America: A Nation Divided, Angry and Depressed

America is in turmoil.  A nation divided by politics, media, culture, regionalism, religion, celebrities, sports, race, wealth, agism and patriotism.  Many scapegoat politicians as the culprits.  But we are at war with ourselves.  The only real solution is for We The People to first change ourselves.  

It is trendy to dredge up the cliche that things have never been worse in our country.  Those who assert this hypothesis never delved into our nation's past.  America was birthed in conflict.  Our founding fathers complained bitterly about the rancor within their newly minted United States of America.

America's first President George Washington fretted about the rank partisanship in the 1790's.  It was a time of hate-filled political rhetoric.  Sound familiar? Washington blamed the malice on politicians driven by "selfish motives."  He lamented the political groups formed to spread discord and enmity.

Our second President John Adams was furious at the pamphleteers who criticized his administration.  In 1798, he signed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it illegal to "write, print or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writings" against the president and the executive branch.

America's messy democracy with its partisan politicians and unfettered press has a long history of stirring passion, antagonism and dissension.  It is the price we pay for freedom.  What needs to change is how Americans react to politics and how we discern the truth about what is reported in the media.   

The toxicity of today's politics is as volatile as Washington's era. Partisans on all sides of the political spectrum point the finger of guilt at one of the two major parties.  However, both parties and the extremists within each, are at fault. It doesn't matter a wit which party is in control, bitterness reigns. 

If you catch yourself shaking your head in disagreement, you are frankly in denial.  In 1994, I traveled to Washington for a private conference with Oklahoma Senator David Boren.  During our meeting, he disclosed he would not seek another term.  I was stunned.  The Democrat easily could be reelected.

"Politics in Washington is no longer civil," he confided.  "At one time, Democrats and Republicans would fight like dogs in the Senate chambers over issues.  But when the session adjourned, we were still friends.  We could socialize and solve issues.  Not any more.  The level of hostility is palpable."

That meeting was more than two decades ago.  The animus has worsened.

Both parties champion compromise when they are in power.  The party out of favor resists.  The needs of ordinary Americans are no longer the priority of Washington's pampered, entitled politicians. Thousands of special interest groups, flush with money, control both parties.  Don't doubt that.

As a country founded on the principle of freedom of expression, unrestrained speech is a blessing and often a cruse. The right to voice your opinions, no matter who it offends, is guaranteed.  People are embolden to speak honestly or utter falsehoods. Today that freedom is under fierce attack.

Social media titans, including Facebook and Twitter, arbitrarily ban content their censors find objectionable. No debate is allowed on issues such as vaccination, CDC health mandates, racial issues or any controversy that the social media cabal deems contrary to the progressive narrative.   

Even worse a majority of Americans get some or all of their news from the most unreliable source on the planet: social media.  According to some reports, about a half-a-billion tweets and Snapchat photos are shared every minute.  Add Facebook in the mix, and the numbers are nearly a billion.  

People use social media to vent their anger about everything from politics to customer service.  A Pew Research Center study found social media is a "significant contributor" to users' stress.  One Austrian research study discovered Facebook users moods are lower after engaging on the platform.

The legacy media--newspapers, television networks, online news platforms--once performed a public service by sorting fact from misinformation.  Today every news source without exception is guilty of bias, political favoritism, anonymous-sourced rumors and calculated negative reporting.

Research shows this development impacts our mental health.  A study in Psychology Today reported that the steady diet of negative news interfaces with "our cognitive biases, keeping our focus on everything that's going wrong, while blinding us to all the good things around us."

This combustible environment of noxious politics and poisonous news coverage is creating a dynamic of us-versus-them.  People are sick of politics and media but continue to wallow in the negative news and political morass with insatiable appetites.  We get the media and politicians we deserve. 

Politics and news may be the main triggers of general nastiness, but there are so many other influencers eroding civility.  Take patriotism. It was once unthinkable for any American to disrespect the nation's sacred flag.  Now the symbol of freedom is labeled a dog-whistle for racism.

Our flag no longer unites us.  It segregates the country.  How did this happen?

Too many Americans take their social and moral cues from multi-millionaire athletes and celebrities.  They exert an out-sized influence on Americans with their opinions, tweets, music, movies and behavior.  These self-appointed influencers are worshiped by a culture obsessed with celebrities.

Many gliterrarti preach hatred of America, faulting white nativism and racism for the nation's friction. The vitriol seeps into our consciousness.  We become depressed, angry, tribal.  Who advocates for all humans, regardless of race, creed or religion?  In fact, doing so ends up spurring more disunity.

As if the country needed more strife, there is a growing schism between secularism and religious practice.  Elitists want church doctrine or faith principles to conform to today's political or social mores.  Churches need to change, they demand.  They dangle the threat of removing charitable status.     

Not since the Civil War, have the states been so un-united.  There are self-identified red states and blue states.  States collectively band together to fight against what they view as harmful federal legislation to their region.  Some, like California, are refusing to do business with other states. 

Throw into this incendiary recipe a measure of rural-urban division. Rural communities, the fabric of America, are some of the most harmonious places in the country.  There is a sense of shared values. Urbanites and suburbanites prize progressive ideals and mock the values in rural America.   

Sports once was America's escapism.  Everyone came together and enjoyed a football, basketball or baseball game and forgot whatever anxieties and problems existed outside the stadium. Now egocentric, powerful owners and rich, spoiled athletes are turning events into forums to air grievances.

Schools and colleges are plunging into ugly political scrapes by insisting on doctrinal changes in curriculum, outraging parents. Colleges erect so-called safe zones to protect students' sensitivities. Institutions of learning discourage debate, silence speech and insist on conformity.

In past eras, Americans regardless of political affiliation united whenever our military engaged in a conflict.  World War I and II fostered rare solidarity.  Citizens bonded to support the troops, sacrifice for the good of the nation and volunteer when called. 

Beginning with the Vietnam War and continuing with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, public and political support for the military has flagged.  The soldiers who answered the call to duty have returned home to hostile receptions.  We blame the brave for what politicians have wrought.  

COVID is a perfect example of Americans inability to set aside political differences to rally to combat an enemy.  The pandemic was politicized by partisans. Soon people--not the virus--became the villains. Health experts berated Americans for not taking the virus seriously or refusing to wear masks.

Instead of rallying Americans to join in a common effort to defeat the virus, the tenor of the health advice dripped with contempt for those who dared to question the experts, including doctors and epidemiologists.  This tactic fueled suspion of science as well as the motives of health officials.  

Then governors stepped into the breech and created often ill-advised mandates that angered and confused ordinary folks. Guidelines changed and then contradictory protocols were issued.  Mistrust was rampant. Ugly confrontations erupted between masked and unmasked citizens.

Rudeness is at the heart of much of what ails this country.  Its symptoms are road rage, unruly airline passengers, public shouting matches, random shootings, street bullies and much more. Studies show that rudeness reacts like a contagion, spreading from person-to-person until it infects a whole nation.   

Perhaps, some readers reject this dystopian view.  However, there can be no disagreement this litany of schisms exist, triggering cynicism and general depression in our nation.  Suicides have risen sharply. More Americans suffer from clinical anxiety than ever before. Something is wrong.  Terribly wrong.

We deny it at the peril of ourselves and our nation.  At its core, this problem calls for unification of at least We The People.  We must temper our behavior, get involved, raise our voices, encourage others, search for common ground and pursue our better selves.  America will not change if we don't. 

Never underestimate the power of one American.  The course of our nation has been altered by lone voices over the centuries.  But we don't have to rely on just our own initiative.  

In closing, here are words of wisdom from Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch watchmaker who was captured and sent to a Nazi concentration camp for hiding Jews in her home and aiding their escape during World War II: 

"In you look at the world, you'll be distressed.  If you look within, you'll be depressed,  If you look at God, you'll be at rest."

America Is Drowning in Political Hatred

No matter the outcome of the contentious impeachment trial, America is destined to descend deeper into seething hatred that poses the biggest threat to our nation.  Our country has a long history of political strife, but it has witnessed nothing like today's ugliness, except for the Civil War.

Once upon a time Americans could disagree politically without rancor and name-calling.  Those days are gone replaced by hate-mongers, hate speech and hate groups.  We make villains of those who disagree with our views and embrace personal destruction as a weapon to vanquish our opponents.

