Cleveland 2016- the Speech that Could Not and Would Not be Denied

Last night, before an audience that spanned the globe, real estate mogul and businessman Donald J. Trump formally accepted the nomination of the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States- a feat that no one would have thought possible thirteen months ago, except for the candidate, himself.

When Donald Trump announced his campaign to secure the Republican nomination on 16 June 2015, he said confidently that he would win the nomination, and win it big. Practically all of the politicos, including television and print journalists, Republican and Democrat politicians, pundits, pollsters and the so-called “experts,” laughed about his prospects, first opining that the announcement was merely a public relations stunt, a joke, and by some, even an attempt to clandestinely aid Hillary Clinton in her own quest for the presidency. In doing so, he became the fodder for late-night television hosts, political talk-show hosts and scores of commentators who made fun of, and derisively scorned, the man known as “the Donald.” As the months progressed and the debates evolved, his candidacy continued to be mocked and scorned, as most all of his erstwhile Republican rivals said his was a campaign not to be taken seriously. Even at the onset of the Republican National Convention, after he had secured enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, the NeverTrump cabal of Trump deniers tried in vain to wrest the nomination away from him…and yet, somehow, some way…it all turned out to be the case, that the “joke” was on them, and that Donald Trump inexorably got the last laugh.

In winning the nomination, it was Donald Trump who not only won more primary and caucus votes than any Republican in history, and not only inspired a 60% increase in Republican voter participation while Democrats saw a 20% decrease in their own voter participation (as compared to 2012), he accomplished a revolt and a re-orientation of the Republican brand, itself. What started as a campaign quickly evolved into a movement- a movement to change America from the status quo of fecklessness and globalist-internationalism to a more robust and self-assertive stance on the world stage.

No longer the party of the Bush family, no longer the party of the mainstream, milquetoast and oh-so-moderate, go-along-with, get-along-with “Republi-can’ts” who promised much and delivered little, Donald Trump effectively re-defined and re-oriented the G.O.P. away from its globalist, corporate-influenced and so-called conservative focus, and more towards a nationalist and populist America-first party, bent on re-asserting American pre-eminence, independence and assertiveness.

In a seventy-six minute acceptance speech, Donald Trump hit on every single issue facing America today, stressing his overall vision that he will make his entire presidency all about putting America and Americans first. Not since Ronald Reagan in 1980, has there been any nominee of either party, so wrapped in American exceptionalism, and one that has embodied a movement of change, real change, in the way America approaches the challenges here at home and around the world. He also laid out a comprehensive accounting of precisely why an election of Hillary Clinton would be a catastrophe for America, given the Democrat nominee’s decades-long record of deceit, dishonesty and corruption.

This election, this year, just as the nomination that preceded it, has become Donald Trump’s very own election to lose, despite the fact that Democrats, “Republi-can’ts”, members of the mainstream media, political “experts” and pollsters everywhere will try to hammer home the lie that Trump cannot possibly prevail in November…and mark our words, it will be none other than Donald Trump who will once again have the last laugh on the lot of them.

Bring it!

-Drew Nickell, 22 July 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

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

now available at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/Bending-Your-Ear-Collection-Essays/dp/1633932907?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

Signed and personalized editions now available at my website:

http://www.drewnickell.com

Follow my postings on the RSS feed: http://www.drewnickell.com/?feed=rss2

Cleveland 2016- “Bugs” Trump vs “Elmer” Cruz – “Looney Tunes” becomes “Merrie Melodies”

Anyone, say, over forty-five years of age, remembers the Saturday morning television staples of the Warner Brothers’ cartoons. Entitled Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, now deemed too violent by the politically correct “weenies” for the precious sensitivities of today’s youth, they were once the very high point of Saturday morning television fare to aging members of the baby boom generation. Its unforgettable cast of characters included Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd and, invariably, it was Bugs who got the best of Elmer. In many of the episodes, when the hunter Elmer was about to shoot the wise-cracking Bugs, the “wascally wabbit” would ask, “Eh, what’s up, doc?,” put his finger into the barrel of Elmer’s shotgun and the shotgun would backfire into Elmer’s face.

Last night’s drama at the Republican National Convention seemingly took on the same familiar plot of those long-ago classics and, despite the mainstream media carping of how Senator Ted Cruz “sabotaged” Donald Trump’s nomination, revealed the simple mastery of strategy that is “the Donald’s.”

Plagued by rattlesnake “Republi-can’ts” who are, despite insisting upon and then signing pledges to support the candidacy of whoever wins the Republican nomination, including Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz (among others in the NeverTrump sewer), still smarting from the smack-downs of their own defeats, Donald Trump once again set a trap into which all of these sore losers have stumbled- and he did so on prime-time television, without saying a word. Knowing in advance that Ted Cruz was not going to endorse the Trump-Pence ticket, and having read the speech prior to its delivery, “the Donald” allowed the Texas Senator and erstwhile rival to make a horse’s ass of himself last night and, in so doing, showed a watching world that Cruz and the rest of his NeverTrump collaborators, at long last, care more about their own bruised egos and self-interests than they do about the country, itself.

While real Republicans and real conservatives who, surprisingly, included Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and who are rallying around the Trump candidacy, because they know that a Hillary Clinton presidency will only bring disaster on this country’s short-term and long-term future, it was the hypocritical and thoroughly dishonorable Cruz who showed his true colors last night, and it was Ted Cruz who was booed off of the very stage that Donald Trump had magnanimously offered him in the first place.

In so doing, Cruz not only sealed his fate concerning any future Republican presidential candidacy, a Trump victory in November would likely end his chances of retaining his Senate seat when it comes up for re-election in 2018.

While the mainstream media will continue its mission to pan each night of the Republican convention, emphasizing the attempted revolt of Cruz supporters on Monday, stressing accusations of plagiarism of Melania Trump’s speech on Tuesday, and opining the lack of strategy on Trump’s part by allowing Cruz to speak, sans endorsement, on Wednesday, it is the strategic and calculating Donald Trump who stands to prevail at the end of this convention, tonight.

All he has to do is to follow his children’s impressive lead with a knockout speech tonight, in Cleveland, and then it’s on to victory in November.

As Bugs Bunny used to say, “eh, what’s up, doc?”

-Drew Nickell, 21 July 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

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

now available at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/Bending-Your-Ear-Collection-Essays/dp/1633932907?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

Signed and personalized editions now available at my website:

http://www.drewnickell.com

Follow my postings on the RSS feed: http://www.drewnickell.com/?feed=rss2

Cleveland 2016- The Republican National Convention Opens

With scarcely 112 days until Election Day 2016, the Republican National Convention opened today at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. The Republican convention, all based on nominee Donald Trump’s campaign theme “Make America Great Again,” will be comprised of four themes during the four days which will culminate in Donald Trump’s acceptance speech Thursday night, July 21^st.

On Monday night, the theme will be “Make America Safe Again,” and will be highlighted with a speech by Donald Trump’s wife, Melania Trump.

Tuesday’s theme will be “Make America Work Again,” will include the roll call of the states, and will be highlighted with speeches by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Dr. Ben Carson, and two of Donald Trump’s children, Donald, Jr. and Tiffany.

Wednesday’s program, “Make America First Again,” will include speeches by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Donald Trump’s son, Eric, and the GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

On slate for Thursday, “Make America One Again,” will feature the acceptance speech by GOP Nominee Donald Trump, who will be introduced by his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

Many other well-known Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) are slated to speak during the convention, along with a host of celebrities and other headliners, as well, all in an effort to unify the Republican Party behind the candidacy of Donald J. Trump. Such unity will be key to a Trump victory, following the most contentious Republican primary and caucus season in memory. No doubt, Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence will go far in uniting the Republican Party as it enters into the fall campaign.

Notably absent from the convention will be ailing President George H.W. Bush, his sons former President George W. Bush and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (who signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee), Ohio Governor John Kasich (who also signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee) and former nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain. These “Republi-can’ts,” who cannot live up to either party loyalty or in some cases, signed pledges to the contrary, presumably will be stewing in their own juices of jealousy and discord because they just couldn’t manage to get their way.

Something tells us that at week’s end, they won’t be missed, for in the final analysis and much to their chagrin, the Republican Party is no longer theirs to “own,” anymore.

-Drew Nickell, 18 July 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT : Drew Nickell’s New Book, Bending Your Ear-a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times, is Now Available

Drew Nickell’s New Book, Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times, is now available for sale on Amazon.com. Here is the link to purchase Drew’s book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Bendin…/dp/1633932907/ref=sr_1_1…

If you would like a signed, personalized edition of Drew Nickell’s New Book, please visit his website, via the following URL

http://www.drewnickell.com/?post_type=product

For the signed, personalized edition, the sales price includes sales tax, shipping and handling in the United States only. Payment options include credit card and PayPal purchases only…no personal checks accepted.

-Drew Nickell

15 July 2016

(author’s note- In light of the massacre last night in Dallas perpetrated against police officers of the Dallas Police Department and officers of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, we thought we might re-post this essay from August of last year. It is to these fallen officers, and the families they left behind, that we dedicate this re-posting.)

When Lives Matter

Ferguson…Baltimore…Brooklyn…Charleston…Roanoke…Houston…and, like the Energizer Bunny™ the list just keeps going and going and going…but where?…

Of all of the social movements that have grown out of the events referred to above, perhaps the most moronic, the most divisive, and alas, the most racist, is the “Black Lives Matter” movement which has taken a strangle-hold of the political left, with the blessing of the most divisive president in the history of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. Like no other president in the last two hundred thirty-six years, Obama has done more to divide people along racial lines than the sum total of all his forty-three predecessors, combined.

It is not without reasonable notice that the President of the United States has much to say about the evils of racism when a black man is killed by a white man, but when a white man is killed by a black man, either nothing is said OR the blame falls on the gun, rather than the assailant. Given the fact that 95% of all black men killed by guns are killed by black men, the president is woefully silent with regards to black-on-black crime, instead blaming this violence on the lack of gun control laws. Never mind the statistical reality that gun violence is greatest in cities which have the strictest gun control laws enacted. Better to blame the weapon than the moral depravity of the assailant, and this is where the president’s moral authority is most lacking.

A president is supposed to lead ALL of the people- not just the people who support him, nor the people whose race with which he identifies, nor even the members of his own political party, but rather ALL of the people. To do otherwise is to engage in the malpractice of the politics of division, emulating the modus operandi of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and other megalomaniacs who sought power in precisely the same manner- conquest via division.

Do black lives matter, really matter?

Well, of course black lives matter, just as white lives matter, as do yellow lives, brown lives and red lives, and yes, even blue lives matter, too. In fact, ALL lives matter- and anyone who does not agree that ALL lives matter is the REAL racist. While a Martin O’Malley can apologize after saying that all lives matter, and while a Bernie Sanders can surrender his microphone to a black-lives-matter protester, and while a Hillary Clinton can exploit the black-lives-matter movement as a means to harvest a particular block of voters, these politicians are only serving to make matters worse, by giving legitimacy to what, in reality, is a racist movement- one that implies that black lives matter more than other lives. To suggest otherwise is ironically deemed racist, by the politically correct, when actually the opposite ideology is true… All lives DO matter.

We don’t hear chants that police lives matter, despite the fact that twenty-three law enforcement officers have been killed so far, in 2015 alone. We don’t hear that Christian lives matter, despite the wholesale genocide of Christians in areas controlled by ISIS. We don’t hear that unborn lives matter, despite the millions of babies whose organs are being harvested, for profit, by Planned Parenthood and other such organizations. The hypocrisy is quite obvious- and revealing.

Whoever is elected the next president of the United States will unfortunately be placed into the unenviable position of having to clean up this horrible legacy of the Obama administration – a legacy which has set back race relations sixty years, through pitting one race against another during the term of his presidency. Any candidate who lacks the moral courage to insist that ALL lives matter, has no business being elected President of the United States, regardless of who they are, or the party from which they are nominated. Anyone who does not agree with this premise should own up to being exactly what they are- inherently racist and would serve this country best by surrendering their right to vote.

-Drew Nickell, 31 August 2015

(author’s note- Energizer Bunny™ is a registered trademark of Energizer Holding, Inc., manufacturer of batteries under the same trademarked name.)

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

“So, You Think You’re Out of the Woods, Hillary?” … Hmmmm … Not so Fast…

Hillary Clinton, and more importantly her surrogates, will again and again, repeat and repeat the mantra that “it’s time to move on,” because there are no criminal charges being filed against her, regarding the FBI’s e-mail server(s) investigation. They will no doubt do this, with all of the joyous enthusiasm akin to old people whistling as they pass the graveyard, and/or convicts whistling as they pass the gallows.

Hold on, sports fans…

What we do know is that FBI Director James Comey decided to recommend to the Justice Department that they not proceed with filing a criminal indictment against Mrs. Clinton, following his bureau’s investigation of the Clinton’s illegal use of private e-mail servers while she was Secretary of State. Despite the fact that he outlined several instances where Hillary Clinton in fact violated U.S. Criminal Code Chapter 18: §793 (f), which does not require the stipulation of intent, he made his decision based upon his finding that “she didn’t intend to do harm.” In other words, after a lengthy and detailed objective review of all of the ways Hillary Clinton clearly violated the law, he arrived upon a subjective conclusion that she didn’t “intend to break the law,” all the while insisting that the former Secretary of State was being treated like anyone else under the same circumstances.

Hmmmm.

As promised, his boss Attorney General Loretta Lynch, wasted no time in formally announcing that the investigation is over.

Comey appeared before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday to explain his convoluted and consternated reasoning, and confirmed the divergent, discombobulated path he strode to arrive at this conclusion. Predictably, the Republican members on the Committee did the best they could to inquire as to his reasoning, while Democrats used their time to make speeches accusing the Republicans of impugning Comey’s reputation (they didn’t) and conducting a partisan witch hunt of their own creation (it was Hillary’s), and when they weren’t doing this, they spent their time deflecting the inquiry to off-topic discussions of issues completely unrelated to the subject at hand, and even…bashing Donald Trump.

And yet…

It seems to be the case, nevertheless, that what was not said at the hearing means that Hillary Clinton is, by no means, out of the woods…no, not by a long shot…not yet.

When asked about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, Comey refused to comment (suggesting that that investigation is ongoing).

When asked about the e-mail situation as it relates to the Clinton Foundation, still “no comment” (suggesting that that investigation is still ongoing).

When asked whether or not Hillary committed multiple counts of perjury in her testimony last fall to the Benghazi Committee, Comey said that “this wasn’t part of his bureau’s investigation.”

When asked why it wasn’t, he said that it “wasn’t part of the referral” he received from the State Department’s Inspector General.

When asked if he would need such a referral to pursue such an investigation, he said, “Yes, I would.”

On that point, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) promised he would be getting the said referral “within a few hours.” We’ll see if this happens.

In a forty-five second back and forth with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chaired last fall’s Benghazi committee, the Director admitted that Clinton’s oft-repeated statements that she never transmitted nor received classified e-mails (she did), that none of the e-mails in question were marked classified (they were), that she only used a single device (she used many), that she turned over all of the subpoenaed e-mails (she didn’t), and that her own private server was secure (it wasn’t), were all false- essentially confirming that Hillary Clinton has lied on countless occasions to the American people- in debates, in her campaign appearances, and in her sworn testimony before Congress.

We also learned that Hillary Clinton granted access to her e-mails, including classified, top-secret e-mails to her attorneys- attorneys who were not authorized to view classified e-mails. It was these attorneys who deleted 33,000 e-mails at her behest.

We also learned that the director himself was not present when Hillary Clinton was interviewed by five FBI agents on Saturday, July 2^nd. We learned that the interview was not under oath, and that the question was never asked of Mrs. Clinton if she ever lied about anything related to the investigation. We also learned that she was never asked why she set up the server(s) in the first place, she was never asked whether or not she knowingly sent or received classified e-mails, and she was never asked about why her lawyers deleted 33,000 e-mails. On several occasions, Director Comey couldn’t recall precisely what questions were asked, and only promised to release “what he could” of the notes taken at this interview.

In other words, five FBI agents spent three and one half hours interviewing Hillary Clinton, during which no recordings of the interview took place, and that Director Comey hadn’t spoken with these five agents prior to announcing on Tuesday that it was his considered opinion that “no prosecutor in their right mind” would pursue a criminal referral into Mrs. Clinton’s violation of U.S. Criminal Code Chapter 18: §793 (f), so in essence the FBI Director took it upon himself to make the final determination, based on nothing more than his own gut feeling.

All of which leads us to wonder whether or not Saturday’s interview with Mrs. Clinton was more of a courtesy summary briefing than an investigative interrogatory.

Add this to the pending criminal referral of perjury against Mrs. Clinton’s testimony at the Benghazi hearing last fall, the continuing investigation into influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation, and it is easy to see that her legal troubles haven’t quite left her side, and that her political problems have barely gotten started in this election year- a year in which there is broad skepticism and derision being spewed at “insiders,” of which she appears to be the ultimate insider.

Advantage, Trump.

-Drew Nickell, 7 July 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

FBI Director Comey: Hillary Broke the Law, BUT We Recommend No Charges

U.S. Criminal Code §793 (f):   “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information,  relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence  permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has  been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such  loss, theft,  abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— shall be fined  under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Well, we all knew last week that the “fix’ was in, when former President Bill Clinton climbed aboard Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane for a private conversation with her. For that matter, we knew the “fix” was in when, last September, President Obama said that he didn’t believe that there was any criminal wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Despite the fact that more than 58 e-mail chains on Secretary Clinton’s private e-mail server were clearly marked classified, and thereby subject to criminal prosecution under the US Criminal Code § 793(f), the FBI Director nevertheless indicated that he will not recommend criminal charges be filed against the presumptive Democrat nominee.

Translation- Despite his record of above-the-board, beyond-the-political criminal investigations, FBI Director James Comey “caved” to the political reality that, had he done the right thing and recommended a criminal referral to the Department of Justice against Hillary Clinton, that such a referral at the end of the day would be summarily rejected. Comey clearly lied when he said that “nobody in the administration knew what he was about to say,” when he delivered a statement concerning the investigation. It was obvious that this decision had already been made, prior to Hillary Clinton being interviewed by FBI this past weekend, following Loretta Lynch’s comments that she would “likely accept the recommendations of the FBI,” and prior to President Obama flying to North Carolina with Secretary Clinton aboard Air Force One, to attend campaign events at her behest.

In essence, precisely that which General David Petraeus was indicted for a single instance, Hillary Clinton escaped indictment for many, many times the same violation. In other words, yes it’s true that the Clintons have been beyond the reach of the law for decades, and continue to remain beyond the law, thanks to the corruption that is the Federal government in Washington, DC.

But don’t expect the mainstream media to tell the truth about this- as they are, as they have always been, deep in the tank for the Democrats in general, and for Hillary Clinton, in particular.

Advantage Clinton.

-Drew Nickell, 5 July 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

(authors note- In the run-up to the Fourth of July national holiday weekend, we are re-posting this essay from last year, calling for a true Independence Day, which will also appear in our book, Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times, due for release c. August 15, 2016)

Why we need a true Independence Day

July 4^th, 2015 will mark the 239^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. To commemorate America’s birthday, there will be the customary parades and fireworks displays and bar-b-ques and picnics all across the land, just as there should be. Americans- the TRUE Americans who are not swept up in the anti-Americanism that seems to be the “cause celebre du jour” that has taken hold of many on the left- will no doubt celebrate America’s birthday and all for which it has stood, and still stands, today.

This is the Independence Day which most of us revere, and which most of us are familiar.

However, there is a grievous need for another type of Independence Day- a TRUE Independence Day- the type of Independence Day which will reaffirm all that has made us independent, and thereby, has guaranteed the freedoms that we all-too-often take for granted. In essence, we need an Independence Day which will revive the slumbering spirit of independence, before we finally lose this spirit.

The spirit of independence has little to do with governmental largesse. In fact, it is this same sense of governmental largesse that has come to threaten our very freedoms and sense of independence as we know it.

This spirit of independence is thwarted by the demands for welfare and the transition to a welfare state. This spirit of independence evaporates with every new user added to the growing rolls of public assistance- EBT, extended unemployment benefits, pre-retirement social security distributions attributable to growing and specious disability payments, aid for dependent mothers, and other such programs, all of which have grown exponentially in the last decade. For every person thus put on the public dole, there is one less person who is independent, and one more person who, albeit unintentionally, weakens our nation.

This spirit of independence is threatened by the growing clarion calls for universal (meaning government-provided) cradle-to-grave health care- as though good health were something that should be not only guaranteed as a right, but provided for, by right, when such an ideology does more than anything else to increase the burden on healthcare providers and take ever more earnings from those who still work for a living, by transferring their wealth to those who refuse to work for a living.

This spirit of independence is under attack by those who favor open borders, to those who believe that suffrage (the right to vote) should be extended to non-citizens who increase dependency on social programs, the cost of which is already spinning well out of control. The costs of uncontrolled and illegal immigration, when measured in terms of the crimes being perpetrated by many entering illegally through our porous southern borders, are enormous- and exponentially growing, year by year.

The spirit of independence is assaulted by those who believe that post high school education should be “free”- meaning that it should be paid for by increased corporate taxation, despite the very fact that the United States already has the very highest corporate tax rate in the entire world. The strains that this ideology places upon those who pay their own tuition, and those who must borrow money to pay for their own tuition does more than anything else, to astronomically increase the cost of education to ridiculously high levels. These costs are increasing at such an a alarming rate that we are quickly approaching the day that we will see the margins of diminishing returns apply to the demand for college education- in essence, a college education will be deemed not worthy of the costs of acquiring a college education.

It has been said that a nation in which people depend upon government for everything is a nation of servants- that to depend upon government for everything will produce a system where the people are subject to the loss of personal freedom…in essence, we become enslaved to our masters in government, who would seek to control all aspects of our lives, in exchange for the largesse they provide.

This dependence is NOT that upon which our forefathers risked their lives, their property and their sacred honor, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. They did not fight a war with Great Britain to create a nation of “suckling pigs” permanently attached to the teats of a massive “sow” that is government largesse. No, these patriots were the very expression of self-sufficiency and independence that once made this nation the greatest in the world. Yet now, those very things that made us so strong and independent are threatened, to the point of extinction, by the ever-increasing dependence on the state for everything we want, and determine to be our entitlement.

On this, the 239^th anniversary of American independence, let us resolve to reincarnate a spirit of TRUE independence. Let us endeavor to revive the spirit of self-sufficiency, and reacquire the can-do determination to make for ourselves a more perfect union, without having to depend upon someone else to do this for us. Let us, as a nation, once again project a righteous indignation to persevere on, without having to depend upon a state that would seek to further enslave and constrain our desire to pursue our birthright for this day, and for all time.

-Drew Nickell, 2 July 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Equal Justice Under Law (unless you are a Clinton)

Well folks, the fix is in for Hillary Clinton.

On Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard his private plane, for about a half hour. According to the Attorney General, it was an unplanned, spontaneous meeting where the two of them talked football, grandchildren and the weather, but not about the two criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton, concerning her illegal use of a private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State, and her selling of favors to foreign governments in exchange for cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

If such claims by the Attorney General were not so laughable, anyone with half of a brain would know fully well that the two met specifically to plan a strategy on how to handle (or, as it should be said, not handle) any criminal referrals coming from the FBI. Since the Attorney General has the choice to refer, or not to refer, such a referral to a federal grand jury, it has become obvious that such a referral will not occur, regardless of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that such a referral should take place.

Media and “insider” claims that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is a straight-shooter, devoid of political influence, are just as laughable, as evidenced by her remarks during a June 22^nd post-Orlando press conference where she proffered that our best weapons against terrorism are “compassion, unity and love.”

Her appointment, subsequent to her predecessor’s (Eric Holder) resignation as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, was predicated on nothing else but her ability and willingness to selectively enforce the law, subject to the wiles of the Obama administration. That fact, along with the undeniable and inexorable truth that the Clintons have never had to face justice, despite decades of a well-documented and infamous record of criminal activity on both of their parts, underscores the reality that the application of justice in the United States depends strictly on who you are and who you know…

…and if you happen to be a Clinton, you can get away with anything and everything, without fear of having to answer to the law.

So much for the concept of “Equal Justice Under Law,” or some such rot.

-Drew Nickell, 30 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Considerable and Ponderous Stretch to Support Hillary Clinton

Setting aside the ignorant, the naïve, and the sycophantic souls who dwell amongst us, one has to hand it to those who still support the candidacy of, and intend to vote for, Hillary Clinton. To do so requires a backward bend that would truly break the spine of most ordinary mortals. To wit:

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that one is supporting a woman who has besieged and attempted to destroy a very lengthy list of women who have been sexually and, in some cases violently assaulted by her husband, William Jefferson Clinton…and this from a presidential candidate who purports to support “women’s causes.” One must also accept the fact that she giddily laughed during an interview while bragging about the fact that she used a flimsy loophole in criminal law to exonerate a serial child rapist who she knew was guilty of brutally raping a twelve-year-old girl.

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that Hillary Clinton intentionally and illegally set up a private e-mail server in order to control the dissemination of e-mails she sent and received while she was Secretary of State, and that she did so to hide the fact that she was indeed selling State Department favors to foreign governments, many of which harshly treat women, homosexuals and non-Muslims, in exchange for millions of dollars of cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Global Initiative.

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that in order to withhold evidence from the Congressional Investigative Committee, she intentionally and illegally deleted over 33,000 e-mails from her server and directed the State Department to slow-walk FOIA requests pertaining to the use of her private e-mail server while she was serving as Secretary of State.

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that, during the night of the Benghazi raid and while it was still in progress, it was Hillary Clinton who led a meeting of State Department officials, Defense Department officials and White House operatives where the focus was, based upon five of the ten action items ordained at the meeting, on how to cloak the cause of the attack on a bogus narrative that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Mohammed internet video, as opposed to the fact that it was a pre-planned terrorist raid by an Al-Quaida affiliate group Al-Shabaab on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. At this meeting there were no action items regarding any attempt to rescue the American personnel under attack at the Benghazi consulate.

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that Hillary blatantly lied to the families of those killed in the attacks, while standing behind their flag-draped coffins, promising to get the man who made the video when, it has been documented that she knew from the get-go that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the video, and was instead a planned and coordinated attack by the Al-Quaida affiliate group Al-Shabaab, as evidenced by an e-mail she sent to her daughter, Chelsea, that very night and an e-mail she sent to the Prime Minister of Egypt the very next day following the attack.

• To support Hillary, one must accept the fact that there have been numerous accounts from a host of sources going back to her years as first lady of Arkansas, of her hot temper, vile outbursts and, in some cases, violent tantrums, as most recently enumerated in a book Crisis of Character by a former Secret Service officer, Gary J. Byrne assigned to protect President Clinton during his term of office…and this temperament on the part of a candidate who alleges that it is Donald Trump who lacks the temperament of one who would be President of the United States.

It is even more of a stretch to arrive upon a single, logical reason why anyone in their right mind would support such a candidate- discounting, of course, the fact that, at the end of the day, Hillary has a vagina.

Some reason to vote for a President.

-Drew Nickell, 28 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Pundits and Pollsters Can Wish, Can’t They?

Now that all of the mainstream media has practically declared that Hillary Clinton has already won the 2016 Presidential election, Americans will have to take this with all of the same degree of seriousness that our British counterparts took when that country’s mainstream media had declared that the British will vote to remain part of the European Union.

These same pundits would have us believe, as stated in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, that Hillary Clinton has opened up a 12-point lead over Donald Trump, and that Barack Obama is enjoying a 56% job approval rating.

Ahem…not so fast, folks.

What the pundits have conveniently not disclosed about this poll, conducted by Langer Research Associates, is that the sampling ratio used in the poll favored Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin over Republicans. In other words, for every Republican polled, two Democrats were polled. Based on that reality, it is little wonder that Clinton would be leading Trump in that particular poll, and that in the same poll, Obama’s job approval ratings are right up there with Ronald Reagan’s, in June of 1988.

In other words, the poll that is being talked about all over the mainstream media has about as much credibility as the content of rose petals in a dump truck load of horse manure.

More credible polling, conducted in battleground states, indicate that Clinton and Trump are virtually tied- within the margin of error, and it is those states that the election will teeter, and ultimately decide who will succeed Barack Obama in January.

This is what the media does. They spin the truth to suit a narrative which supports a pre-determined outcome that is completely divorced from reality. It happened in Great Britain when the final “leave/remain” poll got the percentages “bass-ackwards,” and the same thing has happened in this country, based upon the polls that would have us believe that Donald Trump has already and irretrievably lost the race.

Notice that the news cycles are filled with the poppycock that there is a movement within the Republican Party to release the Republican delegates from their commitment to vote for Trump on the first ballot- a commitment based upon actual primary and caucus voting that gave Trump an undeniable nomination win. This is merely the wet dream of mainstream, elitist Republicans who are miffed that the GOP is on the verge of nominating someone outside their micro-managerial control…the familiar types like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and the members of the Bush family, one of whom barely registered in this year’s nominating contests.

Add that to the news that the so-called Republican pompous ass-in-chief, also known as columnist George Will, has left the Republican Party because of the presumptive nominee, and it would seem that “the Donald” is headed for an electoral defeat in all fifty states. It should be remembered that George Will routinely assailed Ronald Reagan during his presidency and it was only after “the Gipper” passed away that Will started singing his praises.

So, while Democrats and their nominee, Hillary Clinton, the entire mainstream media who work at their behest, and the “Republi-can’ts” who have trouble building up enough testosterone to oppose the President on practically anything, for fear of offending their own opposition, can all be united in celebrating Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to the nation’s highest office, the only thing that stands in their way is… the will of the people.

Until then, November 8^th, we look forward to all of the stories of how Trump cannot possibly win, and we look forward to November 9^th, when the mainstream media assails Americans for being racist, xenophobic and intolerant (just as they have in Great Britain) because of all of the eggs on the faces of those who could not see the forest, for the sake of all of the trees standing in their way.

-Drew Nickell, 27 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Rule Britannia- Britain Votes to Leave the European Union- a Parallel Across the Pond

As a rule we refrain from commenting on foreign political movements, for the reason that we believe it to be a bit “cheeky” to insert our nose into the affairs of others, as it were. Back in 1980, we spent four months as an exchange student at the University of London, so we’ve always held an affinity for all things British, and have abided a keen interest in the affairs of our British allies, nevertheless. 

Ironically, one hundred years following the Easter Rising in Dublin which inexorably led to Irish home rule six years later, Great Britain voted today to assert its own “home rule,” leaving the European Union more than forty years after having joined the union in 1973. 

In an April 23^rd essay, http://www.drewnickell.com/?p=694 , we discussed the arrogance of President Obama’s assertion that, if Britain went against his wishes that they remain in the EU, he indicated that their doing otherwise would move them to the very back of the line when it comes to future trade negotiations. 

In spite of Obama, the wishes of Britain’s Labour Party, the strong advocacy of Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain remain part of the European Union, and polls predicting a win for the “remain” vote, Britons on the whole rejected the globalist agenda (one also supported by Hillary Clinton, among others) and voted to leave the union, instead. It is interesting to note that the political classes in both countries all favored the continued membership with one notable exception… Presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, favored what was billed the “Brexit” vote, instead, and urged the British to leave the European Union and thereby reassert and regain their own national sovereignty. 

The voting also revealed a deep divide within the United Kingdom. Those in England’s largest cities, those in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Conversely, those in the surrounding areas of England and in Wales, were able to parlay enough votes to leave the union as the referendum to do so narrowly won out, overall. Contributing factors in the win for leaving included anxiety over unemployment, concerns of lost national sovereignty, and uncontrolled immigration (sound familiar?). Essentially, the concept of subjugating British law and jurisprudence to the whims of non-English speaking bureaucrats on the continent, proved too much for the largely independent British people, who had also decided some years back to reject the Euro and retain the British Pound as its own currency, instead. The vote in England also revealed a degree of divide between whites, who largely favored leaving the union, and non-whites who largely favored remaining within the EU. Similar stratification exists here, in the United States, as well. 

As a result Prime Minister David Cameron, whose own Conservative Party largely favored the “Brexit” vote, announced today that he would be stepping down as Prime Minister, indicating that Britain’s exit from the EU would require the leadership of someone other than himself. He did so despite the urging of his own party’s Members of Parliament that he remain in his position, and it is the early odds-on favorite that Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and former Lord Mayor of London, will be elected Prime Minister in a national election to take place sometime in the autumn of this year. Johnson, who fiercely advocated Britain’s exit, has often described himself as a “One-Nation Tory” and has been called by many as Britain’s version of…Donald J. Trump. 

If ever there was a suggestion that wholesale populist rejection of political correctness in a foreign country like Great Britain might be an indicator that this same rejection could well take place in the United States, certainly this surprise vote indicates a very real possibility that such nationalist sentiments “across the pond” might well prove to be a harbinger of change in these United States. 

Advantage Trump. 

-Drew Nickell, 24 June 2016 

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Naiveté, Stupidity or Deception- It’s the Wrong Approach to Islamic Terrorism

“We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love,”

– Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, 22 June 2017

Hmmmm.

Yes, it’s true. The nation’s top law enforcement officer says that the best way to respond to terrorism and hatred is with “compassion, unity and love.”

Yeah, right.

Imagine, just for a moment, if the following had been said…

• “Speak softly, and carry a big heart.” Not said by Theodore Roosevelt
• “Yesterday, Sunday, December 7^th, 1941, a day that will live in love, The United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by airplanes because the United States hasn’t shown compassion or unity towards the Japanese Empire.” Not said by Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• “Let every nation know, whether they love us or not, that we will offer any compassion, accept any attack, bear any hardship, love any friend, and embrace any foe, to assure that we will not be offensive to anyone, ever.” Not said by John F. Kennedy
• “Mr. Gorbachev, if love and peace is what you seek, then we want to show you unity and compassion by begging you to rethink your position on the Berlin wall.” Not said by Ronald Reagan

So if we are to believe Attorney General Lynch, the best way to respond to those who rape women, mutilate children, sever the heads of Christians and Jews, throw homosexuals off of the tops of buildings, and target unarmed, defenseless and innocent civilians is to shower them with compassion, unity and love.

Assuming that she really believes this, then she is either woefully naïve or as dumb as a box of rocks. In either case, she has no business being Attorney General of the United States.

Assuming, on the other hand, that she knows better, then she is part and parcel of the deception that the Obama administration is parlaying on the American people that Islamic Terrorists will cease and desist their atrocities, if we will only drop our Islamophobic bias, and show them compassion instead…and, in order to do this, we should all be willing to give up our rights to defend ourselves and submit our very lives to the wiles of those who hate us.

And, by the way, we are also supposed to believe her when she says that the FBI’s criminal investigation(s) of Hillary Clinton is something that she has not discussed with the president, and that it will be handled no differently than any other investigation.

Does anyone really believe this?

Not this writer…not ever.

-Drew Nickell, 23 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama and Islam – an Action of Redaction

The time has come for America to face the truth, and the truth is that President Barack Obama doesn’t want to admit that Radical Islam is behind the growing threat of terrorism around the world. So determined is he and his administration to scrub any mention that Radical Islam is to blame for hundreds of terrorist acts around the world, that he has directed his Justice Department to redact any reference to ISIS and Radical Islam, in the transcripts of the telephone calls made by Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, while he was in the process of killing forty-nine innocents at the Pulse nightclub, last Sunday morning. By redacting these references, Obama is openly trying to change the narrative from his own failure to protect the American people from Radical Islamic Terrorists, to a false narrative on gun control and anti-LGBT bias, instead.

It’s not the first time that Barack Obama has suborned the truth to drive a false narrative, when it comes to Radical Islamic attacks in this country.

• When Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people and severely injured thirty others, in a November 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, the Obama administration blamed the massacre on workplace violence, despite the fact that Hasan had been in regular contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, whose involvement with Al-Quaida and multiple terrorist attacks is well documented.

• Following the September 11, 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration tried to blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video when they knew all along that the attack was a pre-meditated, planned attack by Al Quaida-affiliated Radical Muslims on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC- an attack that this administration did nothing to either prevent or provide any level of defense for the four Americans killed in that raid.

• When the Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in April of 2013, the Obama Administration went out of their way to minimize the influence of Radical Islam, despite the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers both admitted that they were motivated by Radical Islamic Ideology and their resentment of America’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

• When fourteen people were killed, and twenty-two people were critically injured in the San Bernardino attacks in December of 2015, the perpetrators of the attack, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, were undeniably influenced by Radical Islamic ideology and indicated they were acting on the behalf of ISIS/ISIL. Instead, the Obama administration blamed the attack on the lack of gun-control legislation, just as the Obama administration has put forth the idea that the Orlando attack was the result of a lack of gun-control laws, rather that Radical Islam.

On Sunday, June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch toured the Sunday morning talk shows to discuss the redaction of the references that Omar Mateen made to ISIS and Radical Islam, because these references are not compatible with the anti-gun narrative driving the Obama administration in the wake of this, the latest attack by Radical Muslims on American soil, and the fact that this administration does not want the American people to associate these attacks with Radical Islamist ideology…

…and we are supposed to believe that this same Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is going to allow FBI Director James Comey to conduct an unfettered, criminal investigation into espionage and racketeering on the part of Hillary Clinton and her surrogates, related to her use of a private e-mail server and her selling of favors for contributions by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation?

Yeah, right.

-Drew Nickell, 20 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama’s America – a House Divided Against Itself

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858

On being nominated to run as the Republican senatorial candidate, Abraham Lincoln delivered in what was then the Illinois State Capitol, the most important speech he would offer prior to his being elected the nation’s sixteenth president. He said so, indicating that the country could not “endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” Sadly, Lincoln’s speech proved to be prophetic. Within three years, the country was ripped apart by the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. Nearly three quarters of a million men were killed in the American Civil War, and its ramifications reached well into the lifetimes of those born one hundred years later.

Never since that time, 158 years ago tomorrow, has the United States been so divided as it is today. While it can be argued that the seeds of this division reach back into the multi-faceted upheavals of the late 1960’s, the ugly truth is that the reason for this division lands squarely on the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

Since his inauguration in 2009, Obama has intentionally divided America along racial, religious, cultural and partisan lines, like no other president ever has. The reason he has done this is quite simple, and his modus operandi can be traced back to King Philip of Macedonia who, in the fourth century B.C., first said, “Divide and rule.” This stratagem has also been known as “divide and conquer.” It has been used by Machiavelli, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Mao and a host of bad actors stretching back across the centuries, as a means to seize, solidify and sustain political power.

Never has Obama’s clear intent to divide the country been on display than it was yesterday, when he parlayed what was supposed to be an announcement by the Treasury Department to block funding of ISIS/ISIL, into a pathetic and partisan rant against Republicans, in general, and Donald Trump, specifically.

At the very moment the United States needed most, a message of reassurance and a call for national unity following the murder of forty-nine people in an Orlando, Florida nightclub, Obama instead went on a self-indulgent and petulant rant about the words “Radical Islamic Extremism” he stubbornly refuses to use when describing the nature of the terrorist threat he has helped to foment worldwide. With a condescending tone altogether fitting for an arrogant megalomaniac, he launched into an angry diatribe against critics who have taken issue with his reticence to use the phrase, saying that doing so would achieve nothing, and only worsen the situation unfolding around the world.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as it is axiomatic that an unnamed enemy cannot possibly be defeated, and history has borne this out, time and time and time, again.

What Obama presumably fails to understand is that the use of the phrase “Radical Islamic Extremism” codifies and identifies the precise nature of the threat the world faces from radical and fundamentalist Muslims who seek to wage jihad in order to achieve a caliphate of world domination, based upon strict interpretation of Sharia law as contained in the Qur’an. Comprised of 23% of the world’s population, roughly 1.7 billion people, it is estimated that 10-15% of Muslims ascribe to this radical interpretation which seeks to force its belief system on the entire world. Every single, despicable act perpetrated by these radical Muslims has been done in the name of Allah, and yet the president insists that such heinous barbarism has nothing to do with Islam, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Such is the lie with which Barack Obama seeks to divide this country at a time when national unity is needed most. After seven and one-half years of his feckless and tepid response to a plethora of militant Islamic attacks around the world, it has at long last been made painfully clear that Barack Obama is aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism. In heaping his infectious invective in such a manner, he is attempting to portray the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as a far greater threat to America and the world, than the real threat of Islamic extremism. A simple comparison in the tone of his diatribe bears this out, and it has become duly and painfully obvious that he seeks America’s ultimate destruction as a result.

-Drew Nickell, 15 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Justice Interruptus – the Arrogant Aristocracy of the Left

Despite the fact that presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton is the subject of two criminal (yes, criminal) investigations by the FBI- one for espionage as related to her illegal use of a private e-mail server, and the other for racketeering as related to multiple contributions to the Clinton Foundation being exchanged for State Department favors, and both during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, she insists that there is no chance that indictments will follow…none.

This insistence was repeated Wednesday night during her interview with Fox News Anchor Bret Baier, when she reiterated that there is no chance that she will ever face an indictment related to these investigations.

How can she be so certain?

It’s simple. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, has already assured Mrs. Clinton that he will thwart any attempt by the FBI and the Justice Department, to refer to a grand jury any indictment, regardless of evidence that would otherwise indicate that charges should be brought.

With President Obama set to announce his official endorsement of her presidential campaign, and his already-started campaigning at her behest, Obama will not do anything that would put her campaign in jeopardy, even if it means that justice will not be ultimately served upon Hillary Clinton. President Obama, who has shown on multiple occasions his selective use of law enforcement based upon political affiliation, has absolutely no problem with deciding who and who will not be subject to the laws that he is sworn to enforce.

Hence the announcement this week that all documents related to the FBI’s criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton will remain sealed until after the November election. Under the supposed aegis of national security, the public’s right to know is being subverted for the sole interest of getting her elected as Obama’s successor.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, then any chance of her being eventually indicted will evaporate into the thin air of her own inauguration, as she will be in a position to ensure that such indictments will never follow.

If presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is elected president, President Obama’s final act on the morning of Trump’s inauguration will be to issue a full and unconditional pardon to Hillary Clinton, for any and all crimes committed related to these investigations, regardless of how egregious and felonious they may be.

Such is the arrogant aristocracy of the left- the idea that no crime is so wantonly serious, that any liberal politician would be held accountable for having committed such crime. Evidentiary to this supposition is that, according to recent polling, 52% of registered Democrats would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, even if she were to be indicted prior to the November election.

Since the Republican-controlled House and Senate have already shown a complete lack of willingness to pursue impeachment against either Obama, or anyone else in his administration, Hillary Clinton is safe in the smugness of her own certainty that at the end of the day, when all things come to light, she and her husband are, and will remain, above and beyond the law.

Therefore, it is the exclusive purview of the American electorate to either condone or deny the election of such a criminal to the highest office in the land, and the most powerful position in the entire world. With the mainstream media so obviously and entirely in the tank for Hillary’s election, such a purview is the perilous place in which this nation finds itself.

God help us, indeed.

-Drew Nickell, 9 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

“Stupid Is as Stupid Does” the Hobson’s Choice of 2016

In the blockbuster movie Forrest Gump, the main character as portrayed by Tom Hanks, is best remembered for his iconic quote, “Mama always said, ‘stupid is as stupid does,’” recalling his mother’s wisdom in helping him deal with the name calling by others, attributed to his own learning disability.

Perhaps nothing could better describe the Hobson’s choice of the 2016 Presidential Election.

On the one hand we have a candidate, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, who has a penchant for saying stupid things. Most recently, he has been excoriated by members of his own party for questioning the ability of a judge who is ruling on a lawsuit involving Trump University, based upon the judge’s ethnicity (his parents are Mexican immigrants), in light of Trump’s stance on curtailing illegal immigration by proposing that a wall be built on the US-Mexican border. While it is true that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is an American, born in Indiana as the child of Mexican immigrants, it is also true that Judge Curiel is an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, has publicly supported open borders and was named to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by President Barack Obama, all of which suggests that this particular judge may indeed hold some bias towards Trump, in adjudicating the class action suit against him. While Trump failed to mention these pertinent facts, and only mentioned the judge’s ethnicity instead, he deservedly fell prey to charges of racism from both Democrats and Republicans, alike…in a word, stupid…

On the other hand we have a candidate, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party, who has a penchant for doing stupid things. Such deeds include, but are by no means limited to, her laughing and bragging about getting a case dismissed against a man, one Thomas Alfred Taylor, who Mrs. Clinton knew had savagely raped a twelve-year-old girl in 1975. There would be many more stupid deeds to follow, including ignoring repeated requests by slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens for enhanced security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which directly led to the death of Stevens and three others, lying about the cause of the Benghazi raid to surviving members of their families when she knew better, insisting that all of her e-mails while Secretary of State, be routed through her own private server instead of the legally-required use of government-provided secure e-mails, and then ordering the destruction of over 30,000 e-mails in an attempt to evade subpoenas relating to the same…in a word, stupid…

Interestingly enough, we often hear about Mrs. Clinton’s “vast experience” as being an advantage over her Republican opponent. Yet, when such “experience” is comprised of a reprehensible record of abject failure upon abject failure, it remains to be seen whether her experience is an asset or a liability in the minds of American voters.

So given the propensity of “the Donald” to say stupid things, and the propensity of Hillary to do stupid things, we are left with a Hobson’s choice as to whether or not stupid words, on Trump’s part, equal stupid deeds on Hillary’s part.

In such a dilemma, we are reminded of the old maxim that “actions speak louder than words,” and it is the sticks and stones of Hillary’s stupidity that potentially pose far greater danger to America than the words of Donald Trump, at day’s end.

