America Must Decide Between Unity and Revenge

Joe Biden has plucked "unity" from a thicket of possible themes as the thrust of his inauguration as the 46th president of the United States. Although a commendable choice, it hardly reflects the rhetoric or actions of his party's leaders.  Will Biden's plea make any difference for a divided citizenry?

That questions lingers as Democrats led by a revengeful Nancy Pelosi impeached the president for "inciting violence" during his January 6 speech. The Speaker of the House inflamed partisan emotions with her second impeachment of Mr. Trump, a parting middle finger to the president.

Put aside your feelings about whether President Trump deserves this ignominy for his impassioned speech near the Capitol. Is the Speaker's action designed to knit the country or segregate it further?  Why impeach a president with less than a week left on his term?  

Constitutional scholar and former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz labeled the impeachment "unconstitutional," pointing out the president did not incite the crowd but advocated his position. Here is how Dershowitz framed the issue:

"You can condemn, you can attack, you can refuse to vote for, you can do all those things which are politically available to you.  But the one thing you can't do is use the law, which is impeachment, on something that is protected by the First Amendment."

Will an unconstitutional act unite all Americans?

According to the Associated Press Mr. Biden's inauguration speech will be a "show of bipartisanship at a time when the national divide is on stark display."  This surely must apply to Biden's own party.  Or does healing require Republicans to suffer retribution and revenge at the hands of the victors?  

Pelosi's impeachment tactic was not just aimed at President Trump but also his supporters.  There is a movement afoot in the Democrat Party, corporate American and the media to punish anyone associated with Mr. Trump, including his 74 million voters.  Evidence abounds to validate this contention.

Rich Klein, the political director for ABC News, took to social media with this mencacing message: "The fact is getting rid of Trump is the easy part.  Cleansing the movement he commands is going to be something else."  Chastised and fearing for his career, Klein deleted the Tweet.

CNN anchor Don Lemon linked those who supported Mr. Trump to Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members.  "Principled people, conservative or liberal, are never on the Klan side. Principled people, conservative or liberal, are never on the Nazi side," he said on air in a reference to those who voted for Mr. Trump.

A PBS (Public Broadcasting Corporation) attorney Michael Beller was recorded saying the children of Republicans should be shunted to "reeducation camps." He didn't stop there.  "Homeland Security should take their children away." PBS subsequently fired  Beller from the taxpayer supported network.

During the impeachment proceeding, Democrat Rep. Jason Crow took the floor to denounce Rep. Taylor Green, a Republican who contested the election results.  "There are unfortunately a handful of members of Congress, Mrs. Taylor Green is just one, who are morally bankrupt," Crow bellowed.

"They are depraved and frankly dangerous individuals," he added. Green joined 147 of her GOP colleagues in questioning the results of the presidential contest.  Olive branches were nowhere in sight. The time was ripe to unleash the hounds of heckling to besmirch those who sidled with Trump.

Rep. Green suffers from convenient amnesia.  Members of his  party challenged the 2016 election results when the Electoral College votes were certified in the House. Speaker Pelosi tweeted: "Our election was hijacked.  There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOur Democracy."

Do you recall the hue and cry about the blasphemy of suggesting the election was stolen?  Crickets.

Corporate America is piling on too as a growing list of firms vowing to punish those who did not support the certification of the Electoral College results.  Among the first were Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs Group and JP Morgan Chase along with Citigroup and Marriott International.

"We have taken the destructive events at the Capitol to undermine a legitimate and fair election into consideration and will be pausing giving from our Political Action Committee to those who voted against certification of the election," a Marriott spokesperson said.

Titans of business are locking arms with Democrats to seek retribution for the grievances aired by the party.  These capitalist proponents have adopted the socialist tactic of becoming nothing more than an extension of the ruling party, raising antitrust and Constitutional issues.

In the midst of the boiling cauldron of reprisal, the two major social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook, reacted.  Twitter banned the president and Facebook suspended his account.  Many foreign leaders, including the Australian government,  condemned the ban as an act of "censorship."  

In Russia, the opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, cautioned that this precedent will be "exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russian as well." Startling to hear a Russian lecture America about its Constitutionally guaranteed protection of free speech.

Then Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ad-hoc leader of the Democrat progressive wing, unexpectedly, and likely inadvertently, revealed what Democrats are plotting.  Her chilling comment:

..."I do think that several members of Congress, in some of my discussions, have brought up media literacy because that is part of what happened here and we're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation."

Will censorship cure what ails America?  Or will people be left with no choice other than to make their voices heard in the streets?

Let's hope President-elect Biden's plea for unity is sincere.  However, unless his party's leaders and revenge-minded Democrats show restraint, America will descend into chaos and anarchy.  There will be no healing of volcanic passions unless both parties appeal to the greater good in us.

Unity does not mean everyone must agree on Mr. Biden's policies. Critics should not be silenced in the name of unity.  This Unity refers to our oneness as a nation.  We are united by the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. 

If America turns its back on those freedoms, we will plummet into the abyss of failed democracies.   

January 6: The Day Americans Wept For Our Nation

The saddest day in American history is seared into our memories. Angry insurrectionists, waving a flag that symbolizes freedom, committed anarchy.  Thousands breached America's capitol, invading the halls of Congress as the world watched in horror.  Mob behavior is unAmerican.  It is shameful. Unacceptable.

What happened January 6 can never be repeated.  Not if America wants to survive as the shining beacon of democracy.  Americans feel ashamed.  We want swift justice for those who perpetrated this despicable act. There can be no excuse for a full scale incursion that left five dead, 52 arrested and 14 police injured.

Passions were ignited by President Trump who gave a fiery speech to about 200,000 supporters.  As the rally was ending, frenzied thousands rushed toward the Capitol, tearing down security fencing. The scenes were broadcast around the globe.  A collective gasp arose from stunned world leaders.

A peaceful transition to a new administration was shattered in those moments.  President Trump was condemned by lawmakers, his own party leaders and the media. Even staunch supporters piled on. He will live with this ignominy for the remainder of his days.  The nightmare will haunt him and the nation.

Assigning blame, will not heal America. We need soul searching.  We need to hold up a mirror and force ourselves to confront realities many have ignored.  This nation is hopelessly divided by politics, certainly.  But that masks what really bugs many Americans.  It has nothing to do with political parties.

Our divisions are caused by evil.  This evil goes by many names. Hatred. Arrogance.  Intolerance. Pride. Injustice. Ridicule. Hypocrisy. Incivility. We no longer respect each other.  We don't honor our institutions.  We are a country of US versus THEM.  Unity has become a fleeting aspiration.

