“Bouldered” in Colorado- CNBC Fails to Moderate GOP Debate

“Bouldered” in Colorado- CNBC Fails to Moderate GOP Debate

CNBC, the financial and economic news division of NBC, promised to host a substantive debate on economic, fiscal and financial issues last night, at the University of Colorado in Boulder, but they failed miserably due to their own innate and over-the-top bias against all things Republican.

So egregious in the condescension, arrogance and hostility towards the candidates last night, that even the audience- a Colorado audience, mind you- booed the moderators five times, based upon the out-of-line questioning put forth by Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood. The fact that these licentiously liberal lap dogs of the Hillary 2016 Campaign Committee actually made the Republican Candidates look good, by comparison, was the ironic turn of events that not even NBC could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.

We have come to expect and, for that matter, rely upon the fact that the mainstream media, by all accounts, has an inherent bias in favor of the Democrats, as this has clearly been the case going back to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. Yet, even with that expectation in mind, and the extremely liberal slant that is the hallmark of NBC News, television journalism hit an all-time low last night when the so-called moderators, who were anything but moderate, went after each and every candidate on stage with hostility, contempt and absolute aggression. That partisan attack-dog mentality has never been displayed to a greater degree than it was in the two hours that comprised what was supposed to be a debate on fiscal policy. In short, the National Broadcasting Company should truly be ashamed for even claiming to be a news organization, much less moderating a GOP Debate, where their absolute contempt for Republicans was so blatantly obvious.

Hand it to the Republican candidates themselves who, in the midst of such wanton hostility, managed to avoid the degree of mudslinging that was the milieu of the debate hosted by CNN some weeks ago. For the first time, with some minor exceptions, the candidates rose above the puerile performance of their questioners, and managed to provide some semblance of substance in the wake of such boorish behavior on the part of these partisan panelists who, in turn, demeaned their own profession, not to mention the network with whom they are employed.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie, in particular, turned in the best performances of the night, especially when the three of them took note of the bias and disdain with which questions were posed- questions that would never have been posed to Democrats by this, nor any, network. These three candidates were the big winners of the night, with Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina running a close second. The remaining candidates, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, John Kasich and Rand Paul did manage to hold their ground, and managed to escape the night without costing their candidacies much in terms of polling numbers. Jeb Bush, however, did manage to stumble when, out of the blue, he decided to turn on fellow-Floridian Marco Rubio, who handled the assault with much aplomb and made Bush look weak and desperate, by comparison. Aside from this instance, and a brief counter-punch by Trump against Kasich, the Republican candidates by and large, laid off one another, much to the chagrin of their inept interrogators, who tried their level best to make the Republicans attack each other, instead. These ten, along with the four J.V. candidates, Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum, did manage to prove themselves to be of more substance, with much more competence to lead, than any of the remaining three Democrat candidates vying for their own party’s nomination.

These candidates will meet again in two weeks, when the Fox Business News network will host the next GOP debate on November 10th, with Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo, who are set to host the varsity edition that night. Perhaps, in the end, they will resuscitate the concept of what is supposed to be the fourth estate of a free press, in the wreckage of what took place in Boulder. Truth be told, all they have to do is sit down at the table to improve upon what was seen last night on CNBC.

-Drew Nickell, 29 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Open Season on Conservatives – The Obama Regime’s Refusal to Indict Lois Lerner

Open Season on Conservatives – The Obama Regime’s Refusal to Indict Lois Lerner

In truth, it wasn’t unexpected that Lois Lerner would get away with openly and wantonly targeting conservative-leaning 501(c)(4) organizations, applying for tax exemptions, running up to the 2012 Election. Ultimately, she did what she was told to do, kept her mouth shut during congressional hearings, and the administration duly kept their promise to her, that if she co-operated with the administration by cloaking their obvious involvement, nothing would happen to her, at the end of the day.

