“Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times” by Drew Nickell

Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times

by  Drew Nickell

Book Cover Final

Due for Release in August of 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.


To Pee, or Not to Pee – Obama’s Misplaced Priorities

To Pee, or Not to Pee – Obama’s Misplaced Priorities

Obama restroom

What with ISIS on the rise, Iran violating the “Nuke Deal,” global jihad, record numbers of Americans out of the workforce, a national debt approaching $20 trillion, terrorist threats from abroad as well as within…one would think the president’s plate is full…

…and just where are the president’s priorities?

Yep, which restrooms we use…

Prior to his administration taking a stance on where folks are supposed to relieve their biological urges, no one in their right mind can say that restroom designation was even on the most remote of bucket lists on issues requiring the attention of our elected officials. Leave it to Barack Obama and his contemptible cabinet to take issue with where people go to use “the loo.”

Show me a president who places such a non-issue in the forefront of his presidency, and I’ll show you a man who should rightly be impeached for dereliction of duty.

Think about it for a moment.

The impetus behind this inane initiative is the far-less-than-one-percent of the population which identifies itself as “transgender.” Whether such a term actually means those individuals who merely dress incongruently with their sex, or those who are confused about their gender, or those that have undertaken sexual-reassignment surgery, is not entirely clear. What is abundantly clear is the fact that, even taken together, these people comprise merely a fraction of one percent of Americans who use the restroom.

For this reason, the Obama administration would push this on to even the most sensitive of settings- the restrooms and locker rooms of children in middle school and high school who should be rightfully segregated based upon the…ahem… “equipment”…ahem…found between their legs. To suggest that it is okay for a male student to shower in the locker room of 12- and 13-year old girls is a degree of political correctness that has gone too far for any sane society, and is nothing more than a liberal poke into the eye of decent, dare we say, “normal” people who care more about their children than they do about making accommodations for a particularly small segment of the population conflicted about… well… public accommodations.

Never let it be said that the most divisive president in American history can ever fail to provide even more divisiveness to a country whose very name starts with the word “united.” Some may call this “inclusiveness,” but anyone with any sense would call this what it is…”insanity.” Any president who seeks to prioritize such foolishness and place his legacy on where people “pee,” should start by having his own image emblazoned on the very place of his priority…that being the inside of a urinal.

-Drew Nickell, 26 May 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Fear of the Known and the Unknown

Fear of the Known and the Unknown

Trump v Clinton

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is… fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves, which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”

–  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, 4 March 1933

As the general election looms on the autumnal horizon, with each of the two major parties reluctantly, albeit inexorably approaching the certainty of formal nomination, the uniqueness of Election 2016 becomes ever clearer. The “fear factor” of this year’s campaign is self-evident as never before, but for very different reasons.

On the one hand, with respect to the presumptive Republican nominee, there is the fear of the unknown — the fear of a candidate who has never before sought nor held political office. About as much is known about Donald J. Trump as is not known. We know that his business experience has enabled him to become cozy with politicians in both parties, because his dealings in commercial real estate and development on the grandiose scale of the projects he has undertaken necessitate his doing so, in order to gain the requisite permits for such pursuit. Yet, as public as his persona has been, his political core has been characterized by an enigmatic and indiscernible philosophy impossible to pigeon-hole with any degree of certainty. What is known about “the Donald” is that he is, at his core, a committed and practical capitalist in the truest sense of the word, which is more than can be said of both of the Democrats still vying for that party’s nomination.

On the other hand, with respect to the presumptive Democrat nominee, there is the fear of the known — the fear of a candidate who has become all too familiar during the last quarter century. We know all too well of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s arms distance relationship with the truth, of her own questionable financial dealings associated with cattle futures, of her time spent with the Rose Law firm, and with regards to excessive honoraria from speeches given to Wall Street interests, the substance of which she has refused to divulge. We know of her overt and clandestine attacks against multiple women who have alleged sexual improprieties and outright assaults on the part of her husband, and we know of her many ethical violations which range from her being fired by the Watergate investigative committee to her illegal handling of official e-mails during her tenure as Secretary of State, the latter being the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI. We know of questionable campaign contributions by foreign interests, which transcend the respective campaigns of both her and her husband’s, and have now reached into the incumbent governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, who once managed both of their presidential campaigns and was in charge of raising money for each of the Clintons.

Essentially, the fall election will come down to that which is feared most by the nation’s electorate. Will the nation ultimately elect a candidate who scares them for what is not known, as in the case of Donald Trump, or will the nation ultimately elect a candidate who scares them for what is known, as in the case of Hillary Clinton? No one can know at this point in time, but perhaps the thirty- second president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said it best, when he referred to a “leadership of frankness and of vigor (that) has met with that understanding and support of the people, themselves,” when it comes to dealing with such fears of the known and unknown, which is the strange milieu of the 2016 Presidential Election.

