Three Strikes Against James Comey

This morning’s news was abuzz with liberals attempting to further obfuscate the firing of former FBI Director James Comey:

“Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told lawmakers Thursday there has been “no effort to impede” the Russia investigation…” ”

This strongly supports the fact that Trump did NOT fire Comey to impede any sort of investigation.

“…and said former FBI Director James Comey continues to have “broad support” in the agency even after the White House claimed he lost the trust of his employees.”

I hear that Comey was well-liked, that he was a good leader of men.

That doesn’t for one second negate the Department of Justice’s claims that both his decisions and actions routinely violated both FBI and Department of Justice policy, and in ways which undermined the trust of the American people — from BOTH political parties — over the last year.

Ok, liberals, I’m going to stretch your brains a bit. Hopefully, most of you can handle it. This goes for conservatives, too, as most of you haven’t read Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s recommendations on Comey, either. This memorandum was sent to AG Sessions, who in turn recommended Comey’s dismissal to President Trump, who considered the matter, concurred, and sent Director Comey a termination letter.

This letter details precisely WHY Comey was fired:

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”
Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision”was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as”real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was”astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

You can also read photocopies of all three letters, at The New York Times article entitled, “White House Announces Firing of James Comey.”

So, STRIKE ONE.

***

Intermission:  The Comey Chronology:

Comey

***

But this isn’t all.  There’s another reason Comey may also have been fired.

20 years ago James Comey was an attorney on the Senate Whitewater Investigation looking into the conduct of President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton. The investigation was to determine whether Bill Clinton used his political position as governor of Arkansas (in the 1980s) to push through an illegal loan to benefit Bill and Hillary’s business partner in Whitewater.

Several people involved in Whitewater went to jail, but no criminal prosecution was in the cards for Bill and Hillary. Remember James Comey was the Deputy Special Counsel for the Whitewater investigation.

In Christopher Anderson’s book, “American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Rise to Power”, Anderson gives details of the New Square offenders pardon by Bill Clinton (they had been convicted of bilking the government of $30 million dollars). Christopher Anderson relates that at Hillary’s urging Bill gave clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who took the lives of 16 Americans and wounded many others.

Anderson tells us that Hillary admired the Marxist Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky. It is from her admiration for Saul Alinsky that she formed her belief that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

The pardon of billionaire Marc Rich (who traded illegally with America’s enemies including Iran) by President Bill Clinton was something that everyone knew reeked of impropriety after learning that Rich’s wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

Again, James Comey oversaw investigations of the pardon matters as well. Unbelievably, James Comey did not recommend charging the Clintons in any of these matters. Wouldn’t it be fair and balanced to give news coverage to these facts?

The Clintons controlled Comey for DECADES.

So, STRIKE TWO

***

But even that’s not the end of it!  No…

Trena Jarnagin-Blackburn Here’s the real reason COMEY got fired.
BOMBSHELL: Young Congresswoman Gets Comey Fired, Here’s What He Was Hiding

Re: Former FBI Director James Comey and Rep. Elise Stefanik

The firing of James Comey comes as a relief to most patriotic Americans who lost trust in his leadership over his handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, but most people don’t know all the events that led up to President Donald Trump actually firing him. It involves a young congresswoman, who uncovered Comey’s explosive secrets, and that’s all Trump needed to get rid of the disgraced FBI Director.

This will blow your mind.

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY) is the youngest member of congress at 32 years old, and on March 20, she singlehandedly finished Comey’s career. Not many people were paying attention to a junior congresswoman questioning the FBI Director, but what she uncovered is pure gold. Remember, at this time, Trump had accused Obama of wiretapping him and the Democrats were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.

During questioning, Rep. Stefanik lured Comey into a trap. She got Comey to admit that a counter-intel investigation into the Russia-Trump connection started way back in July 2016. Think about that; this is so fishy because Trump had just been nominated by the GOP, and immediately, the Obama White House starts a bogus investigation trying to link Russia to Trump. That’s called a political witch hunt.

But, that’s not all.

The damning admission leads to questions about wiretapping private citizens like Trump and his staff. Then, Comey tripped up and couldn’t recover. Rep. Stefanik knew Comey was required to alert congress about this investigation into Russia and Trump, but he couldn’t do that, could he? If Comey followed the rules set out by the Department of Justice, he had to inform congress, but if he did, the GOP would have blown up and exposed this as an obvious political witch hunt to destroy their presidential candidate.

