book.
This effort is quite possibly taking place in every state where the Left thinks they can flip electors. Most electoral college experts say the percentage of electors that would be needed to toss out the election results and give the win to Hillary Clinton is virtually impossible and therefore not a threat. Is the real goal here to prevent the states in question from certifying their election results and ultimately that states electors not being allowed to vote? This is also a possibility. But what does the Left do when this effort fizzles as badly as the Clinton campaign?

This may be the last stand for liberals this election cycle, but don’t expect them to hear the fat lady warming up any time soon.                           

Monday, November 14, 2016

Journalists Behaving Badly


  Once upon a time, in a country that often seems far far away, a noble profession once existed. The people who practiced this profession, who were a part of it cared deeply about it. They demanded of themselves and each other high standards. They expected honesty, integrity, credibility, to be able to look each other in the eye and themselves in the mirror and know that they had done the best job they could. Such ideals and values once carried a great deal of weight in America, not for this particular profession, but for anything Americans engaged in. But sadly, like buggy and musket manufacturers, this industry is dying a slow agonizing death, and it seems that the people once employed in this industry show no interest in adapting to anything new and improved. That profession is Journalism.
  Journalism is the only profession that is mentioned and protected in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew the sacred spot free speech and freedom of the press occupied in the new Republic. They made sure that speech, both spoken and written had in present day vernacular, a safe space. Journalists have always been the most passionate among us in wanting to know what, where, why, how, and when. It is why they do what they do.

  We may have gotten a glimpse of the impending death of Journalism as far back as 2008 when the media, in all of its forms slobbered and stumbled over themselves to impart to Americans the Messiah status of an unknown named Barack Obama. Anyone who wished to even remotely practice the basic fundamentals of Journalism and dig into just exactly who this up and comer from Illinois was was promptly branded a racist and anything else that would discourage them from actually asking questions and doing anything else that might masquerade as journalism. 
  Conservatives have for a long time suspected most journalists and others in media leaned left. Along with Academia, studies had been done on the voting and political donating patterns among certain groups. Liberal college professors outnumbered conservatives by 12:1. Mainstream media journalists donated to liberal and democrat candidates and causes to the tune of 96% over Republican interests.
  But this year, all pretenses of impartiality and non-bias quickly disappeared, transparency was non-existent, and all bets were off. The mainstream media for the first time went politically commando, and they were loving every minute of it.
Thanks to outlets like Wikileaks, emails from some of America’s top newsrooms revealed all out collusion between themselves, the Clinton campaign, and the Democrat National Committee. There were journalists giving Clinton final approval on quotes and any stories they might write about her. There was interim DNC Chair Donna Brazille, a former CNN contributor being fed primary debate questions from her former colleagues. Most mainstream media outlets on their evening news shows could not pencil in stories into the show roster on Hillary Clinton and her home brew server that she lied about sending and receiving classified information on, but could devote almost the entire broadcasts to such things as women coming forth with thirty year old allegations of inappropriate behavior by Trump. Most of these women got their fifteen minutes of fame and their stories were quickly debunked. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that on the alphabet networks.
America’s news media launched an entire separate wing of the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party. They eagerly fed the nation any and all propaganda thinly described as news whenever it was needed. An August 6 column by New York Times Columnist Jim Rutenberg even went so far as to try to justify slanted coverage of Trump in the mainstream media. Why, because Trump was not a “normal” candidate.
  The behavior by the American mainstream press is, to say the least, unacceptable, vile, contemptable, and should make every conservative feel vindicated that their suspicions were beyond correct. What’s worse, no one seems to be ashamed or even slightly regretting their atrocious actions. All in a day’s work if you are an east coast based journalist. And in what appears to be more and more of the liberal mindset, win at all costs, the ends justify the means.
Will the media suddenly have a collective epiphany and beg forgiveness of average Americans they feel are just too stupid because they live in a part of the country where people still have values and are therefore are just too dense to grasp their high intellect and superiority? Doubtful. They are out there for all to see and obviously they just don’t care anymore about things like objectivity and fairness.

  And with Republicans running the show in Washington D.C., the behavior is not going to get any better any time soon.          