-Drew Nickell, 24 May 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Positive Step towards Unification- Trump Meets the Republican Leadership

Positive Step towards Unification- Trump Meets the Republican Leadership

Trump and Ryan

With each of them wanting to acquire something from the other, presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan sat down for forty-five minutes to exchange ideas about the fall election and work towards coming to terms with an agreement on Republican principles, setting aside policy differences for the time being. For Trump, it was a chance to calm the nerves of the House Speaker and pursue his support, if not endorsement. For Ryan, it was a chance to show the public that the House leadership is not against the Republican nominee, per se, yet all the while holding back on any words of direct support or endorsement, for the time being.

While media reports stressed that the failure to gain the Speaker’s outright endorsement, despite pre-conference claims to indicate that this was not the meeting’s purpose, the media highlighted the policy differences between the two, including Muslim immigration, border enforcement, taxation rate changes and trade. Yet, both of the conferees indicated that it was a positive meeting which emphasized shared principles instead, issuing the following joint statement:

“The United States cannot afford another four years of the Obama White House, which is what Hillary Clinton represents. That is why it’s critical that Republicans unite around our shared principles, advance a conservative agenda, and do all we can to win this fall. With that focus, we had a great conversation this morning. While we were honest about our few differences, we recognize that there are also many important areas of common ground. We will be having additional discussions, but remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal. We are extremely proud of the fact that many millions of new voters have entered the primary system, far more than ever before in the Republican Party’s history. This was our first meeting, but it was a very positive step toward unification.”

12 May 2016

While it is fair to say that there are some policy differences which appear to be irreconcilable, it is liberal and NeverTrump wishful thinking to suggest that these differences will stand in the way of party unity, going into an election against Hillary Clinton. In truth, there are a number of broadly held overriding principles on which both men, and the entire Republican Party, can agree and proffer in the fall election, and thereby join forces in a united campaign to win the election. Among them:

– Winning the fight against Radical Islam
– Repealing and replacing Obamacare
– Creating a business environment that encourages production and provides employment
– Possibly four nominations to the Supreme Court
– Addressing the national debt
– Putting America and American interests first in matters of State Department policy and doing so with an acknowledgement of American exceptionalism.

With these, a united Republican party might just have a winning message to juxtapose against the very different Democrat message, and one which would extend the disastrous Obama presidency and further American descent on the world stage. That is to say, save for Republicans named Sasse, Bush, Kristol, Will, Graham and Romney, who can’t manage to get over themselves, realize that the Republican Party is not their fiefdom and save their invective for Hillary Clinton, instead.

In light of the fact that presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, even with all of her baked-in super delegates, can’t seem to quite “ice the cake” on Bernie Sanders, it is now the Democrats’ burden to unite their voters who are, themselves, deeply divided amongst themselves. Her laughable efforts to dismiss the FBI investigation into her e-mail server as a routine “security review” (a term which FBI Director James Comey summarily rejected in Wednesday’s press conference) won’t hold up to scrutiny for long, as it appears that her day of reckoning may well approach- if not from an outright indictment, then from the political and irreparable disrepute that would surely follow a referral to the Justice Department requesting such.

Think this election is in the bag for Hillary? Think again, for it’s just getting started.

-Drew Nickell, 12 May 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Leslie Gore and the Establishment Republicans

Leslie Gore and the Establishment Republicans

It's my party

Most Americans alive today do not know who Leslie Gore (1946-2015) was, but in 1963, hers was a household name. The song she recorded on March 30, 1963, which climbed to the top of the Billboard charts two months later as the nation’s number one hit, has much in common with establishment Republicans who still refuse to acknowledge and support their presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump.

The song was entitled “It’s My Party (and I’ll cry if I want to),” and it could easily become the theme song for recalcitrant Republicans who would rather see the election of Democrat Hillary Clinton than support the presumptive presidential nominee of their own party. Included in this group are former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former New York Governor George Pataki, former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman, former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, former Texas Senator Ron Paul, a half dozen sitting Republican Congressmen and a host of political pundits including Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Katie Pavlich and George Will. Add to this the real possibility that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) will join this group on a permanent basis, and it becomes obvious who is trying to destroy what remains of the Republican Party- and it is most certainly not Donald Trump.

Interestingly enough, at least three of these Republican rattlesnakes, Jeb Bush, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham, actually signed pledges that they would support the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who that nominee happens to be. So much for pledges signed by politicians whose word is worth about as much as the money in a Monopoly game set.

Lessons learned the hard way are never without associated pain, as when children learn that playing with matches can cause burned fingers, or worse. The lesson that has yet to be learned by these politicos is the lesson of who actually “owns” the Republican Party, at the end of the day.

Is the Republican Party “owned” by its voters, who clearly decided that Donald Trump would be their party’s nominee, or is the G.O.P. owned by those obstructive and obstinate operatives who think so highly of themselves, that they would risk the destruction of their own party, and deny the will of their own constituents?