Quickly summing up what led to all of this, the IRS targeting of conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax exemptions, was originally and falsely blamed on rogue operatives in the IRS Cincinnati office, which was later traced to the IRS Headquarters in Washington. The former Commissioner of the IRS, Doug Shulman, went to the White House 138 times during his tenure- when the targeting was going on but, in Congressional testimony, said that he could only recall an Easter egg hunt as the reason for one of these 138 visits- and, somehow, he could not remember why he went there on the other 137 occasions. Then, two years after Lois Lerner’s e-mails were subpoenaed by Congress, these e-mails suddenly vanished into thin air, purportedly due to a hard drive crash, and the subsequent disposal of the computer’s hard drive conveniently waylaid and prevented further investigation into e-mails that Lerner had sent to government entities outside the Treasury Department- e-mails which might otherwise have revealed IRS communication to other government entities, like OSHA and the FBI, which also launched investigations into businesses run by taxpayers who supported these same conservative organizations. Also noteworthy was the fact that seven other IRS officials, being tied to the IRS abuse scandals, also somehow had the ‘misfortune” of hard drive crashes and lost e-mails. All the while, Obama insisted that there was “not a smidgen of corruption” in this arena. Lois Lerner subsequently appeared before congress twice, pled the fifth on both occasions (this is only done when someone would otherwise open themselves to criminal charges), and ultimately got away with this illegal targeting, because the all-too-corrupt Department of Justice, first under Eric Holder and, now under Loretta Lynch, on orders from the President himself, has not and will not pursue a case which, if fully investigated, would show the president’s involvement in the aggregated abuse of power.

Well, this wasn’t the first time President Obama played fast and loose with the truth (Hillary’s e-mail, specifically related to the Benghazi investigation, anyone?) and it won’t be the last time, either.

Call this a precursor into how the Obama administration will ultimately handle (or, rather, not handle) the FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mail scandals. The FBI, investigating multiple felonies which have clearly been committed by Mrs. Clinton (remember David Petraeus?), will eventually seek to hand down indictments of Mrs. Clinton related to a host of violations of federal law and the Obama administration will, as they have with Ms. Lerner, summarily refuse to press charges.

The mainstream media, in full betrayal of the principals their forefathers set during the Watergate era, will give both Obama and Hillary a free ride on these scandals because they are no longer a free press practicing the safeguards against tyranny as the “fourth estate”, but rather have become an advocacy-based cheering section for the Democrat Party. Just as they did everything they could to elect Obama twice, they will do everything they can to elect Hillary in 2016, by painting even the most moderate Republican nominee as a racist, misogynist, right-wing extremist who will drive women seeking abortions back into the dark alleys of coat-hangers and death. This is what has become of the free press in America, today- ironic in that here we find ourselves living in the “information age”.

Yes it is, indeed, open season on Republicans and conservatives, in particular, who are being labeled by the Obama administration as “domestic terrorists” while this is being written. The same thing happened before in the Soviet Union, and in Nazi Germany, and in Communist China, when political opposition became illegal, and we are ultimately reminded, once again, of what Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) once wrote:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

When the last conservative Republican is left, who will speak for this person, and who, at long last, will speak for representative democracy and the Constitution of the United States?

-Drew Nickell, 27 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Hillary Clinton Faces the Benghazi Committee- The Theatre of the Absurd

Hillary Clinton Faces the Benghazi Committee- The Theatre of the Absurd

“Absurd”, in a word, is possibly the best way- given the confines of the English language- to describe Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited appearance before the House Benghazi Committee, yesterday. The former first lady, senator and Secretary of State rightfully deserves an Academy Award for Best Actress, given her portrayal of the oh-so-caring, oh-so-thoughtful, oh-so beleaguered victim of those horrible Republican meanies bent on destroying her candidacy.

Not that she didn’t have the supporting cast of sycophantic “ass-clowns” supporting her performance, as the Democrat members of the Committee were practically drooling in her presence, stepping all over one another, and stepping on their fellow Republican committee members, in an all-out effort to run interference for their “lady-in-waiting”, who just happens to be their best, and only, shot at retaining the White House within the confines of their own party.