Democrats loathe Republicans.  Republicans resent Democrats.  Bipartisanship has no place in today's toxic environment.  It encourages Americans to self-select into political tribes, each poised to wipe out the other camp from the face of the Earth.  Tragically, this has become the new normal.

Political disagreements have turned into grudge matches instead of battles of ideas.  Malice seduces us to rationalize demonizing others. Who's wrong?  Evil people who don't believe like I do.  Who's bad?  Morons who hold kooky views.  Who stands in the way of unity?  Idiots from the other party.

This is worse than polarization.  If you are searching for a  comparable climate, look no further than the bloody Civil War.  Politics as usual was replaced by hatred of groups and individuals.  Northerners detested Southerners. The South despised the North.  Brother turned against brother.

Some of you may consider this analogy hyperbole.  However, no one can argue there are similarities. Americans today ostracize friends who disagree politically.  Families are torn asunder by political disputes.  It is no longer North versus South but Coastal versus Middle America.

Pundits attempt to pin this bitter division on one man: Donald J. Trump.  But research shows political rage has been festering since at least George W. Bush. He was tagged the illegitimate president. A fictional movie was made about his assassination.  The media savaged his daughters.

The bitterness continued after Barrack Obama's election.  He too was called an illegitimate president because he was not a U.S. citizen.  Rumors spread virally that he was secretly a Muslim.  He was accused of being anti-American. However, the media discredited every malicious attack. 

In the past, the office of the president was a hallowed institution respected by Americans, including those who did not vote for the occupant. This tradition has disappeared.  The president is no longer the leader of all Americans but just those who voted for the officeholder.

Now sports teams routinely shun the long established custom of a White House reception out of spite. A comedian held up a severed bloody head of the Oval Office occupant. More than 60  Democrats boycotted President Trump's first State of the Union address. 

These acts are not mere smears targeting Mr. Trump.  Each demeans the office of the president.  This petulant conduct is unbecoming of our heritage.  It is vital to America's position in the world that we the people uphold the dignity of the office while disagreeing with the president. 

Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits he is shocked by the denigration of the office of the president. He recounted  in a recent newspaper article about a 2014 speech President Obama made in his country that was viewed by Australians as a slap at the government's climate policy.

His party pressured him to publicly rebuke Obama.  He demurred because he felt it was a "discourtesy" to the "leader of the free world."  He went on to elaborate: "In a sense he's everyone's president and the world needs him to succeed almost as much as America does."

Do we need an Australian to remind Americans about civility?  That is a sad commentary on how far we have plunged into the cauldron of hatred.  Whether we like it or not, the president represents all Americans, including those who are dead set on removing him from office.

I get it.  Some of you find Mr. Trump offensive, crude and repulsive.  But hatred?  I have often had profound policy or personal differences with presidents.  But I can honestly attest I have never hated a president.  That is beneath us as Americans.  It is the stuff of a third world country.

So how did we arrive at this juncture in our history?  What is the source of this wellspring of loathing?

Both political parties are responsible for weaponizing the politics of personal destruction.  Normal Americans don't want to literally destroy those of opposing political views.  But Democrat and Republican forces consider it their mission to not just win but to vaporize the other side.

Negative ads featuring the worst dehumanizing attacks are a staple of our campaigns.  Often the claims are false.  These messages are designed to motivate us by creating a depraved view of the targeted politician.  We are encouraged to hate the object of their derision.

Parties are not interested in waging a war of ideas.  Their goal is to bully and intimidate the opposition into surrendering to their world view.  Those with differing viewpoints are mocked, insulted and branded imbeciles.  Some elected officials even want to censor opposing ideas.

Fanning the burning embers of hatred is a dishonest news media.  They knowingly promote discord, stereotypes and controversy.  In their world, the media bigwigs believe this is what gains viewers, sells newspapers or generates clicks.  Add to this cacophony the swill on social media.

Public discourse on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms is degrading.  Vile insults  people would never utter face-to-face to a person clog the sewage pipes of social media.  Politics is the grist for most of the anger and antagonism.  Any decent American should be sickened.

My Democrat friends honestly believe once Mr. Trump leaves office there will be blissful harmony.  It won't happen.  Our country now resembles a sectarian state where hatred of groups is systemic.  It will worsen because politicians and their puppet masters have a vested interest in tumult.

Rage is a useful political tool for justifying unconstitutional tactics, selective justice and any number of other misdeeds.  Unless the tide reverses, America will suffocate in its own hatred.  Americans must refuse to allow politicians or their parties to drag us into the drowning pool.

Disagreements have been a staple of the American democracy.  We must return to respecting views we cannot abide.  Contentious issues should not divide us but unite Americans in finding common ground.  That is our American heritage.  We are the United States. We need to start acting like it.

Unhappy Crowd: Spare Us the "Woe is Me" Lament

Squawking about America has never been shriller.  Gun violence is spiraling out of control.  Racism is seething.  Trade wars are spiking prices.  The nation's political climate is toxic.  Homeless people are camped on streets of cities.  The whole country is a rotten stinking dung heap.

Day after day the piercing chorus is deafening.  For many Baby Boomers, including this writer, it has become nauseating.  The contempt, disgust and loathing from our fellow Americans is too much to stomach.  This country needs perspective, a quality missing in today's warped media reporting.

If you honestly believe America has never been this foul, you just haven't lived long enough. Not too many decades ago, this country was in the throes of race riots, soaring interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment and one of the deadliest wars ever fought by our military.

Americans, especially Millennials, have either forgotten or never been taught American history.  As a timely reminder, here is a refresher on the turmoil that roiled the country from 1962 to 1981, a period that included political assassinations, cities in flames, an oil embargo and economic Armageddon.

During the Cold War with Russia in the 1960's,  President John F. Kennedy advised Americans to build bomb shelters as a precaution.  By 1965, 200,000 underground shelters speckled the American landscape. As school children, we were drilled to hide under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack.

Tensions boiled over in October 1962 when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba.  The military blockaded Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from reaching the island.  Nuclear war appeared imminent. After a nerve-racking 13-day standoff, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.

Not long after, President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a gunmen who had visited Russia.  Less than 20 years later, President Ronald Reagan was shot, the bullet just missing vital organs sparing his life.  If a closely-guarded president could be killed or wounded, none of us felt safe.

During the period after 1963, ugly race riots broke out in major U.S. cities as African-Americans battled police in the streets.  National guard units had to be called up to restore peace.  Historians have called the riots the "most serious and widespread" ever in the U.S.

The social unrest flared in 1968 after civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was struck down by an assassin's bullet.  The news ignited riots in 110 cities across the country in a single night.  That same year Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy was murdered.

His death and the simmering anger over the Vietnam War combusted into the worst incident in American politics. At the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, violent confrontations exploded as police and protesters fought.  Demonstrators were beaten and tear gassed on national television.

The unpopular war in Asia, which lasted almost 20 years, ended with 58,220 American military causalities.  Another 304,000 soldiers returned home with crippling wounds. Many of my generation lost college mates, friends and family members.  Too many died forgotten in a war run by politicians.

For perspective, only the Civil War, World War I and World War II, eclipsed Vietnam as the deadliest conflicts in our history.

On the heels of the war, impeachment proceedings were launched by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard M. Nixon, who was implicated in the break-in at a Democratic Party facility in the Watergate Hotel in Washington.  Under pressure, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.

The nation barely exhaled when a Middle-East oil embargo kindled a gasoline shortage in the country.  Prices quadrupled at the pump overnight, shredding family budgets and triggering a nationwide panic.  Stations ran out of gas.  Fuel-starved cars were abandoned on the road.

During the height of the crisis, price gouging was rampant.  We waited in long lines of cars idling on roads leading to stations, snarling traffic and shortening tempers.  Mandatory limits of five-gallons of fuel per car were imposed by gas stations.  Daily commutes were often sidelined by empty gas tanks.

Then galloping inflation and high unemployment detonated.  From 1976 to 1980, car prices zoomed 72%.  The cost of new homes soared 67%.  In a single year 1979, gasoline prices rocketed up 60%.  Inflation spurted to 12.4% in 1980.  The prime interest rate topped 21% that same year.

Unemployment jumped to 9%.  Many firms laid off workers.  A new term was coined, The Misery Index, to quantify Americans' fears and anxieties over the economic morose.  Government wage and price controls, introduced to stem inflation, instead stunted an economic recovery.

During this era in the 1970's, the nation recorded the worst crime rate in its history.  There were 115.2 million crimes reported in that decade.  The highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1980, far outdistancing today's FBI homicide rate-per-population.   Crime became a hot political issue.

