Trump and the Ultimate Sweep

Trump and the Ultimate Sweep

 

Trump Sweeps Up

 

There are sweeps, and then again, there are sweeps.

In 1966, the Baltimore Orioles swept the World Series, winning four games against the heavily-favored Los Angeles Dodgers to surprise the baseball-watching experts who had predicted otherwise. Imagine for a moment that the Orioles had done so, while shutting out the Dodgers, to boot. In such a case, baseball pundits would still be talking about such a series, fifty years later.

Such is the magnitude of Donald Trump’s sweep of the five-state primary election held yesterday. Not only did “the Donald” sweep all five contests, in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but he also ran the table in all of the one hundred seven counties that comprise these five states…an amazing feat, indeed.

In at least two of the states, Trump managed to exceed 60% of the Republican votes cast- this in a three-way race between Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. To win 60% in a two-man race is sufficiently difficult to do, at best. To do so in a three-way race is nothing short of absolute annihilation.

Considering the fact that the mainstream media, both of the Democrats still running, the other two remaining Republican contestants and much of the establishment Republicans, have joined together in sharpening their knives against the Republican front-runner, Trump’s astonishing victory under such unified opposition is all-the-more incredible considering the deck thus stacked against him.

This result came within forty-eight hours of an announcement by the Cruz and Kasich campaigns that they would cooperate with one another to stop Trump short of the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination, prior to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, later this summer. Essentially under the pact, Kasich would cease campaign operations in Indiana, while Cruz would cease campaigning in New Mexico and Oregon, all in an effort to consolidate the anti-Trump vote in those three states. Considering the fact that Cruz and Kasich couldn’t be further apart, philosophically speaking, each candidate essentially struck a deal with their respective devils, in a desperate attempt to thwart the will of the voters whose intentions were made quite clear in the most recent results.

Dealing with the devil has a way of eventually biting one’s infernal regions, and both Kasich and Cruz felt the bite in a big way, last night. If Cruz fails to beat Trump in Indiana next Tuesday, then Trump has an exceedingly good chance to gain the requisite delegates prior to the convention, and the pipe dream that is Kasich’s (and now, Cruz’s) for a contested convention goes up in smoke.

What’s the media to do, faced with such un-deniability? Look for their talking heads to spend the next five months trying to convince the American voters that there is no way that Donald Trump can defeat Hillary Clinton, and all of the pollsters will be in cahoots with this premise to try to validate this as fact. The funny thing is that these same pollsters and pundits once predicted that Trump’s support among Republican voters would never, never top 35%…that is, until Trump managed to do so in more states than Ted Cruz and John Kasich have actually won.

That “Trump Train” just keeps chugging along, much to the dismay of those who dream in vain, otherwise. Call Trump the “Little Choo-Choo That Could.”

 

-Drew Nickell, 27 April 2016

 

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Royally Reprehensible- an Arrogance that Knows No Bounds

Royally Reprehensible- an Arrogance that Knows No Bounds

Obama and Cameron

With a self-esteem that reaches into the stratosphere, and an ego that is gargantuan in scope, President Barack Obama continues to portray the south end of a northbound horse, for the entire world to see and on which to marvel. It wasn’t enough that “His Royal Arrogance” visited Cuba, landing in Havana with no one to greet him upon his arrival. It wasn’t enough, that he attended a baseball game with Raul Castro, while Brussels was reeling from a terrorist attack that took place in the hours prior to his attendance. It wasn’t enough that he danced the tango in his visit to Argentina while the world waited for his response, to the Brussels attack, that never came.

No, playing the part of a horse’s patoot can never grow stale for a man who doesn’t realize that he’s doing just that.

First, he flies away to Saudi Arabia for an official visit, and is met at the Riyadh airport by…no one. Not that the Saudis are known for hospitality to outsiders, but it became clear that the country’s ruling family was quite put out with a president who, in striking an asininely foolish and imbecilic “deal” with Iran on their pursuit of nuclear armaments, genuinely feels that Obama has sold them down the river. No wonder. In consummating this deal, Obama tilted the balance of power in the Middle East away from our allies of varying degrees, and towards an enemy bent on achieving hegemony in that troubled region. While it is becoming ever clearer, as contained in a yet-to-be-released twenty-eight page document, that members of the ruling family financially aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Obama then staked out a position that family members of the 9/11 victims would not be able to sue the Saudis for damages. Yet, even Obama’s willingness, to provide the Saudis with legal immunity for the attack, failed to impress a regime which takes Obama for the weak-minded pretender that he is.