It was quite absurd, really- especially when the oh-so-sanctimonious Democrat members scolded the Republicans for wasting, yes, WASTING some four-and-a-half million dollars investigating the attacks on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Heaven help us all when Democrats, of all people, lecture Republicans about wasting taxpayers’ money- or have they not heard of their own president’s program that spent five hundred million dollars… to train five…count ‘em… FIVE… Syrian “freedom fighters” ?

It was quite absurd, really- that these same Democrat representatives spent their time kvetching about the committee’s inability to uncover new information about what happened before, during, and after the raid on Benghazi- especially since they spent most of their allotted time making speeches and postulating about the unfairness of it all, and defaming their Republican colleagues on the Committee, instead of questioning the witness, herself. It’s rather hard to uncover new information while making speeches, isn’t it? The only Democrat who asked any substantive questions was Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and even there it was obvious that Hillary knew exactly what she was going to ask, as Hillary answered her questions with prepared statements, reading from a script on the table in front of her.

The Republicans on the committee, by comparison, acted professionally- asking probing questions about the processes State Department officials used (or didn’t use, for that matter) to address the security requests…there were over 600 of them…by Hillary’s “friend”, slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the comparative access to Hillary Clinton of the slain ambassador juxtaposed against her “long-time friend” Sidney Blumenthal. The former had practically no access, while the latter had unlimited access, according to her own testimony. When pressed as to why no administrative action was taken against her underlings, who were directly responsible for refusing the ambassador’s request for additional security, Hillary responded with a lame excuse of being constrained by federal law- an actual “first” for her, considering the hundreds of occasions, over the years, when Hillary has not felt so constrained. Having repeatedly maintained that all of the e-mails she received from Blumenthal were unsolicited, she changed this stance to “well, unsolicited, at first” when the evidence presented showed that she constantly solicited more and more e-mails from Blumenthal- a man who she was told not to engage with, on any official basis, by the Obama Administration, while pleading complete ignorance of the hundreds of requests, by Ambassador Stevens, to enhance security at the Benghazi mission.

Sitting behind Mrs. Clinton were half a dozen of her own attorneys, most notably Cheryl Mills, who was at one time concurrently Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney and Chief of Staff during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, and none other than David E. Kendall, who was her husband’s own attorney during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and also represented former President Clinton during the trial Paula Jones vs William Jefferson Clinton , where the former president perjured himself, resulting in his impeachment. This begs the question that if this committee hearing was only a “political witch hunt”, as asserted by Hillary and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), then why the need for all of these lawyers? Answer- the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mail server. Potentially, Mrs. Clinton has already opened herself up to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, by repeating that she had turned over all of the relevant e-mails, when clearly, she hasn’t. Whether or not the Obama Administration will eventually allow the FBI to pursue an eventual indictment is beside the point. It is obvious to anyone with an impartial mind that Mrs. Clinton is a pathological and serial liar.

This was never more perfectly illustrated when it was revealed during yesterday’s hearing that, at the very moment and instant she was telling Americans and, specifically, the families of the slain personnel, that the attack was the result of a protest mob, spurred on by an internet video insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammed, she notified the Egyptian Prime Minister, and her own daughter, Chelsea, the attack was an organized, pre-planned raid by an Al Quaida-affiliated terrorist network, having absolutely nothing to do with the video. It was also revealed that she started the bogus video narrative while the attack was still under way, on the night of September 11, 2012.

Nothing new, huh?… Well, unlike the seven preceding hearings which probed bits and pieces of the Benghazi attack, this one had the benefit of her own e-mails as evidence- e-mails she and the State Department spent three years trying not to reveal and attempting to defy Congressional subpoenas.

Democrats should ask themselves honestly (assuming that they are capable of doing so) that if, indeed, the roles were reversed, and this was a Republican Secretary of State being questioned by a House Committee led by a Democrat majority, would they have been as appalled as they professed to being yesterday?

Perhaps this is the one question that needn’t be asked….