Today we cry out for a truly United States.  Realistically, we will not find national peace when fissures exist in our families and friendships over politics. No one should be shocked there is a yawning chasm in our country when even our closest relationships are bisected over what candidate we support.  

Confronted with the most challenging health crisis in nearly a century, America choose division.  Politicians from both sides of the aisle refused to work together yet seem shocked when ordinary citizens developed polarized views on the outbreak. 

This could have been a unifying moment.  All Americans, all politicians, the media coming together as one nation to confront this ugly Coronavirus.  That never happened.  Why?  The answers are myriad but the most obvious is that our leaders never sought solidarity.  They chose political gamesmanship.  

Throughout 2020, America was roiled by looting, burning and anarchy in our streets.  Many refused to condemn the mob violence because it was rooted in an idea that Black Lives Matter.  Did anyone believe allowing lawlessness by one group would not give tacit permission for more rebellious conduct?

How many political leaders and media outlets denounced summer's mob violence? Businesses were destroyed.  Police were killed and injured.  Looting was endorsed by politicians as acceptable because the people were disenfranchised.  Anarchists controlled entire parts of cities.  Many applauded. 

Do we excuse violence in some cases and castigate it in other situations?  Violence is wrong no matter the circumstances.  Anarchy is misguided no matter the cause.  Killing other human beings is a sinful act, if they are police prisoners or babies in the womb.  What we condone as a nation we will reap.

When unruly activists took over parts of a Senate office building to protest the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, they were celebrated.  Political leaders defended their indefensible behavior as patriotic support of women's rights.  Why was this condoned? What message did it send?

Let me make this clear.  None of these incidents rise to the level of January 6.  I do not cite these to excuse the ugliness of the Capitol rampage.  But Americans can no longer deny we are living in a age of violence and anarchy.  Examples abound.  Ignore them at your own peril. 

The root cause is Hatred.  There is so much seething in this country that tranquility is impossible.  We mock people for their political and social views.  We demonize those who disagree with us.  We hate a president, a speaker of the house, a class of people and the symbols of our shared history.  

Instead of solving our differences peacefully we yell at each other. We choose sides and ignore solutions. The nation resembles a schoolyard playground, one flashpoint away from a brawl.  Blame politicians or the media.  The truth is WE are responsible for upholding American values.

What is occurring in America is a battle for its soul.  Some want to rewrite America's past.  They are contemptuous of our founders, our flag, our statues, our national anthem.  Just as many Americans cherish our history, even with all its flaws.  Our values and ideals are no longer common. 

Politicians recognize this national conflict and are using it to tear us asunder.  You and I don't have to take the bait.  We have a choice. Learn why others think differently than you; respect their viewpoints; remain civil in communications (including emails) with everyone. That's on US.  Not THEM.

Finally, we need to turn to God in our darkness.  It may sound trite but I make no apology.  America will not find the answer in our political class no matter how noble the politician.  Only God can heal what is broken. Let's not waste this opportunity to put our faith in Him.

Surreal Presidential Election Finally Ends...Maybe

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared himself the winner in the 2020 contest as votes were still being tallied at a snail's pace in a handful of mostly Democratic Party-controlled states.  Legal challenges by the Trump campaign are pressing forward today in the midst of the contentious election.

That's the kind of year 2020 has been.  Screwy.  Surreal. Tumultuous. Implausible. Hostile. 

Democrats and the media cabal branding the president a sore loser have inchworm memories.  In the 2000 election, Democrat Al Gore's lawyers were able hold hostage vote certification in Florida for 47 days through legal challenges.  Every candidate has a right to demand a fair and full ballot count.

Even vanquished former presidential contender Hillary Clinton warned Democrats in advance of the vote to not concede the election too early.  The media in its giddiness over the trends in tabulations anointed Biden the victor despite the fact key states had yet to certify final vote totals.  

The media and Democrats were hoping for a clear repudiation of the president.  A sweeping landslide that would shame Mr. Trump's supporters, whom the media mocks as Neanderthals.  Instead the race was tightly contested in nearly every state, except for the ones that have seemingly outlawed Republicanism.  

The latest totals for the popular vote show Biden with a 2.8% edge over the president.  Biden captured 50.61% of the ballots cast to 47.73% for Mr. Trump. As the contest inches closer to finality,  Biden's vote count stands at 75.2 million to 71 million for the president.

In 15 states, including many battleground states, the victorious candidate's margin was 9% or less.  Biden's victory was a narrow escape not a mandate as he and his media allies have contended in their post election euphoria.    

In Wisconsin, Biden won by 20,540 votes out of 3.2 million ballots.  In Arizona, Biden is currently clinging to a 17,553 vote margin.  The Democrat is up 10,196 votes in Georgia out of 4.8 million. Even Nevada, which provided the final electoral votes needed to win, was a 31,464-vote squeaker for Biden.

While vote counting agonizingly proceeds today, it appear pundits will be wrong about the turnout topping 160 million.  According to the Associated Press, 146,285,631 million votes have been tallied.  Even with more ballots dribbling in, it will be difficult to reach 155 million.

However, one election aspect is already clear.  Both Biden and the president eclipsed former president Barrack Obama's record vote total of 69.4 million. Trump managed to pull 8.02 million more votes than he did in 2016, while Biden outperformed Clinton by 9.4 million ballots.

Democrats and Republicans should be embarrassed by the unfathomable delays in vote tabulation.  Some states, such as Texas, Florida and California, handled many more ballots than Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada with timely reporting.  Why did it take so long in those states and others, such as Georgia?

Democrat apologists blame the influx of mail-in ballots that swamped election officials.  That is bogus because virtually every state had more mail-in votes than in-person ballots.  In a nation that birthed high tech, it is unconscionable to wait a week until a final vote can be certified.  We are not Nigeria.

Three states under the thumb of Democrat governors--Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin--issued orders that thwarted timely reporting of votes.  Election officials in those states were not allowed to start tabulating the mail-in ballots until election day or a few hours before.  

There were computer glitches in at least two states, Georgia and Michigan.  In Michigan, the flaw caused 6,000 votes to be incorrectly given to Biden.  After initially blaming the malfunctions on tabulation machines, both states reversed course and attributed the errors to humans.  Interesting.

The company that manufacturers the vote tabulating computers is Dominion Voting Systems, which supplied its equipment to 28 states this election.  There were no other public reports of mishaps as happened in Michigan.  But it fosters conspiracy theories about the fairness of elections.

Even if there was no chicanery involved, the snafu triggered wholesale conjecture about transparency.  The mishap fanned conspiracy flames when an enterprising reporter dug up a Washington Post story that said Dominion had donated $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2015.