True enough, Donald Trump often says stupid things which these elitists find bothersome, but such an ailment is shared by each and every one of these recalcitrant Republicans, as well as their Democrat counterparts. Given the fact that the last four GOP nominees (Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, and Bob Dole) were hardly “true conservatives,” it has nothing to do with political purview, either. Hence the issue of their disdain for Trump most certainly is not related to what he has said, nor the degree of his conservativism, as they would have us believe.

The reason for their disdain is that Donald Trump’s success in eliminating all sixteen of his opponents in the Republican race, lays bare for all to see, the fact that their vision of what it means to be a Republican has proven to be a false narrative, and thereby threatens the lofty position that they have come to believe they hold within the Republican Party. Rather than admit that their vision was imperfect, rather than change and amend to the will of their voters, these reprobates would turn their coats inside out and see the election of Hillary Clinton, instead. Trump’s potential for loss in the general election can be directly and proportionally tied to these traitors within his own party, and such prospects are the song to which Hillary Clinton dances with glee.

This leads to the central question of who is really destroying the Republican Party.

Here’s a clue: It’s not the candidate who has brought millions and millions of new voters to the ranks of the Republican rolls, but rather the “holier than thou” attitude of those elitists who are losing their grip on the party that they have controlled for far too long, and who refuse to learn the hard lessons of 2016.

Cry as they want to, it’s no longer their party. The sooner they come to realize this, the better for all concerned.

-Drew Nickell, 8 May 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Republicans Answer the Question, “‘Hoosier’ Nominee?”

Republicans Answer the Question, “‘Hoosier’ Nominee?”

Trump Wins Indiana

Donald J. Trump effectively became the Republican nominee for President of the United States by winning the Indiana primary, last night. Gathering more than 53% of the Republican votes cast in the Hoosier State, and at least fifty-one of the state’s fifty-seven delegates, Trump swept all but a few counties in Indiana. Despite the last-minute machinations of his principal rival, Ted Cruz, who struck a dubious deal with John Kasich to cease his own campaign in the state, and who named his would-be running mate, Carly Fiorina, a week before the balloting, Cruz’s campaign came to a bitter conclusion following the results in Indiana.

In winning the state, Trump’s delegate total now stands at 1047, compared to Cruz’s 565, Marco Rubio’s 171 and John Kasich’s 153. Faced with the mathematical certainty that there is no way for Ted Cruz to win the requisite 1237 delegates, the Texas senator suspended his campaign prior to Trump’s post-primary address. In that address, Trump acknowledged the senator’s tenacity, intelligence and competitiveness in waging the challenge to his own primacy in the Republican race. While Cruz fell short, far short, in supporting the inevitable Republican ticket, his suspension of his campaign cemented “the Donald’s” efficacy in winning the race to the Republican nomination. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, confirmed this in a tweet indicating for the first time, that Trump will be the GOP’s presumptive nominee and the need for the party to unite and focus on defeating Hillary Clinton in the general election this fall.

Such a plea for unity fell on deaf ears to some of the establishment Republicans, such as National Review Editor Rich Lowry and one of his contributors, Katie Pavlich, who joined together in unleashing their utter contempt for Trump on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News post-election coverage. No doubt they will be joined by Arizona Senator John McCain, 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, Washington Post columnist George Will and other so-called conservatives in effectively supporting Hillary Clinton, by continuing their diatribe against Trump.

Meanwhile, Ohio Governor John Kasich is determined to continue his hapless campaign to secure a nomination in a contested convention that will not happen, come July. Through his surrogates, Kasich indicated that he “won’t quit until someone has 1,237 bound delegates…,” and promised to continue his run through the California primary on June 7th. In winning only his home state, and having won even fewer delegates than either Cruz or Rubio, Kasich will ultimately manage to achieve nothing more than a besmirched ending to his own political career, by remaining in a race that has already been won.

Trump’s presumptive rival in the fall campaign, Hillary Clinton, lost her bid in Indiana with a surprise win by her own Democrat challenger, Bernie Sanders, who outpolled the former Secretary of State by a full five percentage points. With merely 282 pledged delegates separating the two Democrat candidates, Clinton’s inevitability to win her party’s nomination is only ensured by her supremacy in garnering 1,682 “super delegates” to Sander’s 39. Such is the reality of a Democrat race that was already fixed before it began. She’ll face further challenges in West Virginia and Kentucky, where her stated opposition to coal mining has alienated voters in those two states whose primary elections are slated for May 10th and May 17th, respectively.

No one ever dreamed that in 2016, the Republicans would sew up their nomination prior to the Democrats, nor did anyone imagine that the first-time candidate, businessman Donald Trump, would eventually prevail to be that nominee. While all of the pundits will spend the next six months in trying to convince Americans that there is no way Trump can win the fall election, it is well worth remembering that these same pundits were the very same ones who cast such doubts on Trump’s chances to win the nomination, in the first place.


-Drew Nickell, 3 May 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.