-Drew Nickell, 7 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Selective Scrutiny – The Death of the Fourth Estate

When the British Parliament first opened its House of Commons to press reporting in 1787, famed orator and Member of Parliament Edmund Burke described the press as the fourth estate, the other three being (in that country) the Church, the ruling classes in the House of Lords, and those representatives in the House of Commons, itself. Since that time, it has been deemed essential in representative democracies that a free press be the watchdog of all things governmental, so that the people remain informed of the powers they elect. In the United States, this notion was codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, indicating that freedom of the press shall not be infringed upon.

In order for a free press to properly keep the people informed, a covenant of trust must exist between the press and the people it serves – essentially that, in its reporting, impartiality takes precedent to the personal opinions of its reporters. The degree to which this covenant of trust is violated is directly proportional to the deterioration of the people’s right to be informed, and when this violation extends into the extreme, the fourth estate of a free press dies under the weight of its own excess.

This week has witnessed the final throes of death for the free press as we know it.

On Wednesday, June 1^st, State Department spokesman and former rear-Admiral John Kirby admitted that the footage of former spokeswoman Jen Psaki, conceding that the State Department under President Obama makes it a policy to occasionally lie to the press in order to conceal secret negotiations with regimes such as Iran, was intentionally excised on orders of an unnamed senior official with the State Department. Kirby also indicated that the individual making this decision will remain unnamed, and that investigation into this decision will not take place. Can anyone imagine the outrage the press would voice if these were the actions of a Republican administration?

Compare for another instance the draconian degree of scrutiny that the major media has unleashed on Donald Trump, regarding the $ 5.6 million he raised when he skipped the debate on the eve of January’s Iowa caucus, to the complete and total lack of scrutiny on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation and its related Clinton Global Initiative. On the one hand, the desire to raise money for the veterans comes under the microscope of insinuation and aspersion when, in the end, 100% of the money raised by Donald Trump has been itemized and distributed to twenty-two organizations, having been thoroughly vetted since that time, who serve the needs of wounded and disabled veterans across the country. On the other hand, the most charitable and favorable reports have indicated that only 10% of the money contributed to the multi-million dollar Clinton Foundation has actually been given to the organizations it claims to support. Add this revelation to the growing scandal associated with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State, and the two ongoing FBI investigations related to this, as well as Hillary’s suspected selling of State Department favors to contributors to the Clinton Global Initiative, and one easily can see the hypocrisy of the major media when it comes to the comparative coverage of the two presumptive nominees to the presidential election.

The message? The media will rake a Republican nominee over the coals in attempt to de-legitimize his candidacy, regardless of who he happened to be, while a Democrat nominee can violate the law, peddle influence on a massive and felonious scale without a peep from the major media.

In a September 22, 2015 essay entitled The Gotcha Game- How the Media Controls Elections ( http://www.drewnickell.com/?p=312 ), we elaborated how the media plays an active role in determining the actual results of elections across the country in its practice of excessively-biased reporting. Label this effort to bring down Trump, from all supposed sides of the major media, “Exhibit A” as proof of this reality. 

Perhaps Donald Trump has been less than artful in describing the media in his diatribes against what has become increasingly partisan and preferential to Hillary Clinton, but in these inartfully-stated diatribes lies the truth that the major media is largely nothing more than a sleazy slate of reprehensible reporters, all in the tank to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States, and also cover-up the considerable corruption that exists in the Obama Administration.

Hence, the death of the fourth estate of a free press, as we have come to know it.

-Drew Nickell, 2 June 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

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

by  Drew Nickell

Due for Release in August of 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

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

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

“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

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.”

-JOINT STATEMENT
HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN & DONALD J. TRUMP
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

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.

Continue reading The Birth of a Legend →

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

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 7^th. 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 10^th and May 17^th, 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.

Trump and the Ultimate Sweep

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

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

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

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 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

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 blocs within the two 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 blocs vying for the Democrat nomination, there are three blocs 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 blocs of voters competing for their two party’s 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.

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

The Unholy War on Christianity

Easter Sunday, 2016- Following the attacks in Brussels on 22 March 2016, which left thirty-five dead including four Americans, a suicide bomber in Lahore, Pakistan killed seventy-one people, including thirty-six children, in the attack at a local park in Lahore. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban terrorists claimed responsibility for the attack, and said that the attack was specifically targeted at Christians celebrating Easter. The splinter group, having once sworn allegiance to the Islamic State in 2014 after splitting from the Taliban, returned to the Taliban again in 2015, and said it had perpetrated the attack in order to send a message to Pakistan’s leaders…that Islamic terrorism has arrived.

“And their bows shall dash the young men in pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.” -Isaiah 13:18

There is no doubt now, that radical Islam has declared an unholy war on Christianity, which saw 7,100 of its own, killed by Islamic terrorists in 2015, alone. Only recently, has the United States State Department owned up to the fact that, indeed, genocide is taking place in the Middle East and North Africa, where the Islamic State has gained control of large swaths of land in that embattled region.

“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.” – Book of Revelations 12: 17

Yet, the Obama Administration has refused to recognize that these despicable acts are being perpetrated by radical fundamentalist Muslims in the name of Islam, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. While yes, it is true that many Muslims are indeed peaceful, their religion is most definitely not a religion of peace, as Obama would have us believe. Their holy book, the Qur’an teaches its followers to wage war against Christians, as well as Jews, even authorizing beheadings as well as hostage-taking. To wit:

“Infidels indeed are those who say that God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.” -Qur’an Surah 5:17

“Believers, fight against the infidels who live around you; and let them find in you sternness.” -Qur’an Surah 9:123

“When you meet the infidels in battle, smite their necks until you have crushed them, then bind your captives firmly; thereafter (you are entitled to) set them free, either by an act of grace, or for payment of ransom, until the  war ends. That is for you to do. If Allah had so willed, He would have Himself  exacted retribution from them. (But He did not do so) that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who are slain in the way of Allah, He shall never let their works go to waste.” -Qur’an Surah 47:4

Islam teaches that those who are Christians and Jews are to be, under the best of circumstances, considered “dhimmi”- essentially, second-class citizens who are not allowed to be given the protection of laws, unless they pay an annual  “jizyah,” a religiously-required per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands, under Islamic law. Even then, non-Muslims cannot bring criminal charges against Muslims under any circumstances.

Does this sound like a religion of peaceful co-existence?

Like it or not, believe it or not, admit it or not, radical Islam has declared an unholy war on Christians and Jews all over the world, and these savages are determined to bring on an apocalyptic end to the world as we know it, by slaughtering “infidels” wherever they may be found. They have even said so, but westerners- steeped in traditions of tolerance, inclusiveness and political correctness are loathed to admit what has painfully become quite obvious. Until this is recognized, we will continue to lose this war.

One thing is certain. Eventually, the evil forces of Islamic extremism will be defeated, and the evil that it is based upon will be vanquished, in the end.

“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” -Book of Revelations 20:4

Hasten the day when we come to our senses and recognize the enemy for who, and what, he is.

-Drew Nickell, 28 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Nastiness: Nothing New in this Nation

It never ceases to amaze when television news personalities and political operatives- those who should, and probably do, know better- bemoan what they determine to be the deteriorating level of discourse between political candidates and politicians- especially Republican candidates and politicians. Listening to these pontificators, one would be tempted to believe that the back and forth that exists in this year’s presidential campaign has hit a new low, but alas, such a belief would be nothing less than the product of purely partisan poppycock.

The most recent instance of hubris in these regards is the outrage being bandied about regarding the dust-up concerning Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, and Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi. A super-PAC opposing Donald Trump’s candidacy posted a semi-nude photo of Melania Trump, taken during her modeling days, with a message that basically said, “Is this what you really want in a first lady?” or words to that effect. Ted Cruz did not precisely condemn the ad, as Ted Cruz would never come out and condemn any ad that either helps his own campaign, or hurts an opponent’s campaign. Predictably, Donald Trump warned Ted to “knock it off,” or risk the release of unflattering information about Cruz’s wife. When the ad resurfaced, Trump released a tweet with two pictures- an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz juxtaposed against a lovely picture of Melania Trump, saying, “No need to spill the beans…The images are worth a thousand words.”

To this, Senator Cruz responded, “It takes a lot to make me angry, but when you mess with my wife and children (no one has ever assailed Cruz’s children) that will do it every time. Donald, you’re a sniveling coward. Leave Heidi the hell alone.”

Predictably, the major media and Republican apparatchiks like Katie Pavlich, a fellow of the National Review and a Fox News contributor, opened up both barrels on “the Donald,” with a full-blown diatribe of disgust voiced against Trump, essentially blaming him for bringing this campaign to an all-time low. Well, it’s not the first time that she has issued her invective against Trump, as she was one of two dozen conservative commentators who assailed Trump in a special issue of National Review on February 15th.

Well, with all due respect to Miss Pavlich, she knows better- far better.

Any student having a nominal knowledge of American history, knows about the political dust-up between Vice-President Aaron Burr, a Democrat-Republican, who failed in his attempt to acquire the New York governorship when President Thomas Jefferson had made it known that Burr would be dropped from Jefferson’s re-election bid, and the Former Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, who said of Burr, “he a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government.” (Sound familiar?) So angered with this slight, that Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel with pistols. On the early morning of July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey, the duel took place, and Hamilton was mortally wounded.

In 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made fun of the speech impediment of Democrat Senator Andrew Brooks of South Carolina, and accused the South Carolina Senator of engaging in sexual relations with his own slave. Brooks’ nephew, Democrat Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, was so incensed on hearing this that he charged into the Senate chamber and, using a cane, savagely beat Sumner within an inch of his life. From the attack, Sumner suffered what would today be classified as traumatic brain injury, and he suffered with severe pain and debilitation for the rest of his remaining eighteen years.

When in 1950, music critic Paul Hume, penned a critique of President Harry Truman’s daughter, Margaret, writing,

“Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality … [she] cannot sing very well … is flat a good deal of the time—more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years … has not improved in the years we have heard her … [and] still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish”

President Truman wrote a letter to Hume, saying,

“I’ve just read your lousy review of Margaret’s concert. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are an ‘eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.’ It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Someday, I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! (Francis James Westbrook) Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you’ll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.”

That by a sitting president !

While it’s true that the race to the Republican nomination has indeed turned acrimonious, to suggest that this campaign has reached a new low in political discourse is as sanctimonious and suspicious a statement as the intention behind it. Such deception is neither journalistic nor altruistic. It is, however, the poison pen of prevarication that seeks to destroy, rather than to inform, and that is what is truly wrong with politics in America, today.

-Drew Nickell, 25 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

A “Kasichness” in the GOP – Reprobate Republicans Robbing the Electorate

Not one to coin new terms, but “Kasichness” begs such coinage, for the simple fact that reprobate Republicans are spreading an insipid illness, by attempting to rob the electorate of their candidate(s).

Not satisfied that it has become all-so-apparent that Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination or, if not he, then Ted Cruz has an all-too-slight chance of doing the same, there are stirrings within the leadership of the Republican Party that they, and not the electorate, will determine the eventual nominee.

One Curly Haugland, a delegate from North Dakota who sits on the GOP Rules Committee, told CNBC:

“The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination…That’s the conflict here…The rules require the delegates to choose the nominee. Not the primaries or caucuses. I am a rules guy. Rules are rules. When in session, the GOP convention is the highest authority of the Republican Party. People don’t understand that. All rules are up for consideration.”

It is Haugland whose proposed amendment would replace Rule 40, which was passed during the 2012 convention and that made it mandatory for any candidate who sought the GOP nomination to have the support of the majority of the convention delegates in eight states or more.

So, given the fact that, thus far, Donald Trump has won eighteen primaries and caucuses acquiring 673 delegates, Ted Cruz has won eight primaries and caucuses acquiring 411 delegates, and John Kasich has won one primary acquiring even fewer delegates than Marco Rubio (who suspended his campaign), is it indeed so that the rules can be changed to negate both Trump’s and Cruz’s successes, and make Kasich or any of the “suspended” candidates (or someone else not presently running, like House Speaker Paul Ryan) the nominee?

Well, the “weenies” at the top of the GOP power structure are doing their level best to do just that, which just goes to show that these reprobate Republicans would rather ensure Hillary Clinton’s election, that to risk a Trump or a Cruz presidency outside their puppeteering control.

Apparently, there is only one way that this “Kasichness” can be cured, and that is for either Donald Trump to go into the convention with the required 1,237 delegates (mathematically possible), or Ted Cruz do the same (mathematically improbable). In either of these two scenarios, the GOP establishment would still be unhappy, and still do everything within their power to deny either of these two men the nomination. Incidentally there is no math on this earth, save for “common core” math, that can provide John Kasich or any other candidate the 1,237 votes needed to win the nomination, legitimately.

Figuratively speaking, such a scenario might cause a “riot” at the convention, according to front-runner Trump. Leave it to the mainstream media, and the establishment GOP “brownie-hounds” to join Democrats in making hay out of that one, insisting that Trump is trying to incite violence with such unartful statements. The funny thing is that the rank and file electorate knows better, far better, which is why the outsiders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are the only candidates left standing. Should Trump and Cruz decide to join forces, it will be the Republican establishment who is left outside in the rain, and such a rain would be Hillary’s worst nightmare.

-Drew Nickell, 17 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

(author’s note- this was originally posted a year ago on my facebook page, so in light of today being St. Patrick’s Day, I thought I would share it, once again)

Happy St. Patrick’s Day

My late father, who would be celebrating his 101^st birthday on May 16^th, was half Irish, one fourth Scottish and one fourth German, even though he always thought of himself as Irish. Given the fact that my mother was 100% Italian, I suppose that given such a “mongrel” background, as it were, that would make us one fourth Irish, so it is with this horrid cocktail of Jameson Irish Whiskey, Glen Levitt Scotch Whiskey, German lager and Italian Red Chianti, we should go ahead and offer a hearty and happy St. Patrick’s Day to one and all, whether you are a-sportin’ the Catholic green or the Protestant orange on this, the 17^th of March.

Dad always loved St. Patrick’s Day, and so did Mom. Both would be wearin’ the green all over- I think they might have even painted their faces green, if they had had the chance. On whatever night the date might fall, I would be assured of dining on corned beef, cabbage and even a sip of green beer, just for luck. It was one of those harmless frivolities that marked the passage of time. Given enough of liquid encouragement, Dad would even be emboldened enough to belt out his rendition of “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”, in his soft Irish tenor voice- even though, invariably, he’d be sure to botch the lyric, as he did with any song he ever attempted to sing- such were the makings of family traditions, as it were.

I remember his telling of a tradition in Baltimore that, before he was a lad, there was a rather odd application of justice in that city. With so many Irishmen getting drunk on St. Patrick’s Day, and a finite number of jail cells to place them in, those arrested would be marched down to City Hall, forced to lower their trousers, and they would have their backsides painted kelly green and forced to stand until the paint dried. The thought was that the poor lads’ wives would summarily exact a much harsher punishment on their husbands, having come home with green posteriors, attesting to their imbibing during Lent, than the city ever could.

So, when I became of age and began to go out and celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, on my own, I would always get the same kindly warning from my Dad, “Don’t go getting your fanny painted, tonight,” which meant “don’t over-do it.”

So to all of my friends on this, St. Patrick’s Day, 2015, may I say “Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all, and don’t go getting your asses painted.”

-Drew Nickell, 17 March 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Sitting in for Nora Firestone on Thursday, 18 February 2016, local author and blogger Drew Nickell discussed the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,  the Presidential Debates, the odyssey of Donald Trump’s campaign, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the need for a national renewal- in essence, the need for a new and true Independence Day.

Chicago Protests- The Fascism of the Left

As predicted, the road to the presidential election of 2016 got ugly last night- very ugly, indeed.

Four months prior to the nominating conventions that will mark the official beginning of the fall campaign, leftist thugs from organizations like the Black Lives Matter movement and MoveOn.org instigated a coordinated protest in downtown Chicago, that quickly turned violent and prompted the cancellation of a speech by Republican candidate Donald Trump. The speech, which would have drawn upwards of 25,000, was cancelled due to concerns for public safety- concerns that were instigated by leftist radicals who only seek to shut down free speech that does not happen to coincide with their own political bent.

Yet, the idiocracy that is the mainstream media, the political insiders of both parties, and all levels of academia would have us believe that it is the candidate, himself, Donald Trump, who is inciting this unrest- all because he has the temerity to buck the established powers-to-be and advance his campaign for the Republican nomination. So desperate are his remaining rivals, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Marco Rubio, to block Trump from the nomination, that they too have joined in the chorus to condemn Trump for the ugliness that was on display in the windy city, last night.

Ironically, it is these leftists who accuse Trump of being intolerant and fascist while it is they, themselves, who seek to curtail free speech that does not fall in lockstep with their own twisted and seditious world view. This attempt to curtail free speech on the part of those opposed to the radical leftist agenda du jour, is very much widespread on college campuses, today, and is the illegitimate stepchild of aging radical professors who ultimately failed to win the war of words during the late 1960s and early 1970s. These aging radicals, safe in their academic tenures and exalted positions, are attempting to reincarnate the desperate dregs of discontent by brainwashing these young and impressionable minds, who have in turn taken to the streets to protest that which they, themselves, do not understand in the first place.

Many of these same protesters, on the payroll of George Soros to stir up such discontent, as we have seen in the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore, were on hand in Chicago last night, for all the world to see. Regretfully, these protests will no doubt continue to follow Trump, wherever he goes and, sadly, it is the mainstream #NeverTrump trolls and the other GOP candidates, so incensed with their hatred of “the Donald,” that have suddenly found common cause with these malcontents.

And why?

Apparently, it is because all of them feel threatened by a man who just wants to make America great again…Go figure…

-Drew Nickell, 12 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Desperation, Deceit and Demagoguery- the Case Against Donald Trump

When all is lost, and it appears that all the breaks are beginning to fall against the conventional wisdom of the so-called experts, the ugly triad of desperation, deceit and demagoguery enter from stage right, and the race to the bottom accelerates with fevered fervor. Such has become the theatre of the absurd that is the Republican Party, as it enters the ides of March.

Dozens of GOP insiders, ranging from failed candidates like Lindsey Graham, to failed nominees like Mitt Romney, to failed party leaders like Mitch McConnell and John McCain, to corporate icons like Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, are all conspiring to deny Donald Trump the Republican nomination for the United States presidency. In addition, many tens of millions of dollars have been spent, thus far by Republican super-PACs, in an effort to take down Donald Trump, and to de-legitimize his campaign- a campaign that has been run well outside the control of party apparatchiks, and without the blessing of the powers that be. The print newspapers, the National Review, and the major news networks have all joined in this initiative, as well, and it seems that there is an all-out effort to deny the American people the right to choose their candidate through popular voting.

Given the fact that all of these entities have seemingly soiled their britches at the very thought of a President Trump, is self-evident in the desperation, the deceit and the demagoguery of their efforts and it suggests one thing: “the Donald” can win the nomination and win the presidency. This possibility scares the living hell out of the established powers in both parties, because his nomination and his ultimate election would effectively end the influence of money and the special interests that have lorded over all three of the branches of government, as has unfortunately been the case long since before most of us can even recall.

While, as Hippocrates and Erasmus once observed that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” this dubious and dirty deed-doing has extended to the point that many of these Republican insiders would sooner see the election of Democrat Hillary Clinton than the election of Donald Trump…in other words these despicable desperados would sooner support a criminal under investigation by the FBI, than support an outsider who has added millions of new Republican voters and is attracting disaffected Democrats, independents, and a host of others to the nominating process, as no others have ever done. Such speaks to the fact that Hillary Clinton is one of “their own,” at long last, and partisan politics be damned.

Why? Is it because “the Donald” answers insult with insult? Is it because Trump eschews political correctness and nuance? Is it because they just don’t like him? Is it because he doesn’t stand, and doesn’t take, all of the excrement that has been thrown at him, from every direction?

Unartful as he is, as flawed as might be, as unpolished a portrait as he portrays, there is nothing in Donald Trump’s past that even begins to deserve the detritus that has been dumped on him, with charges of racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, ad nauseam, by those who in truth, feel threatened at the prospect of his election and this may well be the secret to his allure. The people, long fed up with manipulation and being taken for granted, are starting a movement, yes a movement, to bring their own country away from the vested interests of the selfish and corrupt, and back under their own control- and it could not come at a better time, nor a more prescient moment, than the spring of 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 9 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Political Poison- the Hyperbole of Hypocrisy

With the nomination process speeding towards its own eventuality, and the ides of March approaching within a fortnight, the political poison of sanctimonious soliloquy is summarily revealed. By employing the haughty hyperbole of hypocrisy that is the hallmark of partisan power structures, such is the case with regards to the Republican nominee of 2012 and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

Launching into a despicable diatribe of desperation against the leading Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Romney showed himself to be all of the things that threaten to destroy whatever remains of the Republican Party, in this election year. Romney, who just four years ago, begged and beseeched the endorsement of Donald Trump, and praised without reservation “the Donald’s” business acumen, showed himself to be nothing more than an arrogant ass, by poisoning the well of all of those who support the front-runner, and everyone else who has worked to hold together the fractured remains of the GOP.

Had this same feckless and cowardly Mitt Romney shown half of the motivated moxie and passionate posturing shown yesterday, when he ran against President Obama four years ago, he would have been running for his own reelection this year. Yet, the message became quite clear that he is more content with aiding and abetting the election of Democrats, ranging from Obama to both of the Clintons, than he is in supporting a united Republican Party to defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall of 2016. His poisoned prescription of suggesting a brokered convention to prevent Mr. Trump from becoming the eventual nominee is nothing more than a poisonous prescription to guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton, all because Trump seems to be succeeding where Romney once failed.

The green-eyed monster of jealousy is an ugly sight to behold, indeed, but the pale and pasty hue of envy, completely devoid of rhyme or reason, is a far more sickening sight by any measure. That is what was seen yesterday, when Mitt Romney attempted to throw a wrench into his own party’s nomination process.

Sadly, Romney is not alone in this endeavor, as many others including former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, Arizona Senator John McCain, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, former White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and the editors of National Review all have conspired to both block Trump from getting the nomination, and block the Republican electorate from having its eventual say. In fact, they would rather see a President Hillary Clinton than even allowing the possibility of a President Trump. It is no wonder that large swaths of Republican voters, who are so angered and so entrenched with the elitist and egocentric establishment Republicans, long on promises but short on delivery, are collectively and undeniably saying, “Enough is enough.” It is this anger that has given rise to the candidacy of Donald Trump, for he is the unintended creation of a political party who has taken their constituents for granted for forty years, or more.

Julius Caesar once famously ignored the ominous warning “Beware the Ides of March,” and he did so at this own peril. Will Republican voters make this same mistake, while their Democrat counterparts are foaming at the mouth and chomping at the bit, to ride this rift of Republicans into victory? The long knives of “#NeverTrump” are sharpening to await “Caesar’s entry into the Senate,” and are all pointed at a man who has garnered millions of new Republican voters into the fold.

To all their credit in last night’s debate, each of the remaining front-runners, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Trump, himself, restated and re-avowed their pledge to support the eventual nominee of the Republican Party, regardless of who that might end up being. Despite their heated and palpable differences, they at least understand what Romney, Sununu, McCain, Graham, Sasse, Rove and many others will never understand- that unity is the recipe for success, that division devolves into defeat and that the will of the people is what matters most in this year of 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 4 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Super Truths-day- The Road to Un-deniability

In the wake of yesterday’s primary results, with both of their respective front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump having each won seven of the eleven states contested, some undeniable truths have come out for all the world to see.

For Democrats it became obvious that, despite his winning Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Vermont, there is no way that Bernie Sanders can win the nomination, unless Hillary Clinton is indicted for criminal actions regarding her use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State, and influence peddling vis-a-vis the Clinton foundation. While the FBI and the Justice Department are deliberately “slow-walking” both of these criminal investigations, hoping that the release of their findings can be delayed until after the November election, President Barack Obama is never going to allow his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to proceed with any such indictment, even if he has to issue a full and unconditional presidential pardon on the morning his successor takes office, January 20, 2017. Hence, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be nominated by the Democrats in Philadelphia, this coming July.

For Republicans it has become obvious that, despite Ted Cruz winning Alaska, Oklahoma and Texas, and despite Marco Rubio winning Minnesota, there is no way that either of them can win the nomination, because neither one of them have indicated any willingness to suspend their respective campaigns, to benefit the other. As long as both of these candidates remain in the race, Donald Trump is virtually guaranteed a Republican nomination that is likely his, regardless, because there seems to be no path leading towards his defeat. Add this to John Kasich’s determination to remain in the race until the ides of March, in an effort to win his home state’s primary election, his presence further frustrates the chances of either Rubio or Cruz to ultimately prevail. While there has been a lot of talk about Republican Party insiders uniting behind a “NeverTrump” initiative, this effort will ultimately fail because even these unthinking and selfish party insiders realize that, to pursue this line of reasoning, will only result in the election of Hillary Clinton and the final destruction of the Republican Party. At the end of the day, these resolute and irascible egomaniacs will have to hold their noses and unite behind Trump, because doing otherwise will lead to their own demise.

For the time being, the nominal quests for the Democrat and Republican nominations will continue, if only for the fact that the financial interests of the mainstream media depend on this continuation, but make no mistake that the General Election of 2016 has already begun, between the Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, and the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton can ultimately win if the Republican Party commits “suicide” by failing to unite behind “the Donald.” That aside, Donald Trump will become the forty-fifth President of the United States.

-Drew Nickell, 2 March 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Day of Decision in the Old Dominion

Dear friends-

As many of you know, yours truly has been struggling with the question as for which candidate I will cast my vote in tomorrow’s Virginia primary election, just as I indicated in my most recent essay ( http://www.drewnickell.com/?p=574 ). You have been very kind in your suggestions on the things I should consider in making this decision- one in which I have felt conflicted, confused and consternated, all at the same time.

As I said, taken separately, there is no reason why any of the five remaining candidates would not become a good president, for each of them is blessed with particular gifts that lend themselves to such an endeavor. Dr. Ben Carson has an innate goodness and gentility of bearing that sets him apart from most politicians. Governor John Kasich is, by all accounts, a successful governor who has shown a can-do approach to the challenges he has faced, both as a legislator and a chief executive of a large and populous state. Senator Marco Rubio has an undoubtable charisma and proficiency in communication that hasn’t been seen in the ranks of Republicans, since Ronald Reagan in 1980. Senator Ted Cruz has a level of intelligence, a constitutional conviction and an overall understanding of the “big picture,” rarely seen in the opportunistic and pragmatic world of professional politics. Businessman Donald Trump has the singleness of purpose and clarity of mission that is the sine qua non of a great leader.

Yet having said this, and shared with you my innermost trepidations, I have also come to see that when the heat has been turned on, to a greater degree than I would have otherwise ever imagined, one thing has become all-too-clear on this eve before Super Tuesday…and that is the sheer desperation- desperation shown by the major media, by the remaining candidates, and by the party of which they are part…to unite to block, and thereby de-legitimize, one of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination, and it is this over-the-top desperation that has led me to the conclusion that such desperation can only mean that Donald J. Trump, flawed as he doubtlessly is, will be receiving at least one vote in the precinct where I will cast by ballot tomorrow morning- a decision with which I have been struggling with these last weeks, since the race really became a three-way race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. While I would not presume, ever, to tell you who it is for whom you should vote, I would also be less than transparent if I kept this decision under wraps, prior to the Virginia primary, tomorrow.

Having indicated that I will be casting my ballot for Trump, I also hereby pledge to support my party’s nominee, regardless of who that is in the end, because any one of the remaining candidates will doubtlessly do a better job as president, than either of the Democrats running, and that can be taken to the bank of your choice. I am

Very respectfully and appreciatively yours,

-Drew Nickell, 29 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Tempest in Texas- Confessions from a Conflicted and Committed Conservative

It was a debate like none other, in the history of presidential debates. The three Republican front-runners descended into a verbal shout-fest and insult-a-thon that, at times, seemed capable of making the three stooges look civilized, by comparison. Unlike the previous nine Republican debates, the tenth debate, hosted by CNN at the University of Houston, Thursday night, was truly one for the ages. Whereas previous debates have had their fair share of pettiness and petulance, this one descended to a new low for the three front-runners, as all three of these men tried to outdo one another in trading insults and displaying boorish behavior which, in all likelihood, was the overall intent of CNN going into the debate.

Retrospectively, it appears that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were acting out a performance based on their respective desperation, because they have come to realize that their perilous paths to the nomination have grown steeper and narrower with every passing day. While it was generally agreed that Marco Rubio got the best of Ted Cruz, and to a greater extent, Donald Trump, any bounce that he might have otherwise attained was completely obliterated the following afternoon, when New Jersey Governor and former candidate Chris Christie came out and formally endorsed Donald Trump.

Perhaps this endorsement now fully explains why Christie went into full attack mode on Rubio, in the New Hampshire debate just days before he, himself, pulled out of the race. Donald Trump, author of “The Art of the Deal,” who prides himself on being a master of negotiation, may well have arranged the New Hampshire takedown of Rubio by Christie, before that debate even took place. If true, then it is also true that Trump is a master of strategy and a manipulator of media, who has systematically taken down every single one of the former contestants who brought his candidacy into question. Trump appears to be on the verge of doing the same to both Rubio and Cruz, as the country enters into the Super Tuesday contests that will indicate, once and for all, who will likely become the nominees in each of the two major political parties.

Taken separately, there is no reason why any of the five remaining candidates would not become a good president, for each of them is blessed with particular gifts that lend themselves to such an endeavor. Dr. Ben Carson has an innate goodness and gentility of bearing that sets him apart from most politicians. Governor John Kasich is, by all accounts, a successful governor who has shown a can-do approach to the challenges he has faced, both as a legislator and a chief executive of a large and populous state. Senator Marco Rubio has an undoubtable charisma and proficiency in communication that hasn’t been seen in the ranks of Republicans, since Ronald Reagan in 1980. Senator Ted Cruz has a level of intelligence, a constitutional conviction and an overall understanding of the “big picture,” rarely seen in the opportunistic and pragmatic world of professional politics. Businessman Donald Trump has the singleness of purpose and clarity of mission that is the sine qua non of a great leader.

In the end, it’s just all-too-bad that all five of these men cannot be president, all-too-bad that each of their peculiar strengths cannot be extracted to create a master candidate like a Ronald Reagan, who both can win the election handily and use such a mandate to redirect the direction of a country headed in the wrong direction, as it has been in these last eight years. Such is the confession of a committed, albeit conflicted conservative who finds himself caught up in the consternation of deciding who to support, as his Virginia primary looms large on Tuesday, the first of March, 2016.

Perhaps someone reading this, who knows fully-well the peril this country faces with the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton, might be able to help this poor soul, as he struggles with such a dilemma in deciding for whom to cast his vote.

-Drew Nickell, 27 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Nothing New in Nevada: Trump Wins Big, Yet Again

Almost doubling the number of votes cast for his nearest rival, Donald Trump won yet again, sweeping the Silver State’s caucus for his third consecutive win. So convincing was his margin of victory, so solid was his dominance across all of the major constituencies, including Hispanics, that the way forward for the rest of the Republican field largely remains in doubt.

There is much talk from the talking heads that Trump has “hit his ceiling of percentile support- that he will go no higher because of his ‘unfavorables.’” These same talking heads said the very same thing when his polled support was at 15%, then 23%, then 27%, then 31%, and now they are saying is again with Trump winning the caucus vote at 46%.

There is also much talk from the talking heads that “if, only if, all of the remaining candidates would just coalesce around a single candidate, ‘the Donald’ could be stopped, dead in his tracks.” Well, maybe. But such a scenario would almost require that every single one of the voters, who cast votes for all three of the other four candidates, would throw their support behind either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. Such an assumption is nearly impossible because some of those votes would doubtlessly go to Trump, others would not be cast at all, and the remaining votes would not be enough to derail Trump’s train, in any event. Add to this the fact that neither Rubio nor Cruz has shown any indication of backing down, and have been going at each other like two feral tom-cats fighting over a molly-cat. As of this writing, neither John Kasich nor Ben Carson have indicated their willingness to drop out, either, despite the fact that they have absolutely no chance of winning anything other than the adoration of those who don’t like the top three.

If Donald Trump were to go on and defeat Ted Cruz in Texas on March 1^st,  and defeat both Rubio in Florida and Kasich in Ohio on March 15^th, there is no way that anyone else could even dream of catching him, and this is the nightmare scenario that the mainstream Republican power brokers dread, most of all.

Why?

A Trump nomination would settle, once and for all, who controls the Republican Party- the Washington elites, or the Republican voters, themselves. Since all of the Republican insiders can only agree on one thing- that they don’t like Trump- such a victory would render these insiders as, essentially, irrelevant, and so would go their influence on Republican politics. The same holds true for the mainstream media who has been predicting the “downfall of the Donald” since he launched his candidacy in mid-June, 2015.

So it is indeed ironic, that it is entirely possible that the Republican nomination might be all sewn up, even before the Democratic nomination is settled.

Why?

Well, for one thing, most of Hillary’s delegates are “super-delegates,” essentially party insiders who are free to vote however they choose, irrespective of primary and caucus results, which is why Hillary left New Hampshire with more delegates than Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that Sanders won the state’s popular vote by a two-to-one margin. Yet, these “super-delegates” are free to change their votes, right up until the final votes are cast at the Democrats’ convention in Philadelphia, later this summer. Essentially, Hillary’s command of the delegate count is fragile to the extent that further revelations regarding e-mail servers, the Clinton foundation, etc., can eat away at her electability, an electability already beset with questions regarding her honesty and trustworthiness. While the Democrat power brokers are pretty much in the tank for Hillary, they also are smart enough to know that Bernie Sanders’ nomination would all but assure a Republican victory in November, simply because there are just not enough college kids around who want free stuff, to counter the remaining voters who would never abide the election of a socialist, not even a “Democratic socialist” as Bernie has often described himself. So, if it seems that the “criminal” cannot defeat the “commie,” a brokered convention would result in a Biden-Warren ticket, in a last-ditch effort to save Obama’s “legacy,” such as it is.

Regardless, the election of 2016 is shaping up to be an election which will doubtlessly turn conventional (pun intended) wisdom on its ear, for the simple reason that the candidate who has spent the least amount of money (his own, by the way) is likely going to parlay what is now, a three-way race for his party’s nomination, into a freeway sprint to Cleveland, “come hell or high water,” as he likes to say.

And that is the reality facing the Republican Party on the week before Super Tuesday, 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 24 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Republican Reality Check- the Trump Train and an Exhausted Establishment

What a difference a year makes.

This time, last year, all of the betting money was on Jeb Bush to win the nomination and be the one to face Hillary Clinton, in what was supposed to be Bush vs Clinton, part deux, the sequel to 1992 (I am so glad I didn’t take part in that wager).

While the former Florida governor returns to the Sunshine State, licking his wounds from the brutal beatings brought on by his one-time protégé, Marco Rubio, and his tormenteureuse terrible, Donald Trump, a new reality is slowly sinking in for the Republican Party. The GOP once thought it knew everything needed to be known about conservatism and what it means to be a Republican. As it turns out, the Republican Party did not know “spit.”

All of its mainstream, moderate, go-along-with, get-along-with candidates have either dropped out of the race altogether, or are fighting over the paltry crumbs left on the table by their conservative counterparts. While partisan purists will continue to quibble over whether or not Donald Trump is truly conservative, the fact is undeniable that Mr. Trump has captured much of the conservative base by voicing that on which true conservatives all agree- the border between Mexico and the United States must be sealed, immigration laws must be enforced, and there must be a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, until such time as these refugees can be thoroughly and properly vetted. All of the Republican moderates opposing these stances have failed, utterly failed, to gain the requisite support needed to win the Republican nomination. Therein lies the lesson first taught by one Dave Brat, a Tea Party outsider who trounced Eric Cantor in June of 2014, to win the Republican nomination for Cantor’s seat in the House of Representatives. That lesson is simple: “Stop listening to your base and you do so at your own peril.”

The reason that the quest for the Republican nomination has come down to a three-man race between Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, is that these three candidates are listening to the conservative base of the Republican Party…something that Gerald Ford failed to do in 1976, something that George H.W. Bush failed to do in 1992, something that Bob Dole failed to do in 1996, something that John McCain failed to do in 2008, and something that Mitt Romney failed to do in 2012. Because Messrs. Trump, Rubio and Cruz are listening to the conservative base, each of them has an equally good chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in November- provided their Republican Party begins to listen as well, and rallies around to support whoever ultimately wins the nomination. As things stand right now, given his solid victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and his likely victory in Nevada on Tuesday, that candidate is most likely going to be Donald Trump, whose train is steaming towards the nomination at breakneck speed.

While John Kasich and Ben Carson remain in the race, neither of them has any chance to be on the Republican ticket, other than as a running mate to Trump, Rubio or Cruz.

What the mainstream, moderate go-along-with, get along-with Republican establishment, so exhausted in their attempt to define a race now spun out of their own control, needs to do is to decide on whether to unite in opposition to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or set afire what is left to the Republican Party by staying home and pouting once again, that they didn’t get their way.

In unity, there is victory, and in division, there is only defeat.

That is the reality check facing Republicans in 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 21 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Democrats and their Dilemma- the “Inevitable” Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders

For Democrats, it wasn’t supposed to be this way.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to be their nominee in 2008, but then along came a charismatic candidate who excited a base that was just barely out of reach for the former first lady, and that is how they ended up with President Barack Obama. After all, why else did the former first lady of Arkansas, and a native of Illinois, move to New York and become, in effect, a “carpetbagger” candidate for the United States Senate? It was so she would have a platform to run for the nation’s highest office. When she came up short in this quest for her husband’s old job, and in exchange for her own and Bill Clinton’s eventual support, Obama gave Mrs. Clinton his most powerful cabinet post, Secretary of State.

Yet Hillary Clinton, whose ambition and desire for power knows no limits, was not satisfied to be anyone’s secretary- not even Secretary of State- and that may prove to be the ultimate explanation as to why she insisted on having her own server for e-mails, outside the reach of her two bosses- those being the president and, ultimately, the American people.

Hillary Clinton is nothing if not an irrepressible and inexhaustible example of idiosyncrasy and hypocritical irony. The patron political saint of feminism who has always believed and avowed the feminist ideal that “women can make it on their own,” she ultimately achieved her own power from nothing else but the fact that she was married to William Jefferson Clinton. Her ascendancy to being the first female partner with the Rose Law firm followed her husband’s election to the governorship of Arkansas, the year after he took office. Her election as Senator from New York, having had no association with the Empire State prior to this election, was clearly made possible by the fact of her husband’s presidency and nothing else. Her status and influence in the Democrat Party all derived from her husband’s political success, and nothing more.

This great defender of all things related to women’s advocacy and women’s rights has repeatedly flown in the face of those particular women who had complained of her husband’s uninvited sexual advances and assaults. From Juanita Broaddrick, who alleged that then- Arkansas Attorney General William Jefferson Clinton raped her while he was running for governor, to Paula Jones who sued the president for defamation of character, relating to his sexual harassment of her while he was governor (leading to his impeachment for perjury while president), to Kathleen Willey, who claimed that President Clinton sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office on the very day of her own husband’s tragic suicide, to Monica Lewinsky who was forced to produce a blue dress with the president’s DNA to prove that she had actually performed fellatio on the president in that same office, Hillary Clinton has had a history of sicking her attack dogs on these women, and many more. If there is anything that feminism- true feminism- opposes, it is enabling lecherous husbands from marital infidelity, but at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton has been just that- Bill Clinton’s enabler.

Now that Hillary Clinton, her immediate staff at the State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, itself, are all under criminal investigation by the FBI, the once-thought-to-be inevitable Democrat is facing a challenge from a seventy-four year-old avowed socialist and former communist Bernie Sanders, who once opined that it was every woman’s secret fantasy to be gang-raped by three men at the same time, in a 1972 essay published in the now-defunct Vermont Freeman, entitled Men and Women. Wrote Sanders:

 “A man goes home and masturbates (to) his typical fantasy- a woman on  her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused, (while) a woman enjoys intercourse  with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men  simultaneously.”

What’s a loyal Democrat partisan to do, faced with such choices?

Such a dilemma is precisely  why it is fortunate to be safely settled on the other side of the Democrat Party in 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 19 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Lines of Battle Drawn- the Death of Antonin Scalia

It did not take President Barack Obama a half dozen sentences to both note the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and to announce that he intends to replace the late justice, before his term is out. As though the president was chomping at the bit to do so, Obama seized upon the opportunity to leave one last mark- a lasting one, at that- on a Supreme Court that has, at times, thwarted his affinity to rule by fiat, through constitutionally- questionable executive orders on a host of issues, ranging from immigration to the right of citizens to bear arms, as guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Justice Scalia, a strict constitutionalist and perhaps the most conservative jurist on the Supreme Court, was widely admired on all sides of the judiciary for his academically-sound and scholarly approach to the opinions he authored, both in majority, as well as in dissenting, opinions. The son of Sicilian immigrants, with his brilliant mind and his honest, non-political approach towards the execution of his duties on the high court, will be sorely missed by all but one- that one being the incumbent President of the United States, who has heretofore shown much contempt for that bothersome document, the Constitution of the United States, to which Justice Scalia held in such high regard.

Conversely, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have both indicated their intent to delay hearings on Scalia’s replacement until after the 2016 presidential election. Standing on a tradition that has been in place for the past eight decades, where Supreme Court nominations have been set aside during presidential election years, it is altogether fitting that the Republican leadership in the Senate take such a stance. Certainly there is no doubt that, if the situation was reversed, the Democrats in the Senate would do precisely the same thing, just as they did in 2007-8, when the Democrat-led Senate delayed judicial appointments proffered by President George W. Bush, at the time.

The question is whether or not the Senate leadership will hold firm in their resistance to a political onslaught that is sure to follow, with Democrats, their candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and the mainstream media at the ready, to charge the Republicans with obstructionism, or worse.

All Obama has to do is put forward a nomination of an African-American to the high court, and charges of “racism” will surely follow any Republican resistance to the nominee, regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, or lack thereof. The same holds true for any woman, of any color, where any resistance will fire up Hillary Clinton’s mantra about the supposed “Republican ‘war on women’,” or some such rot. Given that temptation, Obama will likely proffer an African-American woman, such as Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and dare the Republicans to stand in his way, especially since her own confirmation as Attorney General was approved on a 56 to 43 vote, last year.

There is much at stake for the Republican leadership, should they cave into pressure from Democrats and the major media to proceed with hearings and eventual consent of Obama’s nominee, for they already have had the reputation of acceding to the demands of this “imperial president,” on issues ranging from the budget to the dubious Iran “deal,” thanks to the asinine finaglings of Bob Corker (R-TN), who made it easier for the Iran deal to sail through the Senate.

Even more so, the overall direction of the Supreme Court, given the absence of Scalia, already teeters on upcoming rulings regarding Obama’s use of executive orders to bypass Congress, and hazardously remains in flux. Add another activist liberal to the Supreme Court, and we can kiss the concept of legislative power and the rule of law, “goodbye,” for a generation to come.

All of this lends credence to just how important this election of 2016 has become, and for reasons that continue to pop up at such an alarming rate, to boot.

-Drew Nickell, 15 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Debate Dysfunction – a Bipartisan Malady

In this so-called “Information Age” in which we live, and given all of the various sources from which one can attain related information, one might be tempted to come to the erroneous conclusion that people today are better informed about politics, in general, and presidential candidacies, specifically, than ever before. With the sheer number of intramural debates being televised in this election year, one might also be tempted to come to an equally erroneous conclusion, that people today are better able to select the best candidates to support in their respective parties’ nominations. As much as we would love to believe both of these to be true, sadly, we strongly suspect quite the opposite.

A major part of the problem…are the debates, themselves.

One look into both the most recent Democrat and Republican debates reveals much as to why there is so much dysfunction in the selection of a presidential nominee. The fix would be quite easy but, as usual, the powers-to-be will sadly never go for it, much to the disservice of the American citizenry.

On the Democrats’ side, Thursday night’s debate in Milwaukee offered more acrimony between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders than we have seen to date. Yet, this encounter revealed little if anything to sway their Democrat constituents one way or another. Why? Because the PBS debate moderators Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff offered softball questions to front-runner Hillary Clinton and utterly failed to ask the former first lady the most important question concerning her own campaign, which is “How does she expect to gain the trust of the American people when she, her underlings in the Department of State, and the Clinton foundation are all under criminal investigation by the FBI ?”

On the Republicans’ side, Saturday night’s debate in Greenville, South Carolina approached the food-fight instigated by the late John Belushi’s character “Blutarsky” in the iconic motion picture comedy Animal House (ironically, the character John Belushi portrayed ends up being a U.S. Senator in the closing scene of the movie). The three stooges in the debate, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump spent much of the evening hurling insults back and forth in a three-way pie-throwing contest, largely because the CBS News debate moderators, John Dickerson and Major Garrett, along with Kimberly Strassel, a Wall Street Journal columnist, failed miserably to maintain control in what initially began as a substantive debate on the issues. For their own part, the remaining three candidates, Ben Carson, John Kasich and Marco Rubio each were able to maintain their respective composures by wisely staying out of the free-for-all between Bush, Cruz and Trump. Yet their messages were largely overshadowed by the acrimony on display that night.

Adversely affecting both the Democrat and the Republican debates, and how they are moderated, is the presence of…the live audience, whose raucous behavior- cheering, booing and taking sides- only serves to inflame the acrimony, encourage the childishness and ultimately waste valuable time- things that are most unhelpful in the selection of the next president.