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Love Thy Neighbor

Plenty of people, including yours truly have written on, for lack of a better word, the intensity of this presidential election cycle. We have talked about not just people unfriending others they have never met in person on Facebook, but lifelong friends parting ways over differences of opinion on presidential candidates. It might sound like a big deal over something that ultimately may be trivial, but now it is personal.
  I am lucky. I have good neighbors. I don’t know them very well, but I like to think that if I really needed them they would be there to help. I most certainly would do the same for them. Even though the only thing we have in common is that we all live on the same street in the vicinity of each other, I like to think that in a world where people seem to avoid actual human to human contact, a small tidbit like that still matters.
  I live in Florissant Missouri. It is a city of roughly 50,000 in North St. Louis County. I have lived here all of my life. I live just a few miles from where I graduated from high school. Florissant is a welcoming diverse place, I am proud of that. I believe that my neighborhood reflects that. I want kids of all backgrounds who live in Florissant to have the same great experience that I had growing up here. I want them to be able to walk home from school, or play outside and not have their parent’s worry that something bad will happen to them.
  Perhaps just because of sheer numbers, urban areas have just as many opinions as there are people. That is fine too. One time honored way that people express their opinions, especially in an election season is with yard signs. But this year, yard signs take on a whole new meaning.
  In addition to them being stolen out of people’s yards, they also seem to be a kind of announcement as to what kind of person you “really” are. Apparently this year, they also sum up your character.
  I have a Trump sign in my yard. My husband is a true supporter. Personally, I am still not sold, but I realize what the alternative means, and like no other election that I have voted in, that alternative truly terrifies me. I have a neighbor who lives across the street from me. She is a single mother with a son and a daughter. Her mother lives with them as well. She is very nice, as is her mom, her kids are really good kids. Being a single mom is hard, and I knew that she must have worked really hard to achieve the American dream of home ownership. When she moved in I made it a point, like anyone trying to be a good neighbor, to go introduce myself and welcome her to the neighborhood. I would have done this for anyone.
  In between our coming and goings we would wave, say hi and maybe comment on the weather, just like I do with all of my neighbors. Then one day, the sign went up in my front yard, and all of that came to a screeching halt. A few days prior, on a warm Saturday morning when I had doors open to let in late summer fresh air, I overheard bits and pieces of a conversation across the street between my neighbor and a friend. I heard, “….the only one on the block….”, and “…..didn’t used to be like that…..”. I tried to tell myself that I was only hearing half the story and that I should ignore it. But curiosity got the better of me, and as we left to go out for dinner that night, my husband and I did a little community research. Sure enough, ours was the only sign on the block.
  As time has gone on, there are no more waves, no more “hi’s”, no more talk of the weather. The only thing I can think, like so many others, my character, or the lack of it has been determined by a sign in my yard. Huh??
  Donald Trump has said some inflammatory things. Because of many of those statements he has been portrayed as a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe. But for someone who has been in the public eye for thirty years, why haven’t these serious character flaws been discovered before now? Does my black neighbor now think I am a racist because of a sign?
  My neighbor has a sticker on her car with a picture of Jesus on it, so I assume she is a church going Christian woman. I can back that assumption up with the fact that she is usually gone on Sunday morning. I am certainly no expert, but is being judgmental traditionally a Christian hallmark?
  Again, maybe I should just chalk this up to one of those unfortunate aspects of life and move on, and for the most part I do. But I would be lying if I said it didn’t bother me. It goes beyond politics.  Someone thinks something about me that isn’t true, and that bothers me. I would also be lying if I said that it hasn’t made me take a look at assumptions I may have of others. I wish I could fix it, I wonder if it will change after the election and the sign goes away, or if this assumption about me and my husband is final. Guess I will have to wait and find out.

I value my neighbors and I like to think if she had a “Black Lives Matter” sign in her yard I would still wave, say hi, and talk about the weather. Not because I agree or disagree with her, but because your neighbors should also matter.                    

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Showbiz vs. Politics: When You and Your Favorites Don't Agree