Fast forward to the United Kingdom, where the Obamas first lunched with Queen Elizabeth, in honor of her recent ninetieth birthday, and then on to meetings with her Prime Minister, David Cameron, to discuss a host of issues. Cameron, caught up in a domestic political storm regarding the upcoming June referendum on the UK’s continued membership in the European Union, has enough troubles of his own in trying to prevent Britain from voting to reject continued membership. Into the maelstrom enters Obama, who would deign to assert his own self into an issue that is Britain’s alone to decide. Were it not bad enough that he would have the nerve to do this, he even parlayed a diplomatic threat to the UK, indicating that if that sovereign nation went against his own wishes, by opting to leave the EU, they would duly face the punishment of having trade agreements between the two countries, shoved to the back burner of priorities for having done so.

In other words, Obama effectively told our closest ally, “I will punish you if you go against my wishes,” or words to that effect. This faux pas was so egregious that even Cameron, who himself is opposed to Britain exiting the EU, had to remind Obama that this is a decision for British voters, alone, and that he and his country do not answer to the President of the United States. That a sitting U.S president has to be reminded, that even his own offices have limits on its authority in the international arena, strikes incredulity were it not so true. Yet such is the arrogance that is Barack Obama, who has come to believe that he alone has all of the answers when it comes to solving, not only the world’s problems, but those within the sovereignty of an ally’s domestic politics, as well.

Talk about being cheeky, indeed…

-Drew Nickell, 23 April 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Campaign 2016- Inevitably, the Year of Irony

Campaign 2016- Inevitably, the Year of Irony

Trump v Clinton

One hears much about Hillary Clinton’s super delegates not being bound to the Democrats’ front-runner­, essentially that they can still choose to change their votes to Bernie Sanders, should they wish to do so. Such a scenario is about as likely as the candidate, herself, owning up to her own responsibility for the lack of security with regards to the raid in Benghazi, and giving truthful testimony as to why she set up a private server while Secretary of State, in the first place. Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, will amount to nothing more than an interesting footnote in some future history book, and will attain nothing more than a prime-time speech at the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia. For better or much, much worse, Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ nominee.

One also hears much about the Republicans hosting a contested convention in Cleveland, one which will nominate a candidate whose name is not Donald J. Trump. Now that it is mathematically impossible for either Ted Cruz or John Kasich to gather enough delegates prior to the convention, to win the nomination, any eventual nominee aside from the front-runner stands no chance in unifying the Republican Party to the point where they can defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall. Not even the Republican establishment is stupid enough to deny Trump the nomination, when all is said and done. To do otherwise would result in the functional end of the Republicans 160-year run in the history of the United States. Like it or not, businessman Donald Trump is the Republicans’ nominee.

With regards to the former, Democrats are just smart enough not to go into the fall election with a self-avowed socialist who, until launching his presidential campaign, was an independent senator from Vermont- perhaps the only state who would repeatedly elect a socialist to the U.S. Senate, in the first place.

With regards to the latter, Republicans are just smart enough (but barely so) not to go into the fall campaign with a candidate who could not manage to win a majority of the primaries and caucuses in the Republican nominating contests. The state conventions which awarded delegates, with neither a primary nor a caucus to support such a result, are not enough to counter what “the Donald” won at the ballot box, and Republicans who think otherwise do so at their own party’s peril.

This said, it is Trump vs Clinton come November, and it’s time for Americans to accept this inevitable and inexorable fact. As expected, the mainstream media will keep drumming the droll diatribe, proffering “what if” scenarios, but they only do so as a means to boost ratings and gather viewership. The only thing that can prevent such a contest is a criminal indictment of Clinton, which the Obama administration will not allow, despite evidence to the contrary, or a decision by Trump to allow his delegates to nominate someone else, which is about as likely as his showing up to a campaign event wearing a tee-shirt and blue jeans.

We will hear much about the contested 1976 Republican convention, where incumbent President Gerald Ford had not garnered enough delegates to win the nomination over Governor Ronald Reagan, on the first ballot. In fact, only 117 votes separated the two, and it was Reagan who finally capitulated and called for a united front to face Governor Jimmy Carter in the fall election. Essentially, there is no comparison between 2016 and 1976, because Donald Trump will have a much, much larger margin than did President Ford forty years ago. The idea of a front-runner, especially Trump, capitulating to “also rans” or, for that matter “never rans”, is pure fantasy. Secondly, his followers will surely abandon the GOP if he is denied the nomination, and the resulting chasm would not bode well for “down-ballot” Republican senators and representatives seeking reelection.