If the debates, going forward, were to return to the format of the 1960 Kennedy Nixon debates, which were televised in a studio set apart from a live audience, a more substantive and informative debate- one which would better serve the American people in their selection of the next president- might be possible.

Then again, when all of the networks ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox Business News, Fox News, MsNBC, NBC, etc., view these debates in the paltry prism of ratings and money, why should the public entrust these enterprises with something as prescient as the selection of the next president?

Why, indeed?

-Drew Nickell, 14 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

TRiUMPh in New Hampshire- The Death of Conventional Wisdom

Once upon a time, they (the pundits, the politicos, the experts) said it couldn’t be done. “There’s no way a brash and brazen ‘reality show’ celebrity, can win an election against ‘tried and true’ mainstream Republicans with long-standing pedigrees…no way,” they said. “There’s no way a ‘seventy-something year old socialist can threaten an inevitable political force, like Hillary Clinton…no way.”

Well, it happened.

By respective margins, of more than fifty thousand votes apiece, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders soundly defeated their opponents and won the New Hampshire presidential primary elections of 2016.

So convincing were their margins of victory that all of the pundits, all of the politicos and all of the so-called experts, who thought that they knew everything that was needed to be known about politics, received a message, loud and clear, that they don’t know “flip” about politics, at the end of the day.

Trump, who bested his nearest rival with a percentage that more than doubled John Kasich, who had devoted himself to a strategy that heavily invested both time and treasure into winning the New Hampshire primary, beat Kasich and the rest of the “mainstream” Republicans quite handily. Trump has also retaken the lead in the quest for the Republican nomination going into the Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday contests which will ultimately decide who will be the GOP nominee. Coming in third behind Trump and Kasich, Ted Cruz, who was not expected to do well in New Hampshire, and did not expend much comparative effort into winning the Granite State, still bested Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, and defied the conventional wisdom that said, “an evangelical cannot do well” in a comparatively secular state like New Hampshire. The remaining candidates, Chris Christie, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina did so poorly that the future of their own campaigns largely remains in doubt.

Over on the Democrats’ side, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) used a combination of his state’s proximity to New Hampshire, a groundswell of enthusiasm on the part of young voters, and a ponderous gap (93% to 5%) in comparatively perceived honesty and trustworthiness, to trounce the once-inevitable Hillary Clinton. He did so by more than a three-to-two margin of twenty-two percentage points. Clinton, who had hoped to attain a single-digit margin in defeat, had these same hopes crushed in the snowdrifts of a New Hampshire winter. Moreover Sanders, who lacks both the political machinery and control of the mainstream media that is Hillary Clinton’s, is now looking at a possibility, however remote, to continue his campaign into the Democrats’ national convention this summer, turning conventional wisdom on its ear. If Hillary cannot turn around, a three-pronged triad of perils associated with her handling of e-mails, the selling of favors vis-a-vis the Clinton foundation, and her own angry and caustic persona, her eventual nomination is anything “short” of the lock that it once was.

Essentially, the Republican tickets out of New Hampshire are four: Trump, Cruz, Rubio and, perhaps, Bush, because despite his impressive second-place showing, John Kasich can only last at the expense of Jeb Bush, who has much more money and resources than has the Ohio governor. Rubio, himself, must either win or place in South Carolina and Nevada, or he is through as a candidate for the top spot.

As both of these contests, Democrat and Republican, head towards much warmer climates, the vicious and frosty attacks that America saw in New Hampshire will only heat up, and become more incendiary, in the six weeks to follow.

Get out the sunblock.

-Drew Nickell, 10 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Governors Grasping in the Granite State- the New Hampshire GOP Debate

In the final debate before the nation’s first primary election, three of the nation’s current and former governors- Jeb Bush of Florida, Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, grasped onto their respectively tenuous footings in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. In a seemingly coordinated effort, each of these governors set his sights on taking down a distinct and different one, of the front-runners, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

First of all, it was Chris Christie pursuing an aggressive line of attack against Marco Rubio, essentially lambasting the Florida senator on his three vulnerabilities: lack of legislative accomplishments and attendance in the U. S Senate, lack of depth in his own political posturing beyond what Christie claimed were “twenty-five second soundbites,” and Rubio’s infamous abandonment of the “gang of eight” immigration reform bill, which Rubio had initiated with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Christie was extremely effective at shaking up the junior senator from the Sunshine State, and pushed Rubio into a four-time repetition of the same, and almost identically-worded statements, regarding whether or not Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing, in his overall failings of domestic and foreign policy. Rubio’s repeated phrasing seemed to prove Christie’s charges of programmed soundbites, replacing substantive stances by Rubio.

Secondly, as has often been the case, it was Jeb Bush aiming his slings and arrows at Donald Trump, taking aim at “the Donald’s” stand on eminent domain- oddly enough because, by and large, the concept of eminent domain is primarily a local and state issue, where private property interests come into conflict with municipal and statewide interests, based upon a vague concept of “the public good.” Bush seemed to get the better of Trump, but only just slightly, as the line of attack about eminent domain was far from the top of the policy issues of 2016.

Lastly, and much more subtly, it was John Kasich who contrasted his approach to conservatism against the conservatism of Ted Cruz. Kasich, a champion of “compassionate conservatism” preaching the virtues of leaving no one behind, including those on the street, portrayed a type of conservatism that seemed in bold contrast to the “dyed-in-the-wool” conservatism that is the sine qua non of Ted Cruz’s candidacy.

For his own part, Senator Cruz initially fumbled on a question as to whether or not he would reinstitute advance interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding, giving first, a “have it both ways” jumbled response on the issue, and then framing the issue in a lawyerly (as opposed to a politically) manner. In doing so, he left the door wide open for Donald Trump to seize the moment and stress that, when dealing with an enemy who would employ medieval tactics including the beheading of innocents, in this day and age, he would advocate even more stringent means of interrogation.

Cruz also took the heat from Dr. Ben Carson, concerning the way Cruz’s operatives used a bogus report from CNN that suggested that Carson had ended his campaign during the initial hours of the Iowa caucus, in an effort to persuade Carson’s delegates to support Cruz. In doing so, Carson elicited yet another apology from Cruz, which seemed too little, too late.

Overall, the debate was clumsily managed at the outset, with the introduction of each of the contestants completely out of sync with their respective stage entrances, and even Martha Raddatz began the questioning, only to stop herself when she was informed by Christie that John Kasich hadn’t yet entered the stage.

While it is still uncertain, as to whether or not the debate had a substantial effect upon Tuesdays voting in New Hampshire, what remains certain is the fact that there are, in reality, only four Republican tickets out of New Hampshire and into the South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday contests. While Trump and Cruz have their “reservations” confirmed, and Rubio’s all but certain, the fourth ticket may well depend on money rather than standing, in the final analysis, giving a slight edge to Jeb Bush. Essentially, if any of the governors fail to win, place or show in New Hampshire, they are all “done,” leaving the fourth ticket to Dr. Carson.

Fairly or unfairly, Carly Fiorina’s exclusion from the debate will have effectively ended her pursuit of the nomination- that is unless the former CEO of Hewlett Packard can somehow pull off a miracle in an increasingly malicious milieu, where such miracles may prove to be impossible, at long last.

-Drew Nickell, 7 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

…and that’s Politics for you, Caucus Consternation and All that’s to Follow

With the Iowa caucuses behind us (well, almost behind us), and the New Hampshire primary looming next week, the herd of candidates is starting to be culled, with more undoubtedly on the way, ensuing after this coming contest.

Following the Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum suspended their campaigns, leaving GOP frontrunners (listed alphabetically) Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump leading the remaining pack, which includes (again, alphabetically) Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, and the Republican version of Don Quixote, Jim Gilmore still attempting to win place or show in the Granite State.

Speaking of Don Quixote, on the Democrat side, hapless Martin O’Malley, the former Mayor of Baltimore and Governor of Maryland also ran up his own white flag of surrender, suspending his campaign while the Iowa caucus was still in progress, an unusual step considering the fact that O’Malley did so without releasing his would-be delegates to either of his own opponents, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. O’Malley was, from the start of his campaign, a mystery unto himself- never registering any notice, never engendering any interest, and his presence in the Democrat debates was, at best, an exercise in futility and inconsequence.

With the Des Moines Register calling for a complete audit of the Democrat caucus, it seems that the shenanigans of that party’s caucus even managed to surpass the kerfuffle of the Republican kluster-phuck. At least six Democrat precincts settled their respective impasses with a coin toss, all of which fell to the favor of Hillary Clinton – practically impossible as odds of coin tosses go, there was even more ambiguity regarding how the delegates were allotted in the first place, because the rules in the Iowa Democrat Party eschew the counting of actual popular vote totals. Given the fact that Clinton claimed victory the evening before the tallies were released the following afternoon, it seemed that the Iowa Democrats fixed the outcome, and that Hillary Clinton knew the “fix was in.”

Meanwhile the GOP had their own issues, with the Ted Cruz campaign tweeting to all of their 1,500 precinct captains, a pejorative claim that Dr. Ben Carson was suspending his campaign in an effort to pilfer his own votes to Cruz. Attempting to blame the confusion on CNN, Ted Cruz apologized to Carson the next day, but this did nothing to calm the fears that Cruz “won” the caucus, based on a lie that Carson was out. While it is possible that the resulting votes propelled Cruz past Donald Trump (assuming that merely an average of four votes in each of the 1,500 precincts went to Cruz that might otherwise have gone to Carson), Dr. Carson would still have come in fourth place, behind Cruz, Trump and Rubio. Yet, it may well have denied “the Donald” a victory in the contest, but that is something that may never be known, definitively, in any event. While second-place finisher Trump, third-place finisher Rubio, and fourth-place finisher Carson can grumble all they want about the dirtiness of Cruz’s victory, inane calls for a caucus “redo” are not going to happen, primarily due to the costs associated with a repeated caucus and the fact that, in the end, it would only amount to the shift of one single delegate awarded, for each of Cruz (-1), Trump(+1), and Rubio (+1).

Should the remaining Republican contestants Bush, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, and Kasich, fail to win, place or show in the New Hampshire primary, their campaigns will essentially be finished, leaving the South Carolina, Nevada and “Super Tuesday” contests to be settled amongst the top three, Cruz, Trump and Rubio, as Gilmore doesn’t stand a chance of accomplishing anything, other than appearing to be the south end of a northbound elephant, should he decide to stay in the race.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is expected to win the New Hampshire primary with great ease but, for all intents and purposes, that will mark the high tide of his campaign- setting aside even worse revelations about Hillary’s illegal e-mail operations, because Comrade Sanders has no chance of winning primaries in the South.

However, if that unlikely win by Sanders should come to pass and/or it is followed by an unlikely, albeit deserved indictment of Hillary Clinton, there is a sitting Vice President (Biden) and a Massachusetts Senator (Elizabeth Warren) ready to snatch the nomination away from Sanders, and will surely set DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s curly hair afire.

-Drew Nickell, 4 February 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

(authors note: Three years ago, today, the Baltimore Ravens won their second Super Bowl. To mark the occasion, I will re-post what I wrote, back then…)

What it Means to Baltimore

Today, M & T Bank Stadium is silent and the good people of Baltimore have returned to work and school and the normal routines that associate to their individual lives. The traffic on Pratt Street has resumed its normal morning rush hour crawl and life goes on in Charm City. Yet, there is indeed something transcendent in the wake of a Super Bowl victory that will last beyond the shards of confetti drifting in the air, beyond the arrival of spring and, yes, beyond the season to come in the Ravens’ quest for repeated glory.

When the Ravens won their first Super Bowl championship a dozen years ago, the wounds suffered by the loving fans of the departed Colts began a process of healing, almost as if to say, the NFL is wrong- Baltimore deserves a team, after all. But the chip that seems to have been glued to the shoulders of Baltimore’s frenzied football fans remained, despite the fact that the Ravens have had more than their share of winning seasons and post-season playoff berths. Despite these successes, Baltimore still felt compelled to justify their existence in the National Football League- as if the relocation of Art Modell’s franchise, which only resulted in a three-year hiatus for Browns fans, somehow approached the absolute travesty of what Robert Irsay had done to Baltimore, pilfering a cherished tradition of name, identity, logo, tradition, history, etc. While any reasonable and impartial observer can plainly recognize the difference between the two, the talking class would still deny the late Modell’s entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame- that same establishment that has the very gall to identify Johnny Unitas, John Mackey, Art Donovan, Gino Marchetti, Jim Parker, Raymond Berry, Lenny Moore and Ted Hendricks as Indianapolis Colts. (Now that is a travesty). At least, soon-to-be-inducted Jonathan Ogden, the first player the Ravens drafted in 1996, won’t suffer that indignity, and neither will the fans who have supported the Ravens these last seventeen years.

Now that the Ravens have won their second Super Bowl since their own inception, the time for self-justification has, at long last, passed. The Ravens are World Champions for the second time and there can be no denying Baltimore its deserved status as home to the World Champions of professional football. The city has won NFL championships in 1958, 1959, 1968 and 1970 (Super Bowl V) as the Colts, a USFL championship as the Stars in 1985, a Canadian Football League Championship as the Stallions in 1995 and, yes, a second Super Bowl Victory as the Ravens in 2000. But this time, in culmination of the 2012 season, it’s different because the city’s third Super Bowl victory is immeasurably sweeter, than all of the previous championships combined. Why? Because Baltimore, at long last, needs no justification for its existence in the National Football League…after all these years, they have arrived.

Viva le Ravens!

Je t’aime, Baltimore!

-Drew Nickell, 6 February 2013

©2013 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Cruz-n’ on the Right, Cliff-hangin’ on the Left- the Iowa Caucuses of 2016

Back in the day when the Baltimore Colts prepared to take the field, the team’s three captains would each be given a chance to address the team, just before exiting the locker room. The defensive team’s captain and the special team’s captain would each implore their respective squad’s members to “give it their best,” etc., etc. Then, after the “we gonnas” were all said and done, the offensive team’s captain who, from 1957-1972, was all-time great Johnny Unitas, always, always said the same thing, each and every time, “Talk’s cheap…let’s go play.”

Insofar as Iowa goes, the time for cheap talk was finally over, and Senator Ted Cruz won the day, handily, defeating front-runner Donald Trump by a solid four-point margin in the nation’s first official nominating contest. Cruz won the contest in the Hawkeye State the old fashioned way, with a solid ground game and an in-person, tour-de-force statewide canvassing throughout Iowa’s ninety-nine counties. It just goes to show that hard work and diligence does, indeed, pay off- pre-election polling and punditry, be damned. Cruz managed to weave together a winning tapestry of evangelicals, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, and Republican stalwarts to fashion a hard-fought and hard-won victory- one sorely needed as he heads into first, the New Hampshire primary, where he is not expected to win, and then the South Carolina primary, where he could very well parlay the Iowa win into his first primary victory.

Donald Trump and Marco Rubio also turned in solid results, with Trump edging out Marco Rubio by a single percentage point. Admittedly, Trump lacked the ground game that was key to Cruz’s victory, and much of his own support came from first-time voters who flocked to “the Donald” out of their disgust with the “same old, same old” from Washington politicians. There was much posturing, particularly by Fox News, as to whether or not Trump’s skipping the Iowa debate had anything to do with his second-place finish. Yet that is, at best, nothing more than conjecture, because he just did not have an in-state organization and ground game that came anywhere near what Cruz had put into place. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio stunned the nation with a very solid third-place showing, beating the odds as well as the pre-election polls and nearly surpassing Trump, in the end. Rubio rode the wave of a last-minute surge and goes into New Hampshire as the odds-on rising star in that state’s primary who, for the time being, is Trump’s to lose given “the Donald’s” polling numbers in the Granite State. If Rubio manages a second-place finish in New Hampshire, he will have surpassed Chris Christie and the other “mainstream candidates” vying for solid “also-rans” in the nation’s first primary. Additionally, if Rubio does manage a second- or a third-place finish, it will prove to be the swan song for the remaining candidates Christie, along with Ben Carson, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum and Jim Gilmore, who will join Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and Scott Walker in suspending their campaigns.

Speaking of Carson, there were some reports of some of Cruz’s surrogates, including his co-campaign manager, Rep. Steve King, sending out a false narrative that Dr. Carson had suspended his campaign, in a deceptive effort to woo Carson’s evangelical delegates to the Cruz camp. Carson, himself, managed to gain just under ten percent in the Iowa caucus, and thereby achieved a fourth place finish. Even if Dr. Carson’s allegations prove to be true, there wouldn’t have been enough “pilfered” votes to propel him into the top three finishers, nor would it have driven Cruz into a second-place finish.

Over on the Democrat side, three tenths of one percent– a difference of four delegates is the razor-thin margin that Hillary Clinton maintains over Bernie Sanders, as of this writing, in a race still too close to call. It is significant that in at least six of the precincts, a coin-toss was needed to produce an eventual outcome and delegate determination- and as fate would inexorably and inexplicably have it, Hillary “won” all six of the coin-tosses. Had they gone Sanders’ way, it would be Sanders who would have been leading Hillary by two delegates. Sanders, who is expected to win by a wide margin in in New Hampshire, is nevertheless able to claim a moral victory, considering he was down fifty points in Iowa’s polling, less than a year ago. Hapless Martin O’Malley, who barely registered in Iowa, had no choice but to suspend his campaign well before the night’s caucuses were over.

By this time, next month, the quest for the Republican nomination will be, essentially, a three-man race between Cruz, Rubio and Trump or, at most, a four-man race between these three, and one more. The only question will be as to who, if any, will be that fourth- Carson or Christie are the only possibilities, and these are remote, at best.

Now that the Democrats are officially down to two choices, as they have essentially always been, their nomination remains as murky as ever. If Hillary Clinton prevails in South Carolina and Nevada, and runs the table on “Super Tuesday,” she will essentially have gained the Democrat nomination. Should Bernie Sanders prevail, then look for Joe Biden and/or Elizabeth Warren to make a late bid for a nomination, even if it means doing so at a brokered convention, that is- unless the Democrats enter the fantasy land that would foresee a self-described and elderly socialist becoming the next president of the United States.

-Drew Nickell, 2 February 2016

©2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Iowa in Absentia – Megyn Kelly’s “Minus-1 Debate”

Reveling in her star role in the making and management of the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate, Fox News’s diva prima donna, Megyn Kelly, star of the nightly Fox News show “The Kelly File,” eclipsed her two co-moderators, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, and jumped from her assigned role as co-moderator, to acting the part of a candidate and active participant herself, by engaging in argument with candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, during last night’s event.

For those who witnessed this spectacle in Des Moines, last night, never have they seen anything like this performance by Ms. Kelly, who acted as though she were a judge presiding over a show called the “GOP Gotcha Game,” as she went beyond her role as questioner and assumed the role of prosecuting attorney, all in a determined effort to make fun of front-runner Donald Trump’s absence, take down the other two front runners, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and prop up the Fox News preferred candidate, Jeb Bush.

When a reporter becomes the story, to the extent that a fair and balanced debate is in question, then a debate has been replaced by nothing less than a feature show, starring a reporter whose looks have, in essence, become a substitute for fair and balanced journalism. Given her tremendous following, thanks in large part to what men perceive as her overall attractiveness, and her over-the-top persona which has propelled Ms. Kelly’s weeknight show high in the ratings, she has taken her lofty position and used it to assume an active role in presidential politics, by picking for herself the winners and losers in the GOP nomination of 2016.

It is true enough that leading candidate Donald Trump has only magnified Kelly’s role in this regard, by first demanding she be pulled from the moderating panel, and then abstaining from participating in the debate, itself, when this demand was rebuffed by Fox News director, Roger Ailes. This led to the misguided perception that he was “afraid” to answer questions posed by Kelly when, in actuality, much more was at play here. It is no secret that Fox News has played an active role in seeking Trump’s marginalization, first by downplaying his candidacy and then by actively criticizing his stances on immigration, his often boorish behavior towards his GOP opponents, and his advocacy of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. However, behind the scenes, there is much more at play in this tete-a-tete between Trump and Fox News, given the fact that News Corp’s (the owner of Fox News) Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch just happens to also be co-chairman of the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE), a lobbying firm which advocates open borders.

As for the “debate” itself, Trump’s absence did manage to open up a venue for the “candidate wannabes,” Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ben Carson and John Kasich, to turn in what can arguably be said as their greatest performances, to date. In their respective dust-ups with Megyn Kelly, Marco Rubio managed to fare better than Ted Cruz, both of whom were asked questions about their stances on immigration, coupled with videos of each of them addressing the issue several years before- a first for a presidential debate (surely, it would be a cold day in hell, before any network, including Fox News, would give such treatment to Hillary Clinton in a debate). It is also suspect that the questions posed to Jeb Bush, were comparatively grapefruit-sized “softballs,” which the former Florida governor managed to hit out of the park. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had a good night as well, especially when he said, “Let’s cut out the Washington ‘bull,’ and fix these problems, instead.”

Despite what all of the pundits are saying concerning Donald Trump’s absence from Megyn Kelly’s “Minus 1 Debate”, it will be left to the Iowa voters to determine whether or not “the Donald” made the right decision in sitting this one out. He’s not the first to do so. Ronald Reagan decided not to participate in the Iowa Debate back in 1980, and he ended up trouncing Jimmy Carter in a landslide the following November. Certainly, Trump is no Reagan, but alas, it has become obvious that he is also no fool for Megyn Kelly and Fox News, either.

Let the voting commence!

-Drew Nickell, 28 January 2016

©2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Cannibalism on the Right- National Review’s Hit Piece on Trump 

If ever there was a year for Republicans to win a presidential election, surely 2016 is the year. With Barack Obama’s popularity at an all-time low, and the chances, however small, that front-runner Hillary Clinton might be indicted for a ponderous list of felonies related to her handling of classified e-mails and influence peddling vis-à-vis the Clinton Foundation, one would think that this is the year for a Republican resurgence like no other. 

However, thanks to a group of conservative malcontents including Glenn Beck, David Boaz, Brent Bozell, Mona Charon, Ben Domenech, Erick Erickson, Steven Hayward, Mark Helprin, William Kristol, Yuval Levin, Dana Loesch, Andrew McCarthy, David McIntosh, Michael Medved, Edwin Meese, Russell Moore, Michael Mukasey, Katie Pavlich, John Podhoretz, RR Reno, Thomas Sowell and Cal Thomas, the happiest politician in the United States is…Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Why? Because it is this very group of conservative pundits who are effectively doing the dirty work for Democrats, who should otherwise be worried- very worried, about their chances to retain the White House in 2017. Look again at this list of writers, many of whom are well-recognized, long-time stalwarts of the conservative movement, going back decades- and yet… 

It seems that they would rather eat their own, than concede the Republican nomination to anyone who is outside the mainstream of establishment Republicans, the same establishment Republicans who allow President Obama to rule via fiat, the same establishment Republicans who concede budgetary discretion to the most spendthrift president in U.S. history, the same establishment Republicans who have oft-promised, yet never delivered, on campaign promises to promote a conservative agenda and who, once elected, blur the very lines that separate themselves from the Democrats, who always end up getting their way on the issues that matter most to the Republican electorate. 

These same sanctimonious and self-serving elitists, who never gave a second thought to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, six months ago, who were all-but-convinced that Jeb Bush would become the inevitable Republican standard-bearer, a year ago, suddenly woke up from their collective New Year’s Eve hangover, and realized that it is highly probable that either Trump or Cruz will ultimately become the Republican presidential nominee for 2016- and they cannot stand either one of these two- albeit for very different reasons, except one- both of them can win a nomination and, perhaps even win an election, without having to genuflect to the Republican kingmakers and power brokers of yesteryear- and this irritates the excrement out of them. This is precisely why, a fortnight away from the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, they decided to get together in a last-ditch effort to place a hit on the GOP front-runner. 

While a Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush, a John Kasich can take solace in the National Review’s condemnation of Donald Trump, it is none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton who dances the happy dance, that Republicans seem to be eating their own and, by publishing such hit pieces excoriating their own front-runner, are paving the way towards her own election, next fall- an election that she should otherwise stand not a chance in hell of winning, in any event. 

-Drew Nickell, 26 January 2016 

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

A Most Disturbing Reincarnation

It was a news story that might have been easily missed, but a news story, all the same. For the first time since World War II, an all-new edition of “Mein Kampf,” the despicable and diabolical autobiography/manifesto of Adolf Hitler, and printed in German, was placed on sale in Germany, and was sold out (4,000 copies) in less than a week.

For more than seventy years, the publication and distribution of this book was banned by the German government, but on the expiration of the copyright which had heretofore placed this ban into effect, it became public property, which essentially allowed its republication. Worse, the German public has seized upon its availability, and it has become an instant best-seller in that country.

Nothing could prove to be more incendiary, nor have a greater potential for misuse, than the republication and distribution of Adolf Hitler’s political and social commentary as contained in this book, which includes his twisted vision of anti-Semitism, lebensraum, and militant Aryanism. Written during his imprisonment in Landsberg, following the failed “Beer Hall Putsch” in Munich, on 8-9 November 1923, and dictated to Rudolf Hess, it sold more than ten million copies in Germany, prior to the end of the Second World War. In effect, it became the pro-forma bible and textbook of National Socialism, and poisoned the minds of Germans who came to regard their Fuhrer as something short of a deity, blindly following him and his henchmen into a holocaustic abyss, which resulted in the systematic slaughter of eleven million, including six million Jews.

Even more horrific than the Holocaust itself, is the fact that this nightmare took place a little more than seventy years ago- barely a second ago, on the proverbial clock that is the grand scheme of world history. Indeed, if it can happen as it did so relatively recently, it can easily happen again in the not-so-distant future, which is why the book’s republication has so much potential danger.

In a present-day Germany, where tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have been permitted entry, and where hordes of Muslim men have been engaging in mass rapes and other forms of sexual assault on German women in Cologne and other regions of that country, it is easy to see that such an environment can cause enough panic to lead otherwise thinking people to places that they should not venture- specifically, into ideologies that are as sick and twisted as those espoused in Nazism. History has shown that time and time, again, a void in the political power structure can lead to its replacement, by dangerous policies and ideologies that can lead to cataclysm.

All it takes is for a U.S. President to ignore his own “line-in-the-sand,” by effectively standing back and permitting a Bashar Assad regime to use chemical weapons to commit genocide on his own people, and a German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to open the door to a quarter million of these refugees- many of whom are young men whose twisted ideology, and radical interpretation of Islamic ideology, permits and sanctions the rape of “improperly dressed infidels”, to create a potential powder-keg in a European continent whose culture and Christianity is under constant assault from without, and within, as well.

Now, into that void has entered a book that should never have been published, a book which should have never been sold, a book whose most disturbing reincarnation, and regrettable re-distribution, is flying off the shelves of German booksellers- laying the groundwork for a reactionary response that will only serve to inflame and inspire an ideology that was once thought to be extinguished and rendered asunder.

-Drew Nickell, 18 January 2016

©2016, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Palmetto Posturing- Recapping the 2016 Charleston GOP Debate

…and then there were ten…ten remaining Republican contestants, each longing for a good showing in next month’s Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

In the final run-up to those opening contests, ten of the eleven remaining candidates for the GOP presidential nomination participated in Thursday night’s debate in North Charleston, South Carolina. Included in the comparatively raucous crowd, was South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, fresh off of her response to the State of the Union where she attempted to tacitly assail front-runner Donald Trump for his stance on temporarily banning Muslim immigration, and the erstwhile-trailing candidate Lindsey Graham, who this very morning endorsed Jeb Bush (no shock, there), who is the ultimate mainstream, moderate go-along-with, get-along-with Washington insider, and who never had ANY chance of either winning the nomination or being elected, in the first place.

For his own part, Trump needed to tamp down the potential effects of Governor Haley’s comments regarding the “angry voices who would seek to ban immigration”. He also very much needed to rise above the fray, and certify his credentials that he can lead the party to victory, despite what the establishment Republicans and talking heads in the media would have the rest of us believe. On those scores, “the Donald” managed to make a good show of it, by “owning” the “anger” to which Governor Haley had alluded. His finest moment, however, occurred when he chastised Ted Cruz for his commentary regarding Trump’s “New York values”, reminding the Texas Senator of the greatness of New Yorkers’ response in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Going into the debate, Ted Cruz had the toughest job of all- to disencumber the notion that his Canadian birth to an American mother disqualifies him as a “natural born” citizen and candidate for president, all the while doing so with charm and charisma- the two things that so far have seemed to be his personal drawbacks, despite the fact that he is the most-consistently conservative and intellectually-savvy candidate running. He addressed the former well enough, but fell a bit short of cementing his legitimacy as a viable candidate, even though the fact that the circumstances of his birth indeed qualifies him as a “natural born” candidate. He also provided some good one-liners, but ultimately lost his dust-up with Marco Rubio, regarding Rubio’s charges that Cruz has repeatedly flip-flopped on immigration.

Marco Rubio, himself, needed to utilize his glib delivery and statesmanlike oratory to underwrite his credentials as someone who can take on Hillary Clinton without fear or a propensity to be shut down, if such a debate were to occur next autumn. In short, he delivered splendidly- quashing any doubts that he has the skills to effectively and aggressively take on both Hillary and Obama. Not one of the contenders can frame an argument, or deliver it more convincingly, than Marco Rubio, as he has consistently shown in the course of these debates.

Dr. Ben Carson needed to show that he is continuing to master the issues- something that was sorely lacking in his first few performances. He also needed to show a bit more aggressiveness, so that the voters can believe he has a chance to defeat Hillary in an election. As to the former, he has caught up with the rest of the field, in his understanding of the issues, and was quite masterful in delineating his platform regarding the same. Sadly, as to the latter, he is just not combative enough to take down Hillary Clinton, in the way that she would need to be taken down in a debate because, in this election year, a nice guy like Carson would come up short, in this regard.

Chris Christie, on the other hand, is the quintessential opposite of Dr. Carson as he has the fight necessary to put Mrs. Clinton on the proverbial mat. What Christie needed to do, last night, was to dissuade the notion that he is too moderate to gain the support of conservatives in a way that Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole and Gerald Ford could not, costing them elections in 2012, 2008, 1996 and 1976, respectively. There is no doubt as to Christie’s dedication to the mission at hand- that is to defeat Hillary Clinton in November. Yet, it can also be said that the Republican rank-and-file still has some doubts as to his stances on abortion, gun rights and immigration.

Jeb Bush and John Kasich turned in their best debate performances, to date, as did Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee in the preliminary event. For all intents and purposes though, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are through, along with the J.V. squad, if either of these five fails to win, place or show in Iowa and New Hampshire. Rand Paul, who chose to abstain from attending the preliminary event, did not do himself any favors in his absence, despite the ten-second chant “We want Rand”, by a dozen of his supporters, when moderator Neil Cavuto was asking a question towards the end of the evening.

There has been much talk as to how Americans have shifted their views on the most important issue of this 2016 presidential campaign- a shift from the economy to ISIS/Islamic terrorism. While very much true, the central issue confronting Republican voters, is analyzing who is best suited to defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall election, and will doubtlessly be zeroing in on that particular question, when they go to the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and the “Super Tuesday” elections and caucuses on March 1^st. Unless the polling is very, very wrong, this race has largely come down to a three-man contest between Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The only thing left, is the actual polling to take place in those states- in the final analysis, regardless of posturing, those are the polls that really count.

-Drew Nickell, 15 January 2015

©2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama’s State of the (dis-) Union Speech and Thursday’s GOP Debate

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered what hopefully will be his final State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress. The “lecturer-in-chief” did his level best to embellish what history, true history, will view as a failed presidency- a presidency that will have been remembered as an existential exercise in narcissism and self-aggrandizement, taken to pathological extreme. To listen to the President is to come to one of two conclusions. Either a), he exists in a fantastic world completely devoid of any sense of reality; or b), he is a pathological prevaricator who knows no equal- with the possible exception of the former first lady who seeks to succeed him.

His list of “accomplishments”, such as they are, read like a platform put forth by the Democratic National Committee, rather than a Constitutionally-mandated report on the state of the American union, and his bloviating was only outdone by his condescension of the American people and the representatives and senators thus assembled. Predictably, the partisan nodding and nattering nabobs enthusiastically jumped to their feet, enthusiastically cheering their champion of chicanery, which seemed at times reminiscent of the speeches delivered by the North Korean Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un, considering the knee-jerk ovations provided by his cabinet and his party’s legislative delegation. Truly, any informed and level-headed observer would find this performance as effective at producing emesis, as a good belt of syrup of ipecac…but, alas, we digress…

Thursday night, in Charleston, South Carolina, ten of the eleven remaining Republican candidates will square off in the last debate prior to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Senator Rand Paul, miffed that he was delegated to the Junior Varsity event, chose not to participate with the other J.V. players, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. On balance, this is certainly bad form not to show up. It also may be indicative that his campaign, like others, will soon be suspended for lack of support.

In the main event, scheduled for 9:00 pm, EST on the Fox Business Network will feature, in the order of their seeding, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and John Kasich. Look for the possibility of a dust-up between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, while Jeb Bush and John Kasich will continue to attack Donald Trump, in a last-ditch effort to gain the credibility that so far has proved elusive. Just as Trump predicted in the last debate, Jeb Bush has been relegated to the end of the stage. A poor showing for him in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will most certainly be the straw that breaks the back of his campaign, and the same will go for Kasich and the remainder of the GOP contestants in the earlier event- Fiorina, Huckabee and Santorum.

That leaves, for all intents and purposes, five real contenders- Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Christie who have much to gain, and everything to lose, in the night’s main event.

Trump needs to rise above the fray, and certify his credentials that he can lead the party to victory, despite what the establishment Republicans and talking heads in the media would have the rest of us believe.

Cruz has the toughest job of all- he has to disencumber the notion that his Canadian birth to an American mother disqualifies him as a “natural born” citizen and candidate for president, all the while doing so with charm and charisma- the two things that so far have seemed to be his personal drawbacks, despite the fact that he is the most-consistently conservative and intellectually-savvy candidate running.

Rubio, who needs more than two-and-half inch heels to rise to the occasion, needs to utilize his glib delivery and statesmanlike oratory to underwrite his credentials as someone who can take on Hillary Clinton without fear or a propensity to be shut down, if such a debate were to occur next Autumn. In short, he cannot be the timid Mitt Romney of the last election, because there will surely be another Candy Crowley ready to pounce on the GOP nominee, if they get close to landing a punch on Hillary.

Carson needs to show that he is continuing his mastery of the issues- something that was sorely lacking in his first few performances. He also needs to show a bit more aggressiveness, so that the voters can believe he has a chance to defeat Hillary in an election. Despite his many fine qualities, this is NOT the year for a gentle spokesman, and Dr. Carson needs to realize this- sooner, rather than later.

Christie, on the other hand, is the quintessential opposite of Dr. Carson as he has the fight necessary to put Mrs. Clinton on the proverbial mat. What Christie needs to do, is to dissuade the notion that he is too moderate to gain the support of conservatives in a way that Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole and Gerald Ford could not, costing them elections in 2012, 2008, 1996 and 1976, respectively. For all intents and purposes, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are through, along with the J.V. squad, if either fails to win, place or show in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That said, Thursday’s debate will be far more interesting, far more informative and far more substantive (thanks to the questioners being Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartiromo) than the performance of the President, last night. No doubt, the ratings will prove this to be the case, which at days end, are really what these debates are all about.

-Drew Nickell, 13 January 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Something to Cry About – Obama’s War on the Second Amendment

Anyone who has ever been the parent of a small child knows that there is nothing more effective at plucking the heartstrings of a parent, than a child’s tears. Whether genuine, or crocodilian, the “waterworks” are pretty effective at motivating a parent’s change of heart…that is, up to a point….that point being when a parent realizes that he or she is being “played”. That’s when a responsible parent, like the dad in the movie “A Christmas Story” scolds “Ralphie’s” younger brother, “Randy”, saying “I’ll give you something to cry about…”, or words to that effect.

Yesterday, we saw a stellar performance by the President of the United States- one worthy of an Academy Award nomination, as a matter of fact.

This president who has never publicly shed a tear for the hundreds of Christians being beheaded by ISIS, who has never publicly shed a tear for Americans being killed by the score, in America and around the world, by Islamic militants, who has never publicly shed a tear for the likes of Kate Steinly, killed by a repeatedly-deported illegal alien in San Francisco, or the many victims of Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood, Texas, would have us believe that he is so passionate about curtailing gun violence that he is suddenly moved to tears.

“Sorry, Mr. President, but thinking people from both parties aren’t buying what you’re selling. Your tears are no more genuine than a spoiled child who is not getting their way and, truth be told, it is you who should be given something to cry about- like impeachment, for instance”.

Having failed, on multiple occasions, to get the votes necessary to pass the gun control legislation he seeks, our petulant president decides to bypass the legislative branch, stomp his feet and create an entirely new set of crimes by changing the laws regarding gun distribution, and does so via fiat. Well, such a move would be fine in a dictatorship, or in an absolute monarchy, but the unfortunate and inconvenient truth for Barack Obama is that we live in a representative democracy, governed by a Constitution, the Second Amendment of which forbids ANY infringement on gun ownership by the government, period.

Obama’s commitment to end gun violence might be more believable, if he had previously directed the many branches of government- the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to more stringently enforce the laws on the books, which address crimes committed with the use of firearms. His passion for gun control might be less suspect, had his own Justice Department, while under former Attorney General Eric Holder, hadn’t allowed the ATF to distribute thousands of firearms in the drug cartel regions of Northern Mexico, under Operation Fast and Furious, which led to the death of many Mexicans, as well as Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Sure, there are those- the mass of uninformed voters who truly believe that Obama’s passion for ending gun violence is genuine, and sincere, and benevolent, and that he truly cares about the victims of gun violence, and that we should support him in this effort. Yet, having had the experience of raising children, who tried many times to use their tears to get their way, “we ain’t buyin’ what he’s sellin’ ”…not us, and hopefully, not the vast majority of Americans who believe that the Constitution of the United States is something more…much more…than a quaint relic of distant history.

-Drew Nickell, 6 January 2016

© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Constitutional Carousel- Obama’s Merry-Go-Round with Executive Orders

Amongst his many other “firsts”, President Barack Obama is the first U.S. President to have taught constitutional law at the university level, which he did at the University of Chicago from 1992-2004- first as a lecturer, from 1992-1996, and then as a senior lecturer, from 1996 until 2004. Ironically speaking, he is also quite possibly the most extra-constitutional president in U.S. history, which just goes to show that a university professor can, and often does, teach that in which he does not necessarily believe.

In short, Barack Obama’s presidency is nothing if not an exercise in wholesale contempt for the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the wide-ranging scope of his executive orders designed to circumvent the Constitution and, in so doing, by his habitual bypass of the Congress. If anyone should know that it is the exclusive venue of the legislative branch to enact laws, it is certainly a man who once made his living teaching constitutional law.

Yet, this is man who boasts of “having a pen and a phone”, and who carries through on his threats to impose his will when Congress doesn’t act on his priorities, accordingly. He gets away with this lawlessness, largely because Congress lacks the testicular fortitude to impeach “his royal arrogance” for doing so. Instead, they do what lawyers like to do- file lawsuits with the Supreme Court of the United States, and leave it to the nine “robed wonders” to do the right thing, and curtail Obama’s furtive finaglings. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t, but at least by doing this, they manage take the heat off of a Republican congressional leadership who would rather show that they can get along with the opposition, than act like a party of opposition, like they are supposed to do. It’s as if the GOP leadership was nothing more than a branch of the Democratic National Committee, based upon their overall lack of loyal opposition and the way they repeatedly cave in to Obama and the Democrats.

These same GOP “leaders” – a term which is used loosely, scratch their heads in amazement that three of the top five candidates in their own party’s presidential sweepstakes are outright congressional outsiders (Trump, Carson and Christie) and a fourth (Cruz) is treated like a pariah within his own Senate caucus. Here’s a news bulletin: the voters, namely the conservative voters who put them in power, are fed up with the go-along-with, get-along-with House and Senate GOP Leadership and desperately want a true conservative to lead the country, instead. If that means nominating a braggart like Trump, an ideologue like Cruz, a political novice like Carson, a bullhead like Christie, then so be it, but the days of “Republicratic” candidates like Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, or Lindsey Graham, or George Pataki are numbered, primarily because the rank and file of their own electorate no longer believe in their resolve to turn things around in a way that they desperately need to be turned around.

So while the President consults with his dubious Attorney General this week, on exactly how they can parlay yet another end run around Congress, this time by an all-out assault on the Second Amendment, look for the GOP leadership- the “Wonder Boy of Budgeting” who gave Obama a veritable blank check through next September, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and the “Blue-Lipped Wunderkind of Kentucky”, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to speak of filing yet another lawsuit with the Supreme Court, one that will not be adjudicated until “His Arrogance”, Barack Obama, has completed his second, and hopefully, final term of office. Meanwhile, the “Constitutional Carousel” continues to go merrily round-and-round-and-round, with Obama laughing all the way…

-Drew Nickell, 4 January 2016

©2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Official “CAN’T FAIL” New Year’s Resolution List for 2016

New Year’s Eve is famous (or, for that matter, infamous) for having to make New Year’s Resolutions which often end up being broken. So, in order to provide some assistance, here is a list of New Year’s Resolutions and how they can be kept, easily.

1. RESOLVE to eat all of the Brussels sprouts you order.                      (…If you don’t order them, you don’t have to eat them…)
2. RESOLVE not to eat any pizza with extra anchovies.                          (…If you don’t like anchovies, it’s easy !…)
3. RESOLVE to get more exercise whenever you are off the couch.   (…Remain on the couch, and it’s a cinch…)
4. RESOLVE to stop nagging the kids to clean up their room.                 (…Make them move out of the house, and this one is easy, too…)
5. RESOLVE to walk the dog three times daily.                                             (…Get a cat, instead, and you won’t break this one…)
6. RESOLVE to reduce your alcohol intake each and every day.            (…Wait until the afternoon, and this one is a slam dunk…)
7. RESOLVE to be more responsive to your friends and family.            (…Allow your voice mailbox to fill up, set your e-mail to out-of-office reply…and it’s that easy…)
8. RESOLVE to vote for whichever candidate does not bother you with phone calls, during the week leading up to Election Day.     (…That way, you don’t need to bother voting, at all…)
9. RESOLVE to never forget your spouse/partner’s birthday or anniversary.          (…Find someone who was born on February 30^th and marry them on the 31^st of April, and you’ll never forget- ever!…)
10. RESOLVE to wait until tomorrow, to do whatever you need to do, today.         (Yet another “CAN’T POSSIBLY FAIL”…)

This list has served us quite well for many years…perhaps it will work for you, too… Happy New Year !

-Drew Nickell, 30 December 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

The Official (…maybe not so…) Unlikely Predictions for 2016

• Disgusted that Donald Trump actually won the Republican nomination for President of the United States, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan, South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham and political commentator George Will launch a “Republicans for Hillary Campaign Committee”…with the motto… “He’s not a serious candidate, and we’d rather see the country destroyed than to let Donald win”…

• Having lost forty-five of the fifty states in the General Election, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton demands a recount in all forty-five of the states in which Donald Trump won, and names Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman- Schultz as head of the “Commission to Verify the Results of the 2016 Election”, saying that “we need to ensure that the re-counts are overseen by a fair, non-partisan woman of unquestionable ethics”. Astonishingly, following the recounts in those states, it turns out that not a single voter in any of the states where the recount took place, actually cast a vote for Donald Trump…not one.

• Donald Trump, having recently found a pair of Hillary Clinton’s underwear in Rosie O’Donnell’s glove compartment, makes a simple, two-word announcement on live television…”They’re ‘YUGE’ !”, prompting charges that he discriminates against plus-sized women.

• President Barack Obama, while being interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MsNBC, is asked “As your presidency approaches its final day, who do you think, Mr. President, is the greatest human being who ever lived?” Obama replied, with a chuckle, “…you mean, besides myself?” Maddow, responded with “that’s understood by all, Mr. President…besides yourself?” Obama then responds with, “I can’t think of anyone, off hand, Rachel…” For the interview, Rachel Maddow is awarded a Pulitzer Prize for investigative, non-biased Journalism.

• In response to Caitlin (nee Bruce) Jenner being named “Vanity Fair’s 2015 Woman of the Year”, First Lady Michelle Obama is named “Maxim’s 2016 Man of the Year”. Also appearing in Hustler Magazine, a centerfold of Barack Obama with a quote from General Ralph Peters “What did I tell you … WHAT did I TELL you?…”

• The last Gallup poll is released just prior to the November election, indicating that an unbiased, across-the-political-spectrum poll indicated that Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, 96% to 4%. It is later determined that the poll’s sampling was centered in Greenwich Village and the University of California- Berkeley ‘s Sociology Department.

• In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the Constitutional two-term limit for a presidential term does not apply to Barack Obama- but only in the event that a Republican is elected. The ruling is hailed on both sides of the aisle as a win for representative democracy and sound jurisprudence. Later, it is determined that Chief Justice John Roberts, having been named a trustee of the Clinton Foundation, refused to recuse himself from hearing the case “Obama vs the United States”, which sets off a firestorm from conservative political commentators.

• CBS News announced that Chelsea Clinton has been named Senior White House Correspondent, because the network “prides itself on unbiased coverage and fair reporting”. ABC, following CBS’s lead, announces that George Stephanopoulos will be named Senior White House Correspondent, for the very same reason.

• The Baltimore Orioles defeat the Chicago Cubs in a World Series no one thought possible, under any circumstances.

• The National Football League names Patriots’ Head Coach Bill Belichick as head of the League’s newly formed “Ethics Committee”. Also announced is that the Committee’s Player  Representative will be Patriots’ Quarterback Tom Brady.