“On March 20th the mask fully came off. Comey was a solid Black Hat. The March 20th appearance before congress was the final straw in showcasing just how politically corrupt James Comey was,” The Conservative Treehouse reports.
Rep. Stefanik cornered Comey on the timeline and got him to stumble and squirm.
She asked, “When did you notify the White House, the DNI, and congressional leadership [of the bogus investigation]?” Comey immediately started sweating after admitting that it’s protocol to inform congress quarterly and the investigation started in July 2016. Then, came the kicker. Comey didn’t inform congress until March 2017, only after he had no other choice as these hearings were set to begin.

Watch as Rep. Stefanik outsmarted Comey and lured him into admitting he was in essence spying on GOP candidate Trump for former President Barack Obama. One other point of note, James Comey outright lies by claiming there was no active DNI (Department of National Intelligence), which is entirely false since James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

The Conservative Treehouse weighed in, explaining, “Former FBI Director James Comey intentionally kept congress in the dark on his investigative activity. Our system of checks and balances are specifically set up to stop this from happening, and to keep a watch on the ‘watchers.’ Director Comey subverted the oversight for his own political purposes.”

There is no defense for the former FBI director acting alone and not notifying congress of what he is doing through the established protocols. It doesn’t matter who the FBI director is. Comey should have been fired on March 20th after he told congress he was intentionally not allowing them oversight over his conduct.

So, when the liberal loons accuse President Donald Trump of firing James Comey to stop an investigation into Russia, that’s a pile of crap. They have investigated it ad infinitum, and they can’t prove a damn thing because it is something the Obama White House and former Director Comey invented way back in July 2016.

So, STRIKE THREE.

***

When then FBI Director James Comey attested to Hillary’s criminal wrongdoing just a couple of weeks before the election, I was elated, as the truth was being confirmed by a credible source, the principle investigative agency of the U.S. Federal Government.  Sadly, it was a great litany, but it ended in…  NOTHING.  That’s

Elizabeth Warren of the Red Herring Tribe vs President Donald J. Trump

Did you know that president wannabe Elizabeth Warren’s maiden name is Herring?
 
Elizabeth WarrenNo doubt she was a member of the Red Herring tribe.
 
She’s also a lawyer. The LAST thing America needs in government is yet another damned lawyer.
 
Lawyers are good at writing law. They are absolutely horrible, however, at fixing things. Writing law very rarely fixes anything. Even after Trump spends four or possibly eight years at the helm, there will always be things that need fixing.
 
Successful CEOs are good at fixing things, particularly in larger environments with a lot of people where they can resist the temptation to try and fix things themselves. Instead, they’re managers. They manage other people who are either good at fixing things, or in larger corporations, who are also good at surrounding themselves in their own departments with those who are good at fixing things.
 
All CEOs and other chief officers of a corporation have to be good at fixing things as corporations have many of the same problems as a country. They need to be productive. They need to make a profit, ensuring that income exceeds all expenses. They need to keep their workers healthy, happy, and most importantly, productive. They need to deal with their enemies, both externally and internally. And finally, they need to grow, change, adapt, and even forge new paths through to the future while dodging the complex minefield of the business/international world.
 
The United States of America is a very big, very complex organization. It is not a corporation, but the set of skills required to successfully run a large, global corporation are the same set of skills requires to successfully run the United States of America.
 
Donald Trump has those skills.
 
Elizabeth Warren DOES NOT.
 
Comparing the two are like comparing One World Trade Center with an outhouse. Both are buildings. Both are fairly narrow, roughly square in shape. Both stand upright on their own. Beyond that, the comparison fails, with Pocahontas taking a back seat — a very distant back seat — to President Donald J. Trump.

Obamites Try Saving Obama’s Sinking Legacy

A blithering idiot recently said, “Last I checked, Obama did not bankrupt our country… We are not in a recession… We have strong job growth… and we have lower oil prices…. but yeah we have to constantly hear racist remarks, hes muslim, hes a terrorist… We are a LOT BETTER than we were in January 20 2009.”
Doubling the national debt from $9 trillion to more than $19 trillion constitutes bankruptcy. That happened THROUGHOUT Obama’s administration. That IS Obama’s legacy, along with countless other political and social gaffs that have resurrected racial tensions throughout America from their 1970s ashes, hobbled economic growth, and greatly harmed our nation as a whole.  Those of you who believe otherwise are living in a dream world, one measured not by facts, rational thought, sound reasoning and good judgement, but by how sweet-sounding you can make your idiotic rhetoric sound to one another.  You are, in every Biblical sense of the definition, fools.  You cannot save Obama’s sinking legacy with the same rhetoric that doomed you from the start.
 