One can bet the farm on the Clinton campaign to paint Trump as a misogynist, xenophobic and racist candidate who is outside the mainstream of American voters. One can be just as assured that the Clinton campaign would do precisely the same to Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or any other Republican, because that is what they always do…portray the opposition as “extremist.” The mainstream media can be trusted to play along with this charade because, in essence, they have become part of the campaign, rather than merely covering the campaign. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the mainstream media has favored Democratic presidential campaigns going back to 1932, so why should 2016 be any different?

What remains to be seen is whether or not the voting public will continue to buy into the deception that Trump is misogynist, xenophobic and racist, and thereby entrust the presidency to a Hillary Clinton who has managed to dodge legal repercussions for her criminal actions, going back to the days when she was first lady of Arkansas. Before that, she was the only attorney to be expelled from the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation, “…because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, who conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality,” according to her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman.

Trump doesn’t have that kind of baggage, in spite of the fact that the #NeverTrump Republican rattlesnakes, the mainstream media and, of course, the Democrats will go out of their way to have the voters think otherwise. If “the Donald” can pull off a miracle, and somehow manage to unite a fractured Republican party to unite behind his candidacy (a tall order, indeed), it’s his election to lose. This much is certain. The ramifications of November’s election will undoubtedly be felt, for decades to come, as the consequential nature of its results are exceeded only by the contempt with which both of its contestants are disdainfully held.

Call this the year of irony.

 

-Drew Nickell, 20 April 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The (un-) Official Guide to Understanding Young Voters

The (un-) Official Guide to Understanding Young VotersABCs

For those who are old enough to remember the Reagan presidency, what follows is an alphabetical glossary of definitions to enable better understanding of the mindset of many young voters, today.

Anarchy- a system of government where there is no government, just people doing whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as it doesn’t involve patriotism, Christianity, Judaism or Capitalism.

Bernie- the answer to all wants, needs and demands for fairness, where everything is free, and the rich and the corporations are punished for not putting up their fair share.

Communism- a fairy tale that is repeatedly told by old people who just don’t understand the wisdom of Bernie Sanders.

Demonstrators- anyone who opposes Donald Trump, even when they cannot articulate exactly why they oppose Donald Trump, but will take money from George Soros and move-on.org to oppose Donald Trump.

Equality- taking all of the money in the entire world, and dividing it equally among all of the world’s people, so that everyone is equally poor, miserable and without the prospect of improving their lot in life.

Fairness- taking all of the profits from evil corporation and all of the wealth from rich people, to provide free food, housing, cannabis, medical care and college tuition for everyone else.

Gender- the freedom to identify one’s self into any sexual identity, regardless of sexual characteristics originating at birth.

Homophobia- the belief system which prefers women and girls to use the ladies’ room and men and boys to use the men’s room in all public and private accommodations.

Individualism- a fascist mindset that believes people have the right not to be politically correct in all things.

Journalism- any part of mainstream media, other than Fox News.

Kardashian- that which is really important, in the grand scheme of things.

Liberalism- a fairy tale of fascists who do not agree with democratic socialism.

Middle America- a group of fascists who think that they will have to pay more taxes so that food, shelter, cannabis, healthcare and college tuition will be free.

Nazism- a political philosophy which supports the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Opinion- a set of beliefs, as long as it is not conservative, which is intolerant.

Protest- an organized attempt to earn money by preventing anyone from attending any event to listen to Donald Trump.

Question- an inquiry into why one opposes Donald Trump, posed by a Fox News employee.

Racist- a white person.

Socialism- a utopian system where everyone is given free food, shelter, cannabis, healthcare and college tuition.

Tuition- an absolute right to take money from corporations and rich people, to pay for college, so that gainful employment can be delayed, indefinitely.

Universal- benefits accruing to anyone, other than rich people and corporations.

Victim- anyone who isn’t white, male, Christian, religious or heterosexual.

White- privileged people who should be ashamed, and made to feel guilty, for things of the past, that they have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with.

Xenophobe- anyone who utters the phrase “illegal immigration”.