Happy New Year!

-Drew Nickell, 29 December 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Christmas in the Winter of Our Discontent

“Now is the winter of our discontent…”

-Act 1, Scene 1 “Richard III” by William Shakespeare

Some two thousand eighteen years ago, give or take a year or two, a child was born to a young Jewish woman in Bethlehem, because her espoused husband had returned to that city to be registered in a census ordered by Caesar Augustus. The birth of that child, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, marked the beginning of Christianity, and also served as the point of demarcation between the ancient world, and the world which followed, in human history.

Raised as a Jew in His stepfather’s home of Nazareth, not much is known of His early life, other than His circumcision being recorded, where He was officially named by His stepfather, and preaching to astonished rabbis at the ceremony of His bar mitzvah, thirteen years later. Yet, this child would change forever the concept of the meaning of life, itself, and challenge all- believers, or non- to seek peace within ourselves, and in the way we treat one another. His life, His teachings, His death and resurrection, would lead to the creation of the world’s largest monotheistic religion- Christianity, which was based upon the Judaism of His own mother, Mary, but with the added promise of everlasting life for those who believe in Him.

In the two millennia that followed the life of Jesus Christ, the world saw war, upon war, upon war- much of which was based upon religious differences- within and outside Christianity, itself. Supposedly, we live in a country where the freedom OF (and NOT “from”, as some would have us otherwise believe) religion is constitutionally-assured, by virtue of our First Amendment rights. Yet, in a country which supposedly assures all the freedom to worship as we deem fit, whereby there is no state-sanctioned denomination (also established in the First Amendment), it seems today that some religions or, for that matter, non-religions, are more equal than others.

Say something against Islam, for example, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch has promised that doing so will invite criminal prosecution. Make a video which insults the prophet Muhammed, and one might find themselves jailed without the benefit of habeas corpus protections, for years.

Host a holiday party at a public school- one that features a non-religious character in a red suit with a white beard, and just one single complaint by an agnostic or an atheist can bring on a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), effectively shutting down such a holiday celebration. Add a crèche (manger scene) to a public square where a menorah is displayed, and both symbols of the season are brought down based upon the wiles of malcontented non-believers who wish to impose THEIR views on the rest of us.

Work at a store, or a business, or in a government agency and utter the phrase, “Merry Christmas” and find out just how quickly the denizens of political correctness are ready to issue a verbal warning that you are flirting with unemployment.

Such is NOT the separation of church and state, but rather an all-out assault against religion, generally, and Christianity, specifically. Left unchecked, the generations of infants born in this new century will witness the outright censure of Christianity as a religion, and the banishment of Christmas, as a holiday, itself. How sad that a true religion of peace is proscribed from celebrating the birth of its Savior, by the politically-correct classes that only seek to destroy our freedoms and our culture, and how sad for the youngest among us who must bear witness to the acrimony surrounding something as simple as a jolly old elf bringing toys down a chimney.

So, while we are still not legally estopped from saying so, at this juncture in our history, please allow us to extend our heartfelt wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all who should read this post.

-Drew Nickell, 21 December 2015

©2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Settling Scores in Las Vegas- the final Republican Presidential Debate of 2015

In the final Republican debate of 2015, hosted by CNN at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, it was evident all thirteen remaining candidates came prepared to substantively discuss the issues of national security and the issues surrounding foreign policy with respect to ISIS.  As expected, the CNN moderators Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt did their level best to pit the candidates against one another and make the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, look like a fool. They were successful with regards to the former, but in the end fell flat with regards to the latter.

That said, it wasn’t as though “the Donald” was sailing through the debate, as the former favorite and once-presumptive nominee, Jeb Bush, finally showed that yes, indeed, he does possess the intestinal fortitude to be combative in a debate. He squarely landed some punches on Mr. Trump, and did so quite effectively up to the point where Trump reminded him that recent polling indicated the vast difference in their respective numbers- Trump 42%, Bush 3%, and said that Bush was “progressing” towards eventually being shoved off of the primary debate stage, altogether, effectively ending Bush’s assaults on Trump. Trump’s best moment occurred when he settled, once and for all, the questions concerning whether he would run as a third-party candidate. In short, he said he won’t, much to the chagrin of the liberally biased Washington Post, which had previously floated a bogus story about Trump running as a third party candidate, otherwise assuring Hillary Clinton of a victory in November. Trump said he would abide by the Republican Party’s eventual nomination and do everything in his power to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. By doing this, he also allayed the irrational, albeit frequently-stated, fears that he was secretly attempting to help Clinton win the election, by trying to derail the Republican Party.

Recognizing that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were very much in a heated running for second place, the moderators accomplished their goal of setting the two against each other. Both handled themselves with much aplomb, despite the substantive and intensely-debated positions they hold with regards to dealing with immigration and Syrian President Bashir Assad- points on which they differ. With help from Rand Paul, whose own views are somewhat closer to Cruz’s than they are to Rubio’s, Senator Cruz very narrowly won the tete-a-tete on points. Despite this, both Cruz and Rubio came across very presidential and solidified their chances, in the upcoming primaries and caucuses, to come in second place.

Chris Christie also had a solid performance- perhaps the best of the evening with regards to sounding resolute and presidential, while Ben Carson showed the favorable results of “boning up” on the issues, when compared to his previous performances. While the debate performance may help Christie when it comes to the upcoming New Hampshire primary, it is doubtful that Dr. Carson will fare as well in that state, nor in Iowa, as a result of his sinking numbers.

With regards to the remaining varsity debaters, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, and Rand Paul, their respective overall performances, like Bush’s, were adequate but not strong enough to change their comparatively-lower polling numbers. These four, and the junior varsity debaters- Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki and Rich Santorum will not likely last following the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus, which will basically leave Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, and possibly Carson, the only viable candidates left in the run-up to “Super Tuesday”, on the first day of March, 2016.

Setting aside Lindsey Graham’s Obama-like love of all things Muslim, not to mention his rolling eyes and all-too-condescending grimaces during the first round, as well as his emotional outburst in defense of former President George W. Bush, the junior-varsity debaters handled themselves well- but not well enough to change the fact that none of these contenders will be in the running at all, which begs the question as to why they remain in the race.

Going into year’s end, it appears that the nomination is very much Trump’s to lose and, save a major turn of events, he looks to be the likely and eventual Republican nominee. With a united Republican Party- essential to defeating Mrs. Clinton, his chances of winning the election remains as good as they ever have been. That aside, it also appears that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and possibly Ben Carson could be just as successful- if, again, if Republicans fall into line behind their nominee- regardless of who that happens to be. Hillary Clinton can only win if some disenchanted Republicans decide to sit this one out, upon which is exactly what the mainstream media hangs their hopes.

-Drew Nickell, 16 December 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Crossed Wires – Trump and the Problem America has with Islam and Obama

Hand it to “the Donald”… No one in a generation or two, perhaps even going back to FDR in the 1930’s, has mastered the art of media manipulation the way that Donald Trump has done, and with such little effort.

Be it “the wall”, or the “temporary ban”, or the multiple slams against members of the media or his political opponents in both parties, every time the man says something that no one else has the “cajones” to say, the media goes into a hissy-fit and his poll numbers rise and rise and rise, again.

Such a phenomenon is making even the most arrogant media pundits scratch their collective heads, and wonder in bewilderment how this can possibly happen in an America whose thought processes were once believed to be under their strict and presumptive control.

The short answer is that they just don’t get it- “they” meaning the Obama Administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat candidates for president, the Republican National Committee, most of the Republican candidates for president, both the Republican and Democrat leadership in the U.S. House and Senate, and most of the media including Fox News who are ALL screaming about Donald Trump’s latest proposal to delay Muslim immigration TEMPORARILY until we can improve our procedures for screening Muslim immigrants and visitors, alike.

This can only mean one thing….they are all deathly afraid that the man can win the Republican nomination and win the election…..and here is what they don’t seem to get.

Often in the course of history, Americans have often elected a president as a direct result of, and in absolutely polar opposition to, his immediate predecessor.

In 1920, Americans were fed up with Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism and, realizing the futility of our entry into Europe’s “Great War”, elected a Republican isolationist, one Warren G. Harding, who ran on a simple platform of returning to “normalcy”. While the term was coined at the time, and never really cogently defined, Americans knew what he meant and he was swept into the White House by a substantial margin.

In 1932, Americans were fed up with Republican Herbert Hoover’s laissez-faire approach to the Great Depression, and elected a progressive Democrat who promised a “New Deal”, one Franklin D. Roosevelt, despite warnings that much of what FDR advocated was socialism, bordering on bolshevism.

In 1952, Americans were fed up with Democrat Harry Truman and his “police action” taking place in Korea, which was costing tens of thousands of American lives with little to show for it, and elected a Republican “non-politician”, one Dwight D. Eisenhower, who promised to go to Korea and end the stalemate.

In 1960, Americans were fed up with the bland and blasé Republican Eisenhower administration, and elected a Democrat with movie star good looks who promised to “get America moving again”, one John F. Kennedy, who spoke of a “new frontier”, which sounded exciting as America entered the 1960s.

In 1968, Americans were fed up with the Democrats JFK-LBJ war in Viet Nam and its domestic backlash here at home, and elected Republican Richard Nixon, who supposedly spoke for the “great silent majority” of Americans who wanted this country to return to a time and place where such upheaval did not exist.

In 1976, Americans were fed up with Nixonian corruption and Republican Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor, and summarily elected an unknown Democrat, one Jimmy Carter, who ran on a promise to tell the truth.

In 1980, Americans were fed up with the fecklessness and incompetence of Jimmy Carter’s lack of effective response to Iranian Revolutionaries who had kidnapped American hostages, and elected Republican Ronald Reagan who ran on a platform touting a “New Beginning for America”.

In 1992, Republican George Bush was turned out of office, by a combination of baby boomers who sought the election of one of their own, aided and abetted by a third-party run by Bush’s nemesis, H. Ross Perot, and that is how Democrat Bill Clinton got elected.

In 2000, Americans were fed up with corruption in the Clinton White House, and weary of Clinton’s womanizing ways, and elected Republican George W. Bush, a born-again, religious man whose marriage and family life more equated the values of Middle America.

In 2008, Americans were fed up with Republican Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, with the help of an adoring media who failed to properly vet the unknown “outsider”, elected Democrat Barack Obama president.

Approaching 2016, America finds itself fed up with Barack Obama and his insistence that radical Islam is not the problem associated with terrorism, here in the United States, and across much of the world. Americans are fed up with a politically-correct mantra of not offending anyone- be they illegal immigrants from Mexico, or radical Muslims coming here from the Middle East, when most Americans know, even in their own silence for fear of being labeled a “bigot”, that open borders and lack of proper screening of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, pose the potential of great peril for our own national security…

…and into that void enters a man who is not afraid to say what many Americans, admittedly or not, are thinking- “We need to seal our borders and we need to arrive upon the means by which we can better screen immigrants from countries and cultures who wish us harm”- one Donald Trump. Donald Trump is nothing, if not a man of the times in which he exists, and the all-American antidote to a feckless and cowardly apologist for Islamic extremism, one Barack Hussein Obama. He is (or seems to be) to Obama, what Harding was to Wilson, what FDR was to Hoover, what Eisenhower was to Truman, what Kennedy was to Eisenhower, what Nixon was to JFK-LBJ, what Carter was to Nixon and Ford, what Reagan was to Carter, what Bill Clinton was to the elder Bush, what the younger Bush was to Clinton, and what Obama, himself, was once to the younger Bush….and yet…

…they still just don’t get it !

-Drew Nickell, 11 December 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The World Turned Upside Down

“Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been, this thousand year:

‘Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.

Holy days are despised, new fashions are devised.

Old Christmas is kicked out of town

Yet let’s be content, and the times lament, you see the world turned upside down’…”

-“The World Turned Upside Down” (old English ballad c.1642)

The first stanza of this old English ballad, which was first published in an English political broadside in the mid-1640s, was written in protest to a recently-enacted law, by Oliver Cromwell’s Parliament, banning festive celebrations of Christmas. This same tune was played by Lord Cornwallis’s military band during the surrender of his armies to George Washington, on October 19, 1781, marking the effective end of the American Revolution. To those who opposed the banning of festive Christmas celebrations during the British Commonwealth period, and to the once-thought invincible British Army, one hundred forty years later, both events seemed to evoke the feeling that the world, indeed, had turned upside down.

In the few weeks remaining before Christmas, 2015, how prescient it seems to recall this ballad at this particular time and place in the course of world history.

Just seventy years ago, the United States and its allies, defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan concurrently, in the greatest war ever fought since the dawn of mankind. Both Germany and Japan boasted quite powerful military and naval assets, as well as very proficient commands which had engineered stunning victories across two theatres of war, and yet were defeated in a few short years by a determined alliance which had not previously been prepared to wage war.

The reason ?… dogged determination and the will to win, at any and all costs.

Seventy years hence, that same alliance, now united with its former foes, seems incapable of defeating a comparatively, logistically and militarily inferior adversary.

The reason ?…the total lack of determination and will to win, at any and all costs.

Seventy years ago, a wheelchair-bound and ailing progressive Democrat was spending the final weeks of his life finishing the work of wielding and waging war in a crusade to save the world from totalitarianism. Franklin Roosevelt put into motion America’s industrial and military might to join with its allies to defeat Nazism and Imperialistic Japan at the same time. While he did not live to see the actual surrenders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, he brought this country and her allies to the very threshold of victory, because he and his country were determined to do so at all and any costs.

Seventy years later, a healthy and physically-robust progressive Democrat is spending the final fourteen months of his presidency, shrinking from his duties to lead the world in its fight against radical Islamic totalitarianism. Barack Obama has been, and is in, a complete and utter state of denial about the evils of radical Islamic ideology, and has decided to “sit this one out” and leave it to his successors to pick up where he has no ignobly left off, assuming that such successors arrive in time to save the world from its own intransigence.

The contrast in seventy short years could not be more ironic, or more obvious.

Seventy years ago, the President led this country into waging war without reservation, without fear of offense, without misgivings or political correctness, because he saw with clarity what the world would become without doing so.

Seventy years later, the President chides this country for its love of freedom and independence, cautioning us against offending Islam by expressing misgivings about waging war against radical Islam (which he still won’t name) and drowns us in his own vision of political correctness to the very precipice of surrender without a fight.

One need look no further than Obama’s speech, on the very eve of the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor which precipitated our entry into the Second World War, to see that fecklessness and cowardice has now replaced what was once determination and resolve in the Oval Office, in a “world turned upside down”.

-Drew Nickell, 8 December 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

As We Gather Together- a Thanksgiving Message to All

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

In a world which so often seems turned upside down, it may be difficult for some to find reason for giving thanks, but there are, indeed, reasons aplenty for us to give thanks to our God, for the many blessings which He has so generously bestowed upon us…

By sheer and random coincidence, we just happened to be born in the United States of America, which despite her many problems and shortcomings, remains the greatest nation on earth, and the greatest gift to individual freedom that the world has ever seen. While our political leaders are certainly suspect, and very much need to be held to account, Americans themselves are a largely good, and decent, and charitable people, who treasure the personal freedom and spirit of independence achieved by our founding fathers, and righteously defended by their progeny, during the two and one half centuries which followed.

By the labor of our parents, we were provided a good education, and were the first male descendant in our parents’ lineage to receive a Bachelor’s degree, begun at Virginia Wesleyan College and completed at James Madison University, that opened our mind to that which had previously remained unknown, and we were particularly blessed to have spent four months studying in London, for an unforgettable semester, and seeing much of Europe in the weeks that followed.

By a most unusual and circumstantial opportunity, we are thankful to have re-met and, at long last pursued, a relationship with a woman with whom, unbeknownst to her, we had a deep crush thirty-eight years ago- one Mary Ella Douglas. Mary Ella generously forgives us our shortcomings, and provides us with much happiness in our home, and in our life. A future with her looks to be very promising, as we both look forward to spending many years together.

By very good fortune, we are thankful for the many friends with whom we have been blessed over the years, and for the many friends we would not have come to know otherwise, were it not for the enigmatic venue we all know to be Facebook.

By unexpected, but nevertheless great fortune, our own webpage has been read in thirty-three countries, on six continents, and has attracted upwards of two thousand registrants, many of whom are friends of ours on Facebook. Amazingly, this has happened over the last few months. To these friends, who have done much to spread the word on our essays, we certainly give our heartfelt thanks and owe a debt which can never be repaid, nor ever forgotten, in the years to come.

For all of these things, and for so very much more, we are

Very appreciatively, yours always,

-Drew Nickell, 19 November 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Friday the 13^th– The Attacks in Paris

Back on Friday, the thirteenth of June 2014, we wrote an essay entitled “Wars, and Rumors of Wars”. In that essay we indicated that we in the West are at war with radical Islam, for the simple reason that radical Islam is at war with us. Also in that essay, we took note of the fact that they know it, they say it, and we won’t, which is why they are at a distinct advantage- essentially arguing that if one cannot name their enemy, one cannot possibly defeat their enemy.

On the evening of Friday the 13^th of November, 2015, Paris was attacked by an ISIS- backed cabal in six separate, albeit coordinated, incidents and the carnage was severe- one hundred twenty-nine dead, hundreds of others injured. Planned by one Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 27-year-old Belgian national of Moroccan descent, these attacks answered, once and for all, questions concerning the wisdom of allowing Syrian refugees into Europe by the tens of thousands- something that Barack Obama has begun here in the United States.

Hand it to the French, who wasted no time in responding militarily, with an aerial attack on an ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, and with law enforcement as well, launching one hundred sixty raids, making twenty arrests and confiscating hundreds of weapons in the context of these raids. Some of the assailants were indeed supposed refugees, whose real intent was not to escape ISIS, but rather act as enemy combatants cowardly murdering innocent victims who were doing nothing more than eating at a restaurant, attending a concert in one venue and, along with French President François Hollande, attending a soccer match at a stadium in Paris. In other words, innocent people were only doing what westerners like to do on weekends, and thereby becoming sacrificial lambs at the hands of vicious radical Muslims…. that’s right…. radical Muslims.

Amazingly, not twenty-four hours had passed when the Democrat’s Presidential debate was taking place, and each of the Democrat candidates were falling over one another to avoid naming radical Islam as the culprit, thus following the same ridiculous reticence on the part of President Barack Obama, who would much rather hurl insults and admonitions at Christians, Republicans, Jews, Americans and Israelis, then publicly admit that ISIS (which he calls ISIL) and the horrific attacks they perpetrate is, at root, an extension of radical Islamic theology. More disturbingly, each of the three candidates, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, agree with, and want to expand upon, a program that would import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into this country, despite the fact that a plurality of these so-called refugees are, in fact, men between the ages of seventeen and forty years of age.

Setting aside the very real possibility that Obama (and Clinton and O’Malley and Sanders) and many of his Democrat allies in Congress are either naïve, or stupid, there can be, at long last, only one realistic conclusion that can be drawn from the advocacy of such suicidal policies, as well as the extreme reluctance on their part, to name radical Islam as the enemy of the West. That is to say, as much as we otherwise are loathe to do so, Obama and his cohorts want ISIS to win, and they want to import into the United States that which took place in Paris, Friday night.

As “Pogo” the possum once famously said, in Walt Kelly’s cartoon strip of the same name, when it comes to our feckless President who prefers to lead from behind, “We have met the enemy, and he is us…”

January 20, 2017 cannot arrive soon enough. God willing, may this country live to see that day.

-Drew Nickell, 16 November 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Race in America – The Myth of White Privilege

Realizing fully well that there are those who will quickly jump to label us “racist”, for merely writing the headline that is written above, we are nevertheless going to take issue with the concept of “white privilege” because, to do otherwise, would betray our own search for the truth, as it exists in America, today.

We were born as the civil rights movement of the 1950s was just in its infancy, and we well remember a time when black Americans were not granted the full benefits of American citizenship. We remember watching on television, the fire hoses and police dogs that were turned on those who were peacefully marching to demand racial equality, particularly in the Deep South. We remember the animosity of whites who were opposed to integration and desegregation of schools, churches, and businesses of all types. To deny this reality of race relations, as it existed in the 1950s and 1960s, is to deny the reality of that which occurred during that time period.

Then, as the 1960s turned into the 1970s, we witnessed a fundamental change in the civil rights movement- one that transformed peaceful demonstrations into militant and terroristic expressions and acts of violence, inspired by all-too-calculating and race-baiting opportunists, who sought not justice, but rather power- the power to incite, the power to exploit, the power to destroy. We saw what had been an altruistic movement to achieve equality transcend into a seditious and corrosive desire for revenge and retribution. To deny this reality of race relations, which began in the 1970s, is to deny the reality of that which occurred during that time period.

Considering today, what is happening in large cities and university campuses across the country, with regards to race relations, we are witnessing the slow but steady descent into anarchy, which is sowing the seeds of racial discord which we had once thought long dead, a generation (or two) ago. We see misguided young people- people who were not yet born in the early 1990’s, taking to the streets and screaming that “black lives matter”, absurdly suggesting that black lives matter more than white lives, matter more than brown lives, matter more than yellow lives, matter more than blue lives. We see feckless liberals, in politics and academia, cowardly caving in to the delusional demands of mindless youths- youths who are acting on lies that are being fed to them, in the mainstream media, in the collegiate classrooms, and in the very streets, by those who seek to profit by fomenting hatred and misery, and by those who are encouraging the absolute breakdown of peaceful coexistence, individual liberty, and the freedom of expression and divergent ideas, in a country whose very existence has been dedicated to all of these values.

To suggest that in these years, the two thousand teens, that there exists in the United States today, an all-pervasive “white privilege” is nothing more than a dubious means to sanction anti-white racism by militant blacks, as well as white radicals, most of whom did not yet exist in an era where black people truly were second-class citizens, in an era before the Civil Rights Act of 1965, in an era before equal opportunity legislation and before affirmative action in hiring and university admissions. These young people have never experienced racism like that which was witnessed by their grandparents and great grandparents, and yet find themselves to be the hapless prey of politicians who seek nothing more that the offices of power, by exploiting their useful anger to pursue their own nefarious agendas.

Worse, the visions of a truly color-blind society, once expressed by men and women of all races, who based their advocacy upon good will and hopeful desire of healing, are thus being rendered asunder in all of the screaming and yelling based on a lie- the lie that police officers are out to kill blacks, the lie that white people want to return to the days of “Jim Crow”, the lie that white people only succeed due to “institutionalized white privilege”, the lie that America is an evil place, where only the few are allowed to succeed.

If, in writing this, we are to be labeled “racist”, then so be it…but that is the truth as we see it…and no number of demagogues, screaming to the contrary, and no amount of political correctness, or attempts to silence and censure, can change this truth- that the concept of “white privilege”, in the autumn of 2015, is nothing more than an evil lie, designed to divide, rather than unite, us as a people, and as a nation.

-Drew Nickell, 12 November 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Brewing in the Milwaukee Debate- Fox Business News and the GOP Twelve Pack

….and then, there were twelve.

It had to happen, eventually. A somewhat-culled herd of Republican wannabes, assembling for an actual debate- a debate without the media bias that had become the rule, rather the exception- where real issues were bandied about, sans personal and ad hominem attacks on one another. Kudos go to Fox Business News and the moderators thus assigned, for producing a truly fair and balanced debate, where… get this… the candidates were at long last allowed to be the story, rather than the moderators, themselves. Voters, especially Republican voters, who did not have an opportunity to see this debate, were the only real losers, because all twelve of the GOP contenders received ample opportunity to explain their policies in a constructive and substantive format, one which was as informative as it was enlightening, and the candidates delivered.

Not really missing from this debate were candidates George Pataki, Jim Gilmore and Lindsay Graham- not really, because none of those three have any chance to register any real support, in any of the primaries or caucuses scheduled for early next year. The “junior varsity” edition of last night’s debate featured Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum. While clearly, it was Christie who won this preliminary round, fending off broadsides from Jindal, and aiming his sites at Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton instead, all four of these contestants made a good showing of it, thanks in part to the quality of questions posed to them- save for the “Which Democrat do you admire most?” question which seemed to be rather silly, as compared to the remainder of the questions posed to them. Wisely, each of the four chose to ignore that question and discuss their own political agendas, instead. How such a silly question was asked in the first place remains a mystery, because the rest of the questioning was on-point and quite relevant.

In the night’s main event, featuring Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump, all of the candidates performed well enough not to lose any support although, clearly, it was Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina providing the very best performances, with front-runners Carson and Trump rounding out the top five. Jeb Bush showed much improvement but, given the fact that debates are clearly not his forte, he did not have any “moment” that will substantially improve his standing in the polls. Rand Paul had a good night, even tossing it around with Rubio over whether or not substantially increasing military expenditures was in, and of, itself “truly conservative”. However, Paul’s comparatively isolationist policies will inevitably prove to keep him from gaining the nomination of a Republican party, most of whose voters desire a much more robust presence confronting ISIS and radical Islam, not to mention a stronger and better-funded defense footprint. If there had to be someone bringing up the rear in the main event, it was clearly Kasich, whose position on bank bailouts was murky, at best, and whose position on illegal immigration was more in line with Democrats, than Republicans.

With the possible exception of how Maria Bartiromo’s question concerning Hillary Clinton was framed, touting Clinton’s “resume” and thus eliciting some degree of laughter from Marco Rubio to whom the question was posed, the panel at the varsity event also deserved much praise for both the quality of questions being asked as well as their allowing the candidates to dive deeply into their own policy platforms, and not pitting them against one another, as happened in the previous GOP debates.

All-in-all, it was a veritable GOP “twelve-pack”, offering substantial and thoughtful discourse that brewed in the Milwaukee Theatre last night, and any impartial observer would have to favorably compare this dozen against the three Democrats running for their party’s nomination. As Donald Trump indicated, any of the tax policies that were presented last night, diverse as they are, were substantially better than the ones being advocated by the opposition, and better than the status quo.

Now that Fox Business News has “set the standard” for how debates should be moderated, going forward, as even rival network CNN has noted, we look for and hope for similar moderation in the debates to come, with the American people being the real beneficiaries, in the end.

-Drew Nickell, 11 November 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

(note to all- For this Throwback Thursday,  5 November 2015, we thought we might share an essay we wrote back on 7 November 2012, following the presidential election of that year- We’ll leave it to you to see if, indeed, our prognostications were correct.)

Election 2012-Afterthoughts

As many of us watched, Barack Obama managed to eke out an electoral victory, principally by winning the narrowest of margins in a handful of states, most notably my own. I had predicted that if Mitt Romney had won either Ohio or Wisconsin (not factoring Virginia, of course), he would most likely have won the election but, if Romney had lost both of these states that Obama would win. I was correct, and Obama won.

Half of the country is happy and half of the country is disappointed. Half of the legislative branch retained its Democratic majority (the Senate) and half of it retained its Republican majority (The House), thus assuring a divided government which succinctly reflects a divided country. One look at the electoral map also reflects this division with the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast being blue, and the South and most of the Western States being red.

So now what?

Well, a great president would reach out to the other side of the aisle and find ways to work out solutions to the problems our country faces- such is the purview of real statesmen. Yet, sadly, there is nothing in Obama’s makeup that would suggest that he is either capable of, or inclined to, working together with Republicans and Democrats alike to achieve consensus, because he is a politician, and most assuredly not a statesman.

Rather, by the indications of how he has conducted himself during his first term, and the way he conducted his campaign for re-election, his narcissistic and self-aggrandizing tendencies- not to mention his far-left political bent- will bring to bear a further polarization of our nation. He will attempt to govern by fiat- essentially putting into place policies, outside the legislative process, through the power of bureaucracy and regulatory oversight that will surely mean a continued erosion of representative democracy in the United States. His reckless spending priorities will expand the dependency of people on government – something our founding fathers had very much warned against, and this will ultimately result in the loss of individual liberty.

The fiscal catastrophe that will result will surely mean confiscatory tax policies that will weaken the private sector, eviscerate our military and naval forces, and ultimately weaken America at home, and abroad, as well. Whether or not this is what he set out to do in 2008, when he promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, is now beside the point, for his re-election has assured that the United States will be weakened as a result, and history tells us that once there is an absence of power in the world, that this void will be filled by another, and that “other” is what we should all dread, most of all.

–Drew Nickell, 7 November 2012

©2012 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Voter Vexation – the Quest for the Perfect Candidate

Our interest in politics began in the fall of 1968, when we were all of ten years old. The Republicans, who briefly flirted with the idea of a last minute, hastily-constructed campaign effort by California Governor Ronald W. Reagan, chose instead another Californian, the former Vice-President Richard M. Nixon. Meanwhile, the Democrats, reeling from the decision by incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson not to seek reelection at the end of March, and the June 6^th assassination of front-runner Robert F. Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, settled on Hubert H. Humphrey, the Minnesota liberal known to be a friend of big labor, and the incumbent Vice-President. So irritated with this choice of a pro-union liberal, the southern Democrats put their partisan loyalties aside, and urged Alabama Governor George C. Wallace to launch a third-party run. Wallace, famous for his resistance to racial integration and his oft-quoted “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”, was actually one of the most successful third-party candidates in American history, having carried five southern states, and thus ensuring the greatest political comeback ever with the election of Richard Nixon as thirty-seventh President of the United States. It was Nixon, who famously lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960 for the presidential election by less than 100,000 votes, who had announced his retirement from elective politics, following his failed bid to unseat the California Governor,  Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, Sr. (father of current Governor Jerry Brown), two years later, bitterly saying to the adversarial press, “Think of all you will miss…you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore…” (It was the senior Brown who ultimately lost his bid for a third term to a movie-star-turned-politician Ronald Reagan in 1966, largely due to his mishandling of the Watts riots the year before).

That 1968 Presidential election had a voter participation percentage of 61%, one of the largest turnouts in U.S. history, and garnered so much attention that the 1969 Super Bowl, in which the Joe Namath-led New York Jets defeated the heavily-favored Baltimore Colts, “themed” its halftime show on voter participation- three months following the presidential election.

One of the things we learned as a ten-year-old, whose two major passions were, in order, the Baltimore Colts and presidential politics, was that it is the imperfect candidate who can win elections if, a), the candidate’s party rallies around its nominee (Nixon), and b), the other candidate’s party is divided (Humphrey and Wallace). Nixon, who our own parents derisively referred to as “Tricky Dick”, won the election, and handily so, because he faced a decidedly-divided Democrat Party.

Fast forward to this November of 2015, a full-year before the 2016 presidential election. While Democrats have pretty much united around Hillary Clinton and, setting aside a most improbable possibility, given the all-so-corrupt and partisan Justice Department under Barack Obama, that she might otherwise face indictments for having committed multiple felonies related to her e-mail obfuscation, while compromising national security relating thereto, the Republicans are in a comparative free-for-all with fifteen  candidates still in the run for the G.O.P. nomination.

One need only read through Facebook commentaries to see that most Republican and conservative voters are saying, in effect, “I’ll vote for ‘x’ and maybe ‘y’ but certainly not for ‘z’, no way…” The aforementioned variables can and do interchangeably apply to Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (given that Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Jim Gilmore, Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum are effectively, though not technically, out of the race). This, on its surface, suggests a historically-competitive race for the Republican nomination but, in reality, must be a veritable “wet dream” for Hillary Clinton who can sit back and watch the leading eight spend money trying to one-up each other in the feeding frenzy that has become all-too-evident, as never before.

In truth, there is only one way Republican voters can defeat Hillary Clinton next fall, in an election that should otherwise be theirs to lose. They must swallow their pride and commit themselves to support, campaign and vote for whoever becomes the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who that person is, and regardless of that candidate’s imperfections. To do less will effectively bring about a third term for Barack Obama, which is making Hillary Clinton and her united Democrat Party drool at the prospect of winning an election which, on its surface, they should not come close to winning, but is nevertheless theirs for the taking, if Republicans don’t grow up and face the music of their own making.

-Drew Nickell, 3 November 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

“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 10^th, 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

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

“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

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 20^th 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

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

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

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

“…and he gets your gun…” – Obama’s Selective Outrage on Shooting Deaths

Sometimes the predictable becomes oh-so-predictable, especially with a president who all-too-selectively shows passion and outrage when the political winds just happen to blow in the right direction.

Never mind the fact that, on any given week, twenty-five or more people are killed by gunfire in Chicago, while hundreds of others are wounded. To date, President Obama has yet to mention these staggering statistics in a city with some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the land. Same goes for Baltimore, New York and other cities that have done everything to restrict gun ownership, short of nullifying the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A shooting in Charleston here, a shooting in Roanoke there and, most recently, a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, and the selective politicizer-in-chief, Barack Obama, gets on his soapbox demanding more and more gun control legislation- that is to say legislation-as-a-concept, rather than legislation-as-a-specific- while the carnage continues unabated in the heavily gun-controlled urban meccas ruled by his Democrat allies, for decades. Even in New York City, where former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s “Stop-and-Frisk” policies had drastically reduced gun violence, this policy has been deemed “racist” by his race-baiting and opportunistic successor, Bill de Blasio, and by ending this “Stop-and-Frisk” policy, New Yorkers have now witnessed a spike in gun-related deaths. Such is the result of liberalism run amok.

In the most recent instance, it is tragically ironic that Umpqua Community College had been designated a “Gun-Free Zone”, which is what happens when liberal academia honestly believes that such platitudes and policies make their campus sanctuaries safe, when indeed, the opposite is true. The result? Nine Christians, faithful to the point of becoming martyrs, dead for owning up to their faith in Christianity at the point of a gun- a factor oddly (but then again, come to think of it, not-so-oddly) omitted by a president who still believes that Islam is a wholly-peaceful religion which remains, to this day, a victim of the 12^th century Christian crusades. Remember Virginia Tech, anyone? Thirty-two deaths of defenseless victims occurred on a college campus which proscribes the possession of firearms.

That is the problem with gun-control laws. Law-abiding people have a tendency to abide by gun-control laws, leaving themselves defenseless victims to criminals who don’t give a rat’s ass about gun-control laws, in the first place. Listening to these liberal politicians, one would think that guns are so dangerous, that they kill without willing human accomplices pulling triggers- as if to say, homicide stops in the absence of firearms.

Those out there who would be so ready to ban guns, because of shooting deaths, should be asked as to whether or not they would be as ready to ban alcohol, and ban automobiles, because of all of the deaths related to DUI…

There is no difference between the two- except for liberal hypocrites who think otherwise. Death is death and, in both instances, these deaths are not the fault of the gun, not the fault of the bottle, not the fault of the automobile, but rather the fault of the operator.

While there is no constitutional right, per se, to own or operate an automobile, and, despite the end to prohibition by the twenty-first amendment which ended prohibition by the eighteenth amendment, while there is no constitutional right to imbibe, per se, there IS a constitutional right for an individual to keep and bear arms without infringement- like the infringement of gun-control laws in some of the most dangerous cities in America. Interestingly, it is the only stated constitutional right that is almost universally regulated by licensure, and in some cases, outright proscription. The second amendment was very distinctly added to the Bill of Rights to enable individual citizens the right to protect themselves and their property against aggression, perpetrated by other individuals and even by the government, itself. Remember that Adolf Hitler confiscated privately-owned firearms in Germany, so as to leave the populace defenseless against a coming Nazi onslaught and holocaust against the Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe.

Given the president’s opportunistic grand-standing, leave it to all his would-be Democrat successors to jump on the band-wagon of gun-control, with Hillary Clinton even stating, quite clearly, that she will do away with the second amendment, entirely by executive order- which represents an entirely new frontier in executive overreach- where even Barack Obama has yet to venture.

So much for a nation of laws…

-Drew Nickell, 7 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Obama’s Russian Delegation in the Middle East

For more than forty years, the one constant in U.S. foreign policy had been the absolute resolve to prevent Soviet/Russian hegemony in the Middle East- a resolve that transcended both party and ideology. From the mid-1970s on, U. S. presidents were united in the construct that Soviet/Russian influence in that troubled region be minimized, if not proscribed, by an activist U.S. sphere of influence in that troubled region…

…and then, Obama happened….

Whether or not one agrees with the wisdom of U.S. intervention in Iraq during the administration of George W. Bush, it is a matter of fact that a), weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)- some 5,000 of them, according to a New York times article in April of 2013, were indeed present in Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein at the time the United States sent ground forces into Iraq; and b), following the 2007 surge of forces under General David Petraeus, on orders from President Bush, the war in Iraq was most definitely won and Iraq was, at long last, stabilized…

…and then, Obama happened…

Running for president in 2008, Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq was patently clear during his campaign for the presidency and, immediately following his election that November, he a), promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”; and b), went on a world tour to apologize for America’s transgressions, including our Iraqi intervention, and tell the world that the United States was no better than any other nation- for which he was dubiously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. When he was inaugurated in January 2009, he reiterated his “apology tour” speeches, announced his intentions to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible, and close the U.S. detention facility located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the “worst of the worst” terrorists were being held as de-facto prisoners of war- a war on terror that began on September 12, 2001, following the attacks which took place, the day before…

…and then, Obama happened…

Against strong advice to the contrary, from a wide array of expertise in both political parties, Obama began the systematic dismantling of U.S. presence in the Middle East, with a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq- troops that would have provided the much-needed stability in Iraq, following the war, at a precious moment in time where such a presence- much like the post war presence in Germany and Japan following World War II, and South Korea, following the Korean War- would have provided the security and conduit necessary to establish a stabilized government and U.S. ally in the Middle East, just as we had done in Europe and Asia.

In doing so, it was Barack Obama who created a vacuum of power in Iraq, which summarily led to the rise of ISIS/ISIL , enabled the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad to wage genocide on his own people by Obama’s drawing a facetious “line-in-the-sand” about the use of chemical weapons against them, and summarily allowed the continued atrocities being levied against Christians and non-compliant Muslims, by not even being willing to identify the culprit as “radical Islam”. His thorough disengagement from all presence in the region, not even providing requested weaponry and assistance to the one ally fighting against ISIS/ISIL- Jordan and, along with the unequivocal farce of his ”deal with Iran”, reveals his absolute intent to allow radical Islam, which words he dares not say, take over an entire region.

Perhaps even worse, Barack Obama has allowed and abided the entry of Russian military forces into Syria by creating a void which Russian President Vladimir Putin was oh-so-happy and willing to fill. Today, it has been announced that Putin has ordered, ORDERED the United States to cease and desist from the very limited and targeted air strikes which have occasionally been taking place, in lieu of meaningful military action which could, if utilized without hand-wringing by the Obama administration, otherwise destroy both ISIS and the Assad regime.

In other words, while Barack Obama has absolutely no intention to oppose Russian aggression in the Ukraine, he is willing to allow Russian hegemony, and thereby delegated to Vladimir Putin the authority to lord over an entire region in the Middle East, where all of his predecessors had committed themselves to preventing such a thing from happening, in the first place.

When the day arrives in which an emboldened and resurgent Russia has the wherewithal to order the United States to “cease and desist” from doing anything at all, that day marks the beginning of the end for the United States as a world superpower, and the void which is then filled by a not-so-benevolent and oh-so-calculating Russian federation will no doubt usher in a scenario ending in the next world war…

…yes, Obama happened…

-Drew Nickell, 30 September 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Speaker Boehner Resigns- The Tragedy of Strategy

Amidst all of the many news items flashing across headlines at the end of last week, including the “Pope’s Visit”, “Obama Meets with Chinese Leader”, “Obama to Meet with Putin”, “Official e-mails Recovered on Hillary’s ‘Wiped’ Server”, one sent a shock-wave throughout Washington, like none other- “Boehner Steps Down from Speakership, to Leave Congress October 30^th”.

Setting aside the irony that the 30^th of October happens to coincide with our fifty-seventh birthday, it was indeed a surprise that House Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH) proffered his resignation, the day after the Ohio congressman was seen repeatedly dabbing his tear-filled eyes during and following Pope Francis’s address to Congress, the day before. Whether or not one of these had to do with the other is something that will never be known, so we’ll set aside any hypothesis that the two are related, as doing so would be nothing more than gross speculation.

More relevant to the Speaker’s resignation was the Henrico County, Virginia electorate’s ouster of his former Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA) in June of 2014, when a relatively unknown conservative Republican, and Tea Party favorite named Dave Brat, mounted an old-fashioned, door-to-door campaign and wrested his party’s nomination from a man who, at the time, was the second most powerful Republican in Congress. Eric Cantor- the epitome of the go-along-with, get-along-with oh-so-moderate Republicans in the Congress and Senate, was so confident in his incumbency that he forgot to campaign for, and thereby defend, his seat.

By pursuing a strategy of “let’s not risk our power in Congress by confronting the Democrats and Obama” the loss of his seat was the warning shot across the bow of mainstream, establishment Republicans that they should start listening to their broad base of support- conservative Republicans who elected them into office. Yet, by and large they didn’t listen.

Fast-forward to the mid-term elections later that year. Then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), along with House Speaker John Boehner (who had, himself, become Speaker in the mid-term Election of 2010 when the GOP won a House majority overthrowing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Democrats), went out and told the country “Give us a majority in the Senate, increase our power in the House, and we’ll defund ObamaCare, and put the brakes on his executive overreach”. The electorate responded, in kind, drastically increasing the GOP caucus in the House, overturning nine seats in the Senate, ousting its erstwhile Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and delivered to the GOP leadership exactly what they asked for- a mid-term election of historic proportions, with the largest shift of power on Capitol Hill since the mid-1920s.

For all of their efforts, the Republican voters were awarded with… (drum roll please) … absolutely nothing. The Republican leadership did an about-face and returned to their “go-along-with, get-along-with mainstream, establishment oh-so-moderate strategy” of “let’s not risk our majority’s standing by doing nothing, instead”, as if to say, “Screw our Republican base- they’ll vote for us anyway…let’s not make any waves and, by doing so, we’ll consolidate our power”.

So afraid was the GOP leadership in the House and the Senate, that they wouldn’t even risk the political fallout of a threatened government shutdown, on defunding/replacing the wildly unpopular Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) when they had an absolutely magnificent opportunity to do so, and now are doing the same with regards to the disaster that is the Iran Deal, and continued funding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of the baby-part-for-sale videos, both of which find vast opposition across the electorate by wide margins.

Often saying, “We don’t have enough votes to override the president’s veto…”, they instead surrender power to the president and the minority Democrats in both houses, without waging any discernible opposition in the first place- essentially giving up the fight before the bout.

Wonder why the leading Republican Candidates seeking the nomination are non-politicians, and why thy leading politicians under them in the race for the GOP nod are the most conservative? Recent polls have shown that almost two-thirds of Republican voters (62%) “feel betrayed” by the GOP leadership in Washington.

Simply stated, the “go-along-with, get-along-with mainstream, establishment Republican Party” has gone the way of the dinosaur, which is why the Jeb Bushes, the Lindsay Grahams, and the John Kasichs of the world, will not get the nomination of Republicans who have grown weary of being taken for granted by these Democrat “wannabes” and demand instead, a truly conservative Republican Party as a true alternative to the increasingly-socialist Democrat Party. Having been burned five times by moderate Republicans, who went down to defeat in prior elections (Ford ’76, Bush-the-elder ’92, Dole ’96, McCain ’08, Romney ’12), and barely squeaking by with a moderate/semi-conservative George W Bush twice (‘00 & ‘04), they have since awakened and are thus demanding that a true conservative, along the lines of a Ronald Reagan, be nominated, instead. If that doesn’t work, they will settle on any Republican who is willing to call out Obama for what he is, Hillary for what she is, and the Democrats for what they are, because they are absolutely fed up with the oh-so-deferring and gentlemanly-chivalrous Republicans, who have about as much fight in them as a wet dishrag.

One would think that the departure of Boehner and the demands for replacing the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would serve as a much-needed wake-up call to the rest of the GOP caucus to either “put up or shut up” , by actually opposing through action, legislation that would finally put Obama and the Democrats on the defensive, for once. Yet, leave it to a “blue-lipped wonder” like Mitch McConnell, to stand by his principles and ignore the increasingly-obvious handwriting on the wall that states, quite plainly, “The analysis of paralysis is nothing more than a strategy of tragedy, and by sticking to it, you will give ALL of the power back to the party you pretend to oppose, while the country will suffer, as a result of you own impotence…”

It’s the obvious that is most often difficult to grasp, when one cannot envision a forest for the sake of all of the trees, instead.

-Drew Nickell, 28 September 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Perils of Playing Papal Politics

This week is absolutely abuzz with the visit of Pope Francis to the United States. Pope Francis, the first Catholic prelate from the Western Hemisphere and, for that matter, the first non-European to ever ascend to the throne of Saint Peter, is enjoying a tour-de-force in his first visit to the United States, with stops in Washington, Philadelphia and New York, and making his presence well known in the halls of power. His stops will have included visits to the White House, meetings with the President, addressing a joint session of Congress, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations- all in addition to his many pastoral activities, including celebrating Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where he has canonized Father Junpero Serra into the sainthood of the Catholic Church- the first time any saint has been canonized by a pope while in the Western Hemisphere…history thus made on a profound scale.

His visit to the United States followed his visit to Cuba and its former dictator, Fidel Castro. Reportedly, the pope had a hand in brokering a deal between his ruling brother, Raul Castro, and Barack Obama where full diplomatic relations have been restored, following fifty-six years of what had become stalemated estrangement between the two countries.

The Catholic Church teaches that, on matters of faith and morals, the Pope is infallible- essentially granting his office absolute and unequivocal authority in matters of Catholic doctrine, based upon his predecessor, Saint Peter, being given this authority by Jesus Christ, himself.

This authority, however, does not extend to temporal matters- not in the least. On matters pertaining outside the Church, the Holy See is nothing more than a head of state (the Vatican), and as such, one world leader amongst several. It is in this realm, that his visit to the United States transcends the ecclesiastical and thereby enters into the tempestuous world of politics, where his authority does not present itself- not in any way shape or form.