-Drew Nickell, 23 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.



socialism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ n. 1. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; 2. a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies; 3. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 4. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; 5. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. ¹

                                  *                                   *                               *

Slice it, dice it, blend it, and mix it any which way you want but, at the end of the day, socialism is not commensurate with the American way, nor is it compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Simply put, socialism is an anathema to what it means to be an American, and anyone, ANYONE who advocates the introduction of socialism into the American way of life is either ignorant, ill-informed, or bent on the destruction of the United States of America.

Consider the fact that the United States- a nation built on self-sufficiency and capitalism- has achieved, by all meaningful measures, the highest standard of living in the entire world. Indeed, it was capitalism that created what we now know as the middle class. Yes, there are those who will toss about examples of smaller, MUCH smaller Nordic countries, like Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden as  socialist “utopias”, but these countries are racially and culturally homogeneous, with populations equivalent to a few of our largest cities combined. Comparing these countries to the United States- countries which spend barely a farthing on national defense- is like comparing soldier ants to draught horses, because the United States is, in reality, augmenting and ensuring their own defense with our own taxpayer’s money, and not theirs, based upon their membership in NATO, which ceases to exist without the United States paying the tab.

It is amusing, to a point, that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attempts to re-define socialism as “democratic socialism”- amusing, because it is an obvious dodge to the fact that what he is advocating is nothing less than socialism, pure and simple. He very clearly indicates that what he wants to do is tax the wealthy at 90%, in other words, for every dollar the wealthy earn, he wants to take ninety cents, and use it to fund social programs which he says is necessary to achieve what he deems to be “fairness”- essentially confiscating money from those who earn it, and distributing the proceeds, as he deems fit. He calls this “democratic socialism”. A more honest term would be “theft”.

The point to which it is not amusing is the fact that there are millions of people, particularly young people, who buy into this “horse hockey”. This is particularly true with regards to college students, who are too young, or too ignorant, or too brainwashed by their aging professors, to remember that socialism in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, China since the 1940s, Russia since the 1910’s, combined to result in the deaths of well over 100 million people in the 20th century- and that doesn’t include socialism in Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, and a host of countries in Africa and Latin America, where socialism resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands, as well. Simply stated, socialism kills, eventually, because once the rich have been liquidated, financially and otherwise, the populace becomes insatiable for the meager benefits to which they have become accustomed, and the well runs dry. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so famously once said, “The inherent problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money”.

In the end, socialism results in an economic system where everyone, except those in power, becomes equally poor, equally deprived and equally miserable, which might be pleasing to the likes of Bernie Sanders, and his Democrat allies, but strikes this writer as nothing more than the recipe for failure and the basis of a lie- a cruel lie which would have people believe that all fortunes were made as the result of someone getting screwed. Socialists, and those who advocate socialism, want to sell people on the concept that the only way to right that wrong is to forcibly take money from one person, and have the government give some of it to another which, once extrapolated, means that innovation, technological advancement, medical and scientific discovery, all comes to an abrupt halt when the profit motive, and the desire to improve one’s own lot in life, becomes dis-incentivized to the point of cultural regression. But don’t tell this to a wild-eyed young liberal, bent on achieving social and economic justice, lest you be branded as a “hater” insensitive to the needs of others.

-Drew Nickell, 20 October 2015

¹ reprinted from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, an Encyclopaedia Britannica Company

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Enemy Within– Targeting Domestic Terrorism

The Enemy Within– Targeting Domestic Terrorism

In the midst of all of the news this week, it was quietly announced that the United States Department of Justice has created a Domestic Terrorism Unit to be headed by a yet-to-be-named Domestic Terrorism Counsel, whose job it will be to coordinate the creation of a data base of those the administration designates as “lone wolf” and domestic terrorists, and monitor their activity. If this were being initiated to monitor Islamic extremists or radical anarchists, bent on mass destruction or violent overthrow of the federal government, such an effort would be in keeping with the administration’s responsibility to secure the nation and protect its national security.

Sadly, however, this is not the case- no, not by a long shot.

