Entertaining the World With Our National Game Show

We watched the results pour in last night, as Donald Trump won decisive victories in all five of yesterday’s primary contests. He finally and consistently broke the 50% barrier, no small feat. We then watched his victory speech, broadcast well into the Trump campaign’s clearly momentous evening.

Most noticeable, from our perspective, was Mr. Trump’s focus on the competitive, me-versus-them aspect of the race. He consistently begins his speeches, be they victory speeches or stump speeches, by insulting his opponents, often in very personal terms; before moving on to highlight, ad nauseam, how high his winning percentages are, how many delegates he just racked up, and how lame his competitors are by comparison.

It reminds one of a scene from the movie Quiz Show (quite an excellent film, directed by Robert Redford), wherein a 1950’s TV executive tells one of his game show contestants that the reason people tune in to watch such shows is because, and I’m paraphrasing … They like to watch the money.

Watching Donald Trump is like watching the money. In fact, this entire primary season, for both Republicans and Democrats, has unfolded pretty much like a game show. And our liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream’ media) hounds serve to heighten the game show mentality, focusing on the horse race, the amounts of money raised and spent, and who said what to insult someone else. What suffers is the quality of our national dialogue, as we lose focus on issues, policies and the integrity, or lack thereof, in our candidates.

There is, of course, another aspect of Mr. Trump’s appeal, one of equal if not greater significance. More on that soon.


The Misogynistic Cult of Clinton

In recent days, the Liberal Media (a.k.a. ‘Mainstream Media’) has posited its consensus that, with her impressive victory in the New York primary, Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democrat Party’s nomination for President. On a related note, and with considerable fanfare, HBO recently aired the film, Confirmation, depicting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings, specifically the testimony of Anita Hill, who, in unseemly detail, publicly accused Thomas of sexually harassing her.

Those 1991 Senate hearings are now hailed by the Liberal Establishment as a watershed moment for the rights of women in the workplace. Lest they forget that one year after Anita Hill began the era of Bill Clinton – who, as Governor of Arkansas and as President of the United States, was a serial predator of women, and whose primary enabler in his many sordid affairs was his own wife, Hillary.

Where, pray tell, were the cries of sexual harassment in the workplace during said Era of Clinton? Sadly, yet not surprisingly, the Liberal Establishment was silent and submissive, and largely remains so to this day. They protected Bill then, and they protect Hillary even now. To anyone whose moral compass has a true north, such utter hypocrisy is hard to fathom. It appears delusional, if not outright cultish.

If the so-called ‘feminist movement’ were consistent in its narrative, they would highlight the stories of the brave women who came forward and told how Bill Clinton sexually harassed them, and highlight how Hillary Clinton sought to silence them.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for HBO to make a film about that.

When the ‘Smartest Guy in the Room’ Looks Like a Dunce

When the ‘smartest guy in the room’ wants to look like a dunce, he makes an inherently political statement while, at the same time, guaranteeing no political influence. This is just what President Obama has done recently, as seen here. Had he been wise, Mr. Obama would have declined to comment on the FBI’s ongoing criminal investigation of his former Secretary of State. But the man just couldn’t help himself … and in this case, may have hurt himself.

Mr. Obama has gotten into a no-win situation regarding the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. If the FBI sends a criminal referral to the Obama Justice Department and Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to indict Mrs. Clinton, and perhaps members of her staff, then Mr. Obama becomes implicated in a politically driven attempt to shield those politically well-placed from prosecution; and the Obama administration and the President’s former Secretary of State suffer a much feared ‘slow leak’ of politically damaging information that would inevitably result. There would be well-placed and justifiably outraged individuals, in the FBI and elsewhere in the criminal justice community, to guarantee such leaks occur in a compromising and drawn out manner.