When the world politic begins to mingle with the world religious and vice-versa, trouble can, and often does rear its ugly head. In the case of the pope’s visit here, both he and political leaders have regrettably wandered into the perils of playing papal politics, where anything said by the pope becomes co-opted by politicians with far more earthly and clandestine agendas. How ironic it is that many politicians on the left, including the president, will attempt use his statements about an array of issues ranging from climate change and open borders to wealth re-distribution and capital punishment, all to advance their own political narratives, while fully-well ignoring his stances on abortion and same-sex marriage. That’s called selective endorsement of papal positioning or, if you will, opportunistic grandstanding, for which they should be ashamed of themselves.

With all due respect to His Holiness, he himself treads these same treacherous waters, when he inserts himself into domestic political discourse and into US foreign policy, as he has evidently done so on several occasions. It is one thing for the Vicar of Christ to spread the good news of the Gospels to all corners of the watching world, but it is quite another to use his offices to declare what is politically moral, and what is not politically moral, as when he said “people who manufacture or invest in weapons cannot call themselves Christians” and, in so doing, essentially seeks to ex-communicate those who happen to make or own guns. Such proselytizing is not consistent with his offices, and it is for this reason that what should otherwise be a celebration of his visit to our country is now sullied in the licentious world of political debate. The same can be said of his apparent displeasure with capitalism, despite the undeniable reality that free-market capitalism has done more- far more, than any other system, to alleviate poverty and lift up millions from want.

Having said this, Pope Francis, himself fully admits that he has not read nor watched the news in more than thirty years, except for a brief daily scan of a Roman newspaper, which means essentially that His Holiness is out of touch with contemporary and worldly politics. With deep and abiding respect for his office, he would do quite well to remain outside this arena when it comes to saying what is and is not correct, for it is neither his purview nor his profession to do otherwise.

That aside, may God bless His Holiness, Pope Francis, and keep him safe in his travels, always.

-Drew Nickell, 24 September 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The “Gotcha” Game- How the Media Controls Elections

Question- How do you know when a Republican Candidate has a reasonable chance of winning an election?

Answer- It’s simple…when the media starts asking the Republican Candidate “gotcha’” questions…

Regrettably, no media outlet- print or broadcast, is above playing the “Gotcha” Game, not even the supposedly-conservative Fox News Network. Going back to the early days of television, and the even earlier days of print journalism, the fourth estate swims in its own sweet sauce of bringing down candidates with whom they politically and philosophically disagree. It has gotten worse, much worse, since the election of Ronald Reagan- and with every election since, the inherent bias in the media has become more and more egregious.

It works like this… Candidate X declares his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the presidency. Based upon the candidate’s timing of the announcement, the candidate has a twenty-four hour window of intense media attention, which the candidate admittedly craves and seeks to milk to the fullest extent that he/she can. Then, one of two things happens:

If the candidate is relatively unknown, or does not engender much of a bounce in the polls, the candidate is largely ignored or, at best marginalized to the extent that he/she gets no attention unless he/she says something outrageous.

(or)

If the candidate is relatively well known, or engenders a substantial bounce in the polls, the media swarms around the candidate, pounces on him/her and starts laying interrogative land mines which, if stepped on, begin to destroy the efficacy of his/her campaign.

The process of candidate destruction is very effective and can make or break a candidate, long before balloting even begins.

Take for instance the very first question during the main event of the Fox News debate in Cleveland. Brett Baier’s question was so obviously pointed at Donald Trump, it was obvious that Fox News was participating in the “Gotcha” Game. Megyn Kelly confirmed this over-the-top bias, when she asked Trump about disparaging comments he had previously made about Rosie O’Donnell- which has about as much to do with prescient issues as the color of the tie he was wearing at the time. Fox News, often accused of being conservative, showed its true colors by deciding before-hand which candidates are acceptable to them, and which are not. Obviously, Fox News does not like the idea of a Trump nomination.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the second debate, hosted by CNN at the Reagan Library, was even more egregious…egregious against Trump, as fully eighteen minutes was devoted to shooting him with all types of interrogative poisoned darts by the CNN moderator, and egregious against the entire GOP field, spending much of the balance of time indirectly attacking him, or pitting one candidate against another, in an effort to make the entire group of candidates look like an eleven-member troupe performing a verbal version of a pie-throwing, slapstick farce. Admittedly, it’s no surprise that CNN would show its all-too-obvious bias against the Republican Party, as they would NEVER do such a thing in a Democrat debate.

Notice also, in both of these televised events, the grossly inordinate amount of time spent on some candidates as opposed to the other, comparatively-marginalized contestants, who barely registered themselves due to the lack of opportunity to speak at all- cases in point Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and, to a lesser extent, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie. All of these candidates were afforded only a fraction of time that was allotted to Trump, Jeb Bush and, in the second debate on CNN, Carly Fiorina.

This media manipulation is not limited to the televised debates- not by a long-shot. Take for instance the question posed by Chris Todd to Ben Carson, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on September 20th. He asked Dr. Carson about whether or not he would support the presidential candidacy of a Muslim. This question, completely irrelevant to this campaign for its complete lack of a Muslim candidate, was an obvious attempt by Todd and his network, to create a controversy that does not exist, and take down the candidacy of an increasingly-popular candidate with whom they object, as if to say “How dare an African American run for office as a Republican?” Does anyone imagine that Hillary Clinton would ever be asked such a question? Now that Carly Fiorina’s popularity is surging, following her stellar performance in the CNN debate, they will no doubt do the same to her, all for having the temerity of being a woman seeking the Republican nomination- a Republican Party who supposedly hates women.

The message is quite clear: substantially rise in popularity, and show some promise as to the possibility of becoming the next president, and the media will absolutely destroy any chance of one’s survival. The reason that they don’t attack Jeb Bush is because he is the candidate who the media has ordained as acceptable, largely because of the perception, warranted or otherwise, that the country will not elect a third Bush to the Oval office.

The media has largely ignored Scott Walker. Couple this with his lackluster performance in both events, and the resultant drop in funding, led to his decision this week to suspend his campaign. Walker effectively took on the unions in Wisconsin, survived two recall elections, and was an early-on and odds-on favorite to be a front-runner. At both debates, and on the campaign trail, it was obvious that Walker was given about as much attention as an unoccupied bellboy at a five-star hotel. One down, others to go…

Essentially, the mainstream media WANTS either Donald Trump or Jeb Bush to be the eventual nominee, and there is precious little that any other candidate can do to change this paradigm. They want Trump, because of the delicious possibility that he will commit an over-the-top faux pas, and thus guarantee the election of a Democrat. They want Jeb Bush because of the perception that another Bush is one-too-many. For Fiorina and Carson, the media will no doubt besiege them in an obvious attempt to drive these two “outsiders” out of the mix. Promising conservatives, like Rubio and Cruz, will have to scratch tooth-and-nail to get any attention at all, because they have the chutzpah to offer substantive conservative ideas that fly in the face of Democrat dogma. This dogma, which purportedly advances the idea of a supposed correlation of intelligence and the degree of liberalism so espoused, explains why Ronald Reagan was and is portrayed as “an amiable dunce”, despite the fact that it was Reagan who stood down the Soviet Union, and why Barack Obama was and is portrayed as a political version of “the second coming”, while it is Obama who caved in to Iran- the worst deal ever struck by a US president.

In summary, when journalism, either in print or over-the-air, sheds the vaunted veneer of objectivity, and takes on the trappings of over-the-top advocacy, representative government is then perverted to the point of polemic pointlessness, and the potential then arises that such a form of government shall sadly be sacrificed to the effete egos of sanctimonious media malcontents.

-Drew Nickell, 22 September 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Trump Card- The Free-For-All at the Second GOP Debate

In our youth, we played a version of football that we called “Smear the Queer” which, in other areas of the country, was called “Get the Goat”, “Maul the Man”, or other such monikers. The football was thrown high in the air and whoever caught it became the target of everyone else, who would jump on the ball carrier until he coughed it up, and then the next kid with the ball became the target, etc., etc., etc. Essentially, it was a kid’s game which melded football with a juvenile version of a “Free for All”…

Last night, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, CNN hosted the political equivalent of our childhood game with a twist- the “ball” didn’t change hands, for the most part, and everyone- including the moderators piled on Donald Trump. This was by design. Almost half of the questions, in both the preliminary and main events, were aimed at “the Donald”, whether directly or indirectly. When the moderators were not targeting Trump, per se, they were setting the candidates against one another and even then, many of these match-ups eventually became focused on the GOP front-runner. To the shame of CNN, not a single question asked any of the candidates what they would do differently than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, nor any of the Democrats- none.

As for “the Donald” himself, he did a plausible job in fending off the attacks, such as they were. As was suspected, he appeared to have come into the debate unprepared to delve into the specifics of how he intends to tackle the larger issues confronting the country, and instead put forth broad generalities and thematic grandiosities, along the familiar and off-stated lines of his campaign…essentially sizzle without much substance. It is uncertain as to whether or not his performance will matter much- especially to his loyal following. Our guess is, however, that last night’s debate performance will do little to add to this following.

As was the case in the first GOP debate last month, it was Carly Fiorina who prevailed with the best overall performance during the evening’s two-heat debate. She only made one tiny mistake (and this is a stretch) the entire night when she failed to say her name during the initial introductions- the only candidate to do so. After that, when she spoke, she was absolutely on fire. Whether it was responding to Trump’s comments in a previous interview concerning her looks, assessing her own record of accomplishments in the private sector, outlining specifics on how best to handle threats from overseas and specifics as to how she intends to build up military and naval forces, and how she views the Iran deal and organ harvesting at Planned Parenthood, she was direct, pointed and thoroughly substantive in her responses. In a word, she seemed more than anyone else, “ready” to assume the presidency right then and there and handle the job with much aplomb and self-confidence. As a result, look for Carly to substantially rise in the polling prior to next month’s third GOP debate.

Marco Rubio, for his own part, turned in a fine performance revealing the depth of his understanding- particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security- of the issues at hand. He came across as a serious, focused and vigorous candidate, and his smooth delivery reminded us of the man whose plane they all stood in front of at the Reagan Library. His numbers, too, may rise as a result.

Jeb Bush, who came into the debate a half dozen yawns from being obliterated by Trump, turned in a solid performance- tactfully taking on “the Donald” and showing that he does, indeed, have some degree of fire in his belly to assert himself and show a not-so-programmed persona as he had previously shown in the first debate. While he nobly took up for his wife concerning the comments Trump had previously made as to how being married to a Latino affected his view of immigration policy, Bush’s call for a face-to-face apology came across as shrill and school-boyish. He did, however,  a fine job defending Trump’s attacks against his brother, reminding everyone that George Bush managed to keep us safe in the seven years that followed the attacks on 9-11.

Chris Christie also turned in a strong performance and, at one point, took over managing the debate where CNN so egregiously failed, when he chided Trump and Fiorina about their mini-spat on who had accomplished more (or less) in the business world, instead of focusing on the plight of America’s middle class, reminding them that the television audience doesn’t care about their respective resumes.

Going into the debate, Ben Carson was riding a surge of popularity and while his performance last night was satisfactory, it was less than inspired and may well mark the apex of his candidacy. His charm and easy demeanor remained intact, but the less-than-substantive policy positions seemed as hollow as those of Trump.

Where they were able to get a word in edgewise, the remaining candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Scott Walker did well enough not to commit any faux pas and, of this group, it was Walker who showed the most and much-needed improvement, while Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee offered the best content amongst these five candidates. Sadly, their numbers probably won’t move much- likely due to lack of attention on the part of the media more than anything else. Interestingly, the otherwise very likable John Kasich reminded us of Ed Sullivan in his seemingly-spastic physical gyrations and tics, something his debate coaches need to work on, if fixing these are even possible.

Insofar as the initial round, featuring Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Rick Santorum, was concerned, two things stood out. First, none of these candidates has a snowball’s chance in the tropics of becoming the eventual nominee. Second, while fewer contestants have a greater opportunity to engage one another, as was the case last night, it does not necessarily mean that such engagement lifts the chances of those so engaged. Our guess is that these four will have effectively ended their campaigns by year’s end.

Given the usual liberal bias that is recognized to be a part of CNN, the moderators did better than expected in their questioning but, the modus operandi of trying to pit candidates against each other and against Donald Trump, in particular, makes us wonder if they would do the same were they moderating a Democratic debate, instead.

One thing did come to mind as we watched both rounds. Given the “free-for-all” nature of this debate, and the mismanagement on the part of the moderators to control its delivery, there isn’t a single one of them who would be a worse president than any of the candidates running for the Democrat nomination- and that bespeaks of the seemingly certain fact that it is the Republicans’ election to lose in 2016, rather than the Democrats’ one to win.

-Drew Nickell, 17 September 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Trump Card- A Preview of the Second GOP Debate

On Wednesday evening, September 16^th, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, CNN will be hosting the second GOP Presidential Debate. Participating in the main event will be, alphabetically, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker. The night’s opener will consist of the rest of the remaining field- Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Rick Santorum, as Jim Gilmore failed to qualify for the preliminary round, and Rick Perry dropped from the race, early last week.

Carly Fiorina’s stellar performance in the last debate’s opener, led to her anticipated advancement to the varsity round. Barring any surprise in Wednesday’s preliminary round, or an unexpected and utter collapse by one of the candidates in the night’s main event, those participating in the first round are not likely to follow Fiorina’s footsteps to the upper level. By the time October’s third debate rolls around, a shortfall of campaign funding will have likely winnowed the entire field by a couple more candidates, at least, and our guess is that only ten candidates will remain in the GOP field by year’s end.

Looming large in the main event will be the following:

Donald Trump- Now that “the Donald” has signed the pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, and thereby forego an independent run should he not win the eventual GOP nod, will he show more or less bravado in his performance, or will he (excuse the analogy) “step in it”, so to speak, and reverse his rise in the polls? More to the point, will any of the aforementioned contingencies matter?

Jeb Bush- Given the degree to which his poll numbers are shrinking, the former Florida Governor is just about a half dozen yawns from being obliterated by the flashy front-runner. Will Bush risk credibility and become more feisty towards Trump, or will he come across as the policy wonk and take on further attributes of a wannabe who, in the final analysis, never was, despite being the early-odds favorite of the political class?

Carly Fiorina- Will the lone lady in a crowded field continue to impress with her steady and cerebral candor, and enable her poll numbers to rival that of Dr. Carson? Will she now go for broke and take on “the Donald” before a nationally televised audience?

Ben Carson- Will he continue to be the suave and debonair gentleman in the room, by charming viewers with his calming and measured demeanor, or will he cast off his courtly manner, and thereby provoke “the Donald” into a faux pas of consequential proportions?

Then, again, there’s this- or, alternatively speaking, the others in the mix. Will Chris Christie have another dust up with Rand Paul, as they did in the last debate, and will one knock the other off of the top tier? Will Cruz, Huckabee, Kasich, or Rubio turn in a much-needed strong debate performance to substantively change their standing in the polls, and will they be afforded the opportunity to do so, by the CNN panel of questioners? Will Scott Walker resuscitate his campaign from what seemingly seems to be his journey into the land of irrelevance?

Lastly, will there be anywhere near as large an audience watching this debate, as there was in the last debate. Here is a prediction- the larger the audience, the more consequential the effect on the respective candidacies, for better or for worse… Regardless, another deck of cards is about to be dealt, and we’ll see if a whole new…ahem…TRUMP card will be played…

-Drew Nickell, 14 September 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

9-11, Fourteen Years Later

Once upon a time, when the world was young (and so were we), we naively believed that, by and large, we were safe from the ills that plague the Middle East. We told ourselves, “Yeah, it’s pretty screwed up over there, but we are here, thank God, and all of that bad stuff is all over there…so why worry?”…

…Then a jet airliner flew right into one of the twin towers at New York’s World Trade Center…

Our immediate reaction was, “That must be one screwed up pilot…How could he possibly have not seen that building on such a clear day?”…

…Then, a second jet airliner flew right into the other tower at New York’s World Trade Center…

…and then, we knew that these collisions were no accident…

…Then, a third jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and a fourth plane, bound for the United States Capitol dome, crashed into the fields of rural Pennsylvania…

…and then, we knew that we were at war…

For an all-too-brief while, our country- the United States of America, which had a long-standing tradition of uniting during times of war, pulled together and resolved to do whatever it took, in order to stop the sinister ideology that prompted such dastardly deeds. For a brief moment, we forgot our ideologies, we forgot our partisan affiliations, we forgot our creeds, and our races, and all of our identity groups, and everything else that seeks to separate us, and we united behind the effort to get the sons of bitches who did this to us…

But then, partisan politics and advocacy journalism, on the part of the mainstream media, began creeping in and thus dividing us into partisan blocs, pitting liberals against conservatives, pitting Democrats against Republicans, pitting the poor and middle classes against the rich, pitting blacks against whites, non-believers against believers, gays against straights, etc., etc., ad nauseam…until we were united no more…

Seven autumns later, these divisions- with complicit help from a mainstream media, bound and determined to do whatever it took to make history by ensuring the election of the nation’s first black president- saw the election of a very different kind of president- a president who did not believe in American exceptionalism, a president who seemed to be above such childish notions of patriotism and “the American Way”, a president who derided Americans who “cling to their guns and religion”, a president who, in reality, had nothing but contempt for Americans and all that America has done, over the many decades, to preserve equality and freedom throughout the world. This new kind of president traveled the world, apologizing for all of his country’s transgressions and telling all of the world that we are no better than they, and for this they awarded him a Nobel Prize for Peace- for having done nothing more than being elected and disrespecting his own country…

This new kind of president- one whose psychological makeup and ideology is vastly different from all of his forty-three predecessors, did everything he possibly could to tear down this country, to further divide this country, to set Americans against Americans, thus fulfilling his 2008 election night promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” by changing us from a country leading the world towards a better tomorrow, to a country “leading from behind” in a concerted, determined effort to enable all of the world’s many problems to visit our shores and infect our national psyche. Due to this one man, and his nefarious agenda, race relations are worse today than they have been in sixty years. Due to this one man, we are far less safe today than we were, even on the sunny morning of September 11, 2001. Due to this one man, and an imbecilic Secretary of State, he  has struck a deal (a deal whose details have not been fully disclosed) with the most evil regime on earth, Iran- one that will assure their acquisition of nuclear weapons and inter-continental ballistic missiles with which to deliver these weapons on the shores of a nation they call “the Great Satan”, the United States of America. This one man, who would have us believe that unsubstantiated claims of man-made climate change pose a greater threat to our national security, than radical Islam, illegal immigration, and a nuclear Iran, combined…

What have we, as a nation, learned since that sunny Tuesday morning, fourteen years ago?…

Apparently? …not a damned thing…

-Drew Nickell, 11 September 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Back to School to What and Where

Today, across the country (and depending on where they live) five- and six-year-old children are beginning their first day of kindergarten, thus embarking on a journey that will presumably see them graduate high school in the year 2028. Later that year, we will have reached the age of 70, God willing, and we cannot begin to imagine what and where the world will be, at that time.

When we journeyed off to kindergarten in the fall of 1964, kindergarten wasn’t even offered in public schools within the Commonwealth of Virginia. One had to attend a private or parochial school for that level of pre-school. We remember learning our numbers and letters and we even remember learning to make change with play money, acting out the roles in a mock grocery store exercise, buying and selling empty boxes of oatmeal, cereal and laundry soap which we had brought from home. As amazing as it may sound today, given the difficulty some store clerks have making change from a cash register, this was a skill we were required to master in kindergarten. By the time we entered first grade the following year, it was assumed that we knew the rudiments of addition and subtraction on day one… Calculators?… Heck, we didn’t even have access to an abacus…

By the time we entered the third grade, we started to notice changes being made in our school- Gone was school prayer and reading verses from the Bible, as we had routinely done in our first two years of public school. Kindergarten was being offered for the first time in our public school, and so was “new math” a form of learning arithmetic that bedeviled students, teachers and parents alike. We remember our own parents, shouting in frustration as we showed them how we were taught to do arithmetic, in a way very foreign from the way they had learned a generation before.

At the end of our fifth grade year, Circuit Judge Robert Mehridge, whose children attended a toady private school, handed down a court ruling that ordered the consolidation of county and city schools- a decision that would force suburban students to be bussed into inner city schools, and urban kids to be bussed into suburban schools- in an ill-conceived attempt to equalize education. Ultimately, Mehridge’s decision would be overturned in a landmark Supreme Court decision, but not before its unintended effect of swelling enrollments in parochial schools and in creating a plethora of new private schools that year.

So we entered our sixth grade year attending a Catholic school, donning a uniform and for the first time- white button down shirt, navy blue tie and slacks, dress shoes, and finding out the proper protocol for addressing a nun when we were summarily slapped for addressing her as “ma’am”, instead of the more proper “Sister”… What did we know? … It wasn’t all bad, though. The football team at the school for which we played, had jerseys identical to the Baltimore Colts, and whenever we took the field for St. Bridget’s, we found ourselves caught up in a juvenile fantasy that we were playing in Memorial Stadium, rather than a tree-lined field on Cary Street in Richmond’s West End. Interestingly, St. Bridget’s was still teaching “old math”, far different from the “new math” which we had been taught in the latter years of public elementary school.

Three years later, we’d find ourselves at a Catholic military day school, which was now teaching “new math”. It doesn’t take much for one to infer the difficulty we had in mastering the idiosyncrasies of mathematics, given the back and forth means by which we were instructed over the relatively few years. After a year and one half of routinely marching tours to work off demerits, we left military school and returned to public school where, as one might have guessed, they had returned to “old math”, thus completing forever the disdain we have for math, in general…but we digress…

Even with the variety of schools we attended, and the variation of teaching methods that resulted from this variety, we learned the basics of that which was necessary to survive in an increasingly competitive and unforgiving real world- the one in which we find ourselves today- acting out an unforeseen role as a human ATM- the money comes in, and goes right back out, as we struggle day-to-day, in an effort to somehow keep ourselves afloat in a vastly changing world.

The retirement our parents enjoyed, and the standard of living they realized, will not be seen by their fourth child, but this is far from unique to this writer. Most all of his contemporaries are living a life that is one-half of an economic station below that of their parents, and his children are living a life that is a full economic station below the station of their grandparents. Then again, our parents were learning in high school much of what we learned in college, thus lending credence to the dumbing-down of educational curriculum that has been taking place during the last century. The fact that we have a Bachelor’s Degree from a large state university, and that we are nevertheless challenged by standardized eight grade testing from 1908, bears further witness to this unfortunate phenomena.

Granted, today’s youth can run circles around us when it comes to operating computers and smart phones, but this does not mean they are better educated. Rather, they have been programmed to perform technological functions thus preparing them to work in an increasingly technological world, where problem-solving has become more of a technological application and less of a cerebral function requiring retrospection and intuition. While today’s youth can cite us chapter and verse about the dogma of unsubstantiated man-made climate change which they have been force-fed, they are challenged to identify the three branches of government and are virtually unable to correctly identify the century in which the American Civil War was fought. They know even less about the concept of representative democracy, or the virtues of free-market capitalism, which can more than adequately explain why they tend to vote the way they do- but that is another topic for another day. While our parents were instilled with the value of self-sufficiency, our children are indoctrinated with a mantra which says we are all responsible for caring for one another- a textbook (forgive the term) example of how good intentions can, and do, lead to bad policy and worse sociological modeling.

It’s anybody’s guess as to what today’s kindergarteners will be taught during the next dozen years or so, or where they will eventually land, following graduation in 2028. Given the hyper-inflation of college tuitions, which is the direct result of government funding and the broad availability of student loans, and the fact that what is being taught in colleges and universities is of increasingly questionable value, our guess is that, either a) college and university education will become tuition-free; or b) far fewer students will be attending colleges and universities by the time today’s kindergarteners will graduate from high school.

It can be certain if the trend continues away from broad-based, multi-faceted education, and towards homogeneous indoctrination and technological functionality, that these children will grow up to become more functionary than intellectual, more co-dependent than independent, more orthodox and less imaginative, and it is for these reasons that we would not wish to change places with them- no, not by a long shot.

-Drew Nickell, 8 September 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

Done In by a Done Deal

Well it’s official. Thirty-four horses’ asses in the United States Senate have put the proverbial screws to Israel and the American people. They have indicated that they will support Obama’s Death Deal to Israel, otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Treaty, and thereby prevent the Senate from overriding the very worst treaty ever signed by a sitting U.S. President.

Looking at the deal, Iran gets everything they want, and more- $150 billion in assets to be released by the United States, twenty-four days advanced notice of inspections at some, but not all, of their civilian nuclear enrichment sites, and all inspections to be performed…BY THEMSELVES !…. Think about it…THEMSELVES !

We get nothing- not even the release of four American hostages…

In a prior essay entitled “Dealing with the Devil”, written 14 July 2015, we likened this deal to the following scenario:

“Imagine, for a moment, a teenager’s mom telling her teenage son that she will be periodically inspecting the top drawer of his dresser for marijuana, AND will give him a fortnight’s notice of such an inspection, each time she feels the need to inspect it… and, then, if she DOES find marijuana, after said notice, he will lose his set of keys to the family car. What pot-smoking teenager would not accept THAT deal?”

This was written BEFORE we knew about the twenty-four days advanced notice, and BEFORE we knew about the side deal whereby Iran would be conducting their own inspections. So let’s amend the scenario:

“Imagine, for a moment, a teenager’s mom telling her teenage son that periodical inspections of the top drawer of his dresser drawer will take place, searching for marijuana, AND he will be given twenty-four days of advanced notice of such an inspection, each time she feels the need for inspection… and that HE is to conduct the inspection of his own dresser drawer and, then, if HE DOES find marijuana, after said notice, he will lose his set of keys to the family car. What pot-smoking teenager would not accept THAT deal?”

There is absolutely no difference between this scenario and “the deal” that the Obama administration has struck with Iran…none.

Except for one thing…we are not talking about the dangers of a teenager smoking some joints here…we are talking about an existential threat to one of our closest allies (Israel) and, given the fact that Iran is also developing Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), a national security threat to the United States of America.

We might expect such outlandishly naïve deal-making from a president who is stupid enough to think that man-made climate change, a theory not even close to being empirically proved, is the greatest national security threat to the United States. We might even expect that many of his party’s outgoing Senators might even prostitute their own better judgement, by accepting favors from a president who puts his ignorant ideology before country, on a regular basis. But to suggest that both they, and the president, would all but guarantee a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, all but guarantee an attack on Israel ushering in World War III, and all but guarantee that Iran, who is developing ICBM technology, will use this technology to attack what they still, to this very day, identify as the “Great Satan”…that being us, the United States- to suggest that, shows how low they can stoop, and how little they can even consider the ramifications of what they have done.

Albert Einstein once said, that while the next World War may be fought with nuclear weapons, “World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”, and thanks to Barack Obama and thirty-four U.S. Senators, the path to this scenario has now been advanced, irrevocably.

-Drew Nickell, 2 September 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

“An Angry Storm Approaches”

There’s a storm a-brewin’, upon a distant shore,

Slowly headin’ our way, and knockin’ at our door,

There’s a wind a-blowin’, the stench is in the air,

And don’t think it can’t happen, because we’re almost there…

A seeping hatred overseas, has festered for so long,

No matter what we’ve tried to do, all they see is wrong,

We’ve given the world our treasure; too often shed our blood,

And this is how they thank us, by dragging us through mud…

They gave Obama a Nobel Prize, for sayin’ we’ve been wrong,

While all this time he weakened us, and planned this all along;

“A house divided cannot stand”, and so it soon shall fall

And if we fail to stop the tide, we soon will lose it all

So listen brothers and sisters, too, it’s time to raise your voices,

And scream a clarion call to all, to make the toughest choices,

America is slipping from our grasp, we’re losing it, somehow,

An angry storm is headed here, unless we stop it now…

-Drew Nickell, 22 March 2014

©2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

When Lives Matter

Ferguson…Baltimore…Brooklyn…Charleston…Roanoke…Houston…and, like the Energizer Bunny™ the list just keeps going and going and going…but where?…

Of all of the social movements that have grown out of the events referred to above, perhaps the most moronic, the most divisive, and alas, the most racist, is the “Black Lives Matter” movement which has taken a strangle-hold of the political left, with the blessing of the most divisive president in the history of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. Like no other president in the last two hundred thirty-six years, Obama has done more to divide people along racial lines than the sum total of all his forty-three predecessors, combined.

It is not without reasonable notice that the President of the United States has much to say about the evils of racism when a black man is killed by a white man, but when a white man is killed by a black man, either nothing is said OR the blame falls on the gun, rather than the assailant. Given the fact that 95% of all black men killed by guns are killed by black men, the president is woefully silent with regards to black-on-black crime, instead blaming this violence on the lack of gun control laws. Never mind the statistical reality that gun violence is greatest in cities which have the strictest gun control laws enacted. Better to blame the weapon than the moral depravity of the assailant, and this is where the president’s moral authority is most lacking.

A president is supposed to lead ALL of the people- not just the people who support him, nor the people whose race with which he identifies, nor even the members of his own political party, but rather ALL of the people. To do otherwise is to engage in the malpractice of the politics of division, emulating the modus operandi of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and other megalomaniacs who sought power in precisely the same manner- conquest via division.

Do black lives matter, really matter?

Well, of course black lives matter, just as white lives matter, as do yellow lives, brown lives and red lives, and yes, even blue lives matter, too. In fact, ALL lives matter- and anyone who does not agree that ALL lives matter is the REAL racist. While a Martin O’Malley can apologize after saying that all lives matter, and while a Bernie Sanders can surrender his microphone to a black-lives-matter protester, and while a Hillary Clinton can exploit the black-lives-matter movement as a means to harvest a particular block of voters, these politicians are only serving to make matters worse, by giving legitimacy to what, in reality, is a racist movement- one that implies that black lives matter more than other lives. To suggest otherwise is ironically deemed racist, by the politically correct, when actually the opposite ideology is true… All lives DO matter.

We don’t hear chants that police lives matter, despite the fact that twenty-three law enforcement officers have been killed so far, in 2015 alone. We don’t hear that Christian lives matter, despite the wholesale genocide of Christians in areas controlled by ISIS. We don’t hear that unborn lives matter, despite the millions of babies whose organs are being harvested, for profit, by Planned Parenthood and other such organizations. The hypocrisy is quite obvious- and revealing.

Whoever is elected the next president of the United States will unfortunately be placed into the unenviable position of having to clean up this horrible legacy of the Obama administration – a legacy which has set back race relations sixty years, through pitting one race against another during the term of his presidency. Any candidate who lacks the moral courage to insist that ALL lives matter, has no business being elected President of the United States, regardless of who they are, or the party from which they are nominated. Anyone who does not agree with this premise should own up to being exactly what they are- inherently racist and would serve this country best by surrendering their right to vote.

-Drew Nickell, 31 August 2015

(author’s note- Energizer Bunny™ is a registered trademark of Energizer Holding, Inc., manufacturer of batteries under the same trademarked name.)

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Slippery Slope of Cultural Decline

Nobody wants to own up to it, much less discuss it. Yet, it seems so tangible that we can almost smell it in the air, taste it in our mouths, and feel it in our bones. It is the slippery slope of cultural decline that is painfully obvious- painful to the point of denial, and obvious to the point of certainty.

Think about it.

Our culture- collectively speaking, that is- has gradually, yet undeniably, been in decline for the last century, to the extent one could almost plot it on a graph. As time has passed, the culture in which we live has regressed to the point where we are close, very close, to hitting the skids.

Case in point- Times Square…

In 1900, a woman exposing her stockinged ankle- her ANKLE, mind you- could be arrested, as many were, for indecent exposure. Today, while we shake our heads at such draconian, such Victorian, attitudes and standards of decency, in 2015 women are parading around the same Times Square baring their painted breasts, and charging money for posed pictures- albeit without any censure or citation. In fact, Sunday, August 23rd was declared “National Go Topless Day” encouraging women all over the country to bare their breasts, under the rationalization and contrived aegis of “equality”. For those of us that came of age in the 1970s, such an initiative would not have been possible in our wildest and weirdest fantasies, and for our parents who disdained women trotting about in public, sans brassiere, not even considered within the remotest realm of possibility.

Case in Point- Popular Music and Dancing-

With the arrival of the “Jazz Age” in the 1920s, replete with flappers donning hemlines above the knees for the first time, much was made at the time about the perceived indecency of the music and new dances, such as “the Charleston”. In the 1940’s, men wearing oversized “zoot suits”, jitterbugging to the tunes of Duke Ellington and Cab Calloway, caused an actual and deadly riot in Los Angeles. In the 1950s, television cameras would not show images of Elvis Presley’s hips due to the suggestive nature of his gyrations. In the 1960’s, parents of baby boomers bemoaned the mop-tops of the Beatles when they appeared on “the Ed Sullivan Show” and this quartet was wearing dress suits! Go to a dance club today, and one can easily find young people “grinding” one another in a way their parents would describe “dry humping” in the back seat of an automobile, a generation before. One only needs to compare the lyrics of Cole Porter to the lyrics often found in rap music to see a vast difference in what is seen as appropriate for public consumption.

These are but two examples of cultural decline. There are many more examples, enough to fill a book, but the point is sufficiently made, nevertheless.

It is indeed a vast dichotomy to consider that, given all of the technical, scientific, medical and informational advances made since the turn of the century, our culture has taken an absolute nose dive into the abyss of acceptable behavior- and this dive doesn’t seem to be abating anytime soon. Just as the arrival of the internet promised to bring all of us closer together, it did the polar opposite as people today seem to be more isolated from one another than ever before. There are even cases of young people having “texting dates’” where they sit across from one another, texting back and forth, without a spoken word. Call us crazy but if that had been the norm when we were dating back in the 1970’s, there would have been no romantic progression past the first date- not to this writer, in any event.

History tells us that, time and time again, societies which have experienced extended periods of cultural decline have presaged their own eventual self-destruction, and anyone who believes that contemporary cultural decline will not repeat this eventuality, knows neither their history nor their destiny. As William Shakespeare once wrote in act II, scene I of “the Tempest”, “what’s past is prologue”, and we are speedily sliding down the slippery slope of our own demise.

-Drew Nickell, 28 August 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.

When Too Far Is Too Far

(author’s note- full disclosure- The author initiated into Sigma Nu Fraternity at Virginia Wesleyan College in February of 1978 and then affiliated with the Chapter at James Madison University in the Fall of 1979)

Most of us have seen the pictures of bed sheets hanging from the balcony of a Norfolk, Virginia Sigma Nu fraternity house. One says, “Rowdy and Fun- Hope Your Baby Girl is Ready for a Good Time”, while another reads, “Freshman Daughter Drop-Off” with an arrow pointing to the house’s front door, and the third reads, “Go Ahead and Drop Off Mom, Too”…

In a word, lame…

When the world was young, and we were both young and stupid, it was a tradition for college men to sit on a wall at Virginia Wesleyan College and watch the arrival of freshman co-eds as they moved into campus dorms. Occasionally, a whistle was sounded or a comment was made as to the co-ed’s looks, but never anything “over-the-top” as has been expressed in these bed sheets. Sometimes, as a means to break the ice, and draw some degree of favor from the young women, we would offer to help carry in their belongings, which generally delighted their parents. In other words while, yes, what we did could be construed as “ogling” by today’s politically correct mores, it really was an expression of curiosity, given the fact that Virginia Wesleyan College was a very small school back in the 1970’s, and everyone on campus knew practically everyone else. Still, it could be argued that the college men were “checking out” the new arrivals…

So be it…We’ll plead guilty…

The difference is that, back then, we knew where to draw the line…

Thirty-eight years later, we marvel at how times have changed and, in many ways, we fear for the worse. It is indeed ironic that in today’s culture, where sexual harassment (that wasn’t even a term in the mid-1970s) is constantly talked about, written about, “policy-ed” about, etc., etc., that some undergraduate men think that such over-the-top displays, as evidenced at Old Dominion University, are funny….

In a word, they’re not….

The problem is maturity or, in reality, the lack of maturity on the part of the miscreants. Let’s face it. Young college students caught in the cusp between adolescence and adulthood can and will do stupid things- like the time this writer kicked a football some thirty-five yards through a second story, plate glass window. We went straight to the building and grounds superintendent, told him of our “career place-kick” and we were rewarded with a reprieve for being honest- THAT time. (We never made a second attempt). Still, it was pretty stupid, to say the least.

While it can be argued that the sheets hung from the frat house balcony, in and of themselves, caused no harm per se, the fact that they were hung at all speaks volumes about a general lack of respect that these fraternity members showed towards the young women, their parents, their school, their fraternity and, in truth, themselves. While suspending the fraternity chapter (as opposed to the actual guilty parties) may seem a bit draconian, the school’s president and the national fraternity were correct in bringing swift action against the chapter, which has besmirched college fraternities, in general, and Sigma Nu, in particular.

We would ask every young man entering college today that he be mindful of the way he treats the opposite sex, and that he would do well to remember his own sister, his mother and, looking ahead, his daughter as well, when expressing himself. Never would the ‘golden rule” have a more fitting place than in such a situation.

So, to our fraternity brothers, we’ll simply say, “Grow up and act like men- REAL men…Otherwise, your alumni are going to have to pull out the proverbial paddle and tan your hides!”

-Drew Nickell, 25 August 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Populism Reincarnated- The Rise of the Anti-Politician

All of us should have seen this coming from some time back- cycle upon cycle of professional politicians promising one thing and, if not delivering the complete opposite, delivering nothing at all. While the balance of power has shifted to and fro, in both the White House and in the halls of Congress between two major political parties, very little has changed- and what has changed has been for the worse.

When taken to excess, moderation breeds mediocrity and the excessive constraints on free speech, illegitimately bred from the demands of political correctness, has strangled and suffocated political speech to the point of utter silence. The professional political class has been emasculated to the point of irrelevance and what do they have to show for it? An electorate whose trust in public service has reached an all-time low, and the vacuum that has thus been created has resulted in the rise of the anti-politician.

The anti-politician is the candidate who is deemed outside the political mainstream. On the left, a Bernie Sanders fits the mold of the anti-politician- a self-styled and self-identified socialist who wants to end free-market capitalism in toto. Sanders is Barack Obama on steroids and has capitalized (forgive the term) on the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party that came into fruition with the nomination of Obama in 2008. Elizabeth Warren also fits the mold, wanting to take this country to a place it would otherwise dare not go. The only difference between these two is that the former, Sanders, admits he is a socialist and is officially running for the Democratic nomination, while the latter, Warren, admits nothing and is not running- not yet, anyway. Warren is just one Hillary Clinton indictment away from tossing her hat into the ring, for she is smart enough to know that neither Sanders, nor Joe Biden, nor Lincoln Chafee, nor Martin O’Malley, nor Jim Webb, nor an indicted Hillary have the goods to   ultimately be elected president. Were she actually a Native American, instead of pretending to be one, her Native-American name might be “Waiting in the Wings” Warren.

On the other side, there are several anti-politicians vying for the presidency. Most talked about is Donald Trump, the real estate mogul who has a history of patronizing career politicians from both parties in order to do his bidding- and, bravely, he not only admits it, he brags about it, to boot. Ben Carson, a noted pediatric neurosurgeon, and Carly Fiorina, a former business executive, have virtually no political experience at all, but these two candidates have elevated their respective standings in the Republican Party at the expense of established politicians like Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and Lindsay Graham. Despite what all agree was a very poor debate performance, “the Donald” has managed to keep his dominance of the GOP field intact, and has miraculously enhanced his numbers over establishment rivals like Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the latter being the “outsider inside Washington” whose unforgiving conservative credentials account for his solid standing in a soon-to-be-shrinking field of seventeen wannabes.

While the reporting class (a.k.a. the mainstream media) and the political class (i.e. Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, et al) collectively wring their hands and gnash their teeth about the prospect of a Donald Trump grabbing the nomination, the growing legion of Trump supporters couldn’t care any less. They continue to fill stadiums which ensure that their candidate will get the attention he seeks. The same holds true for the leftist loons who believe in their hearts that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren can lead them to the promised land of a European-styled socialist utopia- despite the reality that Europeans who live in such socialist utopias do not view their countries as utopian- no, not by a long shot. Sanders and Warren are merely trying to grab the baton from Barrack Obama and run us further down the road into mediocrity, a road that Obama has paved quite thoroughly, here at home and around the world.

The moral to the story, and the message to the political class, is simply this- just keep screwing around with the demands of the people, while you continue to marginalize their message, and eventually, the people will marginalize the politician and cleave to the anti-politician, instead.

-Drew Nickell, 24 August 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Impotency and the need for Viagra™

One day recently, at a church whose denomination will not be revealed, a children’s service was taking place. The children, all of whom were under ten years of age, sat in the front row pews while their parents were sitting in the pews behind. The pastor, as is done frequently, asked the children if any of them knew the meaning of the word “resurrection”. After a few moments, one of the children raised his hand and said, “I know if it lasts for more than four hours you need to see a doctor…” Predictably, the parents roared in laughter and the pastor was beet red with embarrassment, until he too doubled over in laughter.

Today we are bombarded with advertisements for medications which treat erectile dysfunction, but that is not the subject of this essay.

The impotence to which we reluctantly refer is the impotence of the GOP House and Senate leadership, whose all-too-tepid and milquetoast moderate stratagems are marginalizing what should be a party of opposition to the president. Ever since the House leadership went from Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Republican Speaker John Boehner, and ever since the Senate Leadership went from Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell- both amidst promises to curtail the president’s over-reach on a variety of issues- the Republican leadership has acted more like Democrat wannabes, than Republican leaders. Their reluctance to lead has caused Republican voters to collectively ask “Just who are these guys trying to impress- the mainstream media or their Democrat counterparts?” It would be nice if someone, ANYONE would take a hold of these two, by the collar, shake them and scream, “Grow a pair for Pete’s sake !”

ObamaCare? It’s still alive and kicking, despite promises to end this unpopular program. Executive Orders on amnesty? Nope, no action on this, either. Planned Parenthood defunding? Yeah, hurry up and wait ‘til September. It’s absolutely nauseating to see the lengths these two clowns will go to just avoid offending anyone- except their own party’s base, that is to say.

Now, even with a few but growing list of Democrats who are rightfully opposed to Obama’s farce of a “deal” with Iran, and an all-but-unanimous Republican opposition to this deal, the Senate leadership seems to be dithering on the issue while the House Speaker mumbles something about appearing to have the votes to object to, but not block, the worst foreign policy initiative ever put forth by a sitting US president, and one which will just as surely escalate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and practically ensure the destruction of Israel, if allowed to be implemented. This deal, as has been recently learned, provides for Iranian inspections of Iranian centrifuges and enrichment sites. Has someone lost their friggin’ mind (besides President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and the rest of what can laughingly be called a negation team) ?!?

If the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader can’t seem to (excuse the expression) “get it up” on this Iran deal, then the two of them need to step aside and allow others- ones who are capable of “getting it up” – to replace them at once. No “little blue pill” will help these two, but maybe, just maybe, if their constituents start flooding the telephone lines at the US Capitol, demanding immediate and swift action on this deal (not to mention Planned Parenthood defunding) someone up there will get the message and start acting like they “have a pair”, after all. Otherwise, the President will continue to laugh at their “floppy jalopies” as he continues to march this country down the road to irrelevance.

-Drew Nickell, 20 August 2015

(author’s note- Viagra™ is a trademark of Pfizer, Inc.)

©2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Term Limits- an Idea whose Time has Come

Would-be and wanna-be constitutional “experts” will take issue with this, but the time for the imposition of term limits has come and, is most likely, long overdue. Not since the twenty-second amendment was enacted into law in 1951, has the United States Constitution addressed the issue of term limits, and this amendment only addressed the presidency, limiting a president to two four-year terms. Nothing has been done to limit the terms of U.S. senators, representatives or, for that matter, Supreme Court justices. Doing so would require constitutional amendments- and, given the seemingly addictive nature of holding congressional office, such action would most likely have to be initiated through state conventions- thirty-seven of them to be precise. After all, what self-respecting Congressman or Senator would ever support anything that would limit his/her tenure in office?

The “Whorehouse on the Hill” (a.k.a. the U.S. Capitol), whose members on both sides are … okay… we’ll call it what it is… bribed …by well-connected “johns” (a.k.a. lobbyists) to do their bidding, are merely plying their trade in the halls of the Capitol and in their own offices. That is the narcotic that keeps these political prostitutes from wanting to relinquish their office. As much as we would all love to believe this bunch is motivated purely by public service, only the naïve would truly believe this. As evidenced by their own recent rulings, it is not unthinkable that such malfeasance has even made its way into the sacred halls of the U.S. Supreme Court and, given its proximity to Capitol Hill, this is not surprising because any city’s red-light district always has more than one house of ill-fame located within its confines. Sorry to say, but the only real difference between this area of DC and the red-light district in any large city is the architecture.

So without further ado, let us put forth the following four points, as an idea for discussion and consideration:

House of Representatives – Members should be limited to three two-year terms and then ineligible for returning to the House for six years, thereafter.

Senate- Members should be limited to two six-year terms, and then ineligible for returning to the Senate for sixteen years, thereafter.

Supreme Court Justices- Members should be limited to a single twenty-year term, and then ineligible to return for life.

Lobbying of any elected/appointed official, where an exchange of money or financial benefit is involved, should be henceforth deemed illegal, and punishable by imprisonment of no less than ten years, for both the lobbyist AND the elected/appointed official.