This initiative is nothing less than an attempt by the Obama Administration to label those who it perceives to be their own political enemies and monitor all types of activities, from on-line blogging, to gun-ownership to advocating political stances in the name of constitutionalism, conservativism, limited government, etc. No folks, this is not a simple and laughable “enemies list”, like the one Nixon maintained based upon those who criticized the thirty-seventh president- this involves actual monitoring in the style of George Orwell’s “1984”, with “Big Brother” watching every step of anyone who takes issue with Barack Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, as he promised to do so on the evening he was elected in November of 2008.

Member of the NRA?, Member of the Tea Party?, Libertarian?, Klansman?, Pro-lifer?, Someone advocating strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, or limited government?…Guess what, they’ll all be lumped together in the same filing cabinet….the one labeled “Domestic Terrorist”…

Strangely absent from this grouping are those associated with the New Black Panther Party, the anti-police Black Lives Matter movement, the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR), Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, the Communist Party USA (yes, it still exists), the Socialist Party, Greenpeace, or any movement advocating the annexation of large portions of the United States to Mexico.

Listed amongst the “domestic threats” are those who would firebomb synagogues and mosques, but NOT those who would firebomb churches, which brings the obvious question, “Why exclude churches?”

In other words, oppose Obama, specifically, and liberals, in general, and one does so at their own peril. Here’s the hitch- this is being done in coordination with Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s “Strong Cities Network” in cooperation with…get this…the United Nations…as was announced at the end of September at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. In coordination with the National Security Agency, the Obama administration seeks to silence any, ANY opposition by citizens of the United States, under threat of force levied by the full weight of the federal government.

Essentially, in the name of “safety” and “national security” our rights to free speech, free assembly, gun ownership, the right to address grievances perpetrated by the government, and in some cases, religious expression and affiliation, will become a thing of the past, if Obama and his henchmen get away with what appears to be the single-most egregious and coordinated attack on constitutional freedoms in the history of the United States.

If you believe that the enemy within wears a hijab, or shouts “Allah Akbar!”, you may be correct with regards to specific individuals, but the real enemy within- the one who truly seeks to destroy this country- wears pinstriped suits, works on Pennsylvania Avenue and, while we are distracted with working our jobs, and paying our bills and watching our televisions, is doing everything possible to control our citizenry, and erase our liberties.

Be aware…be VERY aware… and keep in mind those presidential candidates and other politicians who advocate, and seek to perpetuate, these policies.

-Drew Nickell, 16 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Left Behind in Las Vegas- the Democrats’ Debate that Wasn’t

Left Behind in Las Vegas- the Democrats’ Debate that Wasn’t

There’s an old adage that is often said about gambling in Las Vegas: “At the end of the day, ‘the house’ always wins”, which means that while a few can leave the casino wealthier, it is the casino, itself, which comes out ahead…

Last night, at the Democrats’ first debate, it was indeed “the house” that won- “the house” being the debate that was managed by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, CNN Anchor and Clinton Global Initiative Member/Contributor (not kidding) Anderson Cooper, and the candidate herself, Hillary Clinton.

So managed and coordinated was this debate, it seemed that the four candidates supposedly opposing Hillary Clinton- Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb- were under direct orders from “the house” not to lay a single, solitary glove on Hillary Clinton. The presumption that the Democrats are engaged in a contest for the presidential nomination is actually a farce, which was exposed for all the world (who bothered to watch) to see, once and for all.

While Hillary was able to land some punches on her would-be opponents, it was blatantly obvious that there was not a single challenge to anything she said, nor any position (in many cases, opposite from one another) she has ever taken in the past, by any of the other four so-called contestants. Never was this more obvious when none other than Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist running for the Democrat nomination, and who actually leads Clinton in New Hampshire, came to Hillary’s defense concerning her e-mail scandals, when he said “…America is sick of hearing about your damned e-mails…” with Hillary nodding and smiling in agreement, even before Sanders had even finished his sentence, suggesting that this moment had been rehearsed and scripted, prior to the debate.