If the Obama Justice Department does indict Mrs. Clinton, then her candidacy for the Presidency becomes damaged beyond repair, and Mr. Obama’s so-called ‘legacy’ is ever more gravely put in jeopardy, as he will have lost his one ‘heir apparent’ and may find himself and his administration sucked into the quagmire of nasty, drawn out criminal proceedings. And if, almost inconceivably, no criminal referral is forthcoming from the FBI’s investigation, then again, there will be well justified cries of political foul play and a political cover-up, at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not fond of each other. But for now, poised atop the liberal food chain, they need each other. Theirs is a decrepit alliance, born of a common lust for self-aggrandizement, a shared need for self-preservation, and a mutual disregard for the rule of law. A criminal investigation moves forward, and a political firestorm is on the verge of igniting, one that could devastate Democrats, who would in turn blame Mrs. Clinton for her monumentally, historically bad judgment and actions. The Obama Administration may soon be less concerned with defending Mrs. Clinton than with protecting the President, to shore up a firewall between him and a scandal set to consume those sucked into it.

Tax Cuts Save Money … Here’s How

Democrats are fond of asking Republicans, “How are you going to pay for your tax cuts?” They ask this a lot, I’ve noticed. However, Democrats do not ask, “How are we going to pay for our massive spending increases?” They don’t even call their spending increases “spending increases” anymore. They’ve taken in recent years to calling them “investments” instead. Some things, however, are sacrosanct; a “tax cut” is still a “tax cut.”

The great irony in all this is that lowering tax rates, across the board, doesn’t actually cost money. Rather, it saves money. The logic is so simple, in fact, that it’s often overlooked, and it goes like this. When American workers keep more of what they earn, due to lower tax rates, they’re saving more of their own money. See? I told you it was simple. After all, the money that we earn belongs, first and foremost, to us. Not to our government. Doesn’t it seem logical, then, that we tell our government how much of our money it gets to spend, rather than our government telling us how much we get to keep?

What I’m suggesting is a shift in our frame of reference, a slight yet thoroughly radical shift. Because once all American tax payers embrace their financial resources as belonging to them, and not to the government, we can all begin to better appreciate the federal bureaucracy for what it is.

Come April 15, our government is like an irrepressible teenager on a Friday night, approaching Mom or Dad to get money for the weekend; money this teenager will, in turn, spend on cheeseburgers or movies or beer. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could look your offspring in the eye and ask, “Are you going to spend this money wisely? Can you show me where, in the past, you have actually spent it wisely, this money that I keep giving you?”

Your suddenly and irrepressibly honest offspring would say, “Actually, I’ve taken your money, bought a bunch of beer with it, and crashed your car into other cars all around town. And this is costing you more money than you could ever hope to pay off. It’s actually going to bankrupt you. But never mind all that, because this time I want even more of your money than you gave me last time. So that I can keep doing the same irresponsible things I’ve been doing. And no, I won’t change my ways.”

As a parent, how would that make you feel?

Bear that feeling in mind whenever you hear Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or some other liberal politician urging you to ‘invest’ more of your hard-earned money in bigger government. What they’re really talking bout is the federal bureaucracy spending more money on inefficient, ever-expanding federal programs, more lobbyists, more regulations and more government control, crashing more cars all over town and bankrupting us in the process.

Trump, Meet Bump!

This has been trending for a while. And yesterday’s Wisconsin primary vote makes it clear Ted Cruz has seized the Republican momentum. He is better organized, with a more grounded and complete campaign operation than Donald Trump. And he is not prone to the careless, self-inflicted wounds that Trump brazenly embraces. In politics, such things matter, and they have a cumulative effect.

Now, Mr. Trump has hit a noticeable bump in his previously, and amazingly (some would say unbelievably), direct road toward the nomination. Cruz captured 48 percent of yesterday’s Wisconsin vote, to Trump’s 35 percent and John Kasich’s 14 percent. This is a substantial margin of victory, and it awards Cruz the lion’s share of Wisconsin delegates, 36 to Trump’s 6 and Kasich’s nil.

What this means, most importantly and with near certainty, is that the Republican nomination is not going to be determined prior to the convention this summer. And there, again, Cruz’s campaign promises to be better organized and better prepared to maneuver the political maze that awaits the remaining Republican candidates.

If you think this race cannot get any more interesting or bizarre … stay tuned.