                                                                                         *                                   *

Such action would maintain the constitutionally-intended balance of power between the three branches of government, and would go far to clean up the cesspool that is our nation’s capital. Those aspiring to office would then be more likely to serve the nation’s interest, rather than lining the pockets of their pin-striped suits. Most importantly, we would be closer to that cherished idea of government of, by and for the people…

Any objections? …. Then write your congressman, as we are certain he/she will have plenty…much to our own chagrin and demise.

-Drew Nickell, 19 August 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Conservative vs Liberal and What it Means in 2016

Whether it is labeled “Conservative” vs “Liberal”, “Right” vs “Left”, “Tory” vs “Labour” or more ambiguously, albeit less accurately, “Republican” vs “Democrat”, it is shorthand for the eternal political struggle of one philosophy versus the other, as it relates to countries which allow partisan divides. History tells us how these determinations have been fluid during the last three centuries where people have had some level of say, more or less, in how their governments function. Political stances which at one time were labeled “Liberal” are now championed by the “Right”, and vice versa, and have been since the mid-twentieth century.

Since the 1960’s, these philosophies, generally speaking, have been static in that there hasn’t been much movement in how we define ourselves, politically. The anti-war, anti-establishment, socialist leanings of the 1960’s, finding root in the political “Left”, still reside in that arena, just as the pro-defense, pro-business, capitalist leanings of the 1960’s, finding root in the political “Right”, still reside in that arena, as well. In short, most who are old enough to have defined themselves as “leftist” in the 1960’s (and were honest enough to do so), would still find refuge in the political left, today. The reverse is equally as true.

What HAS changed is the degree to which the major political parties have shifted their respective “centers” when it comes to where they lie on the political spectrum. The Democratic Party which exists today is much more “leftist” than it was in the 1960’s, while the Republican Party is far less “rightist” today, as compared to where they used to be when Ronald Reagan left office in 1989.

What has ALSO changed is how individuals define themselves in terms of political affiliation, with fewer Americans identifying themselves as “Democrat” or “Republican” than their forebears did a generation ago. A higher percentage of people in the United States, today, classify themselves as “Independent” than ever before- reflecting a growing dismay with political parties, generally, and have given rise to the “anti-candidate”, most notable in the candidacies of Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and, to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz, all of whom are basing their campaigns on common themes of being “outsiders” to the establishment politicians centered in Washington, DC. Such a trend has also impacted voter participation overall, with a generally downward slide in voter participation since 1960.

So, how does one determine whether they are “conservative” or “liberal” in the lexicon as it is generally used in today’s parlance? Generally speaking, it is this:

A “Conservative” generally advocates the rights of the many over the rights of the few- be they social issues, foreign policy issues, immigration issues, legal issues, and economic issues. The Republican candidate who can best tap into these advocacies will be best suited to encourage their party’s turnout. In short, this will not be Jeb Bush.

A “Liberal” generally advocates the rights of the few over the rights of the many- be they social issues, foreign policy issues, immigration issues, legal issues, and economic issues. The Democratic candidate who can best tap into these advocacies will be best suited to encourage their party’s turnout. In short, this will not be Hillary Clinton.

While Mr. Bush and Ms. Clinton can still win their respective party’s nominations, such nominations will no doubt leave their party’s rank and file “un-plussed” and will encourage either a third-party run, low voter turnout, or both- all of which will generally favor the Democratic nominee over the Republican nominee, as no third party candidate will ever get the requisite 270 electoral votes necessary to win.

Having said this, in such a contingency whereby no candidate is able to amass the 270-vote threshold necessary to win the election will throw the election into the House of Representatives for the Presidency, and into the Senate for the Vice Presidency, with each state’s delegation having one vote apiece, which presumably would elect a Republican, given the current balance of power in those two chambers.

Despite who wins, rest assured that the new President will have an extremely difficult time pulling together a country as divided as is the United States, today. With all of the current challenges Americans face in a fast-changing world, it will require a rare breed, indeed, to successfully lead this country out of quagmire in which we now regrettably find ourselves…all of which can only lead to one question- Just who is crazy enough to want THAT job? …to be continued…

-Drew Nickell, 17 August 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The “Poll” Vault Part II – Picking Up the Pieces of the First Debates

It was Donald Trump’s debate to lose, and he lost the first Republican debate in a big way- both tactically and effectively. Right at the onset, when moderator Brett Baier asked if there was anyone who would not pledge to “support the eventual nominee, no matter who that person ends up being, nor rule out a third-party run”, Donald Trump raised his hand, much to the dismay of the audience gathered in Cleveland. When Baier asked him to confirm this, with the understanding that a “third party run would effectively elect the Democratic nominee” in 2016, Trump indicated that he knew full well what he was doing- essentially stating that he would only pledge to support the Republican nominee if he himself were that nominee. There was more…much more. Throughout the debate, he was surly, condescending and carried a facial expression which suggested his utter contempt and complete distaste for the debate and its moderators, as well. In doing so, “the Donald” has effectively has de-legitimized himself as a prospective Republican candidate and, more importantly, has exposed the veneer of a would-be candidate who has no depth to his flashy political persona. Based on this, unless he can pull off a miracle, his candidacy will not likely last to the New Hampshire Primary and the Iowa Caucus early next year because as a Republican, he is all but finished.

So who were the winners?

First, some kudos must go to the Fox News moderators who posed very difficult and pointed questions to each of the contenders- specifically challenging each of them to address their own shortcomings to policies and their respective past statements. In essence, nobody got off easy- in either debate. Hillary Clinton can thank her lucky stars she did not have to face these five moderators, as they would have likely ripped her façade to shreds.

Overall, none of the remaining candidates (other than Trump) “blew it” per se, but there were some clear winners- most notably Carly Fiorina in the first debate, whose overall performance was most likely the best all evening. The rest of the candidates in that first debate did okay, but did nothing to really bring up their polling numbers up the way Ms. Fiorina almost certainly will. She was crisp, cool and cerebral in her statements, and seeming flawless in her delivery, without any hint of hesitation or unease. There is no doubt she will climb into the top tier prior to next month’s debate. As a whole, the remaining candidates in that first debate showed that they were competent- but that’s all.

In the second debate, the clear winners were Marco Rubio, whose eye contact and charisma only added to the substance of what he said, Ted Cruz, whose considered statements rang true with honesty and conviction, and Mike Huckabee, whose clarity and specific vision revealed his grasp of the issues discussed. Ben Carson started off poorly, but improved his performance when the debate continued and had a very warm and personable closing statement, that will only serve to endear him to a far greater degree, than when he entered the arena. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker had plausible performances but only managed to do just enough to maintain the number of their supporters, but without adding any, by essentially playing it safe. An exciting exchange took place between Rand Paul and Chris Christie when dealing with the issue of collecting telephone metadata and each surrendered no ground, but Christie won that exchange by only the slimmest of margins. Ironically it won’t help Christie’s standing but, in the final analysis, it did seem to weaken Paul’s position in the field. John Kasich, having a distinct “home field advantage” in the Quicken Loans Arena, did better than expected, but not enough to drastically improve his standing in a crowded field.

All in all, it was an eventful and potentially-consequential evening, in that the front runner has stumbled in a big way. Look for Trump’s numbers to fall and the beneficiaries of this fall will most likely be Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson and Fiorina, who will be in a position to take on Jeb Bush and Scott Walker for the right to oppose Hillary or, if not, Joe Biden in the general election of 2016.

-Drew Nickell, 7 August 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The  “Poll” Vault- a preview of Thursday Night’s Debate-

Fifteen months from now, Americans will be casting ballots to determine, on a state-by-state basis, which set of their parties’ electors will select the next President of the United States. In essence, we don’t have a popular election- we have fifty-one separate state elections, which actually and eventually take place in the first week of December, when Electoral College votes are cast, based upon the popular vote in each of the several states and the District of Columbia.

On Thursday night, the sixth of August, the top ten candidates vying for the Republican nomination, based upon an average of five national polls, will be featured in a prime time debate on Fox News- a debate to be moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly. Earlier that evening the remaining seven candidates will have (forgive the term) a junior varsity debate amongst the candidates who failed to make the top ten cut.

While it might not be “fair” to split them up this way, with seventeen candidates running (as of this writing) for the nomination, it’s most likely that this is the only way to manage such a sizable cast of combatants. The die is presumably cast with Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina on the bubble to secure the ninth and tenth spots- giving them the right to join Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul at 9:00 EDT. The remaining candidates, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Lindsay Graham and latecomer Jim Gilmore will have to hash it all out four hours before this prime time “smack-down”, with two of four struggling to secure those all-important ninth and tenth spots.

All eyes will be on the 9:00 debate, primarily motivated by curiosity to see which of “the Donalds” will show up. Will it be the “in-your-face” Trump who can seemingly take on anyone in a heated tete-a-tete, or the “refined and restrained” Trump who can lay back and be “above it all”, while the rest of the field gets into the muckety-muck? Don’t look for Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Ben Carson to taunt him- after all, these three candidates are hardly the taunting type, and won’t take the risk to fall down further in the polls. Marco Rubio most likely won’t- it’s not his all-too-refined style to do so. Ted Cruz could possibly land a couple of blows, as could Mike Huckabee or Rand Paul, if they are willing to take the risk of doing so. Chris Christie and John Kasich, should they get in, could also wave a Republican red cape in the Donald’s face. Regardless, at this early (and I do mean EARLY) stage, Thursday’s debate is Trump’s to lose and, should he avoid a gaff or not lose his cool, he’ll walk away the winner.

The United States is indeed unique in the way we select a President- perhaps because it is, after all, the world’s most important job. Like everything else American, most notably holidays for example, we have a tendency to overdo things and do them prematurely, which is why essential polling fifteen months before an election seems as absurd as Hallowe’en decorations appearing on August store shelves, and Christmas decorations appearing on October shelves- weeks before Hallowe’en. We are, at long last, a nation of excess, and we seem, politically speaking, to be suffering under the weight of our own excess.

So, to all of the candidates who have “poll-vaulted” their way into this, the first of some seventeen such debates (between candidates of both parties, prior to their respective nominating conventions) may the best of them win, squarely and fairly, assuming such a feat is possible.

I’ll be watching…won’t you?

-Drew Nickell, 4 August 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Fire that Burned Baltimore into the Big Leagues

It’s hard to imagine a more unusual set of circumstances which propelled Baltimore’s arrival into the pinnacle of professional sports. For fifty-two years, the city was relegated into minor league status when the major league Orioles pulled up roots and became the New York Highlanders, and ultimately, the Yankees. When the Federal League disbanded, International League Orioles owner Jack Dunn moved his team into Terrapin Park, located at 29th and Greenmount, and renamed it Oriole Park. It was a wooden edifice, seating 11,000, and the bleachers were repeatedly treated with creosote to ward off deterioration and decay.

Then on the evening of Independence Day, 1944, the place caught fire and was burned to the ground. The Orioles went on a 12-game road tour while Municipal Stadium, an earthen football stadium located on 33rd Street, was readied for baseball. Because of its immense size, the old stadium, which had previously been used almost exclusively for football, was able to draw unusually large crowds for minor league baseball games. That same year, the Orioles made it to the Little World Series and vied with the Louisville Colonels for the International League title.

At the same time this series was drawing in excess of 52,000 in Baltimore, the major league cross-town series, between the Cardinals and the Browns, was drawing a paltry 31,000 at Sportsman Park in St. Louis. People across the country took note, and began talking about the potential in what was, at that time, the eighth largest city in America.

Yet, it was football that made the first splash onto the scene when the All-American Football Conference awarded the defunct Miami Seahawks franchise to Baltimore. A fan contest to rename the team saw three submissions suggesting the name “Colts”. Because of an essay touting the Colts name and its tie to Pimlico and the Preakness, Charles Evans Hughs of Middle River, Maryland won first prize- a lifetime pass to Baltimore Colts games.

Meanwhile, a sports editor at the Baltimore Sun, one Roger Pippen, began to urge the city to re-build Municipal Stadium in order to attract major league baseball. Facing a lot of criticism, even from the editors of his own paper, Pippen went on a one-man crusade to spur interest in the project. In 1949, he succeeded and over the next two years, Municipal Stadium was gradually transformed into Memorial Stadium, which could accommodate both sports equally well.

At first, the new stadium was a concrete, single-deck facility seating 31,000. When it became known that St, Louis Browns owner Bill Veeck was interested in selling his team, the city decided to add an upper deck increasing the capacity to 49,000 seats- large enough for big league baseball. Attorney Clarence Miles assembled a group of investors, and the St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles in 1954. Ironically, another Browns franchise would relocate to Baltimore forty-two years later, and return Baltimore to the NFL twelve years after their beloved Colts had departed for Indianapolis.

Since the early fifties, Baltimore’s professional teams have been sometimes hot, and sometimes cold, but always of great interest, regardless of their standings. Yet, were it not for the fire of 1944, and the impetus that provided, they might not have been teams at all. From the ashes of 1944, Baltimore rose to a prominent place in both sports boasting world championships in 1958, 1959, 1966, 1970, 1983 and 2000.

(author’s note- the Baltimore Ravens won their second Super Bowl following the 2012 Season,  six years after this was originally published in the Baltimore Sun)

-Drew Nickell, 14 March 2007

© 2007, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

A Declaration of Personal Rights

February 26, 2015- In the City of Virginia Beach within the Commonwealth of Virginia

When in the course of history, the growing encroachment on Constitutionally-protected Freedoms causes one to avow his Rights, under a growing and pervasive threat to such Rights, I do hereby proffer the following notice to the Government of the United States, and to the Commonwealth of Virginia, in which I was born and continue to reside.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that I am an American Citizen, endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable Rights and that amongst these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as well as those Rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. I further avow that these Rights may not and will not be abridged without due process of law by any entity within, or outside, the Government.

I will not surrender specifically the Rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Amongst these are the right to Free Speech, Assembly, Publication of my opinions in any venue, and on any subject, as well as the right to Worship my Creator, in my own Way, and that the expression of such cannot and will not be abridged by any individual, entity or Governing body, on the basis of what such entities deem to be politically, socially, academically and/or morally incorrect. I further avow that it is my right to keep and bear arms as specifically enumerated in the Second Amendment, if I should so choose.

I hereby lay claim to these Rights which I will not surrender under any circumstance, other than my own demise. Signed and sealed on this twenty-sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

-Drew Nickell (seal)

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Wars, and Rumors of Wars

I believe it t was Aeschylus (525 BC – 456 BC), the Greek tragic dramatist, who once wrote that “In war, truth is the first casualty”, and all of us must consider this purview with regards to what is taking place in the world, today.

I am going to say something that is not popular, not politically correct, and would certainly not be uttered by President Obama, nor by his predecessors, Bush (both) Clinton, and not even Reagan, nor by any leader in Europe or elsewhere.. Nevertheless, I am going to say it because it needs to be said… whether or not we want to own up to it…and that is that we are at war with radical Islam…there, I have said it and I will say it, again…we are at war with radical Islam.

Why?

Simple- Radical Islam is at war with us. They know it, they say it, and we don’t… which places us at a tremendous disadvantage. No war can ever be won unless the enemy can be identified and called by its name. History has borne this out. For instance, in the World Wars, we were at war with Imperial, and then, Nazi Germany, which is not to say that we were at war with Germans, per se, but rather with their rulers- a slight and delicate distinction, perhaps, but altogether meaningful and substantial. We identified the enemy and we defeated the enemy twice, in a span of thirty years. So to be clear, we are not at war with Muslims, we are at war with radical Islam, and this distinction must be made clear, lest the point of this missive be missed.

In southeast Asia, in the hills of Asia minor, in the Middle East, and in Northern Africa, radical Islam is waging war against the west, and by “the west”, I mean the United States, western Europe and, of course, Israel. Just as this war is being waged in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and all over the Muslim world, it is also being waged in Europe, including Great Britain, and here, even in the United States. The problem is that the western concepts of sensitivity, inclusion and political correctness will not allow us to own up to this very fact- but it is a fact.

When Nidal Hassan launched his murderous rampage at Ft Hood, Texas, does anyone with half a brain in his head want to say that this was merely a case of workplace violence, as the Obama administration would have us believe, rather than an attack by a radical Islamist in the name of jihad? Does anyone think that the bombing at the Boston marathon last year was anything other than an attack by radical Islamist brothers for the purpose of waging jihad? Just how many of these acts, not to mention the 9/11 attacks, will it take for we in the west to realize just who the enemy is, be willing to call the enemy by its real name, and wage war against it.

Please forgive me for saying so but “terrorism” is nothing more than a generic euphemism orchestrated to hide the real truth- and that truth is that we are at war with radical Islam…not Muslims, nor even with the silent, so called, “moderate Muslims” who refuse to condemn the radical counterparts within their same religion…but we are at war with radical Islam, and we will lose that war unless we as a society, grow up, say what needs to be said, without regards to sensitivity, inclusion, or political correctness, and wage this war with the righteous determination- bent on victory that is so necessary in what is most certainly not a rumor of war, but of a real war, itself. If we fail to do so, we are finished, period.

-Drew Nickell, 13 June 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Inadmissibility of the Left

Disclaimer- Some of my very best friends are liberals. I don’t know why this is the case, given the fact that I am pretty conservative in my own political beliefs. Perhaps, in the end, I just feel sorry for these otherwise deplorable Democrat dolts (talk about alliteration) because, at the end of the day, they are usually proved to be wrong but never, EVER admit to having been proven wrong. You just gotta love such stupendous stubborn stupidity (okay, enough of the alliteration) when, in the face of facts which eventually bear out, they just can’t admit they had it all wrong. Cases in point:

• “Ronald Reagan is just an ‘amiable dunce’, a ‘reckless cowboy’ who will get us into nuclear war with the Soviets.” As it turns out, Reagan was an erudite reader, who actually studied up on the issues, made the right decisions, despite advice to the contrary from his own cabinet, and his policies brought about the end of the Soviet Union without having fired a single shot.
• “By 2013, the polar icecaps will have completely melted causing a catastrophic rise in the sea levels which will obliterate coastal cities in the United States…” Al Gore’s blathering, once taken so seriously, have been completely debunked, and that “Man-made Global Warming” is nothing more than a farce, not supported by scientific data, but a farce that made him quite wealthy, nevertheless.
• “George Bush is an idiot who thinks that if Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq too soon, that a force more dangerous than Al Quada will take over large parts of Iraq and cause death and destruction on a scale not yet seen”   ummm … ISIS anyone?
• “There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq- it’s just a lie made up by that dunce, George Bush, and his evil counterpart, Dick Cheney, as a lame attempt to justify an illegal War in Iraq.”    Well, as a New York Times article published just this morning, by one C.J. Chivers, has pointed out there were WMDs in Iraq- lots of them, and they even caused injury to our soldiers there…. Here is an excerpt from that article:

“From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops  repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by,  chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of  participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence  documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act”

And then, there’s this…

• “Our experts here at the CDC and across our government agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low. We’ve been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn’t get on a plane for the United States,” -President Barack Obama, 13 Sept 2014.    As it turns out, someone with the virus got on a plane to the United States and, so far two of the health workers tending to him in Dallas have become infected with the virus…in short, it’s here…In essence, the Inadmissibility of the Left is a nothing more than a play on self-righteous indignation- one whose asinine arrogance is only exceeded by the President they elected twice, whose very own asinine arrogance has now brought a disease into the United States for the first time since its first outbreak in 1976.

In a word- dangerous men, given power, beget dangerous results to those who empower them…and those of us who saw through the lies of liberalism must now suffer along with the fools who refused to see otherwise.

Sooooo… do you think all of these liberals will ever admit that they had it wrong about Reagan? Wrong about Bush and Cheney? Wrong about WMDs? Wrong about pulling out of Iraq too early? Wrong about the wisdom of Obama easing travel restrictions on flights from Western African nations where Ebola has become pandemic?…Don’t hold your breath….At this very moment, these same liberals are now blaming Bush for the Ebola virus coming to the United States.

.-Drew Nickell, 15 October 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The  Coming Pandemic

Pandemic- (n) an epidemic occurring on a scale which crosses international boundaries, usually affecting a large number of people. (source “Dictionary of Epidemiology” Oxford University Press, p. 179. Copyright 2012)

It is often said that what we don’t know can be deadly, and while humanity is always under the threat of extinction, be it from an unthinkable nuclear war, the strike of a large meteor on the surface of the earth, a gamma ray burst, or the eruption of a caldera which would result in a years-long blockage of sunlight, it is the microscopic world of viruses that pose the biggest threat to humanity.

Pandemics are nothing new. In 430 BC, a pandemic of Typhoid Fever wiped out 25% of Athens. Smallpox took the lives of as many as ten million during two outbreaks in the second and third centuries AD. Beginning in 541 AD, and lasting until 750 AD, the first pandemic of Bubonic Plague wiped out 25% of the known world population, and resulted in a 50% decline of the population in Europe. More infamously, it was the second wave of Bubonic Plague that killed 75 million people, beginning in the fourteenth century. Known as the Black Death, as much as third of the world’s population was completely wiped out during a six-year period, 1348-54 AD, and repeated waves of this plague continued to eviscerate as much as 50% of the European populace, up until the Great Fire of London in 1666 which virtually eradicated the disease in that city. Another wave of the Bubonic Plague hit China in 1855, spread to India, and killed an additional 10 million. Bubonic Plague even hit San Francisco, in the six years leading up to that city’s devastating earthquake in 1906, killing many thousands.

Smallpox, brought by Spanish conquistadores in the 1500s, virtually wiped out the native populations of Central America in the decades that followed- the same smallpox that killed off 90% of the Native Americans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the mid-1600s. Recurrences of smallpox, along with influenza and measles, ravaged the Plains Indian tribes in the mid-to-late 1800s, and killed millions around the world, as well.

More recently, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919, infected 500 million people across the world in a brief eighteen-month period, and killed some 50 million during a six-month period during the height of its devastation- more than were killed in the First World War that was just ending when this pandemic began.

Respective outbreaks of Asian flu in the late 1950s, and Hong Kong flu in the late 1960s, killed three million people worldwide, including over 100,000 in the United States, alone.

Today, one third of the entire world’s population has been infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis- that’s two and a half billion people around the world. Five to ten percent of these people will progress to having active tuberculosis- that’s anywhere from one to two million people developing a disease which has a mortality rate in excess of 20%.

And then, there is Ebola. This excerpt from a CDC report dated 29 July 2014:

“Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF) is one of numerous Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers. It is a severe, often fatal disease in humans and nonhuman primates (such as monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees). Ebola HF is caused by infection with a virus of the family Filoviridae, genus Ebola virus. When infection occurs, symptoms usually begin abruptly. The first Ebola virus species was discovered in 1976 in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo near the Ebola River. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically. The natural reservoir host of Ebola viruses remains unknown. However, on the basis of available evidence and the nature of similar viruses, researchers believe that the virus is zoonotic (animal-borne) with bats being the most likely reservoir. Four of the five subtypes occur in an animal host native to Africa”

The bad news is that Ebola hemorrhagic fever has an 80% mortality rate, and up to 100 health care workers who went to West Africa as part of a humanitarian effort to control the disease have become infected themselves, DESPITE the protective precautions these professionals have taken to prevent contracting the disease. Two of these professionals, Americans working for the Samaritan’s Purse, are now en route to the United States, destined for Emory University’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) is a decision that boggles the mind, when one considers the illnesses that are coming into this country by illegal aliens on our southern borders, 600 of whom have been placed in isolation for being infected with Tuberculosis.

Whether these latest developments are due to gross incompetence, intentional disregard for public safety, or some kind of ulterior and nefarious intent, by the Obama administration, is yet to be known- but this much we do know…the introduction of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever onto American soil is something we should all be attuned to and, combined with the health crises erupting from Obama’s decision to relax the deportation of illegal aliens who are carrying virulent diseases, is something that should not be tolerated, regardless of one’s political inclinations, moral philosophies or humanitarian concerns. To do otherwise, and abide in this onslaught, is morally repugnant, intellectually degenerate, and pandemically suicidal.

-Drew Nickell, 2 August 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Coming Constitutional Crisis

Created September 17, 1787 and ratified June 21, 1788, the Constitution of the United States, on which representative democracy is based, has long stood the test of time. It replaced the 1777 Articles of Confederation, which proved unworkable as the result of Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, the preceding year. Born of this crisis in the early years of our republic, it has been the foundation of what it means to be an American, and is the oldest constitution in the entire world still in use- an attest to its brilliance in forming a government of, by and for the people. Following the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, created September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791, it has been amended an additional seventeen times- amendments which have also proved, with the exception of the 18^th Amendment, to be lasting.

Since its inception, there have been a few occasions in which there occurred a constitutional crisis. Most notable was the constitutional crisis of 1861, where eleven states seceded from the Union, to form the Confederate States of America. This secession brought about the deadliest war in the history of the United States, as well as the Western Hemisphere, as civil wars throughout the world very often do prove to be so deadly. Another constitutional crisis erupted in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court, which unanimously struck down FDR’s National Recovery Act, two years prior. Yet another constitutional crisis in 1974 brought about the resignation of President Nixon, following the Watergate scandal. Since then, the Constitution has been occasionally tested, most notably in 1998, when President Clinton obstructed justice and perjured himself in Clinton vs Jones that previous year, which resulted in the second impeachment of a President in US history.

This week, on the 25^th of June, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that he is introducing legislation to allow the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for his refusal to execute our laws, for exceeding his constitutional authority in the use of his executive actions, and for his continuous attempts to bypass Congress. This confrontation has been slowly percolating since prior to Obama’s re-election and has, in the wake of the border crisis and many other brewing scandals, begun to boil over into a crisis within our federal government. Already, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against the president twice, in his attempt to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without consent of the Senate, and in his attempt to have the National Security Agency monitor the cellular telephones of American citizens without due process.

Now it will ultimately be left to the courts to rule as to whether Speaker Boehner, at the behest of Congress, has legal standing to proceed with this lawsuit- perhaps and potentially the most important litigation in the history of our republic. If Boehner is successful, then the constitutional balance of powers, outlined in the Constitution’s first three articles, will remain intact. If Boehner fails in his attempt to curtail Obama’s overreach, then this delicate balance of power on which our nation has survived, will forever be lost and this president will have destroyed representative government as we know it. Under such a contingency, future presidents would become de facto dictators, and the legislative branch of government will be emasculated to the extent of outright impotence, rendering the United States Constitution irrelevant, thus completing the hidden agenda of Barack Obama and his nefarious allies.

-Drew Nickell, 27 June 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Super Bowl XLIX

Super Bowl Sunday 2015 fast approaches and the New England Patriots will soon be facing the reigning world champion Seattle Seahawks, in a quest to wrest the Vince Lombardi Trophy from the grasp of its current owners. Despite all of the back and forth about deflated footballs and the like, my guess is that Seattle will retain their title. Granted, I personally have no stake in this particular matchup…I’ll care about the big game, itself, when Baltimore returns to it… ‘til then, it’s just another football game, as far as I am concerned.

Having thus opined about this year’s Super Bowl, I continue to marvel at the spectacle the Super Bowl has become, of late. For anyone who knows me, that should be no surprise…after all, I am older than all of the players, and most all of the coaches who will be participating in this year’s contest, and even eight years older than the game, itself. I do have memories of what came to be known as the Super Bowl, from its very beginning when it was known as the AFL-NFL Championship Game.

In the first such contest, the NFL’s Green Bay Packers faced off against the AFL’s Kansas City Chiefs at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, which was only two-thirds filled at kickoff- amazing, considering that the tickets to that game were $ 6.00 (that’s six bucks, folks), not to mention the fact that it was the only Super Bowl to be simultaneously broadcast by two networks, CBS and NBC. The halftime show consisted of a traditional college football bands from the University of Arizona and Grambling State University, along with jazz trumpeter Al Hirt. There were no special commercials aired for the Super Bowl back then…just the normal ads one might see for any run-of-the-mill football game, mostly for beer and cigarettes…yes, cigarettes. Miller High Life (“The Champagne of Beers”) squared off against the Marlboro Man (“Filter, Flavor, Pack or Box”) for viewer interest during the minutes between football plays.

Two years later, in what was to be the first so-called Super Bowl, a husky ten-year-old in suburban Richmond, Virginia was crying his eyes out when the Joe Namath-led New York Jets pulled off the greatest upset in the annals of sports and defeated the heavily-favored, Earl Morrall-led, Baltimore Colts. Coached by Don Shula, who stubbornly refused to play all-time-great Johnny Unitas until the fourth quarter, when the Colts were down 16-0, it was to become second darkest day in that young lad’s life as a football fan. Given more time, Unitas would easily have beaten the Jets, but it was not to be on that particular Sunday afternoon.

Two years later, that same husky ten-year old (now twelve) became the happiest kid in America, when Jim O’Brien kicked a field goal with five seconds remaining, to lift the Baltimore Colts over the Dallas Cowboys in Super Bowl V, which was the first time the newly minted AFC squared off against the newly-minted NFC, following the great merger of 1970. It was ironic that the first NFL team to lose a Super Bowl would become the first AFC team to win a Super Bowl, but that was the irony that was the Baltimore Colts. The darkest day in his life as a football fan, would follow thirteen years later when, on March 29, 1984, the Robert Irsay-owned Baltimore Colts snuck out of town in the middle of the night and thus became forever, in the mind of this fan, the Indiana-no-place Counterfeit-Colts.

In the decades that followed, the Super Bowl became a bacchanalia of excess, with “nip-slips”, “wardrobe malfunctions”, and even a platform for the sitting President, to take advantage of vast viewerships and drone on and on about something that has long since been forgotten. The pre-game show, which had been fifteen minutes, back in the day, now comprises five hours, yet the game itself is no better now than it was back then, and actually worse given all of the rules changes that have summarily ruined what was a great game in the 1960s.

That statement even holds true when the Baltimore Ravens won their pair of Super Bowls in 2001 and 2013…but, alas, I digress…

It’s Super Bowl Sunday, after all and the time for talking about it will end, soon enough…that is, until next year…Go Ravens !!!

-Drew Nickell, 20 January 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The State of the (dis-) Union

The Constitution of the United States, in Article II, Sec 3, requires that the President of the United States, from time to time, provide to Congress a report on the state of our union. This requirement has, over the decades, become an annual address outlining the president’s recommendation on his own legislative agenda, more so than a report on the actual state of our union, as it were. On rare occasions, the president has elected not to provide such a report, and the vaguely referenced requirement in our Constitution provides for this leeway.

In the past, most notably when presidents have faced defeat (typically following the mid-term congressional elections), they have reached out to the opposing party and proposed consensus-building initiatives for the greater good of the country. For example, when President Clinton suffered such a defeat in the mid-term election of 1994, he used the State of the Union address to reach across the aisle to engage the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans, and the result was fruitful in providing for needed welfare reform and, thanks to a change in the accounting procedures which moved some of the country’s financial obligations “off the books”, a so-called balanced budget, as well. These two initiatives proved better for the country at large, and business responded favorably.

In essence, Bill Clinton decided that it was better for the country for him to work with the opposition, than it was for him to stick with his partisan base and continue to try to ram through ideologically-driven initiatives, such as “Hillary-care” which would have divided the country and promoted even more legislative inaction.

This past autumn Barack Obama suffered, far and away, the worst electoral mid-term defeat of any president since the 1930’s. Nine senate seats changed hands and the House Republicans picked up an additional forty-seven seats, giving the GOP the largest share of House seats since the Great Depression. Not that “His Arrogance” was bothered in the least, as he inferred that the election results were nothing more than a reflection of poor voter turnout- which, reminded us of someone who throws the blanket over their head when they flatulate in bed. Tonight he will deliver his state of the union speech and, rather than putting the country ahead of his own lofty ego, he is going ahead with plans to further drive a divisive and toxic wedge into our country’s electorate, by once again driving home the dubious point that the rich need to do their “fair share”, and pay even more in taxes than they already pay. That is not exactly a legislative initiative that seeks to spur economic growth, according to any economist with half a brain, aside from Paul Krugman who, it would seem, only has half a brain. Some people, like Obama and Krugman, will never get it- the “it” being that communism doesn’t work, socialism doesn’t work, and taxing the rich doesn’t work, either. Again, Obama couldn’t care less. Should the country go down the tubes, he’d still be more than satisfied in the scent of his own flatulence, so why in the sand hill would he want to reach across to Republicans at this point in his presidency, and accomplish something good for the country?

He’ll swagger his pen and insist upon continuing to act as though he were some kind of monarch, and run down a list of executive orders that he intends to issue- Congress be damned. The useful idiots in the major media will continue to jump over each other in voicing ejaculatory praise for his lofty vision- a vision designed to further marginalize what was once a truly an exceptional nation, because his presidency has proved to be nothing more than an expression of his determination to make the United States of America no better than any other nation in the world. In other words, his stratagem is this: “if you cannot lift up the rest of the world through the example of your own leadership, than the best thing to do is lower the United States to the level of the rest of the world, ensuring international equality”. In a world view where equality trumps excellence, nothing improves and, by definition, everything deteriorates, instead. That will prove to be the legacy of Barack Obama.

When all of us are dead and gone, historians will surely say of him “He brought us down to make us equal”… that’s some legacy, indeed. God help us.

-Drew Nickell, 20 January 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

St. Patrick’s Day

Our late father, who would be celebrating his 101^st birthday on May 16^th, was half Irish, one fourth Scottish and one fourth German, even though he always thought of himself as Irish. Given the fact that our mother was 100% Italian, I suppose that given such a “mongrel” background, as it were, that would make us one fourth Irish, so it is with this horrid cocktail of Jameson Irish Whiskey, Glen Levitt Scotch Whiskey, German lager and Italian Red Chianti, we should go ahead and offer a hearty and happy St. Patrick’s Day to one and all, whether you are a-sportin’ the Catholic green or the Protestant orange on this, the 17^th of March.

Dad always loved St. Patrick’s Day, and so did Mom. Both would be wearin’ the green all over- we think they might have even painted their faces green, if they had had the chance. On whatever night the date might fall, we would be assured of dining on corned beef, cabbage and even a sip of green beer, just for luck. It was one of those harmless frivolities that marked the passage of time. Given enough of liquid encouragement, Dad would even be emboldened enough to belt out his rendition of “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”, in his soft Irish tenor voice- even though, invariably, he’d be sure to botch the lyric, as he did with any song he ever attempted to sing- such were the makings of family traditions, as it were.

I remember his telling of a tradition in Baltimore that, before he was a lad, there was a rather odd application of justice in that city. With so many Irishmen getting drunk on St. Patrick’s Day, and a finite number of jail cells in which to place them, those arrested would be marched down to City Hall, forced to lower their trousers, and they would have their backsides painted Kelly green and forced to stand until the paint dried. The thought was that the poor lads’ wives would summarily exact a much harsher punishment on their husbands, having come home with green posteriors, attesting to their imbibing during Lent, than the city ever could.

So, when we became of age and began to go out and celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, on our own, we would always get the same kindly warning from our Dad, “Don’t go getting your fanny painted, tonight,” which meant “don’t over-do it”.

So to all our friends on this, St. Patrick’s Day, 2015, may we say “Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all, and don’t go getting your ass painted.”

-Drew Nickell. 17 March 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Sesquicentennial

The ninth of April 1865 was a seasonably cool, yet mostly sunny Palm Sunday and, for the first time in four years, guns were silent and cannons stilled. The armies’ movements were halted, and all was quiet in the tiny hamlet of Appomattox, Virginia. Accompanied by his personal secretary, his orderly and another cavalry soldier bearing a white flag of truce, General Robert E. Lee, commanding officer of the Army of Northern Virginia rode his white horse, “Traveler” slowly toward a recently-relocated house owned by Wilbur McLean. The house which, ironically, once stood near Manassas, Virginia, when the War Between the States had begun four years earlier, was offered by its owner as a meeting place for Union General Ulysses Grant to receive General Lee, in order to discuss the terms of surrender of the armies under Lee’s command.

Lee really had no choice but to approach Grant that Sunday morning. His armies-starved, ill-equipped, decimated and vastly outnumbered, were virtually surrounded by the armies under Grant’s command- better equipped, fed, uniformed and vastly superior in numbers. The day before, saw the last skirmishes between the two sides and, facing certain annihilation, Robert E. Lee was quoted as saying, “There’s nothing now left for me to do, but go and speak with General Grant”.

Dressed in his finest uniform, General Lee climbed the steps of McLean’s house and entered the parlor, along with his personal secretary, and the two generals began reminiscing about their shared service during the Mexican War, twenty years before. Lee, the one-time stellar lieutenant under General Winfield Scott, was well known during the Mexican War, while Grant was virtually unknown at that time. Grant remembered Lee quite well from that conflict, but Lee regrettably did not remember Grant, at all.

After some awkward moments, the two generals stumbled into the conversations that would effectively end the American Civil War. Magnanimous in victory, Grant offered his vanquished foe generous terms in the proposed surrender. Confederate officers would be allowed to retain their side-arms, provided they sign an oath to never again take up arms against the North. Any man who claimed to own a horse, would be allowed to retain the horse so that they could “plow their little farms” for spring planting, to which Lee responded, “that will have great effect” upon the morale of his decimated soldiers. All of the Confederate army would be “paroled until exchanged” which, effectively meant that they could return the states that they called home, present themselves at their respective courthouses, sign a loyalty oath to the United States, and return to their families, in due course.

Amongst these tattered remnants was our great, great grandfather, Private Edward James Nickell, a man in his late thirties who had black hair and stood all of five feet, seven inches. His father, Andrew, had been a captain serving his country in the War of 1812, and his grandfather, Thomas, had fought in the French and Indian Wars, under British General Braddock, then at the Battle of Point Pleasant under Colonel Andrew Lewis in Dunmore’s War, and finally, under General Washington in the American Revolutionary War. His grandson, and our great, great grandfather, Edward, spent much of the Civil War, stationed at a railroad depot in nearby Lynchburg, Virginia, and performed courier services on horseback, far away from his remote homestead, located in Monroe County, in what was to become West Virginia. He would return to Charleston, sign his loyalty oath, return whence he come, and live for the next thirty-six years on the small farm near Pickaway, where he died in 1901.

Something else happened in Appomattox on that particular morning, though nobody present would realize it until many years later. Prior to this war, far and away America’s costliest (civil wars tend to be the bloodiest), the United States were referred to in the plural (i.e. “they”), placing emphasis on the states which comprised the union. Following the war, the United States would be referred to in the singular (i.e. “it”), placing emphasis on the union, itself. This lays credence to the fact that the Civil War was primarily fought to settle a constitutional crisis and ultimately determine whether any state, or group of states, could secede from the union.  It wasn’t until January of 1863, when Abraham Lincoln signed the “Emancipation Proclamation” that the war took on the secondary cause of freeing the slaves in the Confederate states (the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which had not seceded, were exempted from this emancipation order).

My great, great grandfather, whose family was dirt poor, and owned no slaves, threw his lot in with the Confederacy because he felt more loyalty to his home state (then, Virginia) than he did towards the nation of which it was a part- just as most of his fellow soldiers had done. Following Lee’s surrender, he went home to live his life as an American, beaten in war yet not defeated in spirit, which should be the important lesson of that which took place 150 years ago when two generals sat down and settled a conflict- one which politicians, left to their own devices, could not settle, and one which took the lives of some 600,000 men.

Historical revisionism, left to the wiles of contemporary political correctness, has done a remarkable job in re-defining both the cause and the meaning of America’s Civil War, and in demonizing the confederacy and those who fought for the South (someone once said that history is written by the victors, after all). Yet, in the stillness of Appomattox, the truth remains that it was there where a divided nation became one nation- an inclusive, forgiving and united nation, where all could claim to be American, at long last. Lee knew it when, returning to his army, told his men to “go home and be good citizens”. Grant knew it, and dissuaded his army from exacting revenge and engaging in raucous celebrations of victory. It’s just too bad that, 150 years later, people today tend not to realize what all of this means- really means, in the grand scheme of things.

-Drew Nickell, 8 April 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Redistribution

First, a parable:

Once upon a time, there was a father who gave his son an allowance of $1.00 a week. The father told his son that he would have to “live within his means”. Over time the son ran up debts that averaged $2.00 per week. So the son went to the father and said, “Dad, if you increase my allowance to $2.00 per week, I promise I will live within my means.” So the father increased his allowance to $2.00 per week. After a while, the son ran up debts to an average of $4.00 per week. So the son went to his father and said, “Dad, if you will only increase my allowance to $4.00 per week, I promise that I will live within my means.” So the father increased the allowance to $4.00 per week. Sure enough, the son ran up debts that amounted to $8.00 per week. So the son said to his dad, “Dad, if you can just give me an increase to $8.00 per week, I promise that this time, I will cut my spending and live within my means.” Predictably, this cycle continued…$8.00, $16.00, $32.00, $64.00, $128.00, etc., etc. etc.  Then one day, the son came home and saw a “FOR SALE” sign in front of the family home. When he asked his dad why the house was for sale, the father told him that he could no longer afford to pay the mortgage on the house, because there wasn’t enough money left after giving his son an allowance and the debts that the son had continued to run up would have to be paid. The son said to his dad, “All this time, I thought you had enough money, and now you have to sell the house? …Well gee, Dad, can I still get my allowance after you sell the house?”

This story, which I wrote in 2012, is an illustration of largesse on the part of our government and its propensity to throw billions of dollars to fix a problem that, in the end, is not going to be fixed by throwing more and more money at it. Since the inception of redistribution in the United States, going back to LBJ’s Great Society programs and even FDR’s New Deal, there has been an effort to redistribute private wealth for the “public good”, in other words taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have-nots”. What was once a noble effort on the part of our society to provide for those who are truly in need, has grown to the point of multi-generational dependency, growing ever larger to the extent that we have arrived at a place where upwards of fifty millions of our citizens are receiving EBT benefits, while forty-five percent of our population is receiving some form of assistance from our government- all in the name of compassion, yet altogether unsustainable, in any way imaginable, as these numbers continue to grow.

To even mention these facts to anyone brings on the predictable accusations of insensitivity and selfishness as though the national wealth is something that should be shared equally, without any regard to the source of this wealth. There are those, largely Obama supporters and their liberal allies, who advocate such wholesale redistribution, and it is no wonder.

As far back as 2001, Barack Obama was advocating legislative action to make mandatory, the wholesale redistribution of wealth, in a radio discussion (“Odyssey” Chicago Public Radio, 18 Jan 2001) he was having with two law professors while he was an Illinois state senator- citing specifically the failure of the civil rights movement to include legislative requirements that would mandate wholesale redistribution of private wealth to the less fortunate. Ladies and gentlemen- this is nothing less than radical socialism, and this point-of-view has now found discretionary power in our nation’s highest office.

There is an inherent, tangible problem with this philosophy. If we took 100% of all of the assets of the wealthy in this country, and distributed all of this wealth to the poor in this country, the net result would be a poverty level of 100% which, to some, seems “fair”, but to anyone who can look past the end of their nose is the recipe for national failure, and the basis of our own destruction. It was Margaret Thatcher who epitomized this reality when she said, “The problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

Add this to the problem of illegal immigrants flooding an all-too-porous border, who have been assured by this administration that they and their children will be cared for, and now we see an intent on the part of this administration to completely and intentionally wreck our economy, and subsequently introduce the concept of the “collective” into the American system as a replacement for free enterprise- and this, ladies and gentlemen, is called…Communism.

Going back to his formative years, most all of Obama’s mentors were card-carrying communists and they did a splendid job of indoctrinating their protégé on the doctrine of communism, sealing the philosophy that he has endeared ever since. His promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” on Election Night, 2008 is now well under way, as evidenced by the dramatic rise in public assistance that has taken place since he was inaugurated in January, 2009.

Those who have opposed him politically have faced substantial and punitive repercussions, most notably on the part of the IRS, but this fundamental transformation has not stopped there. We now live in a country where, thanks to his administration and their priorities, our government provides better health care to Guantanamo detainees, than they do our own service veterans. The poor, the imprisoned, and indigent illegals who enter this country, also are provided better health care, than those who served our country, fought our wars, and sacrificed themselves so that we may enjoy freedom.

To even mention these things is to bring on charges of racism, insensitivity, callousness and the predictable labels of “Right Wing Nut Job” all because, in their efforts to indoctrinate the minions who support them, the political left has committed wholesale larceny of the language, itself, aided and abetted by a complicit media who failed in their duties to expose the hidden agenda of Barack Hussein Obama, and now we are all having to suffer the consequences of their failure to do so.

At the end of this week, we observe Independence Day, which is supposed to be an observance of the very thing that always made this country the greatest on earth- namely, Independence. Yet, in increasing dependency on the part of millions, we are unwittingly undoing this spirit of independence, and unknowingly playing into the designs of those who would tear us asunder. If we as a nation fail to awake and see what is taking place before our very eyes, America will cease to exist, and on that day all of us will come to suffer and rue the day that Obama and his acolytes came into power.

-Drew Nickell, 1 July 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Ray Rice

First, I offer a disclaimer. I am a lifelong Baltimore football fan- a fan of the Baltimore Colts from the time I was old enough to recognize a football, through the 1983 season (their last in Baltimore), a fan of Baltimore’s CFL Stallions in 1994-95, and a diehard fan of the Ravens since 1996. My loyalty to Baltimore football knows no bounds, as anyone who knows me, can readily attest. In the autumn of each year, my blood turns purple and remains that way until the Ravens have played their final game of every season, and my mood on Mondays is almost solely dependent on how the Ravens have fared the Sunday before.

As a diehard Baltimore fan, I want to share my thoughts of the video showing Ray Rice punching his then-fiancé (they have since married) in an Atlantic City elevator, as well as the NFL’s response to his specific offense, and their policy of treating similar offenses, going forward. In a word, I am as disgusted with Ray Rice, personally, as I am with the management of the Baltimore Ravens and the National Football League, in general.