As predicted, the entire debate came down to three themes:


  1. The debate was engineered by CNN and the other four candidates to make Hillary look good;
  2. The debate was moderated by CNN far differently than the way this network moderated the Republican debate, as the questions in last night’s debate were issue-oriented as opposed to the questioning in the Republican debate, which were designed to encourage the Republicans to attack each other, instead;
  3.  The debate was engineered to give Hillary the lion’s share of focus that night, and all in a scripted theme of party unity- unity behind Hillary, and unity in the absolute avoidance of criticism against her and Barack Obama, as well.


Jim Webb, the “lone adult” on the stage was repeatedly cut off from answering the few questions directed at him. No wonder. He is the type of Democrat that harkens back to the days of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy- anti-Communists who advocated a strong military and a robust international presence- the type of Democrat who hasn’t run for president in a half century. Alone in his recognition of the greatest threats to American security, it was obvious that Senator Webb is well outside the mainstream of today’s Democrat Party- a party whose distinction from socialism is almost invisible.

Martin O’Malley, the feckless, albeit loquacious speechmaker whose biggest credentials are his steadfast opposition to gun ownership, got into a brief dust-up with Sanders on that issue, based on an odd separation of rural (Sanders) versus urban (O’Malley) views toward gun ownership. What was obvious were his adoring glances towards Hillary, and her calculating (“hmmm… he would make an excellent ambassador to Ireland…”) eyes appraising him as a supportive member of her team.

Lincoln Chafee was the clownish presence on the stage, whose biggest accomplishment, as he stated three times, was avoidance of scandal during the terms of office he has held (it’s easy to avoid scandal when you accomplish absolutely nothing). The biggest laugh he provided was when he blamed one of his votes in the senate on his new arrival immediately following his father’s death. Now there’s a man we can all believe in, right?

Bernie Sanders came across as an angry revolutionary in the style of the old communist radical, even advocating “revolution” on three separate occasions. His themes- “the rich are evil”, “the corporations are evil”, “the banks are evil”, “Wall Street is evil” were all joined  together in his plan to take all of that wealth, and use it to pay for universal health care, prescriptions and college tuition for all, including illegal immigrants- advocating a complete socialist transformation of the United States away from the very thing that made it the economic powerhouse of the free world. Yet, when it came down to Comrade Bernie’s opportunity to knock Hillary out of the ring, by going after her on the e-mail scandals, he caved…. Not only was he a conscientious objector during Viet Nam, he was a conscientious objector to attacking the Democrat front-runner, as well.

For Hillary, it was her chance to shine amongst the lessers surrounding her, and throughout the night she glowed in the admiration bestowed upon her, as though she were saying, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall…” When pressed by Cooper on the e-mails, she ended the questioning with a oh-so-prepared and scripted, “I want to talk about the issues and what the Republicans are doing to this country” fulfilling expectations that the entire evening was designed to make the Republicans look like monsters: “The Republican War on Women”, “The Republican War on Immigrants”, “The Republican War on Religious and Racial Minorities” and her own admission that she is the “outsider” by virtue of her sex, and that it is she who is best qualified to bring change to Washington because, at the end of the day, she is a woman…

On a question as to whether “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter”, each of these candidates opted for the former, going out of their way, as if to say, “Black lives matter more, and here’s why…” Ahh…there’s nothing like the race card being played by five elderly white politicians, against a Republican field which includes one African-American, two Hispanics and a woman, to boot.

What also became quite clear, during the debate, is that none of these candidates would make any changes to Obama’s failed foreign policy if ultimately elected, which should provide a “wake-up” call to anyone who has grown skeptical of Obama’s “leadership from behind”. In fact, save for Webb, the candidates were in unison when they indicated that they would pursue a foreign policy that not only embraces Obama’s foreign policy, but goes far beyond it.

It is also oft-stated that “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” but sadly, for the American people, this will not be the case regarding last night’s debate- regardless of whether or not Vice President Joe Biden decides to “ante in”….