We are NOT better than we were back in January 20,2009. In fact, we were poised to exit a relatively minor recession very quickly. Obama’s blitheringly idiotic and rather Keynesian economic policies GREATLY prolonged our recovery by filtering the people’s money via taxes through the highly inefficient and grossly sub-par rate of return (about 70% below the break-even point of 1.0) instead of allowing the people to keep those funds and use them as they saw fit, rebuilding their businesses, paying rent – whatever was needed. Those funds, injected directly into the economy by millions of consumers making good, economic choices right for them has always had a FAR greater and more positive effect on the nation’s economy as a whole than ANY government funded program, much less a government-funded “recovery.”
 
In fact, your comment underscores the primary problem of Demoncraps and Libtards: You always claim every positive thing as a victory for your cause without having the SLIGHTEST freaking clue as to its source, much less the nature of cause an effect. I’ll bet if you found a penny in the street, you’d say, “Thanks, Obama!” but if you stepped in poo you’d blame it on Bush and Trump.” It’s idiots like you that got us into our current and horrific brink of disaster mess by voting for other idiots like Obama and the Demoncrap half of Congress who haven’t the slightest clue about economics, much less how to turn a nation a strong world competitor-partner.
 
I don’t know of a nicer way to put it than to say, “You Demoncraps and libtards suck. You don’t have slightest clue as to what you’re talking about or what you’re doing. You’ve made a horrible mess of things, and anything positive that’s happened over the last eight years has occurred IN SPITE OF your idiotic gyrations, not because of them. It’s time for you to SHUT UP and use the next eight years to study REALITY for a change. You tried idealism, and look where it got us? Yeah. So shut up, already.”
 
Meanwhile, the economy — including both the stock market as well as a huge influx of new jobs — surged away from Obama’s sinking legacy immediately AFTER Trump won. Obama’s fudged low unemployment FAILS to count any of the unprecedented number (>50%) of non-employed workers throughout the United States. Read up on the BLS website for U1-U6. None of them count workers who have given up working for jobs, often moving in with friends or family, because there are no jobs or other options. NOW we have jobs. NOW they have options. AFTER Obama, in the TRUMP era.
 
No, Trump is no God. He’s certainly not perfect, either. But as a highly successful multi-corporate Chief Executive Officer, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he has what it takes — including the smarts — to lead the Chief Executive Office of these United States by hiring the right collection of experts who are not cronies and who stand the greatest probability of actually fixing many of America’s many problems.
You had your chance with Obama.  He blew it.
It’s our turn, and if you would please, children, get and keep your God-damned fingers out of the pie.
In the meantime, here’s a little history lesson for the blithering idiots:

“Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Milton Friedman challenged the Keynesians over how monetary policy works. (John Maynard Keynes was dead, so did not directly argue the point.) Keynesians viewed stimulative monetary policy as helping the economy through lower interest rates, which increased spending by consumers and businesses.

“Friedman’s masterpiece study A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 convinced him that they driver was money supply growth rather than interest rates.

“Friedman won the battle, and monetary policy was accepted by most economists as a money supply matter. During the recent recession, however some younger members of the profession [including Obama and his advisors] rediscovered old-fashioned Keynesianism.”

Source:  Conerly, B. (2012).  Keynes vs. Friedman at the Fed.  Forbes.  Retrieved from:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/03/08/keynes-vs-friedman-at-the-fed/#47d57e6016e4

VOTE TRUMP

A former United States Navy Pilot (Naval Flight Officer/Aviator) asks Hillary Clinton a VALID question.

As a former United States Air Force Navigator (Air Force Flight Office/Aviator) with nearly identical training, background and security clearance, I wholeheartedly concur with the point he makes: “As a Naval flight officer I held a Top Secret Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) clearance that provided me access to materials and information hHillary Clintonighly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?

Her response DOES NOT MATTER.

What matters is her disdain and the vitriol painted all over her face. This military officer raises a perfectly valid point to which Hillary’s only response is utter disdain. If that’s her BEST response to our nation’s military in a public forum during during an election year, immediatly prior to the election, how do you think she will respond to valid military advice once in office?

She doesn’t care. She ALONE thinks she knows better than the MILLIONS of American members of the Armed Forces, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and all other highly trained people with exceptional skills and experience in all our agencies entrusted with such information.

SHE JUST DOESN’T GET IT. She is oblivious to the fact that certain information MUST be protected at all costs, that both American and foreign lives are at stake should that information get out, and that some information, if released, could lead to war, costing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions of American lives.

SHE DOESN’T GET IT. She is absolutely CLUELESS, and the lives of our sons and daughters (if not our own) hang in the balance.

Her own attitude and rampantly criminal behavior has utterly disqualified herself from having access to ANY classified information, yet she wants to be the President of the United States? Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?

She is utterly, absolutely PATHETIC. Totally unqualified for the position. In fact, forty years of her own experience and behavior DISQUALIFIES her, beginning with her being FIRED from the Watergate investigation for “gross ethical violations” to her being fired, by Obama, no less, for the same damned thing as Secretary of State. If she were to apply for a job involving access to classified information in ANY country, no country in the WORLD would EVER hire her, including the United States of America.

If you’re voting for Johnson, STOP. The goal is no longer about voting for your favorite candidate. The goal is to prevent Hillary from getting into office AT ALL COSTS. She absolutely can NOT be entrusted with classified information, much less the vaunted and critical position as the executive office of the world’s most powerful country.

This isn’t a popularity contest, people. This issue is extremely serious and the stakes are very, very high. You own lives, and the lives of millions of other Americans, including your children are DEFINITELY hanging in the balance.

We live in a global economy. Trump has already established good relations with both Russia and China. His unparalled successs with 515 successful businesses and just 5 failures is absolutely unheard of in the business world, where less tha 20% of all ventures succeed. Trump’s success rate blows past all odds at 99.029%, putting him well into the top 1% of most successful businessmen of all time. By comparison, all Hillary has “accomplished” is the widespread, wholesale, and TRAITOROUS trade of American favors compromising our national security in exchange for millions, if not billions of dollars in foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. If you don’t believe me, just go to YouTube and search Clinton Cash for the scathingly detailed and accurate revelation of Hillary’s and Bill’s horrendous violations of our nation’s most precious endeavors (it’s called “traitorism,” people). Alternatively, just follow the link: https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM

Hillary Clinton absolutely MUST be stopped AT ALL COSTS, and you can NOT acomplish that by voting for Johnson.

Only Donald J. Trump has the backing to win this election, but ONLY if you actually get out and VOTE for him.

We’ve been down this road not once, but FIVE TIMES in the last forty years, and it has ALWAYS gotten us NOWHERE. It’s time to GET OFF the madness train and do something RIGHT for a change. VOTE TRUMP.

Thank you.

Donald J. Trump is the only clear choice for America

Whether Male, Female, African, Caucasoid, Northeast Asia, Arctic Asia, Southeast Asia, America, or New Guinea & Australia — whatever — I do not care. All I care about is ensuring my vote goes to the most highly qualified individual who actually stands a reasonable chance of being elected.
 
The following candidates have been (1) nominated by their party for the presidency and (2) featured in at least three major national polls:
 
Donald Trump (Republican) / Mike Pence
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) / Time Kaine
Jill Stein (Green Party, formerly Democrat) / Ajamu Baraka
Gary Johnson (Libertarian, formerly Republican) / Bill Weld
 
Countless objective, professional polls taken in each state, throughout all fifty states, consistently show both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson so far back in the pack they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning even one state, much less the election. Johnson consistently receives between 1/3 and 1/15, averaging 1/6 the results of either Trump of Clinton in all states. Stein’s votes average 1/3 of Johnson’s,for about 1/18 that of either Trump or Clinton. While both are way too far behind to ever win, votes cast for them can have a significant effect on whether Trump or Clinton wins. Case in point, today’s (August 26) results for Florida, with Clinton (44%), Trump (42%), Johnson (6%), Stein (2%), and other (6%) falls smack dab along the mean.
 
Jill Stein simply isn’t qualified.  She spent her entire career as a medical doctor.  She simply does not have either the education, training, or experience running large organizations.  With just 2% of the vote, a vote for Stein is a vote tossed out the window.
Gary Johnson is certainly qualified, but again, with just 6% of the vote, you’re tossing your votes out the window with him, as well.
Put simply, votes for either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein are WASTED. They could (and should) be used to select the better of the only two individuals who can actually win the election. If you honestly feel both Trump and Clinton are equal, meaning you do not feel one or the other would be better (or worse) for our nation, then by all means vote for Stein or Johnson. Or, you could stay home and save time and gas money. But if you believe that either Trump or Clinton is significantly better (or worse) than the other, please do your civic duty and make a difference by saying so with your vote, rather than tossing it away on the already lost Johnson or Stein.
 
When all aspects of both Trump and Clinton are examined, I see only one clear path to success for America’s future, and that’s with Trump. His leadership, business skills and financial/economic acumen far exceed those of Hillary Clinton. He is clearly the only one of the two who possesses the requisite integrity required for the position. Finally, because of Clinton’s deeply soiled reputation, she will not be able to attract anyone of noteworthy capability to the various economic posts, and those she does find will almost certainly be as unscrupulous and incompetent as she’s been herself.
 
This leads me to only one clear choice for our next President of the United States, and that’s Donald J. Trump.

It’s time We the People work smarter, not harder. Begin with reality and proceed from their. If Gary Johnson were in the running, I’d have no problem voting for him. But Johnson is not in the running. Trump is. There’s far too much at stake here, namely making dang sure that Hillary doesn’t win. There’s no way in hell I will fail to cast a deciding vote on that issue by wasting it on a candidate like Johnson who doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Clinton.

Unfavorable ratings, bimodality, competence, and realty

A recent article said, “Trump is viewed unfavorably by 67 percent of Americans overall.  Big whoop.  The authors would like you to believe that somehow translates into an element of undesirability or an inability to beat the opposition.

WRONG!

Ratings of unfavorability measure a candidate’s clarity, and are NOT indicative of their popularity or their ability to defeat the opposing party’s candidate. Clarity heightens bimodality, which in turn raises the percentage of those who swear they would vote against a candidate. Meanwhile, candidates who are unclear on the issues have a much lower disapproval rating.
 
What actually MATTERS is three-fold:
 
1. Do they have both the education and experience to fix the problems facing our country, and the leadership skills to forge the path to success?
 
2. Do they have the savvy to know what works vs the idealism to try what they think will work (but probably won’t)?  Idealism never solved any problem, and never will.  It has, however, lead many nations down the primrose path to destruction.
3.  Will their supporting votes (the only ones that matter) be enough to beat the supporting votes of the opposition?
For some reason, a number of blitheringly idiotic people continue to highlight Trump’s unfavorability rating as if it had anything to do with reality.  If our country had a bimodal voting system, where you could cast one positive vote for the candidate of your choice as well as a negative vote against the candidate you think would be the worst in office, then unfavorability ratings would matter.
Since our voting system involves only one positive vote, however, unfavorable ratings simply do not matter.
Get over it.

Did Ben Carson Lie About A West Point “Scholarship?”

Question:  Did Carson lie about being offered a “full scholarship” to West Point?

Evidence (according to Politico):

1.  In his book, “Gifted Hands,” Carson describes a 1969 meeting with Gen. William Westmoreland — fresh off four years of directing the U.S. military strategy in Vietnam — that Carson said resulted in being offered a “full scholarship” to West Point.

2.  Carson’s campaign admitted that the former neurosurgeon not only fabricated the story of his acceptance into the prestigious military academy, but he never actually applied. This concession came after Politico obtained evidence from a West Point spokesperson that the academy has no record of Carson’s application or his admission — calling into question a key piece of the presidential hopeful’s personal history.

3.  “Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the city of Detroit,” Barry Bennett, Carson’s campaign manager, told Politico. “In that Ben Carsonrole he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC city executive officer.  He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC supervisors,” Bennett continued in his email to Politico. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”

My take on it:  To a young individual who does not fully understand the appointment system to the U.S. service academies, being told West Pointby folks at West Point that they can help you obtain an appointment can certainly seem like you’re being told that you’ve been offered a scholarship.  Obtaining an appointment, however, is only half the process.  You must still be selected by board.  If Carson was indeed the top ROTC student in the city of Detroit with high grades, however, then changes were high that he’d have been selected — IF he could obtain an actual appointment, which is NOT an easy accomplishment.

3.  The West Point spokesperson told Politico it’s entirely possible that Westmoreland spoke to the 17-year-old Carson and perhaps encouraged the young ROTC student to consider applying to the academy. However, Politico questions whether that fabled encounter with the famous general even took place.

Although Politico tends to have a Republican tilt, it sounds to me like the media is seeking to shed light on the principle danger of electing Carson to the White House:  He’s way out of his league.  Whether or not he actually lied or was simply sharing his inexperienced perspective using terms he know is beside the point.  He walked into this landmine.  He’s a newbie stumbling along, ready to stumble headlong into numerous political traps.  Is that the kind of leader our country needs in these dangerous times?  Don’t get me wrong, as he is by no means “stupid,” and I do admire his religious convictions.  The world of medicine, however, is not a suitable training ground for becoming the leader of the most powerful country in the world.  Combined with his pension for refusing to see the Constitution for what it is, word for word, I really don’t think he’s the right man for the job.

Ben Carson just doesn’t have what it takes to navigate the tough political landscape of Washington D.C., much less the world at large.

Trump, on the other hand, does have what it takes, not only with respect to politics, but also with respect to business, and if you haven’t figured it out, yet, America survives and thrives on its global economic and business ties.