People who make their living in the arts have always been seen as the ones who don’t follow the crowd. Being hip and cool is usually not at the top of their priority list. It is what makes them good at what they do. They see things in ways that no else does, and often it is amusing to watch when they can’t figure out why they are an island unto themselves. Some are introverts, their art whatever it is, is how they express themselves. Others are extroverts and do not hesitate to say what they think about anything.
Like any other Americans they also have political views. And, like any other Americans they are free to express those views. But what happens when your favorite actor, actress, musician, or author says things you don’t agree with?
  Recently, San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided that in protest of racism or oppression or…something, that he would no longer stand for the playing of the National Anthem before games. And still more recently, more NFL players and even entire teams are joining in or considering some sort of similar action. Many NFL fans are outraged by this. They say they will no longer attend 49ers games, watch them on TV or buy merchandise. While as an American it is Kaepernick’s or anyone else’s right to do so, it is also the right of his fellow Americans to protest his protest by boycotting anything to do with the San Francisco 49ers or any other NFL team.
Hollywood it seems has always taken a stance on the issues. At the beginning of America’s involvement in WWII, many of Tinsel town’s leading men decided to join up and fight overseas. Audie Murphy was one of America’s most decorated Servicemen. Those here at home did all they could to support and promote our brave soldiers on the front lines in Europe. Hollywood was awash with patriotism in those days. But things changed after the war ended. In the 1950’s many of the top movie stars of the day were the victims of blacklisting. Their loyalty to the country was questioned as the fear of communism spreading across America was for some people very real.
A classic case of American movie goers not agreeing with the stars they paid to see was actress Jane Fonda. The Vietnam War was very unpopular, and liberals across the nation flexed their political muscle in many different ways. In 1972 during a visit to Hanoi, Fonda was photographed sitting on an anti-aircraft gun. To this day, scores of Vietnam veterans will have nothing to do with Fonda. They feel that she is a traitor and slapped them in the face for their service. Again, Fonda’s right to protest a war she did not agree with, and veteran’s right to boycott her movies.
So where does the average American stand? Are they able to separate the actors and musicians whose work they like but views they might not agree with? The answer might be that for most people, it does not occur to them. They might see their favorite performers at a protest but don’t think about those views when purchasing a movie or concert ticket. Should it occur to them? For the majority of the ticket buying public, the only thought in their mind is they want to be entertained. They want to see their favorite actor in a different kind of role perhaps, or hear new music from their favorite musician. The main thought is entertainment and/or escape, in today’s world, perfectly understandable. 
 So is it just politically minded people for whom the political views of entertainers matter? Not exactly. If you are a large corporation who is in the business of seeking endorsements of your product from such people, and they engage in voicing opinions that may turn off half of your customer base, you probably will not be seeking them out. And what about half of a market or fan base? Does the average actor or musician even think about the fact that voicing what might not be a popular opinion may just alienate half of his or her fan base, or is being socially and/or politically conscious worth whatever hit they may take in the wallet?
  Every American has the right to say what they think about any issue even if they are famous. Every not so famous American has the right to say they disagree by not buying movie or concert tickets.

  Whether you inhabit the world of politics or show business, in the end, the show must go on.                   

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Donald Trump: Not Being Nice May Get Him Elected


In an election cycle where it seems that the main gripe of American voters is they are tired of the same old politicians saying and doing the same old things, one thing is certain. Love him or hate him Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is definitely the anti-status quo. His own comments, actions, and the way he has run his campaign has turned conventional wisdom and those who worship it upside down. And why not, all we have to do is take a look at the traditional campaigns of past GOP nominees. How well did tradition work for John McCain and Mitt Romney?
  Traditionally, during the week of Party Conventions, the opposing Party usually takes a break. This year, during the Democratic Convention, because Trump is the Republican nominee, that did not happen. On Wednesday of that week, Trump held a lively press conference where he not only attacked Hillary Clinton, but also gave the business to the DNC, and the media, and their obvious support of the Clinton campaign. Since that press conference, America has also been introduced by the Democrats to the Khan family, an American Muslim family whose son was killed in Iraq in 2004.
  While there may be many a differing opinion on Trump’s comments about the Khans, that press conference and more specifically Trump’s handling of Clinton, Democrats, and the  media is exactly what his supporters want to see more of. Not being nice is why Donald Trump is where he is. But will it get him elected president?
  Republicans have a long sugary history of being nice. Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney didn’t stand a chance against the pit bull attack machine of the Democratic Party, and in McCain and Romney’s case it was imperative that they smile, bend over, and say thank you sir may I have another when both were up against the then potentially first black president in Barack Obama. At the time of the third presidential debate in 2012, the terror attacks in Benghazi were still fresh on the minds of Americans. It was served up to Romney on a silver platter, he could have hit Obama with a series of questions and comments, hitting an intellectual home run. Republicans kept waiting for it, and it never came. In 2008, John McCain it seemed never even considered not being nice, even going so far as to temporarily suspend his campaign for a time at the start of the 2008 financial crisis.
  Much has been said and written about Donald Trump’s demeanor. He is rude, crass, says whatever comes into his head. Yet there are also thousands of supporters who line up to attend his events, with still more who never get in. Is the “not nice“ factor a problem for them? Many a Trump supporter will say not only is it not a problem, it is refreshing to hear a politician say what he thinks, regardless of whether it is pretty or not. How many more Trump supporters are out there who are still, to borrow a phrase, “in the closet”?

  Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy, but the mainstream media will continue to manufacture stories in order to take him out. Polls will continue to be designed to show sizeable leads for Hillary Clinton. The question may be though, how many voters have realized that the Democrats have no intention of being nice, and that if he wants to be elected, Donald Trump may just be on to something if he throws being nice out the window?  

Monday, July 25, 2016

Let's Make A Deal?


  If you ask the average man on the street, your average joe, many times their image of politicians is that of a bunch of fat sweaty cigar-chomping guys in dark smoky rooms in the bowels of Capitol buildings making deals and decisions that affect the people without their input. In some cases those deals are as clear as day, other times, not as much, and the deal makers are not the sweaty cigar-chompers but the people you would least suspect. 
  Since the birth of the nation, Americans have had a very simple distinct way of determining who and how many they send to Washington to represent them. That process has always been based on a national census taken every 10 years and is mandated by the Constitution. Based on population, Congressional districts in every state grow, shrink, or even disappear depending on the number of its citizens.
  But what if something else had happened? What if Congressional districts were determined not just by elections, but a lack of an election? What if the sweaty cigar-chompers decided amongst themselves where they would aggressively campaign and where they would not, basically affecting the outcome of an election?
  Take Missouri for instance, and why wouldn’t we? Missouri is an interesting place for many reasons. Like many other states there are the urban population centers and there are the rural areas. But when you look at a map of Congressional districts is where it gets really interesting. Again, like many other states, much of the big cities garner more Democrat votes and the rural areas tend to lean more Republican and Conservative and get those votes. But in Missouri, a very sharp, clear line has been drawn between those areas. Has anyone bothered to ask why?
   St. Louis and the surrounding area has a long history of being a Democrat stronghold. The Gateway City has not had a Republican Mayor since 1949. The first Congressional district has not had a Republican representative since, you guessed it, 1949. But at some point the Republicans simply stopped showing up for the election. Do they not owe it to the Republicans, no matter how few of them live in the district, to at least put up a vigorous fight?
  One of America’s most divisive periods in its history was the 1960’s, and St. Louis was certainly not immune. The City’s foray into massive public housing complexes was the infamous Pruitt-Igoe housing complex. The experiment quickly went south and by the late 60’s it became apparent that it was going to have to be torn down. But what to do with all the tenants? Where would they go? In 1968 Missouri’s first Congressional district elected its first African-American Congressman, and in an era where it may have been quite a battle to get a black congressional candidate elected. Could the powers that be might have decided that he needed a little help? After all, a census year was approaching in 1970 and based on those numbers, new district lines would be drawn. But on an even grander scale, and in true Democrat fashion, how to ensure that that district would remain Democrat indefinitely? How do they ensure that that first black Democrat Congressman has that job as long as he wants it? Would some concessions have to be made?
  It sounds like the stuff of urban legends. No one has any real proof but many have heard the story. Could one have those back-room cigar-chomping deals have been made in the form of a trade off? Democrats get the urban areas of Kansas City and St. Louis City, and the Republicans leave them alone, while the GOP would hold sway over the rural areas of the state and the Democrats would remain fairly quiet. While many show-me state political watchers would chuckle and promptly dismiss the whole notion as some black helicopter conspiracy theory, some of the most seasoned veterans of Missouri’s political battles say it is entirely possible.
  Martin Baker, three-time Republican candidate for Congress in Missouri CD1 says, “As our Party has consistently failed to support any congressional candidate who challenges the status quo in the urban areas and make our Party be electorally accountable to the people of those areas, Republicans are waving the white flag of surrender each electoral cycle and also when the district lines are redrawn by the General Assembly every ten years. Under Missouri law, any resident of the state can run in ANY Congressional District, regardless of if they are a resident of that district, so easily the GOP could recruit the best and brightest to stand for nomination and election in CD1 or CD5 (Kansas City) but the GOP consistently leaves those districts to die on the vine by not encouraging a “Party All-Star” to run and then either underfunding or not funding at all those races so it does give one consideration of possible political collusion.” Robyn Hamlin, two-time Republican nominee for CD1 agrees. She says that while she does not know what the agreement might have been for the Kansas City area, she is “very positive” that it happened in St. Louis. She went on to say that she believes the major players that might have taken part in such an agreement are either out of politics or deceased.
  Does concrete evidence exist somewhere that such brokering took place, more than likely decades ago? Does someone’s spouse, children, or political protégé know the real story? Will someone offer up a death bed confession? Will others decide to dig deeper and find out the truth once and for all? Good questions. But perhaps the best question of all, don’t the residents of Missouri’s first and fifth congressional districts deserve to know all the choices before them prior to an election, instead of having that election decided for them?