-Drew Nickell, 14 October 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Leftward Ho in Las Vegas- the Democrats’ Debate Preview

Leftward Ho in Las Vegas- the Democrats’ Debate Preview

Tonight’s debate, featuring five or six contenders for the Democrats’ presidential nomination (we predict that the vice-president won’t show, despite the additional podium being added at the last minute), is to be hosted by CNN- the same CNN who hosted their own generated pie-throwing contest for the Republicans last month. It will feature, alphabetically, Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and, possibly but not probably, Joe Biden.

This debate offers nowhere near the intrigue that the last two Republican debates offered, primarily because there are currently only two real contenders for the nomination- Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with Joe Biden waiting in the wings for just the right moment to launch his own campaign. Just why Chafee, O’Malley and Webb are even showing up is a mystery, indeed, for if their respective polling numbers do not drastically improve, their candidacies will end by year’s end, if not before-hand.

The logistics surrounding this debate are very different from that of the Republicans, primarily due to the very strictly limited number of debates being offered by the Democrat Party, itself. The DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, engineered this limited number of debates by design, as she seeks to protect the party’s front-runner and at-one-time presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, from any possible misstep on the debate stage. Reduce the debates and you geometrically and diametrically reduce the propensity for gaffes, according to this leap in liberal logic.

The most exciting two minutes of this debate will take place at the onset, when the candidates are introduced, specifically because of that sixth podium and whether or not it will be manned by the vice president (we predict it won’t be). After that, the debate will be a total bore. CNN, who oh-so-blatantly wants Hillary to be Barack Obama’s successor, will toss very soft questions to the former first lady- designed to make her look oh-so-presidential, and then ask the other candidates questions which will, a) make Hillary look good, b) make it almost impossible for the other candidates to attack Hillary and c) make Republicans look monstrous, by comparison. So, there will be many questions about the fictitious “GOP war on women”, the fictitious “GOP war on immigrants” and the fictitious “GOP war on minorities”, and very few questions concerning e-mail servers, socialism and Obama’s failed foreign policy if, at all, any.

Aside from whether or not Joe will “show”, the big news for the evening will be the questions that are NOT asked. By candidate, alphabetically, these questions are as follows:

Lincoln Chafee- “One of the principal reasons you cited when your campaign was launched is that you wanted the Unites States to ‘go metric’. Do you believe that this issue is as important as the other issues facing this country and, if so, why?”

Hillary Clinton- “With all of your changing and evolving responses to inquiries regarding your e-mails, deleted or retained, on your own private server, which clearly violate the law, why should the American people trust you, either on a professional or ethical basis, to lead our country, given all of the challenges facing the United States in 2017, and beyond?”

Martin O’Malley- “You once said that climate change and global warming were the primary reasons for the rise of ISIL/ISIS- do you still believe this, and if so, can you explain the connection between climate change and radical Islam?”

Bernie Sanders- “You have advocated a tremendous increase in taxes on the wealthy, as well as a tremendous increase in corporate taxes, as a means to make college tuition-free for students. Given the fact that U.S. corporations already pay the highest income taxes in the industrialized world, how will increasing these taxes encourage job creation for all of these college students entering the work force?”

Jim Webb- “Amongst the current slate of Democrats running for the nomination, you are alone in advocating for a stronger defense and a more assertive foreign policy. Specifically, where do you differ from the Obama administration with regards to the administration’s Middle East Policy, the Iran ‘deal’ and the war on terror, and what changes would you make in these specific areas?”

Joe Biden (assuming he shows)- “Do you believe that President Obama’s foreign policy, specifically related to Vladimir Putin, the Middle East, Iran and ISIL/ISIS has been a success, and if so why? If not, where would you change direction in U.S. foreign policy from that of President Obama’s?”

These are the types of questions that a responsible, impartial media would ask candidates running for the most important job in the entire world- but CNN is anything but impartial or responsible, because they are advocates, instead, and representative democracy is not served as a result of such advocacy. All that’s “left” therefore, figuratively, literally, politically, is how far leftward these Democrat candidates can leap in the luxurious lap of Las Vegas…

-Drew Nickell, 13 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved