Ever wonder what our presidential campaigns would be like if the media was not allowed to speculate on who is doing this and who is doing that, etc?  When did the election cycle become a two year run of "catch me if you can"?   Even though you know the candidates are lying, who does the media portray as lying less?  I bring this up because Social Media is all caught up on portraying certain candidates as liars while ignoring others who also openly lie.  Which gets me to my point.  Who empowered the Media to decide how We the People view the candidates?  When did the American public cede our decision making to the Media - allowing them to speak for all of U.S.?  As any historian can tell you, Media in America has always played a role in shaping our elections, but to the extent we see now?  On that count, I am not sure.
          Just recently, Bill Maher (yes, that liberal who is sounding more and more moderate these days) has identified a trend that has become reality.  The reality that politicians now shamelessly lie to the public and the public seemingly refuses to care.  When did the public allow politicians to continue to openly lie, even when caught lying?  When did anyone that fact checks become "suspicious" for proving lies are being told? When did lying by politicians become "acceptable?"   It reminds me of the old joke about a politician telling an adoring crowd of supporters, "You know I am lying, but hear me out!" And what are we as a society doing about this new phenomena?  Unfortunately, hearing them out and refusing to hold them accountable - unless the one lying is not "part of your team."  In other words, when it comes to honesty and truthfulness, it all depends on what level of hypocrisy you employ.  The more someone lies after being caught, seems to reflect some political skill to be admired rather than a shameless act of a conniver and a cheat.  Why does integrity and honor mean so little these days?  Did we as a society once care?  Hasn't the Media some responsibility for perpetuating lies without calling them out?  Shouldn't they at least hold candidates accountable for their dishonesty?  
           Last week Donald Trump refused to participate in the Fox News made for television debate.  Claim whatever reasons for his absence, but ask yourself this key question.  Trump held a fundraising rally for Veterans and the Wounded Warriors Project on the night of the debate.  Does anyone find it interesting that the Associated Press ran a story on the Wounded Warriors Project's use of funding for "lavish parties" and high level managers the very day of his event?  Surely, the Media already knew about the Wounded Warriors' use of their funds, but why the "coincidence" that an article was released and published on the very day Trump was highlighting an event for them?  Does anyone see a connection between the Media continuing to set an agenda by "stirring the pot" against Trump?  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not support Trump, but the media is becoming an obvious manipulator of the electorate by shaping opinions based not upon readers' positions, but instead the positions of the Media's ownership and management?
         Yet Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also continue to lie about the economy and immigration, and the Media refuses to call them out.  And when others try to call them out for their lies, they seem to be shouted down by Media pundits and partisans.  If the Media can't tell the truth when politicians lie, how are average Americans supposed to discern the truth from lies?  When Americans seem to barely have enough capacity to appreciate what the presidency actually means, why do we as a society continue to expect the Media to be truth tellers? Even though the Framers protected the Media in the First Amendment so they would not be subject to retribution by the government for telling the truth, the Media and its concentrated ownership has devolved back into a modern form of Yellow Journalism, screaming about anything that will sell its viewers, listeners and viewers.  All for the almighty dollar, with no apparent regard for the potentially permanent damage it may cause on our democratic-republic.  
        To my point, Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie, Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, Huckebee, and Paul have all been caught in bold faced lies on the campaign trail.  Instead of shaming them in the Media, they have somehow been embraced as heroes to the public.  Instead of demanding sincere and honest solutions to real problems, the Media continues to prop-up fabrications in the forms of talking points and narratives - not designed to educate the electorate but to manipulate it.   Think I am wrong?  Watch ANY candidates on the campaign trail.  If you do, I am sure you will hear at best half truths in their political rhetoric.  Adding to this the notion that average citizens, rely on the Media's agenda, often share these lies over Social Media.  When caught passing along the lies, what is their excuse for doing so? "I was just passing it along for further thought, reflection and discussion".  What?  I say "Nonsense!"  If you know something is a lie and you share it under your name, you in fact become a liar as well.  And let's be brutally honest - not all of us are right all of the time.  I readily admit when I make mistakes (ask any of my students).  It is certainly better to make a mistake and to admit it, than to tell a lie and instead  "double down" when caught without a trace of honesty!
       As President Abraham Lincoln once wrote; "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."  I fear if 'Honest Abe' was running today for president, the Media wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an honest and principled man from the bald-faced lying candidates we seem to accept as viable options for the presidency. And that is certainly to our collective detriment.  Have a great week!     

        Wow what a week!  A big blowing storm hit the country this week, and it was not necessarily only snow that blew hard!  Sarah Palin re-entered the consciousness of the American Public by leeching onto the Trump presidential campaign,  George Will erroneously confuses his partisan clap-trap for legal opinions on what the "Take Care Provision" of the U.S. Constitution means, Hillary and Bernie trade rhetorical barbs at each other, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz can't figure out how to be more brash in the shadow of the Trump phenomena,  and Michael Bloomberg, yes that former NY City Mayor is making waves about entering the presidential race as an Independent.  Wow, and we thought big blows only came with weather related storms.   Well hang on folks, this campaign season is setting itself up for a huge shift in America's political sands!
        As you all know, I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but his welcome addition of Sarah Palin to his campaign makes his efforts clearly disruptive to all political narratives.  Really, Sarah Palin offers to endorse Trump and he welcomes it?  Sorry America, but Trump already was leading a coalition of haters and conspiracy wing-nuts, but by adding Palin, he has now reached rock bottom when it comes to engaging actual thinking Americans.  Hey Trump, America rejected Palin years ago for being too ignorant to be a real political leader.  Your engagement of Ms. Palin will lead many thinking Americans to but one conclusion - "You're fired!"   Ted Cruz being offered as the "next best candidate after Trump" also does not bode well for the GOP.  The man is dangerous, both to our society and to the Constitution (as previously mentioned, Cruz and Rubio want to amend the Constitution to meet their polarizing beliefs, not those of the Framers).  That alone should give Americans great pause before even considering them any further as a viable candidates.
        Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also went on record to question the role of dealing with Iran claiming "America is weakened by trading anything for hostages."   Unfortunately, these two conveniently forget about the Iran-Contra scandal perpetrated under the leadership of their saint - Ronald Reagan.   Oops, their partisan slips are showing. Ironically, none other than Right-Wing pundit Charles Krauthammer applauded the swap (See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-gets-the-iran-prisoner-swap-wrong/2016/01/21/58a38eb6-c071-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html) albeit a back-handed compliment. 
         Then George Will opines that Obama's executive actions have consistently violated the Constitution.  His proof?  An opinion by Josh Blackman, of the South Texas College of Law.  You know, the school that sets the standard for all judicial interpretations, right?  Frankly, I have never heard of this school, but conveniently, it only takes on "expert" to propel Will's hyper-partisan ramblings.  What really makes this professor credible in Will's mind?  He's an "adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute."  Yes, that very same Right-Wing think tank.  His argument?  States should have a say whether the President can or cannot change the classification of immigrants.  Except nowhere in the Constitution does it give States any rights in the field of immigration - none.  How does Will end his diatribe about Obama's "overreach?"  By claiming "...no Obama executive order has yet repealed Article III's judicial powers."  Huh?  By claiming Obama has overreached, Will want us to believe Obama would try erase Article III from the Constitution if he would.  Really?  Seriously?  What kind of snake oil are you selling? What Will really wants though is to erase the authority of the President under Custom and Usage and Article II in accordance with his hyper-partisan and often hyper-hypocritical positions.  Let's be frank, whatever Reagan did was okay as he was taking care of the nation.  Obama (or any future Democrat) - never! (See: http://www.theindependent.com/opinion/another_opinion/obama-s-overreach-must-be-policed/article_29a1da76-c253-11e5-a9df-b3fe33b04332.html). 
          Which gets me to what may become the biggest "blow" to the campaigns - the possible entry of Michael Bloomberg into the fray.  Why?  Bloomberg possesses the financial strength and political experience to actually pull off the election!  In a time when most Americans are sick and tired of the hyper-partisan nonsense offered by both party's candidates, Bloomberg brings a whole new angle to the argument (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0).   And what type of leader might he be if not indebted to  either party's platforms, planks or legislative agendas?  Perhaps a great one?
    "Donald Trump understands business and is a billionaire so he's exactly what we need to make our country great again!"  At least that's what his followers have been led to believe.  Except The Donald is projected to be worth $4 Billion.  Bloomberg?  He's worth somewhere around $37.2 Billion.  Hmm, if financial success is a measurement, Bloomberg is over nine times successful!  As far as administering a government, Trump has zero experience - neither does Rubio, Cruz, Sanders or Clinton.  Bloomberg served three terms as mayor of the largest city in America, a city reflective of every diverse race, religion and creed.  I guess when Cruz attacked Trump for having "New York Values", who better to counter that argument than Bloomberg?   Cutting budgets and operating a city the size of New York is by far more of a measure of Bloomberg's skill than any of the other candidates (let's discount Jeb - some in Florida wouldn't elect him governor today even if he was the only choice on the ballot).   Bloomberg also flew to Israel when Hamas was bombing the airport.  Talk about leadership. Instead of hiding behind his words of support, Bloomberg took the reins and led by taking the risks himself - confronting the fears our enemies tried to impose on Americans.  Bottom line - I'm going to be learning more and more about Michael Bloomberg as a potential viable candidate for president.  Why?  Because like most Americans, I am fed-up with the hyper-partisan nonsense spewing from both sides of the political aisle and I believe Bloomberg might actually be able to LEAD us back together at a time when our country needs it most!  Like most Americans, I am uncomfortable voting for the "better of all evils."  Perhaps Bloomberg can rise above the hyper-partisan nonsense afflicting our political system today.  If he can, he may have a legitimate shot at winning the White House!  And just think of the message that would send to the American public about their views towards the political parties!  Perhaps?
         As President George Washington once said; "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction."   A big wind is blowing in America.  Let's hope someone can calm the damage such winds can cause - especially one that has little actual political direction.   Have a great week!

PS.  I know this blog will upset many of my friends.  Where did you miss my continued stance as a registered Independent, who frequently rails against both political parties? 

         Has anyone else been asked at least five times this week who they are going to be voting for?  Has anyone else been asked repeatedly if Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president?  How about whether Bernie Sanders has any real chance of winning the presidency?  If so, we have something in common.  If not, why not?  I mean, isn't it time to play "Presidential Election Sweepstakes?"  
        In order of the questions I have been repeatedly asked - 1.  I have no idea who I will be voting for president in November.  2.  Yes, I believe Ted Cruz is eligible to be elected for president, 3. No, I do not think under the current climate of hyper-partisanship that Bernie Sanders can be elected to the White House (apologies to all of those insistent Bernie can win).  Why?
        Until a clear candidate articulates what they will actually be able to do as President, I will keep "my powder dry" and wait (like most Americans) on my decision until we are much closer to election day (and after the respective parties decide their actual nominee - to do otherwise is pure speculation and a waste of brainpower). Remember folks, I an an independent living in a Closed Primary State.  As a result, I am unable to vote in the party primaries.    Second, I believe Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President because under the most commonly acceptable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution - having at least one parent with American citizenship makes his citizenship certain.  I maintained the same stance on Obama's eligibility (can't say the same for Cruz supporters though).  But Cruz is now confronting evidence that he filed false campaign finance reports from his Senate campaign.  He said the first case (Goldman Sachs) was just an oversight but now it has been shown he failed to disclose an additional loan (Citibank).  (See:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/report-cruz-failed-disclose-2nd-loan-2012-senate-36327179).  And why the hell can't Bernie win?  Because the self-admitted 
"Democratic-Socialist" seems content to take the mantle of what most Americans (with the help of cynical media and the now entrenched narratives created under Reagan) cannot fathom.  I mean, socialists are communists right (not really, but do Americans care to know the difference)?  America will never be a socialist country (but see Social Security, public roads, law enforcement, fire protection, etc.) because we embrace capitalism.  Except ask any GOP ideologue and they will claim corporate welfare is good, but welfare to those that actually need it - Anti-American!   Is this my belief?  Of course not, but it IS what most Americans have been made to believe and therefore, I do not think Bernie in this era can be elected as a result. Hell, Theodore Roosevelt himself couldn't get elected in this era!
          So who should we vote for?  Hillary is a liar damn it!  What makes Cruz lying about his political origins and the sources of his financial support acceptable?   What about Rubio who repeatedly lied about his parents "refugee" status escaping Castro's Cuba (they left Cuba years before Castro came to power), his documented misuse of Florida GOP credit cards, and his failure to show up at work in the United States Senate for close to two years? Are these okay? Why is it okay for Rubio to spend most of his time fundraising for the presidency instead of representing the citizens of Florida in the Senate where he was elected to serve?   I'll lay off the other GOP candidates because they currently are not relevant to the discussion (sorry GOP supporters, but you have to admit, being on the debate "undercard" has to be somewhat embarrassing (but what a book deal they shall secure)! What about Trump?  How can anyone take a man serious that claims he will do for America what the Constitution clearly says he cannot?  Oh that's right, if elected, Trump will figure that out "on the job."  What really disturbs me are the calls by many GOP candidates to amend the Constitution while also claiming Obama has "trampled" the document.  Ironic isn't it that claims of Constitutional abuse can be cured by the GOP by simply ignoring the Framers' stated intentions behind separation of powers, checks and balances and Federalism itself by calling for the destruction of the very same document all-together! (See:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/30/rubio-endorses-a-new-constitutional-convention-winning-praise-from-the-right/ and http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/politics/ted-cruz-supreme-court-gay-marriage-obamacare/).  Are they pandering or what?