Yours- anything that should be mine and ours, instead.

Zombie- a very real threat to humanity almost approaching the threat of climate change.

Memorize this list and you, too, can make sense out of what many young voters are saying, today.

 

-Drew Nickell, 15 April 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

 

The Republican Party- Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The Republican Party- Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

suicidal GOP elephant

The Presidential Election of 2016 should have been a slam dunk. America’s electorate, weary of the fecklessness, divisiveness and overall incompetence of the current administration is demanding a wholesale change in the country’s leadership. The Democrat Party, proffering a choice between a geriatric socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose economic ideas border on lunacy, and an insufferable reprobate, Hillary Clinton, whose overall character lies somewhere between that of a swindler and that of an embezzler, should easily be deemed a guaranteed loser either way, and yet…

The Republican Party, unable to extricate itself from the combined corruption of condescension and contempt for its own electorate, once again portrays itself as the political party which outright refuses any victory, handed to them on a silver platter, not of their own particular liking. It’s not enough that the G.O.P. despises both of its front-runners, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The party for whom both candidates seek its nomination is setting both of these front-runners against each other, hoping that both of them cancel out each other’s candidacy, in a vain attempt to replace them with someone from within the controlling grasp of the party’s elite. Never mind the fact that while Democrat participation in caucuses and primaries is substantially down from the last two national elections, it is the Republican participation in caucuses and primaries that is at an all-time high.  What of it? The Republican Party would sooner spit in the eyes of its own voters, than to abide in their choices of candidates who refuse to play the same old equivocal games mastered by the likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole- losers all, who couldn’t manage to win a national election if they were the only ones on the ballot.

What a shame.

On the one hand, Republicans have a candidate who has assembled an organization engineered to win an election at all levels, and one who has conservative bona fides on practically every issue. He is even Hispanic- whose block of voters has proved to be elusive to Republicans, going back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Ted Cruz is that candidate.

On the other hand, Republicans have a candidate who has captured the imagination of disaffected voters spanning both parties, and independents, as well. Thus far, he is winning votes by the score, even from those who have never voted before. His name recognition transcends the world politic, and he has the rare ability to communicate with the common man, as no other- tapping into the palpable frustration of an electorate that is very real, indeed. Donald Trump is that candidate.

Either one of these two would make a much better president than either of their Democrat rivals. Either candidate would usher in the real changes needed to reconnect, in a positive way, the federal government with the people it is supposed to be serving. Both candidates would save the country from an abyss that looms on the horizon, should either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders be elected, who would finish the undoing of American pre-eminence that Obama has gone out of his way to initiate.

And yet…

The Republican Party whose nomination both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seek would sooner see the election of a Democrat than rally around either of its two front-runners, which just goes to show that one can lead an elephant to water, but cannot make him drink.

How sad, indeed.

-Drew Nickell, 13 April 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Election 2016- a Compound Fracture in America

Election 2016- a Compound Fracture in America

Broken US Map

The recent primary results in the states of Massachusetts, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin reveal much more than just the voting totals and the delegates apportioned for each of the candidates in both parties. Yet this revelation is seldom being discussed by the talking heads of the major media who are slowly, but assuredly, revealing their own agendas in how they report on the election news.

With all of the accusations of prevarication going back and forth between each party’s candidates, perhaps it is the media itself that is spreading the biggest lie of all- that they have figured out who the winners, and ultimate winner, will be. Anyone who says that they can predict the eventual outcome of this November’s election should equally be taken with a grain of salt that would displace almost all of the frozen liquid in in a Margarita Grande.

For instance:

In Massachusetts, one of the nation’s most liberal states, Hillary Clinton edged out Bernie Sanders, winning forty-six of the Bay State’s Democrat delegates to Sanders’ forty-five- despite the fact that it is largely understood that Senator Sanders, a socialist, is the more liberal of the two Democrat candidates. Donald Trump managed to capture twenty-two of the state’s Republican delegates besting John Kasich (the most liberal Republican running) and Marco Rubio, who each won eight, and Ted Cruz, who won six;

In Mississippi, one of the most conservative states in the United States, Donald Trump bested Ted Cruz, winning twenty-five of the Magnolia State’s forty delegates- despite the fact that by all accounts, Senator Cruz is the more conservative of the two Republican front-runners. Hillary Clinton won thirty-two of the state’s thirty-six Democrat delegates;

In Utah, another conservative stronghold, Bernie Sanders won an enormous victory over Hillary Clinton, winning twenty-seven of the Beehive State’s thirty-three Democrat delegates. Ted Cruz also won decisively, winning all forty of the winner-take-all Republican delegates;

In Wisconsin, a comparatively liberal state, Ted Cruz won big, capturing thirty-six of the Badger state’s forty-two delegates- this by a marked conservative candidate, who won largely based on the support of that state’s governor and former candidate, Scott Walker, as well as local radio talk-show hosts. Sanders managed to walk away with forty-eight Democrat delegates to Clinton’s thirty-eight.

Why all of the inconsistencies?

Because, in reality, there are five political parties trying to win two nominations.

First, there are the Socialist Democrats, supporting Sanders, largely made up of young college students and those who have not fully entered the work force, and thereby have not paid taxes on earned income. They want “free” healthcare, “free” tuition, “free” commodities of all types, and want to soak the rich to pay for all of their “free” stuff. These voters believe that Ernesto “Che” Guevara was a righteously-cool “dude”, because their radical professors managed, conveniently, not to tell them about the thousands who were executed on the orders of this monster. Their professors also forgot to tell them that socialism has never, and will never, work.

Then there are Feminist/Demographic Democrats, supporting Clinton, largely made up of single-issue, pro-choice women, who don’t and won’t acknowledge Hillary’s treatment of women with whom her husband, Bill Clinton, crossed the line of marital fidelity and sexual harassment, as well as ethnic minorities who believe in their heart of hearts that Hillary can take them to the same promised land upon which Barack Obama promised but ultimately failed, to deliver. For these voters, Hillary’s arms distance relationship with the truth is a matter of partisan purview, rather than empirical evidence.

Compared to the two parties vying for the Democrat nomination, there are three parties seeking the GOP nomination.

There are the Evangelical/Constitutional Republicans, supporting Ted Cruz, who will always seek to elect the most conservative candidate they can find- even if that candidate is Ted Cruz, not particularly popular with his Senate colleagues who have yet to rally around one of their own. It’s not that these voters particularly like Ted Cruz, but to these constituents, philosophy is more important than popularity and charisma is vastly overrated, so Cruz is their guy.

Then, there are the Disenfranchised Republicans, supporting Donald Trump, who once went along with the oh-so-moderate, oh-so-gentlemanly, go-along-with, get-along-with mainstream “Republicratic” candidates, like Gerald Ford, George Bush the elder, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney, all of whom were just too damned nice to launch an effective, spirited campaign against their Democrat rivals, because they just didn’t want to risk offending anyone. This reticence is the primary reason they ultimately lost. These voters have been lied to for decades, and are still being lied to by the Republican leadership in both houses. They will forgive “the Donald’s” many faux pas, because they have had it with supposedly conservative candidates who promise much, wink to one another, and deliver squat.

Lastly, there are the establishment, “kingmaker-du-jour” Republicans, mostly mainstreamers and insiders, who jump from candidate to candidate to candidate, in search of anyone and everyone who can manage to find a way to stop Donald Trump, at all costs. In sequential order, their “guy” has been Jeb Bush, then Marco Rubio, then John Kasich and now, for the time being, Ted Cruz. These Republicans, would destroy their own party, and enable Hillary Clinton to become the forty-fifth president, before they would ever allow either Trump or Cruz to become president, because neither of them would give these elitists the time of day, truth be told. The voters? Hah! Voters be damned… this is their party and they will decide who gets to ride the elephant, regardless.

With five parties competing for two nominations, it is little wonder that America is suffering from a compound fracture that is the Election of 2016. Add to this the legacy of the most divisive and most arrogant president in the history of the United States, one Barack Obama, who has divided this country to a greater extent than ever before, and it is no stretch to say that this country is at a breaking point as it has never been in its two hundred forty years of existence.

This must beg the question, “Who in their right mind would even want to be president?”

-Drew Nickell, 6 April 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Drew Nickell on the Radio 24 March 2016

Today, I am adding excerpts from my radio broadcast of March 24, 2016, while sitting in for Nora Firestone on WKQA-Freedom 1110, on your AM dial in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The entire broadcast was not able to be uploaded, due to file size restrictions. In it, I will be discussing the presidential campaign and why we are losing the war with radical Islam. Hoping you enjoy…

-Drew Nickell, 2 April 2016