Perhaps, this brief history lesson will remind all Americans that our country has undergone more dire economic, political, race and violence-marred eras. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about these times.  However, today's Americans deserve to have current events put into historical context.

It may not be the best of times but it certainly isn't the worst.  Not even close. Someone has to spread that message to quell the incessant wallowing in self-pity.  The media will not.   We must do it.

Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up To Be Wealthy

They are the tiniest minority in America, numbering 585.  Most people don't know one.  And yet they are shamelessly pilloried by politicians.  They blame this group for every calamity in America from economic inequality to climate change.  Unlike other minorities, no one rises to their defense.

This diminutive faction is the nation's billionaires. The class has a total net worth of $2.399 trillion.  The exclusive club includes some members as young as 32 and two as old as 88.  Amazon chief Jeff Bezos tops the elite list with total wealth of $112 billion. Bill Gates is distant second at $90 billion.

Once upon a time, it was the American dream to become successful and prosperous.  Average citizens looked in admiration upon self-made millionaires who grew up with little and rose to stirring heights of capitalism.  Not any more.  Today billionaires are villains to be mercilessly disparaged.

Politicians have cast the wealthy as the new boogieman.  Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has made attacking the "billionaire class" a cornerstone of his 2020 presidential run.  To listen to Sanders on the campaign trail, billionaires should be shackled in a stockade on the public square. 

"We live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact of the fabric of the entire country," Sanders ranted in an interview.  Sanders must be jealous that he is only a millionaire.

To underscore his disgust, Sanders took the social media to post the following Tweet: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need?  Give us a break.  You can't have it all."  Spoken like a man who owns three homes with his spouse Jane.

Another Democratic Party presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has made deriding the wealthy a staple of her stump speech.  "America's middle class is under attack," she grumbles.  "How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie."

To punish the rich, Warren has proposed levying a 2 percent additional tax on families with total assets of more than $50 billion and three percent on those with wealth that exceeds $1 billion. These duties would be in addition to her plan to hike taxes on the income of the richest Americans.

The future for billionaires looks gloomy with political newcomers such as New York's Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez bursting on the scene with even more draconian tax plans.  The 29-year-old politician has floated the idea of a 70 percent marginal top rate on incomes above $10 million.

That sounds more like confiscation than taxation.  Not surprising coming from a self-avowed Democratic Socialist.  Only one presidential candidate seems to be bucking the trend of bashing billionaires.  Perhaps, that's because he is one: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.

"I'm self-made," Schultz declared when he was deplored for self-funding his campaign.  "I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York.  I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America."  Polling from Pew Research suggests Schultz may be out of touch with today's generation.

In a nationwide survey in 2017, Pew found the dream for most Americans is "freedom of choice on how to live."  Having a "good family life" ranks second.  Third is "a comfortable retirement."  At the bottom of the list is "wealth."  However, prosperity makes the first three easier to achieve.

Still that doesn't explain the current visceral hatred toward the wealthy.  Nothing stirs up a crowd, especially of young people, like a verbal spanking of the rich.   Without delving into group psychoanalysis, the explanation might be envy and resentment of those with money. Who knows?

Even politicians are conflicted.  On the one hand they thrash the mega-rich, but use the other hand to take millions in contributions from billionaires, their surrogates and political shell organizations.  Would a sane person hand over money for the privilege of being verbally sprayed by a skunk?

Take Bernie Sanders as an example of this dichotomy.  Sanders made a big show out of the fact his 2016 campaign was largely funded by small donations under $200. However, OpenSecrets reveals that his largest donors were Alphabet, Inc. (Google), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Boeing and IBM.

The CEO's of each one of those organizations are either multi-millionaires or billionaires. Apparently, they enjoy being lambasted as filthy rich jerks.  These heads of mammoth corporations are either daffy or sadistic.  Makes you wonder about their motive for funding rhetorical flagellation.

In the current political climate, counsel your children and grandchildren to strive to be middle class.  Politicians pander to this economic group.  No one can define the middle class any more, but that matters little.  Middle class is the safe haven from politicians' verbal hostilities.

There is only one problem with having every American pursuing middle economic nirvana.  Who will pay for all those grand schemes, such as Medicare For All and the Green Deal, unless the nation continues to churn out more billionaires?  Now that's a conundrum for Sanders, et al. to ponder.

Media Shame: Savage Attacks on Catholic Teens

Wearing a red hat in America has been demonized by the news media and those who hate the president.  A small group of teens recently discovered the depth of this loathing . They were mocked, taunted and verbally assaulted for the crime of donning Make America Great Again hats.

For their grievous sin, these students from a Kentucky Catholic high school have endured media smears, death threats and character assassination.  The media fueled furor over the incident at the national March for Life forced the school to shutter its doors for fear of violence against its students.

How could this happen in America?  The blame rests squarely on the stoop shouldered news media. Journalists, a misnomer if there ever was one, jumped to conclusions based on their own biases and spread a false narrative about an incident involving the school kids, endangering their lives.

A small group of Covington Catholic High School youngsters were peacefully leaving the pro-life rally in Washington, D.C when a handful of black Hebrew Israelites and left-wing activists hurled insults at the students.  In response, the students sang their school song, refusing the hateful bait.

Then a self-appointed Native American activist entered the fray, banging a drum and confronting one of the students.  To his credit, the student only smiled without uttering a word.  Within minutes, a video appeared on social media that exploded into bombastic news coverage by the media.

America's media, its reputation for fairness long ago shredded, based its reporting mostly on a snippet of video and the comments of Native American Nathan Phillips, who claimed to be a a Vietnam War veteran. News commentators inflamed passions by hastily condemning the kids.

Television reporters denounced the youngsters as bigots.  Journalists called them "privileged" white elitists.  Hollywood actors suggested they kids should be hunted down and punched in the face.  Some on social media called for the youngsters to be killed.

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, an anti-Semite serving her first term in the U.S. Congress, tweeted: "The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled, "It's not rape if you enjoy it." They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants."

NBC called the incident "a troubling scene many are calling racist played out in Washington."  CNN, the network no one should trust, described the scene as a "mob of MAGA hat-wearing high school students." An MSNBC news panelist compared the students to neo-Nazis.

USA Today featured an interview with Phillips, who belittled the youngsters as "beastly" and having a "mob mentality." The New York Times labeled the teenagers "racists" for mocking a veteran.  The Washington Post lambasted the Catholic Church's sordid history of Native American abuses.

These choir boy-faced high school youths overnight became the most hated figures in America.  Then the media story began to unravel.  As more video surfaced of the incident near the Lincoln Memorial, it became obvious the teenagers were passive bystanders, not the aggressors.

No video evidence exists showing the kids shouting anything racist or mentioning rape.  The adult sponsors accompanying the youngsters publicly discredited the media's version.  A youth wearing the MAGA hat was interviewed and refuted the remarks that the activists claimed he made.

Why didn't the news media interview the sponsors and the youngsters before they rushed to judgment?  The answer is obvious.  There were not interested in the truth.  They wanted to advance the narrative of MAGA hats being a symbol of bigotry.  Their hatred for Trump was bared. 

The Native American Philips was unmasked as a career provocateur who regularly shows up a protests, representing himself.  He is not an Vietnam veteran as he claims.  He served in the Marine Reserves, spending most of his time in sunny California instead of the steamy jungles of Vietnam.

A day after the confrontation Phillips disrupted mass at Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, beating his drum and marching down the aisles.  Phillips is a trouble maker not a peacemaker.  He is a charlatan.  His real name is Nathaniel R. Stanard.

As the truth emerged, some media outlets tried to walk back the story in an attempt to salvage their tattered reputations.  But too many newsrooms decided to just let the story fade away rather than apologizing to the school and the teenagers they ran roughshod over.

Beside the obvious malicious reporting, there are two recurring themes this incident illuminates.  The first is the media has abandoned all pretense of being unbiased.  Journalists are out to tarnish the president even if a falsehood has to be dressed up as legitimate news.  It is shameful and indefensible.

The second is a virulent strain of anti-Catholicism is rising in the country.  These youngsters were singled out because of their religion as much as for their alleged behavior.  This bigoted religious bias also reared its ugly head during the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and other Catholic judges.

The Covington Catholic High School recently reopened its doors to students.  But the fallout from the media coverage of the pro-life rally will haunt these youngsters for the remainder of their lives. They have been permanently tarnished as extremists and racists.  The stain will linger.

Meanwhile, the media will turn its attention to the next scandal, unconcerned about the damage its erroneous reporting inflicted on innocent young people.  Polling shows Americans' trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low.  In the current environment, it is a race to rock bottom.

Sizing Up the Midterm Election

Leading up to the November midterm election, the most hackneyed headline is: "Democrat Voter Enthusiasm Surging." Virtually every mainstream media propaganda machine has churned out stories predicting a Blue Wave sweeping Democrats into power.  Forecasters are ignoring the past.

In the last midterm election in 2014, the country recorded the lowest voter turnout in history.  Even by midterm standards, turnout was a clunker.  An anemic 36.4 percent of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls.  That was five percent less than 2012, another disappointing year for turnout.

Going back to 1916, midterm voter turnout has been significantly less than presidential election years. Since 1970, midterm election turnout has been sinking.  In every single one of those years, both political parties claimed voter enthusiasm was soaring off the charts.  Reality always bites.

Midterms since 1970 have generated turnout in the 40-percent range.  By comparison, presidential election years historically attract higher turnouts, mostly in the 60-percent range. The highest voter turnout in the midterms in recent history was the 1962 election with 47.7 percent.

The 2014 midterm is a likely predictor for the upcoming election.  That year was the most expensive midterm in United States history with an estimated $3.7 billion lavished on election campaigns.  Even gobs of cash failed to nudge the enthusiasm needle.  Turnout was the worst in 72 years.

Experts have analyzed midterm elections and written weighty tomes about why voters stay home. Voters lack interest.  Midterms don't have the sizzle of a presidential campaign.  There are fewer candidates on the ballot.  There are more excuses than votes cast.  (That's hyperbole by the way.)

So why will this midterm be different?  Because the media tells us so?  New polling data indicates that despite all the  media hype, this midterm may see an uptick in turnout, but mostly in Blue states. The rest of the country may follow the midterm norm. Expect frosty voter interest.

Already the two parties are hyperventilating about the long lines of early voters foreshadowing a record turnout.  However, analytics have shown there is no correlation.  In fact, a Pew Research analysis of past elections concluded that heavy early voting indicates a reduction in total turnout.

Early voting is billowing because growing numbers of people prefer to skip the long lines on election day. In the 1996 election, Pew found an estimated 10.5% of voters cast early ballots.  By the 2012 election, the number had zoomed to 36.6%.  In some states, more than 50% of people vote early.

There is no scientific evidence that early voting signals an inflated turnout, regardless of media claims to the contrary.  None.  Nada.  Perhaps this election will prove to be an outlier.  But claims that swollen early ballots is a precursor to heavy turnout should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Millennials may be a better barometer of turnout.  A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found that only 28 percent of young people aged 18-29 say they will "certainly vote."  That compares with 74 percent of seniors.  Midterms are a snooze for Millennials.

Latinos, another reliable Democrat voting bloc, normally sit out the midterms. A Pew Research analysis found a record 29 million Latinos are eligible to vote this year.  However, Latino turnout in the midterms has declined every year since 2006, tumbling to a historic low 27 percent in 2014.

Despite all the hubbub over the influence of the Latino vote, no one mentions that 71 percent of Hispanics who are eligible to vote live in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona and Illinois.  At least three of those states are traditionally Blue Dog Democrat strongholds.

In recent elections, the media point to the power of suburban professional women voters. Democrats traditionally do well with this group.  But even with this geographic solidly in the Blue corner, Democrats have to energize young and Latino voters to gain a clear advantage.

History may turn out to be the Democrats' best friend.  The president's party has lost seats in Congress in 40 of the 43 midterm elections held in the United States.  It's almost impossible to buck the trend.  The exceptions to the rule occurred in 1934, 1998 and 2002. Will 2018 follow the script?

One unknown factor is  the rising voter approval for President Trump.  In the most recent national poll his approval scaled a peak of 47 percent.  Going into the 2014 midterms, former President Obama's approval stood at 43 percent.  Will that three-point gap made a difference?  No one knows.

Pundits are making predictions based on outdated forecast models.  Put no faith in them because their sophisticated tools have been proven wrong too often. (See 2016 Presidential Election.) Tell me which voters will turnout and I will be able to forecast the winning party with 100 percent accuracy.

Ignore the polling, excessive campaign spending, targeted voter appeals and the media hype and party evangelism. This midterm will hinge on how many people actually go to the polls.  It's that simple. The rest is just mind-numbing political mumbo jumbo.

Sexual Misconduct: Washington's Dirty Secret

After months of lurid coverage of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, the news media is training its sights on allegations involving politicians.  With each new revelation, Washington's political class has harrumphed in outrage at the media's reports about scandalous behavior in the swamp.

A cynic would call the politicians' moral indignation hypocrisy. While many in Congress condemn those accused of sexual misbehavior, they secretly participate in a sham that shields Washington's lawmakers from accountability.

In the days since the The Washington Post's politically-charged recounting of sexual allegations against senate candidate Roy Moore, a troubling disclosure has oozed from the halls of Congress. There exists a hush-hush slush fund to settle sexual violations against Washington lawmakers.

When the story broke, legislators scrambled for cover.  Everyone in Washington developed amnesia.  Current House Speaker Paul Ryan could not remember any details of sexual harassment settlements.  Nancy Pelosi was dumbfounded, unfortunately a permanent condition for the former speaker.

Perhaps, their memories could use refreshing.  In 1995, the House and Senate near unanimously approved The Congressional Accountability Act. It passed 429-0 in the House and the Senate voted 98-1 with one member not present.  It was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The legislation was designed to exempt Congress from some laws. For instance, the House and Senate may consider party affiliation and political compatibility when hiring. Your elected representatives decided they weren't going to follow some rules forced on American businesses.

Under the legislation, there was a special Treasury fund established to pay for settlements against legislators, including those involving sexual misconduct. Guess who funds the kitty?  The legislators certainly weren't going to dip into their own pockets.  Taxpayers pick up the scummy tab.

A few weeks ago the once-obscure Congressional Office of Compliance (OCC) was embarrassed into issuing a report showing it has shelled out more than $17 million from the hush-slush fund since 1997.  According to the OCC, the payments covered an unspecified 264 settlements.

The OCC, governed by a five-member board of directors, is nothing more than an extension of Congress.  Its directors are appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate.  Current board members include five private attorneys with experience in labor law.

The board appoints a four-member executive staff served by 13 professionals on the government payroll.  There is one vacancy at this time if you are inclined to land a job in Washington covering up for lawmakers.

On its website, the OCC states its purpose is "advancing workplace rights, safety and health, and accessibility in the legislative branch." How does paying a settlement advance anything? A few in Congress are now chiding the office for inadequately protecting victims who filed complaints.

When something stinks in Washington, it usually means political skunks are hiding something. There should be a bipartisan clamor for the OCC to release all documents and relevant details about payments, including those for sexual misconduct.  The public has a right to know.

However, the OCC's charter provides all settlements must remain confidential.  That cloaks the nature of the violation in secrecy and conceals the name of the member of the House or Senate who violated the rules established under the Congressional Accountability Act.

California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier introduced a bill last week that would overhaul sexual harassment policies on Capitol Hill.  According to the House member, the legislation would require more transparency and additional support for victims.  That would be a good start.

But more needs to be done.  Congress should adopt a new accountability act that mandates that every lawmaker must abide by federal laws involving hiring, sexual misconduct, discrimination and other rules.  The accused lawmaker not taxpayers should be forced to pay for any settlement.

In addition, the new law should require complete transparency, mandating that a report be issued annually listing those on the Congressional payroll who were found guilty of any transgression that resulted in a settlement.

Don't hold your breadth waiting for that to happen.  Rumors are rampant about female lawmakers revealing more allegations against sitting members of Congress.  Those same pious politicians wagging their fingers in disgust at current allegations may have the finger pointed in their direction.

The Congressional Accountability Law is a fraud.  Everyone in Congress knows it.  Now that it has been exposed as a hoax, voters should demand that it be replaced with legislation that restores the rule of law for all citizens, including those slimy parasites who swim in the swamp.

Anarchy: Are Democrats Planning a Coup?

America's bold experiment in democracy has endured for 240 years. However, it may not survive another four years if the Democrats and their militant co-conspirators are successful in betraying the will of the people by toppling the presidency of Donald Trump.

Days after the election, deep-pocketed Democrat Party cash cows, including billionaire George Soros, huddled behind closed doors with union bosses, influential elected officials and liberal organizations at Washington's swank Mandarin Oriental Hotel to hatch a battle plan.

What emerged from that meeting was a scorched earth strategy designed to force a regime change by whatever means necessary, a shocking development for the nation that defined democracy. This was right out of a third-world country's political playbook.

The plan fashioned in secret was to capitalize on the myth of the Russian 'hacking' of the presidential election with a steady drumbeat of allegations about Moscow ties to Trump associates.  It mattered little to Democrats there was not a scintilla of evidence the Russians hacked a single voting machine.

In the weeks following the clandestine meeting, protests flared up in many parts of the country. Marches on the nation's capitol became a regular feature.  Disgruntled bureaucrats in the federal government formed shadow groups online to share ideas on how to resist the new administration.

Democrats in Congress called for resistance of the Trump agenda. Confirmation of cabinet nominees ground to a halt.  Democrat senators boycotted hearings. They stormed out of other meetings, venting their disgust to the media echo chamber. Calls for impeachment rang out in the halls of the Capitol.

Democrats' behavior seemed more at home in Venezuela than in America.

Many Americans believe the media narrative that the acrimony is organic.  However, it is becoming clear that the animosity has been orchestrated by radical activists on the payrolls of Soros and former President Obama, who are pulling the strings of protestor puppets.

A group calling itself, Indivisible, has been among the organizers for protests, including those at Town Hall meetings for House and Senate Republicans.  The organization with ties to Soros has posted a 26-page guide on its website with pointers for disrupting constituent sessions.

Indivisible is planning a massive anti-Trump march in Washington on April 15, Tax Day.  Similar protests are being mapped out for other cities.  Indivisible has yet to disclose its donors, but the agitators are allied with MoveOn.Org, another Soros-financed group.

Hungarian-born Soros and his Open Society Foundation have funneled more than $7 billion over the years to more than 50 protest groups, most of which are now involved in an effort to blunt the Trump agenda. Soros wants to remove the president from office, not just thwart his campaign promises.

Organizing for Action, a newly-formed protest movement, traces its roots to Barrack Obama's first presidential campaign.  Then it was called Organizing for America, but has morphed into an-anti Trump faction that now is partnering with Indivisible to obstruct the president's program.

The media cartel, led by The New York Times and The Washington Post, are in cahoots with the anti-Trumpers, peddling unsubstantiated stories that rely on unnamed sources and illegal government leaks of classified information.  Their reporting is salacious, often untrue and always inflammatory.

The shrill voices in the media have fueled outrageous calls for the assassination of President Trump. Rupert Myers, a political correspondent for GQ magazine, took to social media to tweet the following: "Could Obama murder Trump and Pence, then pardon himself?"  

Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, you cannot believe this is the way a democracy is supposed to function. This dangerous game being played by Democrats and the media cabal is fueling rage among all Americans.  If it doesn't stop soon, the country could explode.

Or worse, it could descend into anarchy.  If you are shaking your head in disbelief, then you have not been paying attention to what is happening in your country.  

Holder's Lie: The Story The Media Won't Cover

As the 2012 presidential campaign heated up, Attorney General Eric Holder staged a news conference to deflect stinging criticism that his boss President Obama was soft on prosecuting the captains of Wall Street whose firms were responsible for the mortgage meltdown.

Holder recited a litany of investigations, prosecutions and indictments by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice as proof the administration had made it a top priority to aggressively pursue criminal cases against executives responsible for mortgage fraud.

There was only one problem with the numbers duly reported at the time by the lapdog mainstream media.  The figures were bogus. False.  Misleading.

A scathing 52-page audit released this month by the justice department's Office of Inspector General not only exposed the cooked figures but debunked the idea that the Holder's stormtroopers prioritized criminal cases for mortgage fraud.

On October 9 just months before the 2012  presidential vote, Holder announced that the department had charged 530 defendants with criminal violations, including 172 executives.  He claimed that 285 criminal indictments were filed in federal courts in the previous 12 months.

Not a single figure was accurate.  Not even close.  Last year the FBI provided a memorandum to the inspector general admitting "that several of the statistics announced during the press conference were substantially overstated."  That is Washington-speak for distorting the truth.

The FBI verified it filed 110 criminal cases, not 530, against 107 defendants, not 172 executives. None were Wall Street heavyweights. Holder also had claimed the criminal cases amounted to $1 billion in fraud.  The FBI reported the actual number was $95 million.

This was not a simple case of Holder just reciting numbers subordinates provided him.  The FBI told the inspector general it knew the data was filled with errors and inaccuracies.  Despite that fact, the justice department continued to cite the numbers for at least 10 months after Holder's news event.

Moreover, Holder was given the resources to go after Wall Street cheaters.  In fiscal 2009-2011, the FBI received $196 million in taxpayer funds for the purpose of investigating mortgage duplicity after the attorney general claimed it was an administration priority.

In its findings, the inspector general's report contained this rebuke: "However, we also determined during the audit that the Department of Justice did not uniformly ensure that mortgage fraud was prioritized at a level commensurate with the information in (Holder's) public statements."

Even sifting through the Beltway gobbledygook, the report makes it clear Holder was responsible for knowingly making false statements. It shows the lengths to which the Obama campaign was willing to go in the 2012 election to secure a second term.

Despite the shocking revelations, only one major news outlet covered the inspector general's findings.  Bloomberg News summarized the report thusly:

"Justice Department and the FBI had every incentive to juice the statistics because of the relentless criticism they received over their failure to identify even a single senior Wall Street executive who committed crimes related to the financial crisis."

The truth is Wall Street bigwigs were among the biggest contributors to President Obama's re-election campaign.  The securities and investment industry shoveled bushels of cash totaling $22.8 million into Obama's 2012 presidential run, according to OpenSecrets.org. There was no way Holder would bite the hands feeding the campaign.

Holder deliberately mislead the public for political gain.  He should be held accountable especially in light of his refusal to assume responsibility for the lies.  Congress needs to haul Holder on the carpet to explain his serious breach of ethical conduct.

Obama's Milestones Are Nation's Misfortune

Most presidents spend their second terms burnishing their legacy. President Obama can stow the political polish.  He already has tallied a number of achievements that no other American president will likely ever match.  At least, not on purpose.

These accomplishments won't be ballyhooed in the president's memoirs.  The achievements aren't likely to be enshrined in his presidential library in Chicago either.  A fawning media won't be reciting these exploits when Obama evacuates the White House in 2017.

The reason is the president's historic firsts are dubious at best.  Here is just a partial list of President Obama's groundbreaking feats:

1. Obama oversaw the first downgrade of U.S. debt in history. Standard and Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating in 2011.  The administration has failed to convince the rating agency to raise the nation's credit score.
2.  The nation's federal debt reached 67 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest since World War II.  This year's fiscal deficit is estimated at $642 billion, the first time since Obama assumed office that the annual figure has dipped below record-levels of $1 trillion.
3.  Long-term unemployment has risen to the highest levels since the Great Depression.  During Obama's first term, 45.9 percent of people unemployed had not worked in at least 27 weeks.  The number of long-term unemployed has skyrocketed 257 percent since 2007.  The portion of Americans working or looking for a job fell to its lowest level in 35 years in August.
4.  The number of Americans dependent on the government has spiked to historic levels. Nearly one-half (47%) of the population is receiving aid or federal benefit payments.  About one-third of the entire population (101 million) currently participates in at least one government food program.
5.  The percentage of Americans paying federal income tax is the lowest in the modern era.  Fewer than one-half (49%) are footing the bill for the unbridled  growth of the federal government.  A total of 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
6.  Federal government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II.  The government accounts for 25 percent of the nation's economy.  To pay for the burgeoning expenditures, federal debt has swollen to $16.7 trillion, the highest in the nation's history as a percent of GDP. Government spending has exploded 40 percent since 2002, even adjusted for inflation.

These statistics were gleaned from the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Standard And Poor's, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service.

The numbers paint a morose picture of a president who has dragged the nation to a tipping point in its history.  Unless steps are taken to curb federal spending, curtail the debt and cultivate the economy, the United States will cease to be the world's economic leader and will face an uncertain future.

However, there is one certainty  Obama's gleaming library will be built.  His memoirs will be penned.  His legacy will glitter with imagined strokes of genius.  But Americans won't be better off after eight years littered with excuses, ineptness and wooden speeches recited from a teleprompter. 

GOP: A Party Searching For A Strategy

President Obama's approval ratings are sagging.  Most Americans believe the economy stinks. Consumer confidence is flagging.  The stock of Republicans should be rising, right?  Instead the GOP brand has lost some of its sheen because of a void of ideas and leadership.

The party's lowpoint may have been the Republican National Committee's chief squawking about plans by two networks to air fawning series on presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Who cares about a Hillary tube love fest?  Further proof the party has lost its way. 

The most critical issue facing Republicans is a leadership vacuum. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are mealy-mouthed, boring and bereft of bold ideas. While colleagues may hold them in high esteem, the duo has been the perfect antidote for voters' insomnia.

A few well-meaning Republicans have tiptoed into the chasm, including Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  But they speak for themselves, not for the entire party.  And that has been the problem because voters are getting mixed signals from a chorus of Republican voices.

During the current Congressional recess, Republicans need to reassess their strategy, create a cogent message and reshape their agenda to address a few key issues that resonate with voters. They must silence the cacophony of competing messages and unify behind themes that ignite voter enthusiasm. Right now the GOP is chasing issues like a Kardashian panting after a wealthy bachelor.

Based on past performance, a new direction may be too much to expect of this crop of Republicans. The blame lies entirely with Boehner and McConnell. Republicans must start by designating someone else in the House and Senate to speak for the party. Egos will be shattered, but victory often demands sacrifices.

Once the titular leaders are in place, the party must reclaim the higher ground by focusing its message and actions on three issues:

• OBAMA CARE:   The new health law is overwhelmingly unpopular with voters.  Rasmussen pollsters found 54 percent of likely voters view the healthcare reform unfavorably. However, defunding Obama Care is a dumb idea because Democrats hold the advantage by virture of their control of the Senate and of the White House. Instead, the GOP should force Democrats to defend a law that has been poorly implemented, ineffectively communicated and grossly more expensive than original estimates. The more voters experience the law, the more they will dislike the quality of care.  The GOP needs to hammer Democrats on healthcare while offering an alternative plan that is simple, cost-effective and patient-friendly to replace the flawed reform.  Voters want answers not just objections to current law.
• ECONOMY:  A stunning 54 percent of Americans believe the U.S. economy remains in a recession, according to a Marist Poll.  Only 29 percent think they will be better off next year. Yet Republicans have quit talking about the economy, although it remains the top issue with voters according to the Gallup Poll. The GOP needs to develop an economic plan that creates incentives for businesses to invest and rewards small firms that create jobs.  Nothing more complicated.  
• NATIONAL DEBT: Congressional battles over government funding leave most Americans confused and angry.  However, there is universal sentiment that the country's debt has grown too big at $16.9 trillion and mounting.  That's why the deficit matters.  Talk of a government shutdown only strengthens Obama's hand because the president has the opportunity to cherry pick the programs slated for the budget axe.  What's needed is a coherent plan to reduce the deficit. Fortunately, one already exists.  It is called the One Percent Spending Reduction Act, a bill to shave one penny out of every dollar of federal government expenditures.  It can be easily explained and understood by voters.

If Republicans slither back into the cesspool of Washington politics with the same disjointed messages, the same worn-out ideas and the same tired leadership faces, then the party deserves to be soundly rejected by voters. Without change, they will fumble a golden opportunity to recapture the upper hand now enjoyed by President Obama. 

Brash ideas not parsed language are needed.  Dynamic leadership not weak-kneed posturing is required.  Unity not mutiny is necessary. Wake up Republicans before the dinosaur replaces the elephant as the party symbol.  Time to be relevant again.  

Holder: The Albatross Around Obama's Neck

Eric Holder is the 82nd person to hold the job of U.S. Attorney General.  He is turning out to be the worst.  The attorney general has only one equal: John Mitchell, who was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury in 1975. He served 19 months in prison for his crimes.

Holder hangs by a thread to his job despite revelations that the attorney general sought to criminalize the news media's pursuit of information leaked by government sources.  The widening scandal threatens to engulf his boss, President Obama, whose ratings have nosedived.

In the latest survey conducted by Quinnipiac University, fewer than half (49%) of Americans believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy."  That figure was 58 percent in the last poll on the same question in 2011.

For now, Obama stubbornly supports Holder in the face of growing news media outrage over the attorney general's heavy handedness in spying on journalists.  As a result, Obama's bromance with the media has been strained after a four-year honeymoon marked by the absence of journalistic scrutiny.

In an attempt to restore media trust, Holder offered to meet with reporters about the controversy but declared the session "off the record."  The New York Times, a staunch Obama advocate, demurred. The Associated Press, an Obama shill, declined to participate.  Fox News and others followed suit.

This nose thumbing of an Obama confidant would have been unthinkable a year ago.  But even the liberal media organizations are feeling jilted after Holder's witch hunt to suppress news coverage and intimidate journalistic enterprise.

Under Holder, the Justice Department has prosecuted six former or current government officials for leaks.  That is twice as many as all previous administrations combined.  Holder's unbridled attempt to stalk journalists recalls the Nixon Administration's notorious hunt for those who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Like Nixon's former AG Mitchell, Holder also struggles with the truth. He is the master of parsing his words to obfuscate.  In a recent appearance before a House committee, Holder claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press.

Later, it was learned that Holder personally signed an affidavit accusing Fox News reporter James Rosen of the criminal charge of being a "co-conspirator" in the leaking of sensitive material involving North Korea.  The House Judiciary chairman pointed out the "contradiction" in a letter to Holder.

Contradiction is just Washington-speak for perjury.  Holder lied.  The Justice Department is now arguing that Holder was not referring specifically to the Rosen case.  It is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. Even for this administration Holder has stooped to new lows in opacity.

His leader President Obama decided the best way to get to the bottom of this rancid scandal is to ask Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder.  This is classic Obama.  The appearance of openness passes for the real transparency Obama promised.  His duplicity is beginning to rile Americans.

The president's job approval rating numbers are underwater.  The Quinnipiac poll found more people have a negative view of Obama's performance than positive.  Just one month ago his approval-to-disapproval percentage was 48-45.  Now 49 percent of voters have a negative view of Obama.

The narcissistic Obama can take solace in the fact that Holder's numbers are even stinkier.  Only 29 percent of Americans approve of the way the attorney general is handling his job. A New York Times columnist rated Holder a "weak" attorney general.

With calls for Holder's resignation echoing even among Democrats, Obama is faced with a term-defining choice.  Should he force Holder to resign or continue to allow his friendship with the attorney general to cloud his judgment?

If Holder clings to his job, the president risks further alienating news organizations and journalists.  That could result in more damaging media coverage.  However, a worse scenario for Obama would be watching Holder end up like John Mitchell, disgraced and imprisoned.

If that happens, Americans may be treated to the spectacle of an embarrassed president shuffling into the White House press room and declaring, "I am not a crook!"  

Regime Rule: How Obama Wields Power

His imperial regime acts unilaterally without regard to the constitution.  He has centralized power, trampled religious freedom and favored foreigners over natives.  He has taken over the health care system.  Critics are branded disloyal and are subject to intimidation.

Yet the leader has a cult-like following and the palace media shields him from scrutiny in his own country while lionizing the autocrat as a near deity.

All those words have been written about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.  But they could have just as well been used to describe the presidency of Barrack Obama.  Democratic loyalists may protest the characterization, but the facts reveal Obama has governed more like a totalitarian than a president.

Since his election, Obama has abused the power of his office in a breathtaking manner that has no parallel in the history of the country. He has ignored constitutional limitations, created crises to subvert congressional authority, while smearing and bullying opponents of his agenda.

Here is just a partial list of the president's disregard for the constitution and the legislative process:

• The president unveiled 23 proposed executive orders last week on gun control.  During his four years in office, Obama issued 144 orders, according to the National Archives.  Many have been incompatible with the expressed will of Congress, which constitutional scholars view as an abuse of executive orders.  
• The president has usurped the powers of Congress by altering immigration laws.  Obama has circumvented the legislative process to relax immigration policy not once, but on at least two occasions since he became president, the latest on January 2.  The changes impact enforcement of a 1996 immigration law approved by Congress.  
• The president has made so-called "recess" appointments when the Senate was not legally recessed.  It has happened several times during the Obama presidency, most recently with the appointment of the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
• The president has ignored the 1921 federal law that calls for the executive to submit an annual budget. During his first term, the Senate passed a budget on April 29, 2009.  Not a single budget has been approved by the Senate since then. Obama has submitted only one annual budget and it was defeated 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. 
• The president has presided over a regulatory regime that has issued more new federal rules than any recent White House occupant.  New regulations have averaged 17,212 per year under Obama, according to Mercatus Center.  That is twice the number of the last Democrat President Bill Clinton. Today's regulatory costs amount to $2.2 trillion annually, estimates the Mercatus Center.   
• The president brushed aside constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom to require religious organizations to violate their own beliefs to supply contraceptives and abortion pills to their employees under Obamacare. He made the decision after vowing he would never force religious organizations to be subjected to the mandate.  

Obama's excuse for aborting the established legislative process is that he "can't wait for Congress" to act.  The truth is that the president is unwilling to compromise with lawmakers.  Instead of working with Congress, he issues executive orders and unleashes a torrent of regulations that carry the impact of law but are never submitted for legislative approval. 

Now Obama is threatening to raise the nation's debt ceiling without Congressional approval, although most constitutional experts agree he lacks the authority.  That hasn't stopped Obama in the past from ruling by executive fiat.   An obeisant media looks the other way at Obama's heavy-handiness.

Obama's overstepping of constitutional bounds can no longer be ignored.  Unless Republicans grow a spine and challenge this perversion of established precedent, the president's power will grow unchecked.  Soon Americans may be unable to recognize the democracy created by the founders.     

How Romney Lost the Election

Most pollsters got it wrong.  Many media pundits blew it.  Few predicted the kind of electoral tide that swept Barrack Obama into a second term in the White House.  The question on lots of Republicans' minds this morning is: How did this happen?

In his victory speech, President Obama tipped his hat to supporters and campaign workers.  But he never mentioned the one group that aided his reelection more than any other: the partisan American media.  If that sounds like sour grapes, the facts argue otherwise.

But Mitt Romney cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media.  His campaign never got its footing until the presidential debates, when too many voters had already made up their minds.  Here is a review of what went wrong for Romney.  

1.  Romney Branded Early:  Romney was never able to overcome the negative image created by the Obama campaign.  Obama's ad blitzkrieg and the campaign's vipers nest of surrogates spent most of the summer and fall painting an ugly picture of Romney.  He was too rich, too inexperienced, too out of touch.  That caricature was firmly entrenched in voters' subconsciousness by the time Romney began introducing himself to the nation.

2.  Romney Gave Obama a Pass:  Like John McCain before him, Romney never personally attacked Obama.  While the president's campaign was slinging mud, the Romney folks tried to stick with the issues.  That may earn Romney praise in some quarters, but it lost him the election.  Both McCain and Romney had lots of ammunition to use against Obama, but they were intimidated over being branded a racist.  The last two Republican presidential campaigns are models of how to lose an election.  Candidates who play nice finish last in presidential politics. 

3.  Media Hammered Romney:  The mainstream media showed early it would abandon all pretense of journalistic fairness to plunge a dagger in Romney's chances.  No sooner had Romney cinched the nomination when the The Washington Post ran a 5,400 word pseudo expose about how a teen aged Romney had pinned down a boy and cut his hair. That set the tenor for the media coverage.  But it wasn't just the usual suspects (NBC, CBS, ABC).  Online media was solidly in Obama's camp.  That made a difference, especially with young voters.

4.  Media Buried Bad News:  Not only did the media bludgeon Romney, but faux journalists suppressed, twisted and misreported any hint of bad news for the Obama campaign.  There was a virtual blackout in the mainstream media over the fallout from the murder of the U.S ambassador in Benghazi.  The government-supported gun-running operation known as "Fast and Furious" disappeared as quickly as it became a news item.  Economic and unemployment numbers, which appeared at odds with reality, were never questioned.  Most Americans now may never know the truth about the stench surrounding the administration's missteps. 

5.  Turnout Conundrum: Final numbers are still dribbling in from the states, but an early analysis appears to indicate that Obama will grab less popular voters than he did in 2008.  So how did he win?  While Obama did worse among some constituencies, his campaign was successful in increasing turnout, particularly among Latinos and other ethnic groups.  The Romney camp was late to the game in several states, such as Pennsylvania, that came into play during the campaign's waning days.  More data will be available in the coming days, but at least initially, it appears the so-called "enthusiasm" gap for Obama was more wishful thinking than reality.

Many Republicans and independents awoke this morning with a case of election flu, including symptoms of regret, despondency and chagrin over the prospect of Barrack Obama's second inauguration.

But there is one fact that should comfort them.  Four years from now, the long American nightmare will be over. 

Earth to Obama: US Has a Spending Problem

Listening to the president the past four years, it's clear he views hiking taxes as the only way to grow government revenue and slice the yawning federal deficit.  Imagine his shock when he realized this month that tax receipts actually rose last fiscal year without an increase in federal income taxes.  

Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30.  Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.

Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012.  This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits.  To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.

The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II.  It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.

Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.

How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?

In his first two years in office, President Obama boosted federal spending by 28 per cent.  His latest budget proposal for 2013 would tack on another $1 trillion in debt.  The administration's long-term forecast calls for a stunning 57 percent increase in government outlays by 2021.

Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.

As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.  

Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale.  If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.

"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.

President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax.  That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.

Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.

It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise.  Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues.  A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.    

Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre.  It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie.  America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.

The nation is spending itself into ruin.   The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.

Obama Czars Deserve Fate of Russian Tzars

They are shadowy figures.  Most enjoy six-figure salaries.  Few appear in public.  Their activities are cloaked in secrecy.  They are seldom held accountable.  Yet they wield enormous power.  Even the media can't determine exactly how many there are.  But their numbers are growing.

They are the czars of the Obama Administration.

Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch.  At last count, there were about 45.   In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs.  But those numbers remain circumspect.

Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.

And that's just a partial list.  Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments.  The amount of redundancy is staggering.

These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress.  Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny.  That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.

In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars.  After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.  President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.

In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars.  These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.

Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters?  Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?

The media should demand answers to those questions from the president.  No way that will happen.

Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.

In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too.  But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees.  Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.

Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars.  An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.

In a democracy, there is no room for czars.  Americans should demand an end to the practice.  Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago.  It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.

Dirty Harry Plays Dirty

Shameless Harry Reid, the Democratic Party's Grim Reaper, is the least qualified person in America to lecture anyone on the issue of financial disclosure.  The Nevada senator has a dreary record of lapses in personal financial reporting and a checkered past of ethical blunders.

It was comical to watch the pompous Senate majority leader taunt Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over a scurrilous charge that the former governor had not payed taxes for 10 years. Reid offered no proof, yet the mainstream media hounded Romney to answer the uncorroborated slur.

Romney placed the onus on the dour Reid, telling him to "put up or shut up."  Undeterred, Reid has continued to launch one salvo after another against Romney. The media has dutifully bandied the insinuation without bothering to shine a light on Reid's past ethical improprieties.

It is time for Romney to counterattack and there is plenty of ammunition at his disposal.

In 2006, Senator Reid was embroiled in a serious ethics scandal involving financial reporting.  He was forced to amend his personal filings with Congress over a Las Vegas land deal after news organizations got wind of the shadowy trail of ownership changes that went unreported.

The dubious transaction involved property that netted Reid a cool $1.1 million in 2004. The Democrat collected the tidy profit despite the fact he had not personally owned the property for three years. That raised the eyebrows of news organizations that reported at length on the business deal.

After the chicanery was exposed, Reid tried to cover his tracks.  He amended his ethics report with 42-pages of camouflage, admitting he had not disclosed salient facts about the original transaction.  In the filing, Reid also divulged that he had failed to report two other land deals to Congress.

Ethics attorneys at the time questioned whether Reid had violated Senate rules.  But he managed to sweep the whole sordid mess under a Congressional rug, where it has remained until now.

There have been other ethical issues nipping at Reid's heels. In 2006, Reid was linked to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  The Associated Press (AP) reported that Reid intervened in government matters at least five times to help Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.

In addition, Reid's staff "regularly had contact" with Abramoff's team about legislation affecting other clients.  Documents obtained by AP showed that Abramoff's lobbying partners billed for nearly two dozen contacts, phone calls and meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Reid piously claimed all that attention had no affect on his votes. Surely it was just coincidental too that Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbyists and clients.  A grateful Abramoff once threw a cozy fundraiser for Reid at his Washington office.