Don’t they deserve to know the truth?           

Monday, July 11, 2016

Being Above the Law in America


  One of the many beautiful things about America is that the law of the land is just that. No matter if you are the CEO of a million dollar company down to the janitor at that million dollar company. We fought a war for this very principle. Before America’s independence from Britain, if you committed a crime or some other infraction, and you were a good buddy of the King, chances are that things would go a lot easier for you than if you were just the average tricorn wearing colonist.
  Since the founding of the nation, even with that idea for the most part in place, there have always been that few, that handful of well-connected people who always seem to slide by, to skate. Are they that charming, are they expert manipulators of the truth, do they know the right people, or all of the above?
  We learned last week that that dubious system is firmly in place, and if your name happens to be Clinton, doesn’t really matter if it is Bill or Hillary, the sky’s the limit, the world your oyster.
  It is not a new phenomenon. Long before the nation was enchanted by the man from Hope and his wife, the people of Arkansas were well acquainted with the legal and otherwise escapades of the Clintons. From the bungled Whitewater land deal, to Hillary’s cattle futures windfall, to those long searched for Rose Law Firm records that just poof, appeared out of nowhere in the White House, the close inner circle made sure that no Clinton would ever be held accountable for any questionable activity.
  When Bill Clinton became president, the cycle continued, and with the assistance of an always willing liberal media, the Clintons would be investigated, questioned, and interviewed. But the long arm of the law never seemed to be long enough to ensnare the Clintons.
  Then came the night of September 11, 2012. The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Libya is attacked by terrorists. Four people, including a United States Ambassador is killed. The Obama administration with Hillary Clinton now Secretary of State tells the world the “spontaneous” attack is because of an offensive YouTube video. Some four years later, we know not only this but virtually everything Americans were told about this attack is a lie. We also learn that not only is Hillary Clinton using unsecured servers to send and receive sensitive classified information, she lies repeatedly and ad nauseum about it. The entire case is handed over to the FBI. Possible multiple felonies have been committed by the now presumptive Democrat presidential nominee. The investigation goes on for months, the result, the usual, no criminal charges.
  Let’s review. We have learned that the concept of equal treatment under the law no longer applies. FBI Director James Comey all but told us that if this were any other American, they would have surely earned themselves an orange jumpsuit. But not Hillary. Not only does Hillary skate because her name is Clinton, she expects to skate because her name is Clinton. When you lose one of the basic tenets your society was founded upon, why would you not assume others are to follow.
  The American people have watched Bill and Hillary Clinton wiggle out of every bit of legal mayhem that has come their way while their willing media accomplices cleared the path for them. American are tired, fed up, and angry that the Clinton double standard they have suspected for decades has once again been proven true.

  It is clear that the Clintons will not go away quietly unless we make them. It is a crime spree whose time has come. 

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Ed Martin- The Poison Pill of Politics?


  Politics is a complex and dirty business. It has often been called “blood sport”. Friends can turn on one another in an instant, and the old cliché, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” are words to live by for most Politicians, although it is unlikely that anyone will admit that out loud. Some people, like Bill Clinton are naturals at it. Love him or hate him, Clinton has the charm, personality, and charisma to make anyone believe that he is their best friend. Others, not so much. They attempt various paths in the political arena, working for the candidate of their choice, heading up political organizations, or even running for office themselves. The reality is that they are not very good at any of these avenues, and they tend to leave a swath of possible good intentions but definite bad happenings in their wake.
  Every state no doubt has their own political Mr. Fix-it. Ed Martin seems to have done plenty of repair work in the Show-Me State, whether we need it or not. The result is a questionable track record that goes back way before the current situation at Eagle Forum.
  Martin’s first big step into state wide politics after serving on the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners was being named as Governor Matt Blunt’s Chief of Staff in 2006. Shortly after being named to that post, an investigation was started by the Springfield(MO) News-Leader into whether or not Martin was using his position to influence various groups against political opponents. After a battle to use sunshine laws to gain access to Martin’s emails while Governor Blunt’s Chief of Staff, several other major newspapers in the state found that Martin did indeed use his office for political gain. Ultimately the State conducted its own investigation and found that the emails were mishandled by the Blunt administration and that Martin had illegally destroyed some emails in violation of the state sunshine laws.
  The road to Ed Martin’s various runs for elected office is long and often confusing. In 2010, he ran for Congress against incumbent Russ Carnahan. By most accounts Martin ran a good campaign but was narrowly defeated by Carnahan. It is at this point where things begin to get a bit sketchy. In 2012 Martin announced a run for the U.S Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill. But now, congressional district lines have been redrawn and Martin decides to run for Todd Akin’s old seat in the second Congressional District. This campaign is also short lived as he drops out of this race and decides to run against incumbent Attorney General Chris Koster. Is everyone keeping up?
  In 2009 the St. Louis Tea Party was on track to become one of the most influential Tea Party groups in the nation. But that all changed when the purely Grassroots organization began to splinter. The reason, some were of the belief that the Tea Party should also be in the business of endorsing candidates. The candidate those folks wanted to endorse, Ed Martin in his run for Congress against Russ Carnahan. This split among Tea Party faithful proved to be the death knell for a group that in its infancy had the potential to produce many rising stars within the Conservative movement. However, the fate of the St. Louis Tea Party would be sealed as soon as Ed Martin’s loyal fan club appeared on the scene.  
  In 2013, Ed Martin was elected as Missouri Republican Party Chairman. Fundraising for MOGOP immediately dropped off after Martin took the helm. At one point the bank account for the Party only held about $200 and in 2014, former Republican candidate for Governor Dave Spence had to write a check to infuse the Party with some cash flow just to make payroll.
  Of course the latest in this line of snafus is the upheaval at The Eagle Forum. Since his arrival at Eagle Forum in January of 2015, things have not been rosy for the organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972. In April of this year a lawsuit was filed by six board members, one of which is Schlafly’s daughter seeking an injunction against Martin and Schlafly’s son John. Part of the lawsuit states that Martin refuses to acknowledge that Eagle Forum fired him at the beginning of April, and that he and John Schlafly have prevented other board members from accessing documents and financial accounts. They also accuse him of malicious social media attacks against the board. Phyllis Schlafly herself has accused the board of a hostile takeover attempt, and she and others within the Missouri political circle believe this is because of her endorsement of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. She is not named in the lawsuit. Board members claim that Martin is again using his position for his own agenda and that he has fostered “unprecedented chaos and division” at Eagle Forum. Sound familiar? 

  What Ed Martin’s future political plans are is unclear. In other words, no one knows quite where the political trail of breadcrumbs will lead. Just look for the usual path of destruction.          

Monday, June 13, 2016

Orlando Strong


  Americans are in mourning today. We are in mourning for fifty of our fellow Americans who were slaughtered on Saturday evening at a nightclub in Orlando Florida. They were doing what so many of us do on a Saturday night, hanging out with friends, having a good time, maybe having a few drinks and dancing, just unwinding from their week. This attack is vicious not only because once again, innocent Americans have been targeted by someone who, as we have recently been prone to say, identifies as an ISIS terrorist, but he targeted innocent Americans for nothing else than the fact that they were gay.
  As do a lot of others in the media, the name of this monster will not be uttered here. He will not get his fifteen minutes of fame from this blog. What will be uttered here are things that need to be said.
  It is understandable that Gay Americans will look at this first as a hate crime. They are right, it is, but not in the way we identify hate crimes in this country. It is a hate based on ideology that perhaps the Gay community should become educated on. Radical Islamic terrorism, because that is what it is and that is what it will be called here, teaches that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Any day of the week on YouTube you will find videos of Gay people tossed off the roofs of buildings in Muslim countries for this reason. Radical Islamic terrorists want to kill you not only because you are an American, but because you are a Gay American. This is a fact.
  We also have a problem because our President refuses to say the words that have been said here, radical Islamic terrorism. It is here and it is here because it is no secret that our southern border has a giant “come on in!” sign on it. It is known fact that items such as prayer rugs have been found there. For some twisted reason, we have decided to turn ourselves into a nation of pretzels in order to not offend in any way the very people who want to kill all of us. They do not care if you are rich or poor, black or white, fat or skinny, they want to kill you again, because you are an American.
  America is at war. We are at war with radical Islamic terrorism. But we are officially back to pre- 9/11 mentality. Nothing could be more dangerous. Is political correctness part of the problem? Absolutely. Being polite is literally getting us killed.
  Once again, as we did after 9/11, we will erect memorials, go to funerals, pay tribute to and bury the loved ones we have lost. How many more memorials, how many more funerals, how much more of this war that we refuse to fight must we endure?

  Americans, wake up and get your head out of the sand. There are some instances where the answer to that question posed long ago is no, we can’t all just get along.                   

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Not Your Mother's Feminism


  The presidential election of 2016 is on track to become historic for a variety of reasons. If Donald Trump wins in November it will be the first time in modern history that someone who is not a career politician, not someone who has spent a good portion of their adult life in Washington would win. If Hillary Clinton wins she will be the first female American president and the first former first lady to ascend to the presidency.
  A Hillary Clinton presidency would most certainly be a crowning achievement for feminists of Hillary’s generation. The Gloria Steinems, Betty Friedans and Germaine Greers would view it as a culmination of their life’s work. But what about the young women of today? While they may recognize the strides for women made in those days, how many of them can relate with the feminist ideology of Hillary Clinton’s coming of age years?
  In poll after poll Bernie Sanders is running away with the millennial vote, and that includes millennial age women. Why isn’t Hillary owning the 18-29 female vote? In spite of another former Secretary of State, Madelyn Albright declaring there is a “special place in hell for women who don’t support other women”, that is not resonating with young women.
  Feminism in the 60’s was angry, militant. Career choices were still few for the working women of the day. Secretary, nurse, teacher, and stewardess, now known as  flight attendants were the main career paths open to women. In most of those environments it was quite acceptable to pay them less for the same work, being called “honey” and “sweetie” were the norm, and inappropriate jokes and touches were endured if you wanted to keep your job. Sixties feminism changed a lot of that so we can give props were they are due.
  But there was another aspect to Hillary Clinton feminism. It involved a lot of anger and hatred, and it was directed at men. Perhaps some of it was justified given the changes in society that were being attempted. Gloria Steinem now famously once said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. While today’s young women who might identify themselves as feminists are fiercely proud of their independence and rightfully so, not many of them are going to admit to a level of hatred for men.
  Hillary also has other problems with young women who have become aware of Bill Clinton’s 90’s era escapades and her participation in the destruction of the lives of many of the women who made accusations of sexual assault and even rape against her husband. Then there is money given to the Clinton foundation by such countries as Saudi Arabia. How can you be a champion for women when you accept donations from a nation who does not permit women to drive?  
  The definition of feminism is very different for women today. It includes choices about career, education, marriage and family. And while there will always be some vestiges of 60’s mentality, women today have the means to fight back. Perhaps they are not angry because they have never had to be.

  Will Hillary drag out the founding mothers of the Feminist movement in order to grow her numbers with millennial women? Maybe, but it could just be that millennial age women are figuring out that they need Hillary Clinton like a fish needs a bicycle.         