For the benefit of Democrats shaking their heads, this was verified by liberal fact-checking site Snopes. 

There were other oddities.  In Wisconsin, nearly every registered voter cast a ballot.  The Wisconsin Election Commission reported there were 3,684,726 registered voters.  The state tallied 3,296,836 votes in the presidential contest.  That's a 90% voter turnout.  No other state came close.  Hmmmm. 

This election also signaled a shift in voting patterns that will likely become the new normal.  More voters cast their ballots before election day than in any previous presidential election.  By the last count, there were 101 ballots cast in early voting, more than double the number in 2016.

Mail-in voting drew both proponents and critics for increasing turnout. Eight states sent ballots to every registered voter on its rolls. The states were California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont.  Most other states required voters to request a mail-in ballot.  

For all the Democrat crowing, the party performed abysmally in state legislatives races in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt, handing Republicans an advantage ahead of redistricting after the Census determines the number of Congressional seats in each state.  The defeat came despite Democrats' record fund raising.

The Democrats failed to flip a single statehouse chamber in its favor, including in the key states of Texas, North Carolina and Florida.  The GOP appears poised to bolster its number of seats in the House of Representatives and has the prospect of holding the Senate, depending on two Georgia runoffs.

The biggest losers in the 2020 election, however, were the pollsters. Most polling is now designed to suppress an opponent's turnout, inflate candidate spending or deliberately mislead the public.  How else can you explain pollsters continuing failure to accurately predict outcomes and margins?

For example, the Real Clear Politics lists of polling results from various research firms showed that Biden would win by a margin of 11-to-7 percent.  One pollster had Biden with a 12% blowout.  Polling organizations also predicted toss-up races for incumbent Senators Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins.

Both candidates won by comfortable margins, but the polling data incentivized Democrats to pour nearly $200 million into the two races in an effort to flip the Senate seats. This happens too often to be coincidental.  Polling data can no longer be trusted to be accurate or authentically researched.

In the absence of demographic voting data, it is too early to critically analyze why Biden won.  However, certainly the president's handling of the pandemic was clearly on the minds of voters.  Even those who ranked the economy their top issue were worried rising virus cases would trigger shutdowns.

That said, it cannot be disputed that visceral hatred of President Trump, not Biden's appeal, was a deciding factor.  Whether Democrats will admit it, they conspired with the media and social platforms to viciously attack Mr. Trump for four years. No president has endured such orchestrated loathing.

A campaign based on searing hatred recalls the ugliness that led to Hitler's rise in Germany.  Disagreements on policies, style and personalities are natural, but it undermines democracy when bitter acrimony decides elections. In this corrosive atmosphere, Biden has issued a plea for unity.

Americans want unity and an end to the Washington belligerence. However, name a Democrat who called for cooperation instead of resistance during the past four years?  Still waiting.  That renders Biden's words hollow, political claptrap.    

Let's pray that no matter our political choices Americans can still civilly discuss our differences. We don't banish friends or family members who disagree with us.  We don't call dissenting voters miscreants for not seeing the world as we do.  Until there is mutual respect, the nation will remain hopelessly alienated. 

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.

The Facts About the Impact of Political Ads

Political wags are chattering about former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gusher of ad spending, topping $200 million in barely a month.  The billionaire is blanketing the airwaves to gain traction in the crowded Democratic Party primary.  Pundits are hailing the strategy as brilliant.

Bloomberg's ad binge may yet prove effective, but the facts suggest he would do more good by setting fire to all that cash to heat a homeless shelter.  Many people have been conditioned by the media and the political consultant class to accept conventional wisdom that political ads work.

That is at odds with numerous independent studies which show political advertising is ignored, ineffective and does not change voters minds.  I know you are skeptical because you have heard campaign ad agencies, media airheads  and consultants wax eloquently about advertising's impact.

But those disciples of political advertising all have a vested interest in convincing candidates of the value of millions of dollars spent on television, radio, social media, newspapers and robo calls.  Have you ever wondered who benefits the most from that prodigious spending?

Here is the dirty secret.  Nearly every dollar in ad buys ends up in the coffers of the liberal media.  Consultants are rewarded because they can demand higher fees for managing huge ad budgets.  Advertising agencies charge fat commissions for placing the ads in the media.  It's a racket.

This incestuous cabal then brags about how advertising changed the tide of an election.  No one challenges their assumptions because after all, they are the experts.  If you have accepted that as fact, independent, unbiased studies might change your perception of campaign advertising.

Here is an unambiguous study published in the American Political Science Review by researchers from Yale and Stanford.  After extensive research, the authors concluded: "The best estimates of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on (voters choices) in general elections is zero."

Did you hear that Michael Bloomberg?  Zero! Nada.  We are just warming up.  Another research study authored by political scientists at the University of California-LA and Stanford found nearly half (42%) of viewers tune out all campaign television commercials.

People most likely to watch commercials are what the authors term "low engagement" people, couch potatoes who are not likely to vote.  The next group are "high engagement" people, who have already made up their minds on the candidate of their choice.  Ad executives are squirming in their limos.

I know some of you are shaking your heads, recalling campaign boasts that early ad spending won the election for Bill Clinton.  Of course, that claim was made by his campaign consultant. And others may remember praise for Barrack Obama's advertising blitz that aided his 2008 election triumph.

In a 2010 study, political scientists Michael Franz and Travis Ridout conducted in-depth research to quantify advertising's impact on Obama's victory.  Their estimate is that the advertising moved the voter needle for Obama by 0.551 points.  That tiny difference is within the margin of statistical error.

But wait there's more.  The authors reported the ads did not persuade anyone to actually vote for Obama, but was helpful in motivating turnout of people who already planned to cast their ballot for the former senator.  Michael Bloomberg may want to fire his entire campaign ad staff.

Exit polls confirmed the findings of the research.  Pollsters found that 78% of voters had made up their minds long before election day.  Only four percent admitted they woke up election day and made their choice.  Even that number flies in the face of previous research on voter decision making.

At this point, a few readers are nodding and muttering: "Yeah, but what about social media?"  Big difference maker in 2016.  Everyone has mentioned (either positively or negatively) the influence of social media on the election.  But few if any have actually scientifically measured it.

Those who did, including one University of California-San Diego political scientist, uncovered no evidence to support those claims.  His conclusion: "Social media had no measurable aggregated influence over voters' beliefs."  That's not what most people have been spoon fed by the media.

Another study published in the Public Library of Science Journal reached the same conclusion about social media's role in the 2016 election.  The author, Ohio State University communications professor Kelly Garrett, concluded social media played little, if any, role in influencing the outcome.

Despite the evidence, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from blaming misinformation planted on social media by nefarious Russians for her humiliating defeat.  The bitter Clinton asserted social media posts turned the election in Mr. Trump's favor.  She offered no proof for her views. 

However, political consultants, media political reporters and advertising moguls all have publicly claimed advertising, especially on social media, swung the election.  You would expect nothing less from the very people who profit the most by reinforcing the power of media to win elections.

If advertising really worked as well as its proponents claim, then Hillary Clinton would be president.  She outspent Mr. Trump by a lopsided margin of two-to-one on advertising in legacy media as well as social media.  Clinton purchased $141.7 million in advertising compared to $58.8 for Mr. Trump.

Her campaign spending dwarfed her opponent.  According to OpenSecrets, the Clinton campaign shelled out $768 million to defeat Mr. Trump while the president's team tallied $398 million.  These figures do not include expenditures by outside political surrogates on candidates' behalf.

That begs the question: Why do candidates continue to turn a blind eye to research and spend millions on advertising?  The answer is simple: Elite consultants have cultivated a mystique about the ability of advertising messaging to win elections.  They point to their past victories as evidence.

This aura is sustained by those with the most to gain: the media and ad agencies.  These co-conspirators assert without contradiction that no candidate can win a national election without a Tsunami of advertising.  Few dare to contradict their professed infallibility.

However, even a seismic wave of advertising won't help a lousy candidate.   Michael Bloomberg could spend $1 trillion on advertising and still fail to capture the Democratic Party nomination.  No doubt if he loses his consultants will claim the Russians rigged the election for the winner.

The Billionaire Behind Impeachment Impetus

California billionaire Tom Steyer is spearheading an under the radar campaign to intimidate Democrats to impeach President Trump.  A political action committee, Need to Impeach, bankrolled primarily by Steyer has a multi-million dollar war chest and an expansive staff at its disposal.

Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's most prodigious contributors, is a former hedge fund manager who sold his share in 2012. Forbes estimates his net worth at $1.6 billion.  Since 2014, Steyer has shelled out more than $100 million to Democrat candidates.

Less than six months after Trump was sworn in as president, Steyer called for the impeachment of the nation's chief executive. From that day in June of 2017, the Californian has used his fortune to build a formidable cache to underwrite a nationwide grassroots campaign to remove the president.

According to the non-partisan group OpenSecrets.org, Steyer has written checks totaling nearly $50 million to underwrite the impeachment effort.  In fairness, there is nothing illegal about the activities of his organization.  However, Steyer's tactics are worrying some Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.

Steyer's committee has used negative advertising, petitions, rallies, protests and door-to-door canvassing to target House Democrats reluctant to sign on to impeachment. Even before the Mueller report, the Steyer forces were ganging up on key House Democrats to support impeachment.

Under the banner of Need to Impeach, Steyer unleashed negative ads targeting Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the diminutive Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after he announced that he advocated a "wait and see" impeachment approach before the special prosecutor issued his findings.

Elijah Cummings of Maryland is another Democrat who found himself in the Steyer crosshairs as chair of the House Oversight Committee. The negative ads failed to impress Cummings.  "He ought to spend his money on something else," Cummings said after the Streyer-backed attack.

In another political assault, the organization zeroed in on Virginia Democrat Don Beyer. The Steyer troops choose Beyer's district for one of its town halls to "call out" the Democrat for his lack of support for impeachment,  Beyer relented under pressure and signed on to impeachment soon after.

As these developments were happening, Speaker of the House Pelosi found herself languishing in a boiling political caldron.  Early on, Ms. Pelosi sidestepped the issue, rebuffing party progressives who were spoiling for a formal impeachment vote.

Then a spokesman for the impeachment outfit let it be known that his group was considering funding pro-impeachment Democrat candidates in the primaries, unless incumbents give their full throated support to ridding Washington of President Trump.  That well-timed leak scared fence sitters.

One of the names mentioned was Speaker Pelosi, one of the party's most influential fund raisers. Surely it is coincidental, but after months of tap dancing around the subject Pelosi surrendered to the growing cacophony from her caucus to become a focal point for impeachment.

Steyer is unapologetic for the bare knuckled political campaign.  "There's a gigantic cost to not listening to your constituents," Steyer said in an interview with Politico. "There's a gigantic cost to thumbing your nose at democracy."  Democrats dodge impeachment at their own peril.

To underscore his boss' intentions, Need to Impeach strategist Kevin Mack claims the organization had virtually unlimited resources to spend in key districts.  The group has already committed $40 million to the impeachment effort, according to Mack.

The PAC is not the only forum for Steyer to preach removing Mr. Trump.  The 62-year-old is running for president in the Democratic Party primary.  He has made it clear that he will spend up to $100 million of his own money to win the nomination.

His candidacy has brought impeachment to center stage, making it a litmus test for his opponents. Those who don't support forcibly throwing out the president will earn Steyer's scorn.  That could spell doom for the eventual nominee, if Steyer withholds financial support.

The Californian has already spent an estimated $19 million for advertising over the airwaves for his candidacy.  In addition, his campaign has purchased at least $10 million on digital platforms since he entered the race in July.  His spending far eclipses that of his opponents.

His high rolling spending has not impressed some Democrat candidates.  New Jersey Senator Cory Booker told supporters that Steyer's "ability to spend millions of his personal wealth has helped him gain in the polls like no one else."  One poll shows support for Steyer has reached eight percent.

Don't be fooled: Rep Adam Schiff and Rep. Nadler are just puppets in the impeachment sideshow. The puppet master is Tom Steyer.  Even if his Quixotic presidential campaign flops, the billionaire will remain the political energy behind the political operation to overturn the 2016 election.

Trump's Tweets Versus Dems Incendiary Rhetoric

Every tweet dashed off by President Trump jangles the psyche of Democrats.  Tweets are so unpresidential they scoff.  His cryptic dispatches are hurtful, mean-spirited. Trump's messages create confusion, contradicting staff.  The uproar over 280 characters has never been so self-righteous.

On the subject of presidential docurm,  Mr. Obama was hailed by the media when he became the first president to open a Twitter account.  He posted more than 15,000 tweets to fawning praise.  It was Mr. Obama, not Mr. Trump, who first broke with tradition to use social media as a political pulpit.

Democrats and Never-Trumpers demand Republicans renounce the president's tweets.  They are appalled by his tone. For the record, I too wince at some tweets.  However, like any president, Mr. Trump has the right to communicate in his unique style.  No one is forced to read the tweets. 

All this indignant outrage might be taken seriously if it wasn't so hypocritical.  Democrats are seldom if ever called upon by the media to defend their colleagues often palatable Trump-loathing screeds or the incendiary,  repulsive, vitriolic speech, including vile anti-Semitic rants.

The media stokes the tweet outrage by dissecting each one as if it were an atom then searches for those who are offended.  They are rankled by the audacity of the president to announce news on Twitter rather than pandering to their interests, wounding their journalistic and personal ego.

It may explain why the media either ignores or glosses over scandalous language by Democrats.  Before passing judgment on trifling social media missives, perhaps those who hold Mr. Trump in contempt should read the vicious tirades of Democrats reaching a wider media audience than tweets.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) has called on her supporters and all Democrats to "harass" Trump cabinet members.  Her words have incited repugnant confrontations in restaurants aimed at former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and most recently Eric Trump.

No Democrat has dared condemn Waters for shouting to crowds "tell them (Cabinet members) they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."  Can you just imagine the puffed up fury if a Republican lawmaker would have urged people to do the same to Obama cabinet members?

Then you have precocious Democrat Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez comparing migrant detention centers to "concentration camps."  Even giving her the benefit of her youthful 29-years, no educated person with an iota of historical knowledge would make such an outlandish, untruthful statement.

A member of Poland's Parliament invited the New Yorker to fly to his country to "study concentration camps."  He admonished her because the comparison "cheapens the history" of Nazi camps for the purpose of "political point scoring."  Democrats tip-toed around her comment to avoid confrontation.

In her latest dishonest broadside, Ms Ocasio-Cortez characterized the conditions at an El Paso County immigration detention center she visited as deplorable and complained about babies in dirty diapers and women drinking out of toilets.  Her explosive invective garnered worldwide headlines.

However, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, toured the same facility later and reported his group of pastors "found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities." His rebuke was buried by the media.

Then you have Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) insulting Jews and all Americans by admitting she gets a "calming feeling" when "I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust."  Her words should have led to her censure by Congress.  A few heads shook but nothing more.

She also once screeched to impeach "the motherf----r" Mr. Trump.  Take a moment and think what would have been the reaction if a Republican had used those exact words about former President Clinton.  The offender would have been stampeded out of Washington by the media and colleagues.

Ms. Tlaib's fellow Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) has waded in deep into the murky waters of anti-Semitism.  She claimed that Israel's allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle.  Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reluctantly forced to call her out.

Not satisfied with one anti-Jewish slur, Rep. Omar charged Israel with "hypnotizing the world to carry out evil."  She also trivialized the attacks of 9/11 by remarking that "some people did something (on 9/11) and that all of us (Muslims) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

Instead of a Democrat groundswell to reign in this rhetorical swill, Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson has done the opposite.  She warned that those "making fun of a member of Congress" should be "prosecuted," adding the authorities need to "shut them down."

Apparently in her view, freedom of speech does not include mocking members of Congress, even if the person is an eight-year old child actor. Ava Martinez, who parodies AOC on social media, has received death threats and harassment, forcing her mother to end the skits for the child's safety.

Rep. Wilson is not alone in her campaign to bully Democrat opposition. Today there are many in Congress who want freedom FROM speech they consider insensitive. They are determined to persecute, defame and imprison if necessary anyone who dares to exercise their right to free speech.

Is this the America we want? If Democrats have the right to smear and deliberately sow discord, then surely the President of the United States should not be silenced for his choice of words on Twitter.  Or do Democrats prefer a double standard?  Their actions indicate they do.

Mueller: No Collusion. No Obstruction. No End.

After issuing 2,800 subpoenas, executing 500 search warrants and interviewing 500 witnesses  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller finally pulled the plug on his global investigation into allegations the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election.

Mueller submitted his 300-page-plus report to end 22 months of an exhaustive probe conducted by 19 hand-picked attorneys assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, professional staff and even foreign governments.  The cost to taxpayers: about $35 million.

After nearly two years of unsubstantiated media speculation, Mueller dealt a crushing blow to Trump-haters by admitting there is no evidence of collusion.  The media bawled in protest.  They had published unverified accounts suggesting Mueller was going shatter the Trump presidency.

In his report, Mueller tossed a liferaft to the media and Democrats declaring his probe "did not exonerate President Trump nor conclude" he obstructed justice.  Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called the wording a "cop out" and scolded Mueller for the obfuscation.

While the Mueller report did not charge Mr. Trump with a crime, it's verdict provides an indictment of the nation's media which lied to the public.  That is what happens when the media is invested in destroying a president rather than fulfilling its obligation for fairness and unvarnished truth.

Take a stroll down Media Memory Lane with some choice salacious charges from alleged journalists.

A New Yorker Magazine article reported Mr. Trump had been a Russian asset since 1987. A Washington Post columnist wrote "there is copious evidence" of collusion. New York Times' venerable columnist Paul Krugman opined "there is really no question of Trump/Putin collusion."

If you are expecting mea culpas from a discredited press, you are one of the few who cling to the notion the media is unbiased and ethical.  It cannot be refuted that many in the media deliberately fabricated "anonymous" sources to convict Mr. Trump in advance of the Mueller document.

Even with its reputation in tatters, the media linked hands with Democrats in calling for public release of the report, which has been granted.  The conspirators still believe there is some kernel of treason buried in a footnote that escaped Attorney General Anthony Barr's terse summary.

Meanwhile, the real story behind the report has been stashed in a skeleton closet in Washington.  Now it is abundantly clear this investigation hinged on a single 35-page document produced by a former English spook on the payroll of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.

Apologists claim this dossier was opposition research.  That may be true but it was peddled to the media and leaked without any caveats about its authenticity or lack of proof for the incriminating assertions.   To this day, there is not one scintilla of evidence to support the insinuations.

Christopher Steele, an ex-employee of the British intelligence agency MI6, wrote the infamous, unsubstantiated dossier that was used by the FBI, the Justice Department and their collaborators to justify a probe of a sitting president who vanquished their presumptive winner. 

Having read the Steele dossier, it is unfathomable that intelligent people would take at face value the claims without verifiable proof.  Steele's document is the stuff of fiction, claiming Mr. Trump's "perverted sexual acts" in Moscow were secretly filmed by the Russians to be used to blackmail him.

Steele wrote that top Russian intelligence officers directed by President Putin had compromised Mr. Trump and had virtually owned him for "five years."  The former spy peppered his report with unsourced accusations supposedly given to him by a "confidential/sensitive source." Baloney.

Based on Steele's thin report, the media, Democrats and Obama officials seized the contents without independent verification and weaponized it in a coup attempt to negate the 2016 presidential election. Without the muckraking Steele document, there would have been no basis for a special prosecutor.

The unscrupulous Steele invention was the cornerstone of the FBI investigation, directed by James Comey, to dupe a secret court into ordering federal wiretapping to spy on Trump associates.  To this day, even the vaunted FBI cannot corroborate a single allegation in the Steele fabrication.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has vowed to get answers on the origins of the Steele file.  The man behind the portfolio on Mr. Trump needs to be investigated by the Department of Justice and hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Someone must be held accountable for this charade.

But don't expect the rancor over Russian collusion to end.  Desperate people will latch on to counterfeit propositions and bogus claims to continue to justify their conspiracy theory.  Mueller has spoken.  Time to accept the facts and cease impeachment fantasies.

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.

Trump: More Than Tweets, Bathrobes And Soda

The New York Times, The Washington Post and establishment media have conjured the image of President Trump spending his days tweeting, guzzling Diet Cokes and stumbling through the White House in his bathrobe.  This burlesque portrayal is a deliberate attempt to demean his presidency.

In particular, the Times and the Post have used anonymous sources for the most scandalous, outrageous stories lampooning Mr. Trump.  To be clear: this is not a blanket endorsement of everything Mr. Trump has uttered or tweeted, but the media has painted a one-sided picture.   

Consumers of exclusively mainstream news have become so biased by this reporting, many refuse to believe the president has any redeeming qualities.  Viewed through their prejudiced lens, Mr. Trump's achievements include dividing America, throttling minorities, suppressing females and immigrants.

However, facts have a stubborn way of interfering with this deceptive narrative.  The president has spurred economic growth, created record numbers of jobs, boosted median income, slashed red-tape regulations, improved security at the border and raised America's foreign policy prestige.

For the skeptics, here is a list of accomplishments in just 20 months for the Trump Administration supported by facts and figures, most of which were gleaned from The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Internal Revenue Service, Council of Economic Advisers and Commerce Department:

The Economy

Four million new jobs have been created since the presidential election.  More Americans are now employed than ever before in our history.  Unemployment claims are at a 50 year low. African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates have reached historic troughs.  Female unemployment has plunged to its lowest level since 1953.  Median household income has risen to $61,372, a post-recession high water mark.  American workers enjoyed the biggest leap in pay since 2009 as the average hourly earnings for private workers advanced 3.1 percent this quarter, compared to 2017. Nearly four million Americans dropped off the food stamps rolls. In the latest quarter ended in September, the American economy grew a robust 3.5 percent, exceeding analysts projections.  Most economists credit the Trump tax cuts for the boom.

Business

Investment is flooding into the U.S. after Congress lowered tax rates for businesses.  America's corporate tax rate was the highest in the developed world.  More than $450 billion has pored into the country from overseas businesses owned by American companies. Manufacturing has bounced back after decades of decline, reaching its highest level in 14 years.  More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since the election. Retail sales have surged 6.4 percent since July of 2017, reflecting rising consumer confidence and increased disposable income.  Last year job satisfaction among American workers hit its peak since 2005. Real wage compensation paid by businesses has risen 1.4 percent over the past year after eight years of stagnation.

Health Care

This ranks as the most under reported area of improvement for Americans.  Mr. Trump enacted changes to the Medicare program, saving seniors an estimated $320 million on drugs this year.  The Federal Drug Administration, under prodding from the president, set a record for generic drug approvals, saving consumers an estimated $9 billion. The administration enabled small businesses to join together to offer affordable health insurance to their employees by removing restrictions to form Association Health Plans.  Legislation signed by the president repealed the infamous "death panels" created by Obamacare.  The Department of Agriculture funded more than $1 billion in initiatives to improve access to health care in rural areas for 2.5 million people.

Border Security

Stopping drugs, human trafficking and violent gang members from flowing into the country has been a priority of the administration.  Statistics document the success: Arrests of 796 members of the Central American gang MS-13 in 2017, an 83 percent increase from 2016. ICE rescued or identified more than 500 human trafficking victims in 2017 and more than 900 child exploitation victims.  ICE agents seized more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics in 2017, including 2,370 pounds of fentanyl and 6,967 pounds of heroin. In a related area, the administration secured $6 billion in new funding to fight the opioid epidemic, arrested 28 medical professionals and revoked 147 registrations for physicians over prescribing opioids.

Foreign Policy

President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed tough sanctions on the rogue regime.  In the wake of sanctions, Iran's currency has plummeted, international companies have pulled out of the country and the Treasury Department has levied sanctions against key regime individuals.  The president opened negotiations with North Korea in an effort to denuclearize the totalitarian nation. Despite the media influenced image of Russian coddling, the administration has expelled dozens of Russian intelligence officers, sanctioned oligarchs and their companies and enhanced support for Ukraine's Armed Forces to defend against Russian aggression.  In addition, Mr. Trump demanded European countries increase financial support for NATO, the military alliance between Europe and North America.  The result was a hike in 2017 of 4.8 percent in defense spending by member states, amounting to $42 billion. Of course, the piece de resistance was the renegotiation of the flawed NAFTA agreement.

Mr. Trump is constantly savaged because he doesn't stick to the script of past presidents.  The media and Democrats are aghast at his nonconformity.  Many elitists believe a president should be measured on style not substance.  Being "presidential" matters more than getting things done for Americans.

The U.S. had eight years of presidential style.  The country was hungry for  change.  The media has never gotten over the fact American voters chose an outsider over its favored career politician.  Irregardless, the media has an ethical obligation to report good news along with the bad.     

News Media Has Lost Americans' Trust

Media elites, chafing under withering criticism from President Trump and his spokespersons, are infuriated over attacks impugning the integrity of news reporting.  News execs are pitching a temper tantrum, calling the vilificaton an assault on the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

There's nothing unusual about an adversarial relationship between the media and White House, but the current environment is toxic.  Hostilities recently escalated into a fiery war of words over testy White House press briefings and the heckling of a CNN reporter at a Trump campaign rally.

Newspaper editors and television officials are framing the issue as an altruistic battle over a free and open press versus  government censorship. But their real motive is less magnanimous.  News organizations are trying to salvage their already tattered public standing, which has sunk to new lows.

A 2016 Pew Research study found that only 18 percent of Americans have a "a lot of trust" in national newspaper, television and radio news media.  In a poll last year, Gallup reported that only 32 percent of adults have a "great deal" or "fair" amount of trust in the news media.

These are historic troughs for the news media.  However, it is hardly breaking news.  There has been a steady erosion in public opinion of the integrity of the news media over the last 20 years, stretching back to 1997.  The downdraft did not begin with the election of Donald Trump.

In fact, an exhaustive study commissioned by the American Society of Newspapers Editors in 1998 uncovered that 78 percent of respondents agreed there is "bias" in reporting.  A CBS News/New York Times poll in 2006 affirmed that only four in 10 adults believed news reports are truthful.

Those are alarming numbers for the news industry, which is suffering from dwindling newspaper readership, plummeting television viewership and tumbling radio ratings.  The news business' high-stakes struggle for survival is being undermined by its flagging public image.

News officials may be outraged by the labeling of their reporting as "fake news," but they have given their detractors plenty of ammunition.  There has been an epidemic of reporting that has proven to be false, misleading or deliberately biased.  Examples abound across all media.

After Mr. Trump's victory, reports circulated on social media and the news that multiple transgender teenagers had committed suicide in response to his election.  Even Snopes, an alleged fact-checking website, called the rumors "unconfirmed" rather than false.  Turns out the news was indeed a fraud.

Later in November, the New York Magazine claimed a group of computer scientists and election lawyers were demanding a recount in three states won by Mr. Trump.  The story was picked up by most media outlets.  No proof was ever produced by the so-called experts and the story was pulled.

Another bombshell that exploded in the media's faces was a report that a Muslim business owner flew to Iraq to bring his sick mother to America for medical treatment.  The woman supposedly died because her flight was delayed by the immigration ban.  The account was a total fabrication.

Associated Press reported that the House had voted to roll back Obama rules on background checks for gun ownership a year ago.  The news created hysteria on social media.  Some might call the story misleading but it was downright deceitful.  The House did no such thing.

For the record, the House repealed a narrow slice of the Obama era rule dealing with background checks for those with Social Security disability and adults receiving Supplemental Security Income.  Even the American Association for People with Disabilities and the ACLU supported the change.

CNN has earned the title of least trusted network for egregious bogus reporting. CNN falsely reported the president removed a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King from his office.  Three CNN employees resigned after the network retracted a story about a meeting between a Trump official and a Russian.

And on and on it goes.  The New York Times falsely claimed on its front page that the Trump Administration had hidden a climate report.  ABC demoted Brian Ross for a bungled report on Trump-Russia.  The Washington Post posted a phony photo of an empty stadium for a Trump rally.

In each case, social media users amplified the lies thousands and thousands of times on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  One false story turns into a tsunami of fake news. That makes it even more incumbent on the legacy media to get its facts straight before the stories are reported as news.

There is no defense for the current spate of reckless reporting by the national media. The First Amendment is not a license for outright lying and deception.  The media has an obligation to hold government accountable, but it must be credible to do its job the way the founders intended.

Journalists are the ones who can fix the credibility problem.  Editors and media owners need to hold reporters accountable for truth and fairness or nothing will change.  The choice is theirs.  Either deal with the integrity issue or watch the news industry incinerate itself.     

Media's S***hole Hysteria Over Remark

The Washington media has officially become unhinged.  Deranged.  Irrational.  Unbalanced. But mostly dishonest.  There aren't enough adjectives in the dictionary to describe the utter insane behavior of news outlets over President Trump's alleged use of a common term meaning excrement.

For more than a week, the news coverage has been nonstop after Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin claimed the president used the word s***hole to describe several countries, including Haiti.  Democrats and their acolytes in the media went apes****.  Bonkers.  World War III headlines.

CNN, the least trusted news network, encouraged every person on its cable show to label Mr. Trump a racist for daring to refer to an African country as a s***hole land.  The network repeated the offensive term so many times the joke was it should change its name to SHNN.

The source, Mr. Trump, denied using the specific terminology even as he admitted uttering some "rough language" during the private meeting on immigration with representatives of both parties in the Oval Office. The confab was supposed to produce a bi-partisan immigration agreement.

Instead, Durbin sabotaged it.  He violated an unwritten rule of conduct and blabbed what went on in the closed door session.  The media in its unmitigated effort to embarrass the president never bothered to check with others in the meeting.  At least two Republicans never heard the word.

Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue both publicly stated the president did not use s***hole in the discussion.  Cotton, who was sitting as close to the president as Durbin, accused the Democrat of spreading false information.  Despite the push back, the media stuck to Durbin's version. 

No one at CNN checked Durbin's history.  He has lied before about private White House meetings.  In fact, Durbin told a whopper.  In 2013, Durbin claimed that one GOP House member turned to Mr. Obama and said: "I cannot even stand to look at you."  Racist screamed the hyperventilating media.

Only problem was Durbin made up the story.  Asked about the matter at a White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that he had "spoke with somebody" at the meeting and discovered "it did not happen."  Durbin never admitted he lied.  He simply refused to comment.

For a moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Trump did indeed refer to an African country as a s***hole.  That places him in good company.  The erudite Mr. Obama called the African country of Libya a "s***show" two years ago in an interview with The Atlantic magazine.

Do you recall any media outlets admonishing Mr. Obama as a racist?  Crickets.  If you think foul language demeans the office of president, do your homework.  Mr. Obama in an interview in Rolling Stone called his opponent Mitt Romney a "bulls****er."  Remember the media outrage?  Me neither.

Mr. Obama, the paragon of presidential demeanor, also referred to rapper Kanye West as a "jacka**" in the audio version of his autobiography "Dreams From My Father." His vice president Joe Biden was caught on microphones using the f-word in reference to the signing of Obamacare legislation.

Those faux journalists at CNN apparently have forgotten that President Lyndon Johnson was celebrated for his profanity-laced White House.  But in those years, the media protected the privacy of presidents.  Potty language has been the grist of politics as far back as Harry Truman and beyond.

The media needs to stop pretending the use of the term "s***hole" in a private meeting bothers average Americans. It doesn't even raise an eyebrow in Realville.  This episode exposes the media's naked hatred of President Trump for all the world to see.  It isn't a pretty sight and it isn't journalism.

It's not surprising media approval is at an all-time low. A recent Pew Research study found only 18 percent of adults say they "trust the information a lot" that is distributed by national news outlets. Yet reporters and editors bristle at the sobriquet "fake news." The media deserves the nickname. 

That's why most people shrugged at the words attributed to the president.  Americans already know the real s****holes in Washington are the media organizations covering the president.  This latest outlandish news coverage certainly did nothing to change the public perception.

Democrats: It's the Economy Stupid!

Not even one of the 236 Democrats in the House and Senate voted to cut taxes in last year's legislative showdown. Hardheaded Democrats believe their stonewalling will be rewarded at the polls in the mid-term elections.  Apparently, they have forgotten the mantra of Bill Clinton.

During his first presidential run, Mr. Clinton was reminded daily by his handlers that voters really cared most about the economy.  It didn't mean Americans weren't concerned about other issues.  But they voted with their wallets.  Thus the theme "It's About the Economy Stupid!" was born.