There is nothing new about male athletes treating women badly. All of us have memories of scholastic and collegiate “jocks” pressing their advantage with female co-eds, and the comparative lack of consequences vetted towards these miscreants. Every year we read about allegations of sexual and physical assaults perpetrated by athletes of every sport against women at all levels of athletic competition, and it seems that the more noteworthy the athletic prowess of the perpetrator, the more notorious the offense, and the more feckless the consequence.

Not that I would ever be able to dream of being a billionaire owner of a National Football League franchise, but I can tell you this without equivocation. Were I Steven Bisciotti, owner of the Baltimore Ravens, I would have summarily fired Ray Rice when the first video appeared showing him dragging his fiancé out of the elevator- regardless of whether the team went on to win another Super Bowl or finished the ensuing season 0-16, and I would have done so faster than the team mascot can utter a “caw-caw”. Were I Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the National Football League, I would have put in a policy which banned for life any player, coach or member of team management who perpetrated such an offense the FIRST time is occurred. Were I John Harbaugh, the coach of the Ravens, I would have refused to allow Rice to take part in any practice or play in any game, even if it meant my job being lost, as a result.

Until such time as we cease and desist, from molly-coddling these overpaid ego-maniacs that play a child’s game for salaries that have well passed the point of being ludicrous, we will continue to see, year after year, similar occurrences as we have too often become too far accustomed to seeing. Until, at the scholastic levels, we see a wholesale change in the way high school athletes are allowed to cheat on exams, take advantage of their female classmates, and display violent and disruptive behavior, without punishment, there will never be the re-introduction of good sportsmanship and character-building that athletic competition once instilled, and professional sports will ultimately suffer under the weight of its own excess, as a result of not taking a more strenuous stance on the behavior of athletes- on the field, in the locker rooms, in the off-season, and in their very own homes, as well.

In the meantime, Go Ravens !

-Drew Nickell, 8 September 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Political Poison

How badly has Barack Obama, along with help from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz poisoned their Democrat Party? ….This badly…

Since the election of 2008, the Democrats have lost (and the Republicans have won) a net 13 seats in the United States Senate- that’s a 23% drop for the Democrats.

Since the same election in 2008, the Democrats have lost (and the Republicans have won) a net 72 seats in the House of Representatives- that’s a 28% drop for the Democrats.

Since the same election in 2008, the Democrats have lost (and the Republicans have won) a net 7 Gubernatorial Elections- that’s a 24% drop for the Democrats.

Much has been made about the toxicity of Barack Obama’s intention to bypass the legislature, and evoke yet another Executive Order, thereby granting millions of illegal aliens amnesty for having entered the United States, illegally.  Well, considering that the President of the United States is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, such a move on his part would indeed be toxic, to say the least, and quite possibly, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, in practical terms.

Not that he cares… Single-handedly, he has destroyed our credibility overseas, completely erased any semblance of a mandate he received in 2008, weakened the United States’ position all over the world, alienated our allies and emboldened our enemies to an extent not seen in the history of the United States. Not bad for a community organizer whose birth certificate is somewhat questionable, whose collegiate records remain sealed, and whose citizenship is not entirely established…not completely, that is.    With the help of resident dingbats, like Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Harry Reid, he has also destroyed his own political party- and that is saying something, considering that the Republicans are not exactly well loved in this country.

In short, Barack Hussein Obama is poison- toxic to his country, toxic to our allies, toxic to the world’s stability (if there ever was such a thing) and toxic even unto his own political party.      So the question is “Does he give a rat’s hindquarters?”

Not in the very least… and that is the real problem we face, today.

-Drew Nickell, 13 November 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Political Correctness

Last year, I posted to Facebook a tongue-in-cheek letter to the President, written to mock the all-too-pervasive speech codes that are the illegitimate, albeit predictable progeny of political correctness. Before we delve into the issue of political correctness and how it is destroying the freedom of expression in this country, here is that letter…

An open letter to the President of the United States

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you today (nothing against yesterday or tomorrow) to express my concern ( I am not unpatriotic) about the direction (not a geographical reference) our country (nothing against cities) is headed. To be clear (not meant to plagiarize your favorite phrase), and in the interests of full disclosure (not exposing myself indecently), I did not vote for you (I’m sorry) in either of the last two presidential elections (please do not audit me). I am a 54-year old (nothing against young people) straight (nothing against gays) white (not a racist) male (not a sexist) who usually votes Republican (not a right-wing extremist nor a fascist) and one who believes in monogamy (nothing against polygamists or players).

My father (nothing against fatherless children) served his country (he was not a war-monger) as a Corpsman (not a Corpse-man, but a Corpsman –pronounced korman) in the Navy (nothing against the other branches of service, or those who chose not to serve) in World War II. He has passed away (nothing against the living) a few years ago, but at the time of his passing, was worried about the future (nothing against the past or present) of our country (he was not an extremist, either). He worked (nothing against those who don’t) all of his life, just as my mother did (nothing against stay-at-home moms) and wanted only to pursue the American (nothing against other countries) dream.

Like my parents (nothing against orphans), I too have worked (nothing against those who haven’t) all of my life, and am afforded (nothing against those who aren’t) health insurance (nothing against Obamacare- oops, I meant to say the Affordable Healthcare Act- sorry!) by my employer (please don’t audit them, either) and every once in a while, (nothing against those who do so more, or less, frequently) like to fly (please don’t put me on a no-fly list) to see other places (nothing against persons or things) but find that it’s getting harder to do so (nothing against those that don’t) because of rising taxes (not anti-government) and, therefore, less (nothing against more) take home pay. I drive a car (please forgive my carbon footprint) have air-conditioning (ditto carbon footprint) and just want to continue to live freely (nothing against those who don’t) and independently (not a militia member) in the greatest (nothing against those who don’t think so) country (nothing against other countries) on earth (nothing against other planets). I read the newspapers (please don’t hack my phone, internet, or communications) I watch Fox News (not a co-conspirator) as well as other news outlets (just to be fair) and hope that my children (nothing against my elders) and grandchildren (nothing against grandparents) will continue enjoy the blessings (nothing against non-believers) of liberty (nothing against the imprisoned) and be able to worship (nothing against those who don’t) God (nothing against other names, beliefs or lack thereof) as they deem fit.

So please (nothing against you if you’re not pleased) take my (nothing against other’s) letter (nothing against tweets) into consideration when performing (nothing against not performing) the duties of the office (nothing against those without an office) to which you were elected (nothing against your operatives who weren’t) and I promise to continue to be a good (nothing against bad) citizen (nothing against aliens, legal or otherwise, un-documented workers, and visiting diplomats).

Very truly (nothing against the untruly) yours (nothing against mine, his, hers, theirs, ours),

Drew Nickell

Seriously speaking, the inherent problem with political correctness is the all-too-intended effect of creating speech codes- which are nothing more than the attempt of the political left to silence, ostracize and alienate the political right. Criticize the president’s policies, and one is labeled a racist. Focus attention on the problems at our southern border, and one is called anti-Hispanic. Question public funding of abortion, and one is accused of sexism- same holds true for those who might object to “free” birth control. Any attempt to identify or quantify the source of terrorism around the world carries with it the moniker of Islamophobia. Advocacy of traditional marriage brings on charges of homophobia. Question measures to reign in carbon emissions here in the United States, or dubious “scientific” claims of man-made global warning, and one is identified with a “flat earth” mentality. Being a Christian and admitting to it brings on multiple labels of intolerance, ignorance and living in a fantasy world. ANYTHING in support of Israel and one is automatically a Zionist occupier of the “peaceful” Palestinian territory. Question any use of EBT cards and the expansion of Medicaid, and one is callous, insensitive to the needy or greedy for not wanting to share the wealth. Comparatively trivial, perhaps, even though I am a Baltimore Ravens fan, and not a Washington Redskins fan, I feel their pain because now dedicated Redskins fans are ignobly identified as anti-Native American. And the list goes on, ad nauseam…

Ironically, this destruction of dissent originated in the halls of academia- the one-time center of intellectual pursuit and erstwhile venue of the exchange of ideas. Coincidentally and concurrently, the “blame America first” ideology began in these institutions of higher learning during the early days of the 20^th century, and took root in the 1970’s following the Viet Nam war. Its ignominious influence spread to the newsrooms and editorial boards of publishing concerns ranging from book publishers to newspapers, in the decades that followed. Now, it has crept in to all manners and means of public discourse- just ask any student with conservative leanings, on just about any college campus in the United States, and they will tell you that even their grades are adversely affected if they so much as even question the liberal dogma being spewed by their professors. In essence, if they want to pass the course they keep their opinions to themselves and end up being forced to feed into the egotistical monster behind the lectern, whose purpose is not to educate, but rather to indoctrinate. Ask yourself this question- “Why is it that former domestic terrorists, such as a Bill Ayers or a Bernadine Dohrn, are given tenured faculty positions at the very same universities which would never allow Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to give a commencement speech?” The answer, sadly, is self-evident.

These efforts to silence the opposition to liberal orthodoxy are nothing new. We saw it in Soviet Russia, until the Gorbachev era. We saw it in Nazi Germany (remember that National Socialism grew from the German Labor Party and is, actually a leftist ideology, not what the liberal left would have us otherwise believe). We saw it during the Cultural Revolution in Communist China- and the result? …. hundreds of millions dead during the 20^th century.

Even the very term “liberal” has been so corrupted. What was once considered to be advocacy for inclusion and the exchange of ideas has now been denigrated to mean the proselytizing of radical ideology and the forced quarantine of political conservatism.

In their attempt to silence opposition, such measures unwittingly fuel the fires of discontent, here at home, and wherever free men and women who cherish the concept of liberty and freedom may live. Squash a person’s freedom of expression today, and such expression will surely take on a less-than-civil means of communication, tomorrow, and then things can get ugly, very quickly, given the right impetus. Ladies and gentlemen, therein lays the true danger of political correctness and why we must demand that all be heard- on campus, in the newsrooms, and in the halls of Washington and beyond. Failure to do so will just as surely lead to the extinction of individual liberty, as we know it, and send the entire world into an abysmal return to the Dark Ages, to whence we come.

• Drew Nickell, 8 July 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Pearl Harbor

“…what’s past is prologue…”– William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, Act 2, Scene I

Seventy-three years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed a Joint Session of Congress. What follows is an excerpt of that address…

“Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked, by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack. It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace… Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”

–President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address to Joint Session of Congress, 8 December 1941

In the course of history there are occurrences which, despite the seemingly isolated context of their respective contemporary settings, nevertheless have ramifications which last for decades. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was just such an occurrence. It set into motion a chain of events that united the American people to support a war effort like no other- before or since, introduced nuclear warfare, led to the ultimate destruction of totalitarianism in both Europe and the Pacific, ushered in a decades-long Cold War, and established the United States as a world superpower, just to name a few.

Sadly, however, the passage of time has eroded and faded into oblivion the central lesson of Pearl Harbor- that isolationism and living in denial of a real world can leave a nation and a people open to attack, and ultimately result in profound and lasting changes to their way of life- think September 11^th, 2001, whose own central lesson has begun to fade, especially with the young people who have now grown to the age of electoral suffrage.

We did not seek war with Japan (nor Germany, nor Italy), nor did we seek war with radical Islam. Yet both were thrust upon us, in one form or another, because of our naiveté and because we fell into a false sense of isolation, one that insidiously told us “those problems are over there- we need to stay out”- a recipe for ultimate disaster and vastly increased carnage.

There are those who insist, to this day, that both of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and on 9/11 might well have been avoided if we had done a better job of appeasing those who were bent on our ultimate destruction. There are also those who attempt to play a moral equivalency card- one that expresses the egregious lie that the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were somehow justified from the perspective of those who perpetrated these acts. Such folly may sell in the cloistered world of academia and theological seminary, and may even persuade young and impressionable minds of their supposed enlightenment, to the point of advocacy and active protest. Yet, in the real world- the world where we unfortunately find ourselves living- putting into place national policy which espouses this fantasy can, and only will, lead to our own demise, and quite possibly, our own destruction.

It would be nice if, in the words of Rodney King, we could “all just get along”. Go try that one on a radical jihadist and see how long your head remains attached to your torso, if you are a man, and how long your virtue remains intact if you are a woman. Like the Japanese who beheaded our prisoners of war, and made wholesale rape a policy of occupation in China, Radical Islam, in the form of ISIS, is employing the very same stratagem.

Just as the Japanese “suddenly and deliberately” launched a pre-meditated attack on the United States in 1941, radical Islam “suddenly and deliberately” launched an attack on the United States sixty years later. Americans were united in their resolve to annihilate the Japanese Empire, as a result, and did so. It’s too bad that we lack such resolve, as a nation today, to destroy the evil that is radical Islam. Without such resolve, we will most certainly NOT “gain the inevitable victory, so help us God” and it is we the people who ultimately, ignobly, and finally, bear the responsibility of our own demise.

-Drew Nickell, 8 December 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

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

now available at Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Bending-Your-Ear-Collection-Essays/dp/1633932907?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

Signed and personalized editions now available at my website:

http://www.drewnickell.com

Follow my postings on the RSS feed: http://www.drewnickell.com/?feed=rss2

Noshowbama

Noshowbama is not a city in Japan, but rather an approach to foreign policy by the current administration when it comes to world leadership or, rather, the lack thereof. While leaders of the free, and not-so-free, world united in clasped arms to march in support of peaceful expression and against extremist terrorism, word has it that our dear leader, Barack Obama, was taking in NFL playoff games in the privacy and comfort of his digs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The “company line”, as it were, is that the security requirements entailed for “His Arrogance” to participate, along with millions marching in Paris, were so great as to negatively impact the march itself which is a load of horse-hockey- and that’s saying something, given the fertilizer factory that is this administration.

Marching, not even ten feet apart from one another, were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas, both of whom had the sense of noblesse oblige to join with other world leaders in a joint demonstration of the sentiment that “enough is enough” when it comes to Islamic extremism- something that the Obama administration cannot even vocalize at the end of the day. Attorney General Eric Holder was even in the same city, earlier that morning, but this Administration couldn’t even arrange for his representation in the parade, which says a lot about the priorities of Obama and his world view, which is basically this: “Disrespect your allies and kiss the hind-quarters of your enemy”.

Even the Russians – hardly the bastions of civil liberties- had the wherewithal to send their foreign minister, but the United States couldn’t manage to ante in a vice president (Biden), secretary of state (Kerry) or attorney general (Holder) when, in fact, our president (Obama) could and should have been there. For all world to see, by this absence, Obama has certified his own credentials to his oft-stated view that the United States is not exceptional, nor even classy.

This ranks right up (or, I should say down) there with his presentation to the Queen of England, in honor of her sixtieth jubilee as reigning monarch, an i-Pod containing a collection of his own speeches, along with a “take-this-bust-and- shove-it” 2010 return of Winston Churchill’s bust, which had been presented to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, forty-five years before.

If this is what passes for leadership in the free world, then the free world is as screwed as is ever can, or could, be. Here we have a sitting U. S. president who cares more about seeing who will make the NFL final four, than leading millions of men and women, and leaders across the globe, united to stand and march against totalitarianism and extremism.

It’s enough to make any real American barf up his/her bouillabaisse.

If there is anyone in the United States that still is under the complete and fantastic misconception that Barack Obama is a great leader in the free world, and a great president, than let such a person give him- or herself an overdue swirl-ee in their own toilet, and wake the hell up.

Obama is a coward, a miscreant and utterly unworthy of the office to which he was twice elected, and his exit cannot come quickly enough to a watching world who, at long last, has come to see the light of day- that we are at war with Islamic barbarism, and that the fate of civilization depends on its very outcome.

-Drew Nickell, 12 January 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Netanyahu

Not since January 17, 1952, when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the United States of an Iron Curtain descending upon Europe, has there been a more important speech from a foreign dignitary to a joint session of the United States Congress. Yet, today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress in a speech as far reaching as Churchill’s in 1952. In it, he implored the members of Congress to think long and hard about the consequences of lifting sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, which would be part and parcel of an agreement that President Obama is desperately seeking with Iran, in an inane attempt to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Specifically, Prime Minister Netanyahu took issue with two crucial elements of this nascent treaty, presently being negotiated in Geneva, Switzerland by Secretary of State John Kerry. The first, and by far the most important issue, is the “sunset clause” whereby Iran would only be held to its terms for a period of ten years, after which they would be free and clear to develop a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Secondly, Iran would retain its entire nuclear enrichment program and thus geometrically increase the amount of centrifuges designed to enrich uranium- a key component to the creation of atomic weapons. Quite rightly, Netanyahu warned the Congress that this treaty would not do anything to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but rather pave the way for Iran to become the latest member to the world’s nuclear club and, given the nature of a regime that has been in place for thirty–six years, thus create an existential threat to the survival of Israel, since it is this same regime that has publicly and repeatedly called for Israel’s annihilation.

Netanyahu documented the history of Iran’s hatred of Israel, recalling from ancient history the attempt by Persia’s Haman to destroy Israel- a plot that was thwarted by Esther, and to this day is observed in the feast of Purim. He recounted the history of Iran’s current regime since its inception in 1979 when the incumbent government, under Shah Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown by Islamic Radicals under the Ayatollah Khomeini- a regime that captured American diplomats and held them captive for 444 days in 1979-1980, and then a few years later was responsible for the death of 230 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon. He reminded the Congress that it is this Iranian regime that has extended its hegemony over four nations- Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon and that it seeks to expand its domination of the Middle East, vying only with ISIS for such control. Conversely, it is the Obama administration which naively believes that this rivalry with ISIS represents a signal of Iran’s willingness to take on ISIS as a pathway to friendlier relations with the Iranian regime, but it is indeed the exact opposite. As Netanyahu so succinctly put it, in this particular case, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy”.

Asininely, fifty-four Democratic Representatives and eight Democratic Senators boycotted the address by the Israeli Prime Minister, in lockstep agreement with the Obama administration, who did not allow a single member of its team to attend the address by Netanyahu. All Americans must ask themselves the following question- “Why?”

Why is the Obama administration so resolutely opposed to Israel’s Prime Minister addressing our Congress?

Why is it more important for the Obama administration to so lamely and desperately seek such a bad deal with the Iranians- one that would imperil the survival of the world’s lone Jewish state?

Why would the President of the United States skip such an opportunity to sit down with Israel’s Prime Minister and discuss with him what he sees to be the advantages of such an agreement, when he will not even disclose to the American people the reasons he is pursuing this ill-begotten treaty, in the first place?

Is it because the narcissistic president is so consumed with his own legacy that he would wager the very survival of our closest ally in the Middle East just to be able to say, at the end of his presidency, “I got Iran to agree”?

We have seen the folly of such agreements in the past- most notably when Churchill’s predecessor, Neville Chamberlain boasted that he had negotiated “peace for our time” with Adolf Hitler, by wagering away a sovereign Czechoslovakia on Hitler’s promise not to invade eastern Europe- a promise broken when Germany invaded Poland less than a year later, touching off the Second World War. Twenty million lives later, the world learned the lesson of such folly, and why a bad deal is far, far worse than no deal, at all.

Or is it indeed the case that, in the long view of world history, we have forgotten this lesson?

-Drew Nickell, 3 March 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Why the GOP must not be succored into the Trap of Negotiation

With all of this talk concerning Republicans who, having recently won control of the Senate and broadening their control of the House, and how they should negotiate with President Obama, I am beginning to see a pattern here- a pattern of self-destruction, being promoted by the usual suspects in the media, based upon the supposed need for moderation on the part of the GOP, as though they should somehow be cowed by President Obama, and the illegal actions he has taken as president. They seemed to be almost psyched by his finaglings- as if Obama was the strongest president since FDR.

History has shown quite the opposite.   For instance, LBJ was far more effective at corralling bi-partisan support for his agenda, and so were his successors, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. All three of these presidents worked within, and not outside, the Constitution of the United States, and for the greater good.

Another problem is the inherent corruption of the Obama administration. Obama’s actions as president, and those on the part of his cabinet and administration are, by metes and bounds, far beyond anything, ANYTHING, that occurred during the Nixon administration- the only, ONLY difference being that Obama has had a complacent media covering for him, as opposed to Nixon having the media bound and determined to bring down his presidency.

This spirit of moderation and advocacy of cooperation that are presently being advocated, if so acted upon, are defeatist in the worst way- in effect having the GOP say, “We know the 2014 election was an anomaly and we know our positions on the issues are wrong, so we will just be placeholders and allow the Democrats to re-attain their rightful majority in 2016.”. This is the unintended effect of that for which these “pundits of moderation” are advocating- a go-along-with, get-along-with, restrained GOP which brought them to defeat with the nominations of Gerald Ford in 1976, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012- all of whom were GOP moderates who went down to defeat with their own respective, all-too-tempered tone. Unlike Obama, who knows that politics is war, what they and the voices of moderation within and outside the GOP advocate, was and is a soft-spoken, well-thought-out, and oh-so-temperate strategy that will only serve to make people question what the difference is between liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans, of which there is absolutely none- and one which will assure a Democratic trifecta in the next election.

In order for negotiation to work, both- not one, but both- sides must be pragmatic, and thereby willing to negotiate on a bilateral basis. Such bilateral negotiations can and do work, to wit:

LBJ effectively negotiated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Republicans, led by Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Ronald Reagan effectively negotiated the tax cuts of 1982 with Democrats, led by Dennis DeConcini of Arizona. Bill Clinton, once he lost both houses of Congress, effectively negotiated a balanced budget (in exchange of welfare reform) with Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. All three of these presidents were, at day’s end, pragmatists of the first order- hence they were able to negotiate effective governance with members of their respective opposite parties.

Obama, on the other hand, is incapable of negotiation as he is neither a pragmatist, nor is he interested in the “pursuit of the greater good”, as the predecessors I have listed. He is a dogmatic ideologue who can’t even manage to negotiate with the hapless members of his own party, much less the members of the GOP. Our allies abroad don’t trust him to keep his word, our enemies abroad don’t fear his resolve (for there is none to be feared) and he cannot be trusted to keep his word with anyone, save for Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama. In essence, caving to Obama and his political operatives will never work, because there is no spirit of “give and take” in Obama- only take, take, take, ad nauseam. No one will ever negotiate anything with Obama, so it is pointless to try.

What Republicans CAN do, on the other hand, is to restrain the president through controlling the all-important purse-strings. For instance, if Obama signs an executive order on immigration- they can withhold funding for its implementation. They can do the same with ObamaCare, which may end up being skewered in the Supreme Court, anyway, due to pending litigation, now in the works. Social issues, such as gay marriage, are facing similar scrutiny in pending litigation, and may end up being decided on a state-by-state basis, which is where it should be decided, anyway. In the end, negotiation and compromise only work if there is bi-lateral cooperation, and Obama has not yet shown any penchant for either- hence such a naïve, and well-meaning approach will not work, not with this president- not ever.

-Drew Nickell, 10 November 2014

© 2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Midterms of 2014

With the mid-term elections of 2014 a week away, and control of the United States Senate in play, much has been made about the prospects of a possible shift in the control of that chamber. A shift of six Democrat-held seats to Republicans would mean that Harry Reid, the stubborn and constipative block to all things legislative coming from the House of Representatives, would lose his position as Senate Majority Leader, and thereby transfer his diverticulative functions to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President would rule by veto- as opposed to ruling by fiat, as he has done since being elected in 2008.

A harbinger of more and continued dysfunction in Washington? Admittedly, yes, and yet….

There are other, more far-reaching implications of a shift in the power structure of the United States Senate.

First, the president would no longer be unconstrained in his Chicago-style manipulation of regulatory control, as he has been with regards to the IRS, the Justice Department, the EPA and a host of governmental agencies that have become de facto extensions of his political machine. Republican control of both legislative chambers would necessarily constrain the continued abuse of power by this president and his operatives (Lois Lerner, anyone?)

Second, the Supreme Court would no longer be the inevitable heir to the Obama/Holder system of justice- a system where “equal justice under law” only applies to those in lock-step agreement with Barack Obama and his extra-Constitutional allies on the political left. A Republican Senate would surely keep the President from appointing judicial activists bent on curtailing free speech and tearing asunder the Bill of Rights that have served this country quite well for more than two centuries.

Lastly, a chastened Obama, if such a thing is indeed possible with regards to “His Arrogance”, would think twice before continuing his quest to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” a transformation that was neither needed, desired nor sought by a majority of Americans who were snookered by a complicit media in 2008- a media who, despite obvious political bias leaning left, really only wanted to harvest the news value associated with electing the first African-American to the nation’s highest office. This complicit attitude on the part of the media continued in 2012 (Remember Candy Crowley’s performance as …ahem…moderator…ahem in the decisive debate?) By the way, look for this same media to be “all in” for Hillary in 2016, who will no doubt drool at the prospect of electing the first woman to this same office.)

It never ceases to amaze me how many times Democrats will play the “let’s not play partisan politics” card whenever they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible actions of their own party’s leadership. Here in Virginia, we hear the same old B.S. from Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) that our next-door neighbors to the south hear from Kay Hagan(D-NC): “that it’s time to reach across the aisle” despite the fact that both of these senators have voted lock-step with the President and Majority Leader Harry Reid 99% of the time. Surely, those who are in other states where incumbent Democrats are facing re-election are hearing the very same B.S. as we in the Old Dominion and Tar Heel states are hearing (note: PLEASE don’t believe a word of it.).

Meanwhile to our immediate north, there are stories that polling machines in divergent parts of Maryland are automatically changing Republican- cast ballots to Democrats in what officials are laughably blaming on “calibration issues”, which means that playoff losses by the Orioles and divisional losses by the Ravens aren’t the only thing plaguing voters in the Old Line state. This also begs the question “How is it that such machine malfunctions ALWAYS tend to favor Democratic candidates?” Answer?- the long line and standing tradition of Democratic political corruption going back to the days of Mayor Daley in Chicago and William Marcy Tweed (Tammany Hall) in New York City.

But, then again, that’s politics…

-Drew Nickell, 28 October 2014

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Magna Carta Revisited

This coming June 15^th will mark the eight hundredth anniversary of what was to become the first attempt by the English to evoke the concept of equal justice under law. On the fields and plains of Runnymede, near Windsor, England, Magna Carta came into being when the Archbishop of Canterbury attempted to make peace with the vastly unpopular King John, and a small group of rebel barons, who opposed the monarch for what they saw as an infringement of their rights. It also marked the first attempt to subject the English crown to English law. Though later nullified by Pope Innocent III, it was reinstated by King John’s heir, Henry III, the following year and its eventual progeny was the Constitution of the United States, which assured the young nation that no man nor woman was above the law- no one.

It is indeed ironic that, eight hundred years later, we are still struggling with the concept of who is, and who isn’t, subject to the laws of the United States. It seems that certain politicians of a certain political party manage to skate above the law, time and time again.

In the summer of our youth, twice-elected President Richard Nixon was forced to resign his office, because he lied about having knowledge, AFTER THE FACT, of the Watergate break-in. It is a matter of historical record that a young lawyer investigating the Nixon Administration for the Watergate Select Committee was summarily discharged from her duties, due to ethics violations on her own part. Her name? …Hillary Rodham Clinton- the same Hillary Rodham Clinton who later became the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the United States, a Senator from New York, and, under President Barack Obama, Secretary of State.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, the former President William Jefferson Clinton, have amassed such a dubious record of achievement, and such a lengthy list of crimes and ethical violations as to make William Marcy Tweed of Tammany Hall , President Warren Harding of the Teapot Dome Scandal and Richard Milhous Nixon look like comparative angels…and yet, they have managed to effectively lie and dance their way out of legal jeopardy through means that have, at times, even become violent, but nevertheless very much aided and abetted by a complicit mainstream media. President Barack Obama, no REAL friend of the Clintons by the way, has taken a page from their own playbook, and has managed to remain in office, despite having presided over, far and away, the most corrupt and criminal presidential administration in U.S. History. Obama has managed to do this through threats, intimidation, use of governmental agencies like the IRS and the Justice Department, again with the unabridged assistance from an all-admiring mainstream media. His administration’s list of scandals, some of which also touch the Clintons, is indeed mind boggling- and yet….there he sits.

The list of crimes perpetrated by both the Clintons and the Obamas have, and would, fill volumes but somehow they manage to escape intact, due largely to the political party of which they are a part- had they been Republicans they would have summarily been impeached and imprisoned for high crimes and misdemeanors, but instead, they manage to benefit from a double standard that sows the seeds of our own undoing, and one that places the concepts of representative government, individual liberty, constitutional freedom and equal justice under law in grave peril.

So it comes down to one thing…do we as a nation, give a damn?

-Drew Nickell, 11 March 2015

© 2015, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Killing the Beast

Revelations that the IRS has supposedly lost Lois Lerner’s e-mails, and that her hard drive allegedly crashed and then was disposed of (along with seven others who were also subject to Congressional inquiry), not to mention that these instances occurred one year before Congress was notified last week, will prove to be the smoking gun of corruption that is the sine qua non of the Obama presidency- far and away the most corrupt administration in US History. Obama succeeded where Nixon failed, in using the IRS to target his political opponents (remember the second article of Nixon’s impeachment, which he avoided by way of resigning his office, accused his administration of attempting to use the IRS in this manner, which the IRS rebuffed at the time) and it is clear that Lois Lerner notified other agencies outside the Treasury Department of confidential taxpayer information which launched separate inquisitions by OSHA, the FBI and others on private citizens….and this much is what we know so far…..

The time has come for Congress, vis-a-vis Speaker John Boehner, to appoint a special select committee on IRS abuse and a Special Prosecutor to subpoena her and others to testify regarding these abuses. That much is certain.

Having said this, and very much aside this particular scandal, the time has come for the complete elimination of the Federal Income Tax as we know it, to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, completely, and effectively repeal the 16^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This will require, in order:

1. A Bill from the Republican-led House of Representatives to abolish the Internal Revenue Service in the Spring of 2015
2. A Republican-controlled Senate to approve the bill and send it to the President for signature on January 20, 2017
3. A Republican President to sign the bill on January 21, 2017

The Federal Income Tax Code, comprising all of 9,831 SECTIONS has become so inherently corrupt, so onerous, and so selective in its power to tax some and exempt others that the only real beneficiaries of these complex regulations are CPAs, tax attorneys and employees of the Internal Revenue Service, along with the lobbyists who fund the campaigns of politicians, to add to it every year.

This must end.

Since it is universally accepted that this country prefers to have a progressive tax system, where by the affluent pay more taxes than either the middle class who pay a substantial part of their income in taxes, and the poor who pay no income taxes, there is a very simple way to fund the federal government and that is to replace – not augment, but REPLACE the Federal Income Tax with a Consumption Tax (i.e. Sales Tax) on all products and services purchased. Since wealthy people spend more than middle class and the poor, taxing all consumption would necessarily mean that the rich would continue to pay more taxes because they spend more money…and the same would apply to businesses, as well. Hence, no more complicated tax code…… No more exemptions on anything….. No more write-offs… No more corruption and, by God, no more abuse by government employees at the direction of their President to use their power to harass political opponents.

Now it is clearly understood that such a measure would meet the ire of the CPA Lobby, the Tax Attorneys Lobby, and all such lobbyists who make their living by further complicating an already unworkable tax system. Let these lobbyists partner with their Democratic allies in the House and Senate to try and defeat this initiative, in the wake of the IRS Abuses taking place.

And PLEASE let the Republican Party- the same Republican Party that brought about the abolition of slavery 150 years ago- have the wisdom and the courage to say “no” to these special interests and become the Republican Party who will abolish the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution and scrap the tax code in its beastly entirety. Nothing else would assure their winning the US Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016, more (what’s in it for them). Nothing else would jumpstart the economy more (what’s in it for us, with larger paychecks in the form of take-home pay). Nothing else would ensure that the Obama IRS abuses never ever happen again.

-Drew Nickell 23 June 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Israel

First, please consider the following three passages, in the context of today:

“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all the peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded; and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it.” -Zechariah 12:3

“For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land” – Joel 3: 1-2

“See the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see it and know by your own selves that the summer is already near. Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near. Most certainly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things are accomplished. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.”— Luke 21:29-33

The nation of Israel, with an area smaller than that of New Jersey, and a population less than that of Virginia, figures prominently in both the Old and New Testaments- particularly when it comes to Biblical eschatology. All of the Hebrew prophets, most all of the New Testament prophecies and, according to three of the gospels, Jesus himself, spoke of Israel in the last days. The first citation above refers to the nations of the earth coming against Israel, the second regards God’s judgment against these nations, and the third refers to Israel’s rebirth in 1948, indicating that the generation who was alive at that time to witness Israeli statehood, would not pass away, until all of these things had been consummated.

Sixty-six years later, what do we see? Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East, surrounded on three sides by nations committed to its destruction, and who stands beside Israel? No one, not even the United States under its present regime, supports Israel’s right to defend itself against aggression from without. Israel, far and away, the only middle eastern country that truly has freedom of religion, representative democracy and embraces the concept of tolerance- a concept unheard of in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq (under ISIS), Syria and in the West Bank and Gaza strip, whose Palestinian authorities (Hamas) is unwilling to even acknowledge Israel’s very right to exist, and uses its own civilian women and children as human shields to protect the rockets that are used to bombard Israel.

Who gets the condemnation? Israel- from the United Nations, from the major media, and even our President and Secretary of State, who once again play the “Moral Equivalency” card, saying that peace must be attained by both sides, when knowing full well that one of those sides will not even acknowledge the other’s right to exist, and is wholly determined to annihilate the Jewish people.

While conservatives in the United States tend to back Israel and its efforts to survive aggression from all sides, liberals here, predictably, back the Palestinians and others who are dedicated to its destruction- liberals who pretend to be tolerant- except when it comes to Christianity anywhere and Judaism everywhere. Both of these two religions are under assault all over the Islamic world, but to even mention this is to bring on charges of Islamophobia- when, in fact, Islam is the most intolerant of the world’s monotheistic religions, which underscores liberal hypocrisy, yet again.

How much land will Israel have to cede to its enemies, once again, in pursuit of peace? Answer – “all of it”, say the Palestinians, who ironically are shunned even by their own Arab neighbors. Even then, if all of Israel were given to the Palestinians, the Jewish people of Israel would not have peace, but would instead have no homeland in which to exist. So, why should Israel cede a single acre to those bent on their destruction ? Why shouldn’t they invade the Gaza strip in order to destroy the tunnels with which Hamas smuggles its missiles and weaponry into Israel, to wreak havoc and destruction on Israeli civilians ?

More importantly, why should the nations of the world, including the United States under its current regime, condemn Israel for being committed to its own survival ? With anti-Semitism exploding all over Europe, once again, and the world aligning itself with those who seek the destruction of Israel, it seems that we are living out the script in a play written thousands of years ago- a play whose final act may only serve to bring about our own demise.

-Drew Nickell, 23 July 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Immigration Reform and Congress

Much has been made about the effect that his stance on Immigration Reform had on Eric Cantor’s failed primary bid, and the media’s drumbeat on how this issue is splitting the Republican Party in half. Wishful thinking on their (the media’s) part, but that alone is not splitting the Republican Party, nor does it mean that Democrats will somehow prevail in November. Immigration reform is, at best, a tactical diversion on the part of politicos to dodge the central issue of this fall’s campaign- namely a referendum on the Obama Administration and how Congress will address the growing scandals within that administration, going forward.

Presently, the investigations into scandals ranging from IRS to Benghazi to VA to Fast and Furious to the Bergdahl Exchange (and the list grows) can be summed up into four parts:

1. House Committees investigate these scandals with Republican members of the committees asking questions, as their Democratic counterparts attempt to de-legitimize these investigations by inserting partisan counterstrikes on the questioners and providing diversionary cover for the Administration.

2. Administration officials appear before these committees, and answer with the following strategies, in consecutive order:

a) I don’t recall
b) We are investigating and will get back to you
c) It will take a long time to turn over the documents (which, when turned   over prove to be largely redacted or substantially incomplete)
d) Indicate that they have already answered the questions
e) Label the investigation as phony scandal or partisan witch hunt

3. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, refuses to appoint a Special Prosecutor

4. The Senate, under the auspices of its Majority Leader, refuses to investigate, period.

Taken alone, it could be argued that ANY one of these scandals involve more serious crimes, loss of life, and Constitutional breach, than Watergate or Iran Contra or the Impeachment of President Clinton. Taken together, it can be equally argued that we are faced with corruption and lawlessness not seen in any administration in US history.

While his media allies hope, beyond hope, that Democrats retain control of the Senate, President Obama continues to slowly unravel the fabric of our country, here at home, across our borders, and around the world. His latest attempt to import juvenile illegals across our borders, and thus creating a humanitarian crisis unknown in the United States since the days of Native American relocation in the 18th and 19th centuries, in an attempt to force upon the American people, provisions of the Dream Act which have not been legislated or adjudicated- once again flaunting the Constitution and diverting attention away from the mounting scandals that grow with every week.

To be clear there is not a single solitary Republican in the House or the Senate that is, or ever was, “anti-Immigration”.

Having said this, there must be a distinction made between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, the latter of which has many opponents within and outside Capitol Hill. This is where the real debate lies on immigration reform but, thanks to the Democratic Party, the Obama Administration, the enabling lapdogs within the mainstream media, and what we’ll call the “Go-along, Get-along establishment GOP”, most Americans will never know this distinction- which suits Obama and his allies just fine.

–Drew Nickell, 12 June 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Hillary

Last night, having watched Hillary Clinton’s interview with Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, I thought a lot about what it could be that is driving support for her candidacy. To be charitable, I found Mrs. Clinton’s demeanor to be glib- that, to the extent she of her ability, she did her level best to be charming. There is no doubt that she is articulate, as well.

Yet, I was also shocked to see that, after all of these many months, she is STILL trying to force feed us into accepting an entirely false narrative that the September 2012 attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi were (now, she says, “in part”) due to a YouTube video about Mohammed, that Muslims found offensive. The very next morning following the attack, the president of Libya insisted that the attack had nothing, NOTHING to do with a video that was not even available to Libyans, at that time. Yet, the White House kept pushing that same false narrative for weeks, when they knew all along that it was nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans, designed to lay credence to the fiction that Al Qaida “was on the run” and that Obama’s foreign policy was a success when, in fact, the opposite was true.

Since that time it has been discovered that, on the very night of the attack, political operatives in the White House frantically started to search the internet trying to find anything, ANYTHING on which they could lay blame for the attack, in an attempt to provide cover for the President and his campaign narrative. Never mind the fact that the Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to provide more security, and was repeatedly turned down by a State Department being run by Hillary Clinton. Amazingly, Hillary Clinton said, in one sentence, that she is responsible, but only to the extent that she feels the pain of their loss, and nothing more. Then, she had the audacity last night to once again plug the false narrative of a video as being partially responsible for the attack. Talk about delusional narcissism !

There can only be three explanations for her performance-

1. She is suffering from complete dementia (the least likely)
2. She is completely devoid of even a shred of honesty (more likely)
3. She will say anything, ANYTHING, to fend off any criticism, whatsoever, and ethics be damned in the process (most likely)

Is this what we want in our next President? Haven’t we, as a nation, had our nauseous fill of narcissistic and self-serving demagogy that is so very present in the current administration? More importantly, can’t even the most partisan and sycophantic supporters of the Clintons see through her deceptions, and own up to the fact that Hillary Clinton is most definitely not what the country needs in a successor to Obama?

I leave the answers to these questions to those who would support her candidacy, with a respectful request to explain just why they would continue to support her, aside from the fact that she is a woman, and aside from the fact that she is a Democrat. I suspect that many of these same supporters also supported Barack Obama, principally because he is African-American and also a Democrat.

A REAL president needs to be much more than a member of a sex or a race, or even a member of a political party. He/she needs to be a leader who believes in the things that sets our country apart (American Exceptionalism), is willing to defend the values of freedom and individual liberty wherever they may be threatened, and defend and uphold the Constitution, in its entirety. When we elect officials based solely on their own demographics, and not on these values, we endanger our country and the world in which we live.

Barack Obama is not such a President, and Hillary Rodham Clinton most certainly would not be, either.

-Drew Nickell, 18 June 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Ferguson

It’s an all-too-familiar story, and one we have heard many, many times since (at least) April of 1992. The legal process is followed in strict accordance with established standards of jurisprudence, a white officer(s) is exonerated of alleged crimes in the performance of duty, and the result is met with disproportionate rage, expressed in violent behavior by disenchanted blacks and others taking advantage of a specific situation, far removed from their own respective existence.

Four policemen, three of whom were white (along with one Hispanic), are acquitted in Los Angeles, of assault and excessive force in the beating of an intoxicated black driver who led police on a dangerous, high-speed chase. Rodney King survived the attack, but fifty-three people were killed and 2,000 people were injured in the riots that followed. Approximately 1,100 buildings were destroyed. 3,600 fires were lit, and countless businesses were looted- many of which were owned by businessmen of Korean and other Asian minorities, who seemed to be particularly targeted.

Fast forward twenty-two years. In Ferguson, Missouri, part of the greater St. Louis metropolis, an 18-year-old black man is shot by a white police officer six times. Supposed eye-witness accounts initially allege he was shot in the back, despite undeniable forensic evidence to the contrary. All hell breaks loose in Ferguson, and other places, immediately following the shooting. Two people are shot, others injured, and a bacchanalia of looting and vandalism takes place, destroying businesses and livelihoods, as a result. These riots, encouraged by well-practiced race-baiters like presidential advisor Al Sharpton, and perpetrated by malcontents in the form of the New Black Panther Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, are particularly and precisely engineered to wreak havoc by organized groups who have absolutely no connection to the officer, Darren Wilson, nor to Michael Brown, the man who was shot and killed.

In strict accordance with Missouri law, a grand jury, comprising of nine whites and three blacks, spends three months painstakingly reviewing all evidence and eyewitness testimony in order to determine whether criminal charges be filed against the officer. The county’s District Attorney, spends twenty-five minutes on live television, explaining in copious detail the process, the findings and, ultimately, the determination by the grand jury, that no charges of criminal conduct would be filed against Officer Wilson….and what happens?

Demonstrations take place across major cities in the United States showing, in some cases, professionally pre-printed signs and well-organized gatherings that required much planning, and little regard, for the rule of law. Worse, Ferguson again erupts in violence, vandalism, looting and destructions of lives, livelihoods and property. Shots are fired, automobiles are set afire, and stores are looted by individuals taking sheer and perverse advantage of the discordant disarray that ensues.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, a president who was purportedly elected to be “a uniter and not a divider” pulls out the moral equivalency card once again- equating the street rage with law enforcement, as though both are on the same altruistic level of moral authority. This same president, whose Attorney General, Eric Holder has been extremely and undeniably selective in the pursuit of cases where race is involved, ignoring cases where whites are victimized and exploiting cases where blacks are victimized, has done nothing but fan the flames of racial discord in this country- thus taking us back to a regrettable time where racial hatred was more the norm and less the exception. Once again, this country is being ripped apart because of certain, highly placed individuals who make their living off of the misfortune of others. But don’t tell this to the miscreants in Ferguson who broke into area liquor stores and availed themselves of free spirits- that would be racist, right?… Think about it… For the sake of our country and our world, for God’s sake, just think about it….

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving.

-Drew Nickell, 25 November 2014

Ferguson (part II)

One of the missing elements in all of the hubris about what has taken place in Ferguson, Missouri is the cause- the root cause- of the death of Michael Brown, which prompted all of the protests, all of the violence, all of the looting, all of the unrest and, most recently, the shooting of two police officers there, and the shooting of police officers, elsewhere, as well.

There is no doubt that the likes of Al Sharpton- emboldened by his friends at the Justice Department, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, and the White House, President Barack Obama, incinerated a small fire into a conflagration. For their part, Holder and Obama have not helped ameliorate the all-too-incendiary atmosphere when it comes to Ferguson. In fact, they have exacerbated the situation and, through their grandstanding and postulations, and have nationalized an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and tension. It is not a stretch to suggest that President Barack Obama- ironically, the first African-American to be elected President of the United States, has set race relations back more than fifty years- as if the days of Selma and of Montgomery and of dozens of towns across the South, and elsewhere, have been time-warped to 1964 when racial upheaval found its boiling point in the midst of a decade which saw multiple boiling points.

But even beyond all of that, the one thing that has not been discussed- the one element that has not been mentioned is the young man whose death proved to be the spark of this unrest- Michael Brown. As much as liberals would like to blame the white man, blame the cops, blame a “racist society” that placed him into a situation where he lost his life, the fault lies not elsewhere but rather in the way he was evidently raised, by a mother, one Leslie McSpadden, who had this to say, concerning the shooting of two policemen this week:

“F*** THEM 2 COPS..DON’T GOT NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM OR THEY FAMILIES…Ain’t no FUN when the Rabbit got the GUN.”

“If my FAM would-a got JUSTICE in August maybe those two comps wouldn’t have got shot LAST NIGHT…”

As much as human nature would drive us to otherwise sympathize with a mother who has lost her son, when this is the kind of thing she says, in writing and on Facebook, the true cause of Michael Brown’s death is really an environment which encourages an attitude of hip-hop, gang-bang, shoplifting “get even with whitey” and “it’s all ‘the man’s’ fault” attitude that is all too pervasive in America, today.

So all we can offer to those who want to take to the streets and cause unrest, is “clean up your own house and stop blaming others for your own shortcomings”

Until that happens, there will be more Michael Browns and more dead cops, and the problem will be repeated, over and over and over, again. What’s worse, a society that was once envisioned by Martin Luther King, Jr, will go down in flames, as a result.