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Trump Derangement Syndrome

  Republicans and Conservatives always seem to bring out the “best” in Liberals. They do not like you so they have only one goal, shut you down, and/or shut you up. If you have the nerve to win an election, translated that means that they did not get their way so a chronic temper tantrum will ensue that usually lasts the length of said Conservative’s time in office.
  The most recent example of Liberal derangement came during the presidency of George W. Bush. It was a display the likes of which have rarely been seen. It had a big place in the spotlight thanks to Conservative new media. The name-calling, Hitler comparisons, and degrading comments regarding the mental health and capacity of Bush was a regular feature on mainstream media, and average Americans who just happened to be Bush supporters were not spared any liberal wrath when it came to trashing George W. Bush. If you dared to put a Bush election sign in your yard it was likely to be vandalized in some way or even disappear altogether. If you had a Bush/Cheney sticker on your car make sure your insurance was paid up as you were sure to run into some tolerant liberals who would treat you to some sort of “coexistence” like keying your car, smashing out windows, and slashing tires.
  With a new election season comes a new form of derangement syndrome, and it is coming from an unlikely source. This new strain is popping up amongst our own as the GOP is more divided over candidates than has been seen in quite a while. The derangement happens when you announce that you are a Trump supporter.
  Oh it starts out rather innocently, in the form of rational debate and discussion. But when it becomes apparent that you will not be changing your mind, the derangement ramps up a bit. You will be told that you are not a “true” conservative, as if the person with whom you are speaking has been dubbed the arbiter of all things conservative. As if on que the required Hitler comparisons are trotted out, the anti-Trumper believes  this creates actual credibility for him or her. But it’s not over yet, it is at this point that the state of your mental health is aggressively questioned.  But through all of this remember, this is merely a political debate among friends. Huh?
  In all fairness, a Facebook page appeared recently that specifically said no Cruz supporters were welcome. This would also fall under the derangement umbrella, not right either. No one is saying not to be passionate about your candidate, but how did we get here?
  As this process moves forward, and should it become apparent that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president, will the anti-Trump folks announce they are taking their toys and going home or will they remain defiant and ramp up the derangement syndrome? Will they have a sudden “true conservative” epiphany and remember that our ultimate opponents are Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, and just maybe it might be a good thing if we all unite against that common enemy?

  As we have seen time and again this election cycle, anything can happen and most likely will.  

Monday, January 4, 2016

A Tale of Two Bills

  Ah the mainstream media. If you knew nothing about them and you had just landed here from Mars, you would think their job is to determine for all of these bumbling Americans what is best for them. You would think that their sole purpose is to tell people what to think, why to think it, and what they need to know and what can be left out. Throw in a healthy dose of lecturing, finger-wagging, and political correctness and their work here is done.
  What is interesting is how they determine who should be treated positively and who gets destroyed. Some of the criteria is business as usual. Liberal Democrats good, conservative Republicans bad, east and west coasts good, Middle America bad, and in 2015 all minorities good, all cops bad.
  But now there may be a problem, and the media’s solution to the problem will be interesting indeed. Recently, GOP presidential front runner Donald Trump stated that if Hillary Clinton attempted to portray herself as an icon of women’s rights and equality during a possible general election matchup between them, he felt that her husband’s indiscretions would absolutely be fair game. Well if you are a dutiful mainstream media zombie, you can’t have that! You will do whatever must be done to cover for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and if that means a few chicks sacrificed in order for the escapades of Hillary’s husband to not look quite so skanky well, so be it.
  Enter Comedian and Actor, beloved by Americans one and all, Bill Cosby. Most people were shocked to learn of the many women who had accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them, some as far back as the late 60’s and 70’s. It was a pretty far stretch to think that Cosby, Dr. Huxtable, America’s family man could have such a side that no one knew about.
  These two cases of very high profile individuals are being treated in the media in vastly different ways. Bill Cosby has been all but convicted by the liberal media, despite a lack of evidence in a lot of the cases. In fairness to the victims, no one is accusing them of lying, and they all tell a very similar story. However many of the incidents are 30 to 40 years old and any evidence would not likely exist anymore. More importantly, Bill Cosby has yet to have his day in court, his right as an American. But tell that to places like the TVLand Network, or any other channel you might have previously found reruns of “The Cosby Show”. Tell that to the numerous universities who have stripped him of honorary degrees. Tell that to any one of the products he endorses. Those entities are not waiting for a court date.
  Bill Clinton on the other hand, continues to be the darling of the Democrat Party. He is geared up and ready to hit the campaign trail for the Mrs. He will get slaps on the back and handshakes. Funny, plenty of women in his case also tell  similar stories. Some even accuse Clinton outright of rape. Way more evidence to go around in the cases of Clinton’s accusers. So what’s the difference? Has the liberal media finally come to a place where they have to decide what is more important, race or politics? It sure looks as though they have, and it sure looks as though which one they have chosen. What blacks, gays, and women must know about the Democrat Party by way of their secretarial pool known as the media is that politics will always win the day. Oh they want you to think that they are the only ones in your corner, the only ones who have your back, certainly not Republicans, but when it comes to protecting the Clintons, you better take your seat in the back of the bus.

  There are rumblings that the Democrats may already be looking at the former president as a liability for Hillary’s campaign. That may be a bit less harmful than the sizeable number of women who have long looked at him as a predator.