Judging from their trashing of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, Democrats apparently are living in some alternative universe where voters are more worried about deficits, Obamacare, gun laws, opioids or unisex bathrooms.  They have seriously miscalculated.  And Democrats will pay for it.

Recent polling by the Gallup organization lists economic problems as the single most important issue by a wide margin. Yet Democrats are betting voters will believe their fatigued narrative that only the rich will benefit. They think Americans are too dumb to notice the increase in their paychecks. 

Democrats are employing their dogeared political playbook, advocating for the issues of healthcare, the environment, gun control, race relations and LGBT rights.  They are out of touch with most Americans.  The Gallup Poll of Americans nationwide illustrates their folly.

Only eight percent of Americans think race relations is the most important issue.  Five percent mention healthcare, three percent the environment, one percent gun control and one percent gay rights.  By comparison, 17 percent of people surveyed tick the economy as the top issue.

The party's position on tax cuts has undergone a radical metamorphosis over the last 50+ years.  Once Democrats were at the forefront of the tax reform effort.  For instance, President John Kennedy championed one of the largest tax cuts in history which became law in 1964.

Under GOP President Richard Nixon, Democrats Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale led the effort to slice taxes in 1974.  More than 20 years later in 1997, a reluctant President Clinton signed a tax cut bill that was shepherded through Congress by Republicans.

Despite Mr. Clinton's disappointment, 201 Democrats in the House and Senate joined Republicans in approving the measure, known officially as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.  Earlier in his eight-year term, Mr. Clinton had spearheaded a legislative effort to hike taxes.

Even in 2003 when President Bush campaigned for a tax cut package, nine Democrats signed on to the legislation. Democrats' support for tax breaks has now dwindled to zero.  Virtually every Democrat who has campaigned for office in the last eight years has supported raising taxes.

Democrats are under the illusion that Americans will overlook last year's vote on tax cuts when the mid-term elections roll around in November.  It is a risky proposition for a party that will be defending 23 seats in the Senate, plus two held by independents who caucus with Democrats.

In comparison, Republicans will have eight Senate seats on the ballot. All 435 seats in the House will be up for grabs.  If past elections are any guide to the future, Americans are normally reluctant to change parties when the economy is good.  And right now America is experiencing a boon.

About 1.7 million jobs have been added since Mr. Trump became president.  Unemployment has fallen to its lowest rate in 17 years.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans, which zoomed as high as 16.8 percent under Mr. Obama, has dipped to 6.8 percent, the lowest since 1972.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has topped three percent in the last two quarters.  During Mr. Obama's tenure, the GDP never reached three percent, widely regarded as the number indicating healthy economic growth.

The stock market is rocketing into new territory, setting record closes 17 times last year.  (Remember when Democrats credited Mr. Obama for stock market gains during his tenure?)  Since January of last year more than $5 trillion in wealth has been added to the U.S. economy. 

Peevish Democrats ignore the economic news at their own peril.  Their answer is to point to polls that show Mr. Trump's popularity ratings are in the dumpster.  Popularity contests are for chumps.  The most accurate polls are overwhelmingly in Mr. Trump's favor.

Consumer confidence soared to a 17-year high in November.  Similar indices for small and big businesses confidence are rising.  Consumer and business confidence are a more accurate measure of the mood of the country than polls about personality popularity. This isn't high school.

This year's election likely will be a referendum on the economy. If it is, Democrats will rue the day they voted against tax cuts designed to lift the economy and create jobs.  With their ballots, Americans will remind Democrats that it is still about the economy STUPID.

Deal-Maker Trump Snubs Mitch and Ryan

A political earthquake rattled Washington recently when President Trump brokered a deal with Democrat Party leaders.  Republicans in Congress shrieked in horror.  "Betrayal," they brayed to the television cameras.  These imposters had nothing to complain about. They are the traitors.

Since Mr. Trump's inauguration, Republican leaders Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell have stonewalled the president's agenda at every turn.  To add insult to their recalcitrance they have criticized Mr. Trump on every issue from his use of social media to his town rallies.

Their behavior underscores the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats take care of their own.  Party leaders marshal their soldiers to support their president. Republicans eat their own.  They desert their party's occupant in the Oval Office at the first sniff of controversy.

Just ask George W. Bush.  Or Ronald Reagan, who is lionized today by Republicans but was buffeted by the GOP on many issues.  President Reagan quickly extended a hand to Democrats and discovered willing allies. This Republican Death Wish is hard to swallow for the party's legion of voters.  

Remember when the House impeached President Clinton?  Every single Democrat lined up in support of their flawed leader.  On the other hand, a tweet can land President Trump in hot water with Mitch or Paul. Republicans are too eager to curry media favor and establishment fawning.

Mr. Trump schooled Republicans that ignoring his agenda comes with a price.  The president will link arms with Democrats if that's what it takes to achieve legislative progress. He understands keeping his promises with his political base is more important than party fealty.

Hypocrite Republicans pilloried Mr. Trump after the Democrat-supported deal to avoid a government shutdown, raise the debt ceiling and provide emergency hurricane funding. These same detractors failed to repeal and replace Obamacare after seven years of promises. They are the  turncoats.

This disgraceful performance has earned them the scorn of Republican voters.  A recent Gallup Poll showed that Republican voter approval of Congress is below water at 18 percent. In the same poll, GOP voters gave Congress a thumbs up 50 percent approval in February.

All voters, both Republican and Democrat, surveyed by Gallup gave Congress a 16 percent approval rating.  Despite the polling data, Republicans appear to be blissfully ignoring the rising tide of vote anger.  They are wasting a golden opportunity while controlling two branches of government.  

The spineless duo of Mitch and Ryan have failed to come to grips with the message of millions who cast ballots for Mr. Trump.  Voters, especially Republicans and independents, want disruptive change. They are fatigued with Washington's business-as-usual political gamesmanship.  

Republican voters want more than a few niggling changes to Obamacare.  They want it erased from history. They want a border wall. They don't give a wit about how Congress gets the funding. They want tax reform.  Lowering a few rates won't satisfy them.  They are demanding sweeping change.

Mitch and Ryan are from the old school of Republican establishment politics.  Nothing big ever gets done until the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the big donors are in agreement. Those days are gone.  Too many Republicans and Democrats haven't read the voters' memo.

Whatever his imperfections, Mr. Trump did not stroll in the Oval Office to occupy space.  His passion is action, getting things done.  You can disagree with his methods, his brusqueness or his non-traditional presidential style, but America has a president that wants action on important issues.

If his party's weak-kneed Republican leadership and their sycophant sheep are intent on obstruction, then they had better get used to being snubbed by the president.