Hypocritical Harry even had the audacity to call for other lawmakers to come clean about their tainted relationships with Abramoff at a January 16, 2006 Washington news conference.

As he has always done, the officious Reid dodged an ethics investigation.  Meanwhile, Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery and earned jail time.

For dirty Harry Reid to call anyone on the carpet for ethical misconduct is the height of absurdity.  If Reid wants to spotlight blatant dishonesty, he needs to look no further than the nearest mirror.

What Mitt Can Learn From Trump

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been dodging a daily blitzkrieg of mud-slinging attacks from the Obama tag team of surrogates and their accomplices in the media.  As a result, the mild-mannered Romney has spent most of his time deflecting barbs, forcing him to abandon his economic message.

With Barrack Obama's lackluster record dangling like an albatross around the president's neck, his deputies have unleashed a toxic string of vicious charges against the Republican as part of a campaign strategy aimed at tarring Romney's image.  It is the only way Democrats can win.

That explains why Democrats have smeared Romney as a filthy rich Wall Street pawn with offshore accounts, questionable tax returns and a dubious record of outsourcing jobs and shuttering unprofitable businesses while he was at Bain Capital.   New scuzzy attacks hint Romney's behavior may have involved criminal activity. Oh, and, Romney's a Mormon, too.  Does it get any scarier than that?

The barrage of half-truths and deliberate distortions has allowed Democrats to paint an unflattering picture of the GOP standard bearer.  The implication is that wealth, even if it is legally acquired, precludes Romney from occupying the White House.

President John F. Kennedy could have set fire to his cash stockpiles and still had more money than Romney. But in President Obama's America, wealth is evil.  People who have money are objects of derision. Being poor and dependent on the government is more honorable.

Romney will lose the election unless he takes a lesson from Donald Trump.

Like him or not, Trump got under Obama's skin during his short-lived, whirlwind presidential talk show tour.  Trump unmercifully attacked Obama.  The tone was civil but unrelenting.  One charge in particular exposed the thin-skinned Obama's aversion to stinging criticism.

Trump questioned Obama's birth certificate at every opportunity. Others had done the same, but not in such a high-profile manner. After years of adamantly refusing to release his birth certificate, Obama relented in April of 2011 to dampen the firestorm ignited by Trump.

It proved nothing yet underscored a fatal flaw in Obama's character. When someone turns up the political heat, the president wilts under the pressure.

Trump was the first politician to personally attack Obama.  Hillary Clinton backed off after husband Bill was branded a racist for merely suggesting Obama might be ill prepared to be president.  Timid John McCain practically swooned at the mention of Obama's name during his presidential campaign.

Mitt Romney has an opportunity to change the tenor of the race.  He needs to hold a news conference and announce that he has a message for the president.  Here's what he should say.

"Effective today, every specious charge from President Obama, his surrogates and his allies in the media will be met with a swift and immediate counter attack of my own.  I am not going to stand still while the president makes a mockery of our political system by trashing my character with lies.

"Therefore, I plan to thoroughly vet my opponent so the American people can finally hear the truth about Barrack Obama.  Voters need to know about his relationships with hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William "Bill" Ayers, convicted swindler Antoin "Tony" Rezko and the shadowy George Soros.

"Since the media has no interest in exposing the truth about the president, I will.  I would prefer to talk about issues, but the president has made it clear he would rather wallow around in the mud.  I am happy to oblige, if that's what it takes to get him to abandon his scorched earth campaign and return to a serious discussion of his handling of the economy."

Mitt Romney has the credentials to be the next president of the United States.  Now we will find out if he has the political gumption to take off the gloves and fight back against the Obama-sanctioned campaign to destroy Romney with character assassinations.

If he ducks the fight, Romney will have only himself to blame when he takes it on the chin in November's election.

Deja Vu: It's 1980 Again For Democrats

As the general election approaches, President Obama and Democrats must have a sense that they have seen this political movie once before.  The plot and characters have changed, but the ending may again spell disaster for the party whose emblem is a domestic ass.

The reason for the deja vu is that today's political landscape resembles 1980. President Jimmy Carter was grappling with the fallout from the prolonged Iranian hostage crisis and skyrocketing gasoline prices. Inflation was stuck in double-digits. His poll numbers were eroding faster than the value of the dollar.

Against this backdrop, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan beat the odds by unseating an incumbent president. It was a historic victory as Reagan won in a landslide that buried Democrats.  Riding Reagan's coattails the Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time in 28 years.

Today's political scene eerily brings to mind 1980.  Incumbent Barrack Obama has watched gasoline prices double under his watch.  Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a challenge that has exposed Obama's weak foreign policy credentials.  After years of dormancy, inflation inched up in last month's government report.

When Obama was inaugurated, the average price of gasoline was $1.84 a gallon.  Today that same gallon costs about $3.65. Despite spineless economic sanctions favored by the president, a defiant Iran has ramped up its nuclear program.  In February, the Consumer Price Index rose an unexpected 0.4 percent, the largest increase in 10 months.

Unfortunately for Obama, worse days may lie ahead.  Gasoline prices usually spike during the summer vacation season and may surpass $5 a gallon.  Fuel increases will fatten inflation.  Gas prices could reach the stratosphere if Israel attacks Iran, whose leaders are already threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for Mideast crude.

President Obama has made it abundantly clear these issues will take a backseat to his reelection. Therefore, expect more posturing rather than substance as Obama tries to sway public opinion in his favor on gas prices and Iran.

Obama has tipped his hand on how he will deal with the oil problem. The president believes the solution to rising prices is not more oil, but less.  He has dumped billions of taxpayer dollars into alternative fuel programs that have done nothing to ease the pain at the pump. Instead, taxpayer funds often have gone to political cronies and failed enterprises.

A duplicitous Obama parachuted into Cushing, Oklahoma, recently to take credit for a pipeline project he has twice rejected.  The pipeline spanning parts of Oklahoma to the Texas coast is the southernmost leg of the ill-fated Keystone Pipeline project.  In his photo-op, the president bragged that he helped cut red tape to authorize the pipeline.

The only problem is the president's boast is fraudulent.  This leg of the pipeline did not require presidential approval since it did not transverse international boundaries.  The Cushing project was green lighted through the normal regulatory process.  Obama denied a permit for the one part he controlled.

The Cushing charade came only 48 hours after a defensive Obama claimed no president can impact the cost of a gallon of gas. After polls showed Americans blamed the president for the pump shock, Obama reversed course to highlight how a president can boost oil supply.

Likely, his next move will be to drag greedy oil company executives to the White House to publicly berate them.  He has already attacked the oil industry for its profits.  In recent remarks, the president called on Congress to scrap tax incentives for oil firms. He didn't explain how this will help lower prices.

This is a page out of the Carter playbook.  The ex-president slapped a Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax on the industry as his response to rising oil prices.  Enacted in 1980, the tax failed to arrest prices and was lifted eight years later by Reagan.  Expect Obama to resurrect the tax soon after oil companies release first quarter profits.

There are also similarities between the approaches of both Carter and Obama on Iran.  During the Iranian hostage affair, Carter vacillated between diplomacy and a military rescue operation.  When the crisis dragged on 444 days without a resolution, Americans became impatient with the president, who appeared weak and indecisive.

Obama didn't learn from Carter's bungling.  After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election victory in 2009, protests erupted in the streets of the Iranian capital.  As the demonstrations spread, Iranian opposition leaders begged President Obama to lend his support.  He demurred, letting the air out of the nascent movement and emboldening Iranian leadership to continue to pursue their nuclear program.

Although Obama has started sounding tough on Iran's nuclear policy, he cannot afford to order military operations without incurring the wrath of his liberal base.  As a matter of fact, the British Sunday Times reported that Obama pleaded with Israel to delay bombing Iran's nuclear facilities under after the election.

Sensing America's weakened resolve, some U.S. allies are bailing out of the Obama-led effort for more sanctions.  The U.S. State Department has exempted eleven nations from implementing tougher sanctions planned by the president.  The action was a face-saving maneuver to spare the president from embarrassment after Japan and ten European nations signaled they could not support the new sanctions.

While the economy remains uppermost in voters' minds, oil prices and Iran are gaining traction among the electorate.  If both issues continue to fester, they could expose Obama's Achilles heel on domestic oil and foreign policy.

It may not be 1980, but the Democrat Party might get its domestic ass kicked once again.