-Drew Nickell, 13 March 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Rise and Fall of Eric Cantor-

The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia’s Republican Primary, at the hands of a relatively unknown Dave Brat, should serve as a wakeup call to all of the incumbent Republicans, in both Houses of Congress. Rep. Cantor came into office with the promise of conservative aspirations and had the strong backing of conservatives within his district. Yet, with each year, his conservative credentials started to fade in the wake of, presumably, his own ambitions to become a party leader, and this proved to be his eventual downfall.

What the so-called “GOP establishment” has long failed to realize, is the proper role of an opposition party. When Republicans try to moderate their message, they seem more and more like Democrats wearing Republican clothes, which is NOT why they were elected in the first place. The largely liberal media has shoved a false narrative down the throats of the Republican electorate: that they can only win by appearing moderate. This premise has repeatedly failed in the relatively-recent nominations of moderate Republicans to national office- Gerald Ford in 1976, George H. W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012- all of whom lost in the general election. The only time that Republicans have won this election, since the 1970s, is when they have nominated true, unapologetic conservatives- Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

If the Republican Party even hopes to gain the White House in 2016, they had better learn the lessons repeatedly taught to them and, instead, nominate true conservatives, simply because their base of support is NOT looking to elect those individuals who want to work with Democrats who, in turn, smugly laugh behind their backs and retain their power in the wake of such folly. The conservative electorate wants to elect those who will bring about substantive and lasting change- not by the moderation of a John Boehner or an Eric Cantor or a John McCain, but rather by the steadfast determination of conservative candidates who will not allow the stench of Washington to dilute their mission- and that mission is to undo more than sixty years of governmental largesse and return this country to the roots of its success- those being self-sufficiency, independence, and the pursuit of excellence in all things with determined and righteous indignation.

–Drew Nickell, 11 June 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Election 2014 and the Decline of the Democratic Party

While the final results of the 2014 Election are still yet to be determined, there is still one clear message that is inescapable- The Democratic Party is in decline and this is the direct result of, and attributable to, their own party’s pathetic leadership- President Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. These four individuals have brought asunder their own party- albeit without much, if any, help from their Republican opponents.

In the three years since the midterm elections of 2010, the Democrats have lost (and the Republicans have thereby gained) a total of eleven seats in the United States Senate, fifty-five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and a net total of two gubernatorial offices- including Democratic bastions of Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts, all of which elected Republican governors in 2014. In fact, Republicans were able to win eight of the nine contested gubernatorial elections in 2014, where they were already incumbent.

These results, when considered in the long view, are symptomatic of a Democrat party in decline, and bereft of fresh ideas- ideas which can benefit the citizenry which politicians are elected to serve. The Democrat’s strategy of dividing people along race, gender, and socio-economic strata has, at long last, failed miserably- and all indications are that people have said “enough is enough”. Enough of media manipulation, false polling, rigged elections, election fraud and faulty “calibration issues”, all of which always tends to favor Democrats.

Now, it is the Republicans who have their work cut out for them heading into the 2016 elections. The GOP has made great strides in attracting Hispanic, African American and female candidates who can win elections, across the country- even in former Confederate states like South Carolina, in blue collar states like West Virginia, and in western states like Utah. They must continue these trends if they wish to expand their voting demographic.

The GOP must discontinue the dubious strategy of reaching across the aisle to recalcitrant Democrats who have absolutely no intention of compromising in any way shape or form. This strategy of appeasement, which goes back to the late Ronald Reagan and Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, has always come back to bite Republicans in their collective keisters, and they have lost congressional, senatorial and even presidential elections, ad nauseam, by trying to cooperate with opponents bent on their destruction.

In short, for the next two years, Republicans must learn how to act like a party of opposition (to the president) and allow the arrogant and intransigent Barack Obama to paint himself into his own corner. Those of you who think that the president will reach across to Republicans in the spirit of cooperation, to effect beneficial governance are still slumbering in the dreamland that started with the concept of Barack Obama becoming a “uniter”, rather than the divider he has proved himself to be throughout his presidency.

Let the Democrats continue their politics of division, their supposed and fallacious “war on women” strategies, and their demagogy so that Republicans can make a clean sweep of it in 2016 and restore this once-great nation to its rightful position of pre-eminence in a world otherwise bent on ensuring our demise. Then, all of us can abide in the promise of that “shining city on a hill” that we were meant to be, rather than the “source of the world’s ills” as Obama, and his pathetic partisans have suggested we are, instead.

-Drew Nickell, 5 November 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Disinformation

A very close friend of mine, whose name, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, religion and gender will not be disclosed, is admittedly the polar opposite of me concerning all things political. A lifelong, committed liberal Democrat who is in lock-step agreement with all things left, this friend honestly believes:

• Hillary Clinton genuinely cares about the less fortunate
• Hillary Clinton is “one of us” whose life mission is to make our lives better, and has dedicated her life’s work to achieve these ends
• Barack Obama improved the United States’ reputation and standing in the world, and our relationships with foreign countries, when in 2008, he went around the world apologizing for all of the transgressions of George W. Bush, and that he deserved the Nobel Prize for doing so.
• That Michelle Obama is the most beautiful and graceful first lady who ever occupied the White House, and has done more for improving the lives of Americans than anyone else who has ever been first lady
• That the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, will ensure that all people will have unfettered access to health care, which should be an absolute right guaranteed by our government
• That anyone who is a member of the Tea Party should be silenced
• That the only bias in the news media is Fox News
• That George W. Bush, despite having both an BA in History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, gained both degrees by having his father bribe both of these Ivy League universities and is, in fact, a demented individual with a sub-par IQ
• That anyone who favors any Republican running for office hates women, minorities and children
• That anyone who is a member of the NRA, or who stands for the preservation of the 2^nd Amendment, wants children to have unfettered access to automatic assault rifles
• That Richard M. Nixon, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should have been sentenced to capital punishment for crimes against humanity

I could go on with a list of what my friend believes to be absolutely true, but you get the picture…this person has bought into each and every lie that has been thrust upon him/her by the likes of MSNBC, the major networks, the Democratic National Committee, Joy Behar, Rosie O’Donnell, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Al Sharpton and Ben Affleck. All of which brings about the question of “Why?”

Why would this person, who is highly successful in their career, and who has benefitted from a good education, believe all of this to the extent that he/she does?

Answer- Propaganda.

History tells us that when propaganda is repeatedly thrust upon the otherwise uninformed- you know, the type that say they are not interested in politics- that eventually, it becomes an orthodoxy that cannot be questioned. The most notorious example of this fact is Adolph Hitler, whose Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels manipulated German newspapers, magazines, film-makers, and radio to spew Nazi lies to an extent unforeseen before- thus giving credence to the passage in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” that “people will believe the big lie before they will believe the small one”.

The only difference between Germany in the 1930s, and America, today, is the message being proselytized- the means are precisely the same. The establishment news media, Hollywood, network television, newsprint and the entertainment industry were, and are, very much “in the tank” for Obama and will just as assuredly be “in the tank” for Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or anyone else who is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Based upon that fact alone, the GOP would have to nominate the very reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, in order to thwart such a collective onslaught of left-wing co-conspirators and thereby have any chance at actually being elected.

And in the face of such an onslaught of absolute disinformation, I can safely assume that my very close friend will not be swayed, otherwise, and it is this very fact that somehow bothers me, and should bother all of you, to no end.

-Drew Nickell, 9 October 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Demagoguery

It’s a story that has become all-too-familiar, and has its roots going all the way back to the 1964 Presidential Election, when incumbent Democrat Lyndon Johnson was running against Republican Barry Goldwater. Johnson, who had succeeded his predecessor when John F. Kennedy was assassinated the preceding November, really had this election “in the bag”. However, Johnson being Johnson would leave nothing to chance, and chose instead to paint Goldwater into a corner with an extremist brush. Those who are a certain age remember well the television advertisement of a little girl, picking daisies, chanting a familiar rhyme only to be interrupted by a juxtaposed video of a nuclear detonation- suggesting that Goldwater and the Republicans were war mongers who would bring about a nuclear apocalypse if elected, and so began the dubious tradition of Democratic candidates stooping to absolute lows in the quest for electoral victory.

Throughout the seventies and beyond, Democrats dined on the dish of demagoguery with absolutely no scruples or ethics in their quest to lie, cheat, and thereby, steal elections. We can remember 1980 when Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was the epitome of well-meaning incompetence, played the extremist card against Ronald Reagan- suggesting that the former two-term California governor was an amiable dunce and a war monger- neither of which were even close to being factual, as Reagan’s personal diaries have otherwise proved he was erudite, intellectual and quite cerebral in every major decision he made as president. So goes the career of the under-estimated, as Reagan pounded Jimmy Carter in both the popular and electoral balloting.

Fast forward to 2012 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, while trying to assist Barack Obama’s re-election bid, outrageously and slanderously used his office and in-chamber senate immunity to falsely accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney of paying no income tax for the preceding dozen years- an absolute and unequivocal lie, perpetuated by an abiding and complicit mainstream media. Romney, by any measure, was and is an honorable man, who nevertheless had to prove that he had in fact paid all of his taxes- and quite a lot, actually. Yet, the damage was done, and Reid knew it. When last week, he and the White House showed absolutely no remorse for the lie that they had perpetuated (Reid even boasted, “Romney lost, didn’t he?” with a smile on his face) in the pursuit of victory, it revealed to the nation a sickening and dastardly ethos that Democrats will do anything, say anything, truth-be-damned, that winning elections, as opposed to the noblesse oblige of public service and love of country, is what they are all about, which means Hillary Clinton is well-placed and supremely suited to carry the soiled banner of the party she represents, since her own ethical and legal lapses are well-documented and increasingly obvious.

Meanwhile, the all-too-compliant major media, in conjunction with the loony liberals of leftist leprosy are presently ginning up controversy about Indiana’s version of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( a federal law signed by President Clinton) by suggesting that it amounts to wanton discrimination against the LGBT community when, in fact, it does not. Republican Governors Pence and Hutchinson from Indiana and Arkansas, respectively, have been cowed into amending and curtailing this legislation which exists in twenty-seven other states, because Republicans know full well that to do otherwise invites the narrative that they are nothing but extremist, bible-thumping bigots. The mass media rubber-stamps this narrative as absolute fact and a lazy and ill-informed electorate buys into the lie, just as they did in 1964 when they feared nuclear annihilation from a Goldwater presidency.

It will not matter who is the eventual Republican nominee, because whoever it is, will thus be labeled as an extremist- regardless of his positions on the issues of today. This is what the left does, all too well, but after all, they win, don’t they?

God help us, and a Happy Easter to all.

-Drew Nickell, 2 April 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Being Cool

For those of us who have attained a certain age, we well remember the definitive example of being cool. For my contemporaries in the mid-1970s, it was a television character ironically offered as a “greaser” from the late 1950s, named Arthur Fonzarelli, expertly portrayed by Henry Winkler. “The Fonz” as he was popularly known, was an Italian-American, leather-jacketed motorcyclist- quite ironic, considering that Henry Winkler, in real life, was a diminutive Jewish boy who, outside of his role as “the Fonz” was a soft-spoken, sensitive actor boasting a Master of Fine Arts from Yale. Conversely, the epitome of “cool” in the actual decade in which “Happy Days” was situated was another actor, James Dean, who made but three movies prior to his death in a 1955 automobile accident.

There were other examples of “cool” well outside of the acting profession. In sports, it was Johnny Unitas- the Baltimore Colts’ quarterback with ice water running in his veins, facing the eye of the storm in the 1958 NFL Championship leading his team down the field to put the Colts in “sudden death” overtime, which eventually the Colts won against the New York Giants, on another classic Unitas drive downfield. The Beatles redefined cool in the 1960s, dethroning popular music’s previous king of cool, Elvis Presley, who had taken that title from Frank Sinatra a decade before.

Politically, it was John F. Kennedy- not only cool in bearing and appearance, but in substance, as best substantiated in how his administration handled the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, thus averting what might have become an unthinkable nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Comically and pathetically, Richard Nixon tried to be cool, appearing on “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In”, delivering the show’s tag line in question form: “Sock it to ME?” It didn’t work and history would show that, in his handling of the Watergate scandal, he socked it to himself and ended up resigning the presidency. Jimmy Carter tried to portray being cool, with a longer hairstyle evocative of the late 1970s, and walking from the Capitol to the White House with his daughter by his side following his own inauguration. His all-too-cool approach to the Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979 led to his downfall, however, when Americans realized that being cool without substance leads one to assume reckless detachment and incompetence. Bill Clinton revived the concept of a cool president, playing his saxophone wearing Ray Ban sunglasses, answering hip questions about his preference in underwear (“boxers or briefs”), which Monica Lewinsky came to know all about, first hand, and he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, by playing it too cool in testimony in federal court…so much for being cool…

It has oft been said that much of the young voters’ attraction to Barack Obama is based upon his being cool. There is no doubt that Obama plays the cool front quite well- bounding up staircases in a jaunty jog, offering fist- and chest-bumps with much aplomb, and turning on the hip-hop rhetorical inflection, at will, whenever addressing young voters and ethnic supporters.

Substantively, there is nothing wrong with his playing the “cool card”, up to a point, that is, and now it appears that the President has reached and passed that point- a point of diminishing returns. A recent poll of voters, undertaken across the country, by CNN, has shown that a 53% majority of voters, given the chance to do it over again, say they would have voted for Mitt Romney, instead, by a landslide margin of nine percentage points- the equivalent of an electoral “buyers’ remorse”, if there ever was such a thing.

What does this all mean? It means that it’s okay to play it cool, if you have substance to back it up. However, given the president’s complete lack of leadership on a wide variety of fronts, his coolness comes across as detached aloofness- so symbolic of the man who worked so hard to attain the trappings of office, only to let them slip away in the apparent lack of interest in anything presidential, except raising funds for his Democratic Party allies. While virtually and substantively ignoring domestic and international flashpoints too numerous to count, Barack Obama has overplayed the cool card to the extent that, politically –speaking, he has now left himself out in the cold, and in so doing, created a vacuum of leadership, here at home, and around the world.

-Drew Nickell, 28 July 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

At What Price Obama ?

In the past few weeks, we have heard President Barack Obama tell us the following:

• That we as Americans should avoid getting on our high horse about ISIL, due to similar occurrences under Jim Crow and the crusades;
• That we should refrain from connecting their religious beliefs with ISIL because doing so constitutes a lie, despite the fact that everything they do is in the name of Allah;
• That the shooting of five Jews in Paris at a Kosher Delicatessen was just a random act of violence that had nothing to do with the victim’s nationality or creed;
• That it is the duty of all Americans to defend Islam whenever it is slandered (conveniently omitting Judaism or Christianity);
• The we, as a nation, are not a Judeo-Christian nation, but rather one whose greatness originates with Islam, going back to our nation’s founding;
• That we need to be more understanding of the legitimate grievances of Muslims, here at home and around the world- (again, conveniently omitting such grievances on the part of Christians and Jews);
• That we need to put more treasure into countries where ISIL is gaining power, so that an enhanced standard of living and increased job opportunities will dissuade young Muslims from joining ISIL and becoming radicalized;
• That the beheadings of Coptic Christians in Libya by ISIS terrorists was an act perpetrated by bad people, having nothing to do or say about the religion of either the perpetrators or the victims;
• That a three-day White House symposium on extremism, which omitted both military assets and representatives of the Christian and Jewish religions, but replete with Muslims both “moderate” and radical, including one man who blamed 9/11 on the Israelis, was in order…;

and this is just part of what President Obama has done JUST on the subject of the very subject he won’t name- that being Radical Islam…

Then, we hear that, despite all of the evidence pointing to the contrary, that his departing Attorney General Eric Holder, in his last act as AG, is now suing the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department for racism in the shooting death of Michael Brown (by the way, no mention of race baiting on his part, on the part of his boss, or their buddy, Al Sharpton which encouraged the rioting and looting that followed).

The former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, was roundly excoriated for suggesting that this president lacks love for his country, in a way that no other president has done- based largely on the president’s constant criticism of America, reaching back to the days before he became president, and the comments Obama has made since, as referenced above.   If anything, Giuliani is far from being a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican, and even liberal Democrats are now calling to question Obama’s reticence in labeling Radical Islam for what it really is, and are expressing vocal skepticism on his approach to dealing with Iran as well as ISIL. The president has even lost MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – the same guy who suffered chills up his leg during Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention…

So, at what price must we continue to be led by such a man as Barack Obama?   Is he worth the increasing polarization of our country’s citizens to a degree not seen since the 1850s?   Is he worth the growing threat of Islamist terrorism both here at home and around the world?   Is he worth the continued alienation of our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East? Is he worth the continued strengthening of America’s enemies, including countries who have expressed their goal to destroy the United States and Israel?

In short, is Barack Hussein Obama worth it?

-Drew Nickell. 20 February 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Asleep at the Wheel

Thirty years ago, when I was a District Sales Manager for a manufacturer of safety equipment based in Reading, Pennsylvania, the territory I managed comprised of seven states, which I had to cover by car. In order to do this effectively, I averaged driving about 1,700 miles per week, in addition to riding with my distributor representatives in their automobiles. Needless to say, I was either driving, or riding in, an automobile eleven hours a day. My biggest fear in those days was falling asleep at the wheel. To have done so would have surely brought about my own demise, and might well have resulted in the death of others, as well. Fortunately, between listening to talk radio and feebly practicing impersonations, I managed to stay awake during the years I had such a demanding schedule. Yet, the fear of falling asleep at the wheel has remained with me, even though my road trips have diminished considerably in recent years.

Just as falling asleep behind the wheel of a motor vehicle presents potentially disastrous consequences, particularly for those who must make their living on the road, falling asleep behind the wheel of state has the potential of bringing down a presidency, as well as a nation, in this day and age. With crises brewing around a hostile world, it is indeed unfortunate, not to mention potentially perilous, that the President of the United States seems to be asleep at the helm of our nation.

Russia is flexing their muscles to a greater degree than at any time since the 1980’s, as evidenced by the assault on the Ukraine which has already resulted in the annexation of Crimea, and continued military operations against the Ukrainian Republic. At one point, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently reminded the west that Russia is a nuclear nation- something that a Russian leader has not done since Nikita Khrushchev in the early 1960’s, when he deployed intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba. e did thisPutin did this in the full knowledge that Putin did this knowing full well that Obama’s response would be feckless, tepid or non-existent, which is exactly what happened. Putin would never had been so bold with Ronald Reagan or, for that matter, either George Bush (father and son) or Bill Clinton, which differentiates Barack Obama from his (count ‘em) four immediate predecessors in a way no real American would ever want their commander-in-chief so differentiated. It is even arguable that Jimmy Carter, as feckless and incompetent as he most certainly was, would not have appeared as weak and as vapid in the international arena as Barack Obama appears to our friends, and our foes, alike.

And then there is ISIS, or ISIL, if you prefer. Regardless of what label you want to put on these murderous bastards, they pose a far greater threat than Al Quada ever did. In the wake of Obama’s retreat from Iraq- a conflict that was surely won as the result of the surge during the closing years of the Bush administration, the void that Obama left behind was just as surely filled by Islamic radicals the likes of which we have never seen before. Equipped with military hardware that we left behind for the run-away Iraqi military, and funding from Islamic organizations the world over that dwarfs any resources that Osama bin Laden had at his own disposal, ISIS has exponentially expanded its grip on the eastern half of Syria to the northern third of Iraq and has done so largely without response from Iraq’s military, NATO, Turkey, nor the United States, itself. Its members routinely rape children, abduct and rape women, murder religious minorities to a degree not seen since the Nazi holocaust, sever the heads of western journalists, and are the fearsome front line of radical Islam’s war on the West- a war that we refuse to call by name, or even acknowledge that it so exists, while our president attends fund-raiser after fund-raiser, improves his game on the links, and spends his political capital assaulting Republicans as if the GOP was the real enemy of the United States, instead. He has yet to formulate a cohesive strategy to deal with such threats as ISIS and Russia present, and in the vacuum of such non-existent leadership, allows bad actors to dominate the world’s stage, instead.

In essence, Barack Obama remains asleep at the wheel of our nation, and in doing so, imperils us to a far greater degree than even the months leading up to the attacks on September 11, 2001. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Obama’s domestic agenda, failing to defend our nation in the face of such threats, renders such a domestic agenda pointless, when our worst fears may well soon be realized. So I ask, “Is this really what we want in a president?”

-Drew Nickell, 3 September 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Apathy and How It Will Destroy Us

Prior to my current position supporting indirect agents selling wireline services for a major telecommunications carrier, I made my living as a sales representative for seventeen years. Having met, in the tens of thousands of potential customers in those years, I came to understand that the most difficult prospects were the apathetic customers- the ones who just didn’t care. I learned that it was far easier to overcome the objections of a hostile prospect, meeting their discrepancies head on, than it was dealing with a prospect that couldn’t care less either way.

Whether politics is a microcosm of, or an extension of, life in general, it surely is bedeviled by the very same phenomena of apathy. All of us know countless others who say, “I’m just not interested in politics”, or “I just don’t know the issues”, or “My vote doesn’t matter” or “One’s just as bad as the other so why bother?”

Looking around the world, it has always irritated me immensely that in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where voting is potentially and truly, a life-threatening enterprise, voter turnout as a percentage of the enfranchised electorate is actually much higher than here in the United States where, save for a precinct or two in Philadelphia, voters can cast their ballots without any harassment, whatsoever. This is symptomatic of an electorate that just doesn’t seem to care, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the thing upon which our future as a free and independent nation lies in grave peril.

Save for a few momentary spikes, voter participation in the United States has been very much a declining enterprise over the past decades- which amazes me, given the struggles, over the course of two centuries, we encountered to bring suffrage to, in chronological order, first, white males who did not own land, then black and native American males, then women, then people who refused to pay a poll tax or could not pass a proficiency test, and finally, people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. For reasons I cannot begin to surmise, each and every time the United States expanded suffrage, the percentage of eligible voters actually voting has eventually declined.

Now, it is true that when a particular voting sector has an external stimulus to be so motivated, electoral outcomes can be affected and the inevitable results often reflect this. The Great Depression of 1929 moved voters to elect Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, when millions of unemployed were motivated to make a change perceived to be in their favor. In 1960, a very handsome young Senator from Massachusetts motivated women to come out, as never before, and pull the lever for Jack Kennedy. The first post-World War II baby boomer to lead a presidential ticket motivated baby boomers to pull the lever for Bill Clinton in 1992, in what turned out to be, a battle of a younger generation opposing a candidate of their parents’ generation. There is no question that the presence of the very first African American on a major party ticket motivated African Americans to come out to the polls in record numbers to elect Barack Obama president. Rest assured that it is entirely possible that the nomination of a woman to lead the ticket of a major party would motivate many women, who might not otherwise do so, to vote in 2016….or so Hillary hopes…

In other words, a motivated electorate can and will affect the outcome of an election even if, retrospectively, as with the case of our current president, the choice proves to be a bad one. That is the inherent problem of identity politics. For example when a voter votes against someone, solely because of their race, they are labeled “racist”. Yet, when someone votes for someone, solely because of their race, isn’t that just as racist? And wouldn’t the same be true when it comes to a candidate’s sex? Throw in media manipulation and their inherent partisan bias, and that’s where things can become truly murky. Say that Republicans were to nominate an African American woman, like Condoleezza Rice, to head the GOP ticket in 2016. I largely doubt that the media would advocate for her, as they did for Obama or potentially would for Hillary, despite the fact that Ms. Rice is vastly more qualified, more intelligent and more independently accomplished than either Mr. Obama, or Mrs. Clinton.

With all of these cross currents, it is no wonder that voters can and do become averse to participating in a broken political process. Yet it remains just as true that, given the wreckage America has suffered here at home, across our borders, and around the world, the election of 2016 is perhaps the most important election in the history of our country, because it will largely determine whether we reverse the failures of these last seven years, or continue down the road to our own demise, and that is where apathy can, and will, destroy the nation as we know it.

-Drew Nickell, 17 June 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

American Dystopia – Obama’s Demolition of America

nation- (nay-shuhn) – n. 1) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity, to seek or to possess a government, peculiarly its own; 2) the territory or country itself, separated by borders.

Last night, at 8:00 pm EST, the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, announced that he is going to sign an executive order which begins the unravelling of our nation. Despite his dubious and pejorative claims as to presidential precedence, it is the first time in our nation’s history that a chief executive has taken it upon himself to declare that a law no longer exists, without supporting legislation to do so. In effect, he has unilaterally decided that he will cease and desist with the deportation of over one-third of the aliens who have entered this country illegally, and he has done so without regards to Congress, the electorate and the wishes of the American people.

He has done this in spite of all of the aliens who have entered this country legally, and all of the immigrants who have played by the rules in the hope of attaining full citizenship in the United States.

In a word, he has done this with complete contempt, and total disregard, for the American people.

In effect, he has opened the floodgates of even more illegal entry than ever before, along with its resulting humanitarian crises and, in so doing, he has effectively eliminated the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

We should not be surprised by any of this.

After all, he was elected, and re-elected, largely by margins made up of illegal and multiple voting (remember ACORN?) He has done this in the hopes of geometrically expanding a voting bloc which he has deigned to broaden legislative control by his own Democratic Party. He has done this as a cynical stunt to goad the GOP into a possible governmental shutdown and/or impeachment proceedings- knowing full well that such moves would largely serve to encourage further resentment of the Republican legislators, in spite of the recent and nationwide Republican landslides in the last two mid-term elections. In effect, he has raised his middle finger to the Republicans, in general, and a majority of those who voted in 2014, specifically.

Why?

Barack Obama is part of an effete and elitist cadre of academics who, having been indoctrinated in radical ideology, disdain the concept of national identity. These radicals, who have infected college and university campuses across the country, inherently believe:

1. That the United States is the source of most, if not all, of the world’s ills;
2. That anyone should be allowed to cast a ballot, without regards to citizenship;
3. That the borders of the United States should be open, and that anyone and everyone should be allowed to enter this country and avail themselves of all of our government’s largesse- be it welfare, healthcare and education (both of which they believe should be free for all);
4. and, by effect, that the United States should be marginalized to the level of a third-world nation, as punishment for its perceived sins of the past.
5. Everything this president has done in office is completely and irrefutively commensurate with this twisted, albeit, prevalent mindset which has taken over academia, and is now meandering its way down to the elementary and secondary schools, as well. One look at the Common Core curriculum of today, juxtaposed against the curriculum that prior generations were taught, bears out this fact, in due course.

Left unchecked, the end result of these endeavors, by the President of the United States and his academic allies, will surely bring about the utter demolition of the United States as we know it, and usher in an era of American Dystopia- a society in which no sane person would ever wish to inhabit, and thus subject the watching world into an abyss from which there will be no one capable of extricating mankind, as a result.

-Drew Nickell, 21 November 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

An Extremely “Foreign” Policy

Last week’s missile attack on Malaysia Flight 17, near the Russian-Ukrainian border which caused the death of 298 innocent and unsuspecting people, was part and parcel of the proxy war that Russia has been conducting, in efforts to reincarnate the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, well-schooled in the clandestine arts when he was an agent with the KGB, plays a deadly game of wit and parry, using separatists to lay siege to a sovereign Ukrainian nation, fully arming these separatists, providing enhanced training and, allegedly, also providing Russian troops and equipment, conveniently devoid of any Russian military insignia on either.

Keep in mind that while not a full-fledged member of NATO, Ukraine has been a fully-fledged member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace, having signed the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan in 2002, which essentially obligates NATO to treat Ukraine as a de facto partner in the event of outside aggression.

When Russia essentially annexed the Crimean peninsula in February 2014, Ukraine’s most southern and strategically-important region, NATO responded, vis-à-vis the United States (nothing happens in NATO without the United States taking the lead), responded by providing MREs – Meals Ready to Eat- and nothing else. On face value this is, at best, a feckless initiative on the part of the Obama administration to tacitly show support for Ukrainian sovereignty. In fact, however, Vladimir Putin has nothing to fear from NATO with Obama as president of its strongest member, when this is the only support we are willing to provide.

Why is the relevant? Well first of all, it brings to mind a comment made by Barack Obama to then- outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in March of 2012, not realizing that the microphone was still turned on, where he said, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

To this, Medvedev replied, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” presumably referring to then-incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Now to any observer, this would suggest that Barack Obama was, in effect, telling his Russian counterpart that, following the 2012 Election, he would be in a better position to go along with what has turned out to be a nefarious design on the part of Putin, to take a more-aggressive stance in Eastern Europe, which is exactly what happened, beginning with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March of this year.

Now, we have a situation where a civilian airliner, en route from the Netherlands to Malaysia is shot down out of the sky by an extremely sophisticated Russian SAM (surface-to-air missile) and Obama’s response screams in its tepidness and lack of moral outrage. Even his UN ambassador, Samantha Power, hardly anything but a pacifist herself, expressed an admirable level of outrage in demanding Russia to “end this war”, while on the very same afternoon, Obama played his oft-used moral equivalency card saying it was up to Russia, the separatists and the Ukrainians to come to the table and seek an agreement to end the hostilities- in other words intoning that all were equally to blame, which is a lie, plain and simple.

Compare, for a moment, Obama’s response and his insistence to follow through on attending yet another fundraiser in New York, to President Ronald Reagan’s response to Russia’s downing of Korea Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983, and it is easy to see the difference between political expediency and fecklessness on the part of Barack Obama, as opposed to Reagan’s moral clarity and righteous determination to call out Russian aggression for what it is.

In short, if this is what Obama meant, promising “more flexibility” to Medvedev and Putin, back in 2012, then it is certainly not a stretch to say that this is an extremely “foreign” policy- foreign to the American tradition of righteousness and moral clarity. By its effects, the Obama administration is thereby complicit in its tolerance of the reincarnation of the evil empire whose demise President Reagan worked so hard to achieve, and it is to our peril that Obama so dithers.

-Drew Nickell, 21 July 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

2015- The Look Ahead

The holidays have now passed and we have returned to the realm of five-day workweeks, dietary come-uppances, weather that bites, and epidemic influenza- all attesting to the cruelty that is, and always has been, the month of January, God help us.

Congress has returned to the nation’s capital. Speaker John Boehner has survived a nominal challenge to his leadership, while Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has suffered an electoral blow that must have felt very much like the actual blows he received as a result of his exercise equipment, whose resistance band knocked him for quite a blow, as well. He’ll still be in the Senate, but without the power to obstruct legislation that is sent from the House. This means that President Obama will be tasked with the onus of either:

1. signing Republican bills, many of which will have some Democrat support, such as Keystone Pipeline and ACA Medical Device Tax Elimination;

(or)

2. vetoing such legislation that will expose him to charges of obstructionism that he hasn’t ever had to face, before.

Well, Mr. President, it’s time for you to “man-up” and stop hiding behind the skirts of Harry Reid, who won’t be in a position to cover for you, going forward.

The Republicans are in a position to actually govern, BUT they will have to “man up” as well. Doing so means that they will have to defund the President’s recent executive order which effectively legalized illegal immigration- and there is no doubt this will require the kind of political courage not seen in recent decades. The same goes for (Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding) replacing or amending the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), to alleviate the most economically-onerous parts of the bill that legislators, many even on the Democrat sides of the aisles, wish they hadn’t passed, after all. Republicans might even have to resort to pulling on the President’s purse strings (again, something that hasn’t been done in memory) in order to keep the excesses of this all-too-excessive president in check.

The major media will continue its Quixote-like quest to make Obama out to be a great president, in spite of the fact that he isn’t, or ever will be, a great, or even a good president. Nevertheless, they’ll stay in the tank for their “dear leader”, if for no other reason, to facilitate their entry into “Tank Hillary”, soon to open in a campaign near you. Allegations that her husband is still philandering around (this time with minors) won’t have any more ill-effect on her campaign than her refusal to comply with Rep. Trey Gowdy’s subpoena for her Benghazi documents, because the major media has already decided they’re in for Hillary, both to be nominated and elected- so much for what passes for journalism in these United States.

We will hear much about so-called “moderate Democrats” having to stave off the efforts of “extremist Republicans” because that is what the media keeps shoveling at us and we, for the most part, aren’t so up on things as to determine that which is being shoveled- the very same, in substance, to that which is shoveled out of the stables at Pimlico. That’s what happens when an electorate stops voting their heads, and votes their hearts, instead, as they have done in every election since 2008, save for the most recent which took place last November. The media let the 2014 election get by them- but they won’t risk it next time around, to be sure. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2016, he or she will be labeled an “extremist” by a mainstream media who amazingly proffers New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Senator Elizabeth Warren as moderates. Such is the state of our fourth estate.

Sadly, the situations a-brewing overseas will continue to grow worse- much worse- partially due to an effete, nuanced and altogether feckless foreign policy that Professor Obama espouses- he’ll go to his grave thinking that America is not exceptional, after all, and he has spent all of his presidency attempting to ensure just that. As the result of his selective approach to law enforcement, and his commentary regarding same, there will unfortunately be a continuation of racial unrest, here at home, not seen since the late 1960’s- ironic that the nation’s first African-American president and his Attorney General have only served to inflame racial hatreds that most of us had thought were put to bed two generations ago.

That said, Happy New Year to one, and all…

-Drew Nickell, 6 January 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Borders

Border- \ˈbȯr-dər\ n.

Border-  1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary; 2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line: i.e. One cannot cross the border without a visa; 3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another; 4. the frontier of civilization; 5. the border: i.e. the border between the U.S. and Mexico, especially along the Rio Grande     (source dictionary.com)

It is often said that America is a nation of immigrants. Even Native Americans migrated from Asia, to the land that eventually became the United States, centuries before Europeans first arrived. America has always been the place to which people come- and all for the same reason.

Exactly twenty years prior to the very day my mother was born, my grandfather arrived on Ellis Island in 1901, having immigrated to this country from a small village in Sicily, at the age of ten, with exactly twenty-five cents in his pocket. He was accompanied only by his older brother (who was twelve years old), as an “installment”. In those days, the father would come over with the eldest son, work here in America to save up enough money for the second installment, of his family, and then the third, and so on, until at last my great grandmother came with this youngest member of their family- a process that took eight years to complete. Their story was repeated millions of times during the years 1892- 1954, by people from all parts of the world, who came here in search of a better life than they had experienced in the places they left behind. They worked hard, learned to speak English and assimilated into a new and emerging American culture, leaving the trappings of their old country behind. Every single individual who was admitted through this port of entry did so legally.

“Legally”- that is the real issue of immigration. A country without borders is NOT a country, plain and simple, as the definition above clearly states. Politicizing the issue of immigration is nothing new. The “copperheads” of the 1850’s did their level best to discourage Irish immigration (including my father’s maternal grandparents). Then as my mother’s father was immigrating, there were all types of concerns regarding immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Politicians have also exploited the new arrivals, promising all sorts of jobs and benefits in exchange for votes which kept them in office (i.e. Tammany Hall). History substantiates the fact that such exploitation has been the exclusive purview of the Democratic Party going back well into the 19^th Century.

Today, we have many politicians from the very same Democratic Party wishing to exploit immigrants from our southern borders, in the very same manner… “come here, we’ll take care of you, we’ll give you low paying jobs, and medical care and education for your children…all to a greater degree than you will get from your homes in Mexico and Central America” seems to be the mantra from far too many of these leftist opportunists who really don’t give a damn about their country, just their precious office seats, instead. The difference nowadays is that these politicians couldn’t care less whether these immigrants come here within, or outside, the law. They smugly know that somehow, these poor people will eventually become voters, citizenship not necessary, not really, not eventually- their precinct cronies will see to that. If they bring communicable diseases, “so what? …we have got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that’ll handle it…” Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis taking place in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas continues on at an accelerated place “but don’t blame Obama – it’s George Bush’s fault.” George Bush’s fault for signing legislation passed by both Houses of Congress (at the time, both houses in the control of Democrats) as a means to stop child sex trafficking. Never underestimate the power of liberals to play the part of that hockey goalie, which fends off every shot and blames it on the GOP.

And yet…. While the problem festers in the real world, a world created by Barack Obama and his continued refusal to enforce immigration law, thus turning our US Border Patrol into a vast day-care center, the President couldn’t give enough of a damn to even visit the beleaguered border, opting instead to raise money for his party in Texas on this very day. He is exploiting this crisis, and the unfortunate children pouring across the border, in an effort to secure more money from Congress without bothering to include in his request funding necessary to better secure the border- all because he didn’t get the “Dream Act” he wanted, and all because he hasn’t gotten the immigration reforms that he wants- the kind of reforms that will only ensure more voter registrants to Democratic party, borders be damned. In essence, our borders will never be secure until such time as the “boarders” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have relocated, thus ending another example of how President Barrack Hussein Obama is in direct violation of his oath of office by refusing to uphold the Constitution, the laws of his country, and common decency.

-Drew Nickell, 9 July 2014

© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Selective Disservice

Let us begin with the concept of law. We have oft heard it said that we are a “Nation of Laws” and not a “Nation of Men”. According to our Constitution, the legislative branch enacts our laws, through a designedly complicated process, the executive branch upholds and enforces our laws, and the judiciary interprets our laws- the perfect balance in an imperfect process- that is what America is supposed to be about- not only in design and theory, but also in practice, as well. It has stood the test of time, albeit with bumps in the road, for two hundred twenty-five years. Whenever one branch of government has fallen short of its duties, there have always been two other branches to counter the shortfall, and so we have thus survived, both as a nation and as a form of representative government. To ensure this continuity, there has also been the “fourth estate”- essentially, a free press to keep the people informed of what is taking place with regards to our government- the operative word being “our”.

Then, again…

Today, we have arrived upon a circumstance where this delicate balance is breaking down with such a velocity, either by incompetence or nefarious intent, which truly boggles the mind. Stymied by partisanship and what I will refer to as “all-too-precious incumbency”, Congress is at a standoff between a Republican-led House of Representatives who propose laws and a Democrat-led Senate who refuses to take under consideration. Then, we have an administration which has shown a propensity to re-write laws (i.e. Affordable Care Act- a.k.a. ObamaCare) , ignore laws (i.e. Defense of Marriage Act) with which it disagrees, and misappropriate laws (i.e. William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act – intended to deal with human trafficking and contains a section that deals with children arriving in the U.S. illegally, unaccompanied by an adult, from Central America) in order to pressure Congress into enacting dubious legislation that will do nothing to ameliorate the border crisis so well underway. We have an attorney general who selectively enforces the laws, and then selectively ignores those same laws, based solely on his own political and racial prejudices which apply to the situation. For instance, Attorney General Holder launched a thorough investigation into the Trevon Martin case, and has summarily refused to investigate what has become an epidemic “knockout game” in cities across America, which is primarily a black-on-white crime spree. Recently, he has also launched an investigation into an outhouse float in a Nebraska parade which mocked a would-be future Obama presidential library, but refuses to seriously pursue IRS targeting of conservative political groups, and the resulting felonious destruction of evidence by those subject to investigation. He has shown a propensity to investigate voting district realignments all over the country, duly enacted through state legislatures, but ignored voter fraud which took place in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, as well as videotaped voter intimidation in Philadelphia by the new Black Panther organization.

On sixteen (as of the last count) occasions thus far, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on several different attempts by the Obama Administration to either re-write or summarily create laws, and improperly appoint officials without Senate confirmation. Our foreign policy is at best, a mish-mash of incongruous and feeble attempts to address increasingly volatile and incendiary situations all over the world. The economy is in a shambles, subject to repeated ex post facto revisions of rosy quarterly reports that suggest the opposite, despite the fact that fifty million are on EBT assistance, and the unemployed and under-employed rate is approaching 25%- when those who have dropped off the statistical counting rosters are included. And that’s just the beginning….

Where is the press? Aside from Fox News and only a handful of newspapers around the country, we remain virtually uninformed of what is taking place in the halls of Washington, in cities and towns across America, at our borders, and beyond. What used to be a free press has largely become a propaganda machine for the Obama administration- most notably evidenced when one weighs the amount of coverage of “Bridge-gate” as it compares to the amount of coverage given to the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, COMBINED….

In short, there is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt, but we recall what Shakespeare once wrote in Act I, Scene 2 of “Julius Caesar” when Cassius says to Brutus:

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings..”

Unless and until we ourselves hold our elected officials accountable, for both their actions and inactions, nothing, nothing will change and it is to our own peril that we stay silent, uninformed, and disinterested, thus rendering a disservice to ourselves and our posterity.

-Drew Nickell, 17 July 2014

©2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

The Seeds of Impeachment

Every mighty tree that ever grew began as a seed, which buried in the soil sprouted a tap root that began to spread into branches of that tap root. Then, its sprout penetrated upward, the ground’s surface, and likewise began to grow into a trunk which sprouted branches, until the tree dwarfed the seed of its origin.

In a similar matter, every time in our history that the “tree” of impeachment, or a potential of impeachment grew, it started as a “seed”, covered up in dirt and began to sprout the roots of discontent, and the branches of dishonesty bore the fruit of impeachment.

Forty years ago, a 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee grew into a scandal of cover-up that caused Richard Nixon to resign his presidency. The articles of impeachment that had been drawn up had nothing to do with the actual break-in, and everything to do with the lengths to which Nixon and members of his administration to cover up, and obstruct the investigation appertaining thereto.

Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton was impeached, on two counts of perjury, and one count each of abuse of power and obstruction of justice, which grew out of the seeds of the Whitewater real estate investment scandals, sexual harassment of Paula Jones, and ultimately, fellatio performed on the President in the Oval Office by Monica Lewinsky. The actual articles of impeachment had nothing to do with semen on Lewinsky’s dress, and everything to do with the fact that Clinton perjured himself in a deposition to a grand jury and he attempted to obstruct justice in the investigation of Whitewater.

By comparison to Nixon’s Watergate break-in, and Clinton’s Whitewater investment scandal/ sexual peccadillos- comparatively small seeds in terms of their effects on the American public, the Obama administration has engaged in the process of planting numerous, much larger seeds that are just beginning to sprout tap roots in what might well grow into a veritable grove of impeachment trees.

The Veterans Health Administration, in their false record keeping and delays of services, those being systematically covered up, that have caused and continue to cause actual deaths of veterans awaiting medical services, is but one of these trees.

The ATF gun walking scandal, also known as Fast and Furious, which resulted in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, has already resulted in formal charges of contempt for Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, by the House of Representatives, for failing to provide Congress with subpoenaed documents.

Then there is the Benghazi Raid, and the failure of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to provide adequate security to the consulate in Libya, that resulted in the deaths of our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens and three others, and the attempt to fabricate a false narrative of a video to hide both the President’s and Secretary’s culpability in their refusal to provide adequate security before the raid, and rescue operations during the raid, all because Obama was in the midst of a re-election campaign whose narrative was that the “Arab spring was a success and Al-Quada is on the run”, both of which were not true. These three scandals, unlike Nixon’s and Clinton’s scandals, have actually resulted in the deaths of Americans.

And then there is the IRS targeting of conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax exemptions, originally and falsely blamed on rogue operatives in the IRA Cincinnati office, which have now been 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 visits- and 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 have vanished into thin air, due to a hard drive crash, and the subsequent disposal of the computer’s hard drive conveniently waylaying and preventing investigation into e-mails the 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 insists that there is not smidgen of corruption in this arena.

Despite the fact that the major media has refused to acknowledge these scandals as anything but phony scandals and Republican partisan witch hunts, and despite the efforts of Democratic House members who toe the same line for the Obama administration, these scandals are very real, in some cases deadly, and, in the case of the IRS, affect thousands of Americans, both in and outside our government. Worse yet, there are other instances of either incompetence or outright dishonesty, that are threatening the ability of President Obama to lead our nation in very troubled times, both here and around the world. Even some of Obama’s supporters in the media, cognizant of his declining approval numbers, are beginning to see that his ability to lead the country has all but ended. Such a diminishment of his moral authority, left unchecked, will ultimately result in public outcry for further investigations and impeachment, which can be accelerated with a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate in November.

As these scandals grow branches, and begin to bear ill fruit, coupled with the stagnant economy and troubles abroad, Obama is unwittingly and steadily fertilizing the seeds of his own demise, and the danger is that all of us will be forced to dine upon the fruits of his own design.

-Drew Nickell, 20 June 2014

©2014, by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

Taxation

In “Julius Caesar”, Act I, Scene 1, William Shakespeare wrote “Beware the Ides of March…”, but it is the “ides” of April which terrorize and traumatize taxpayers across the country. April 15^th, the day Federal Tax Returns are due, is a day in which no tax-paying citizen can cherish. We should know. All told, we paid just under $39,000 in income and income-based taxes, and we only earn in the five figures, which means that, taken together- Federal, Social Security, State, Medicare, etc., almost 49% of what we earned got gobbled up by the government, at one level or another- and that does not include the sales taxes we pay when we purchase anything, or the real estate taxes on our home, or the personal property taxes on our automobile. Is that fair? If you say yes, then you are either an idiotic socialist who believes we did not earn that money, despite the fact that we have been working our fat keister off since we were a teenager, or you believe that we are merely a slave to the government, and not an individual who is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Okay- enough of our personal rant, except to say that we, as a nation, are over-taxed…WAAAAYYYY over-taxed. When one considers the tens of thousands of pages of tax code that exists here in the United States, such an enormous kluster-phuck of confiscatory and, in some cases, exculpatory tax code is, by definition, inherently corrupt. Were it not so complex, it would not be corrupt, either.

The various lobbies- in particular the CPA lobby, the ABA lobby, the tax attorney lobby are what is getting in the way of tax reform. Why? They want it to be as complex, corrupt and kluster-phucked as possible because the more complex, corrupt and kluster-phucked it is, the more business they can generate, as a result of it being so.