       Yes, over 210 years of Constitutional Authority under Judicial Review and Stare Decisis is to be cast aside because some alleged "patriots" simply can't stomach the system America has enjoyed since the days of Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Adams.  On top of this effort, they claim they also want to force the Federal Government to be required to balance the Federal Budget!  I have a better solution.  Ignore amending the Constitution and instead, have Congress tell every state that all federal revenue sharing to the them will be suspended for ten years in order to balance the budget and severely reduce the deficit! They can do that if they truly wanted to balance the budget, yet to do so would surely lead to bankrupting the states that rely upon federal financial support.  More importantly, Congress already holds all of the power to balance the budget, not the President (Article I, Section 7, US Constitution).  So while the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, why won't they exercise the power and authority they already have to fix the budget deficit?  Why not?  Because to do so would take away their traditional (and cynical) political arguments that the President is always at fault for financial issues (unless their "man" is in the Oval Office).  Partisanship always overrides reality.  Unfortunately, the public does not understand that the Media and political parties have lied to them - and continue to do so.
         Hey Rubin, all you do is bitch about the GOP - where is your angst for the Democrats?  Like I said, when the nominees are determined, I will focus more on the actual candidates (and I am unaware of any Democrat calling for an overhaul of the Constitution).  But what about Executive Actions, aren't they illegal?  Actually no, they are not (unless and until the Supreme Court says so - not partisan pundits and media).  Until then, the GOP candidates are the ones making outrageous claims with equally outrageous solutions.  "America Sucks" seems to be their mantra. What happened to being a proud American?   Tell the ignorant enough that things are awful, and they will begin to believe it.  Just look at the nut jobs occupying the Federal Wildlife Refuge in Oregon - occupying with the force of weapons!  Do Americans actually understand what Sedition is?  If approached to leave the Refuge, would the occupiers choose to raise their weapons and "fight it out?"  Does anyone else see the irony?  Occupy Wall Street is still vilified as a radical communist and Anti-American plot, yet armed occupiers of Federal installations willing to use violent resistance is somehow "patriotic?"  Where are the politicians to condemn this action?  Too afraid to speak up?  If they are (and they obviously seem to be) then how does anyone truly expect them to be a leader in the White House?     
        So as the election games continue to unfold, can we as Americans please expect more from our wannabe presidents?  Can we expect and demand they actually discuss what they can do from the Oval Office under Article II and Custom and Usage instead of complaints that include fictitious arguments that America is weak and being destroyed?  Those claiming America is in ruins are the ones pushing an agenda to alter the Constitution and the American way of life.   Oh yes, the Democrats want to amend the Constitution as well - except they want to do so to limit the ability to use unlimited "dark money" from influencing elections and public policy in Congress (and many moderate Republicans (yes, they do still exist) want to do so as well (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money).  Why can't we expect presidential aspirants to outline the specific programs they wish to establish instead of implementing scare tactics that always includes dividing Americans by political ideology? 
        As Founding Father and Framer Alexander Hamilton once wrote; "The inquiry constantly is what will please, not what will benefit the people.  In such a government there can be nothing but temporary expedient, fickleness and folly."  When will Americans wake up and realize that hyper-partisan based elections promise what will please some, but not serve the better interests of our great nation?  Until that happens, we will all fall victim to "fickleness and folly."   Have a great week!

      Happy New Year to you all.  While away, I was unable to be as "plugged-into" politics as I would normally be (being on the high seas will do that).  Upon my return, it seemed like deja vu all over again!  Why?   Because media pundits were still talking about Trump leading the field for the GOP nomination.  Yes folks, Trump seems to have the "legs" (thus far) to capture the hearts and minds of disgruntled conservatives.  Why disgruntled?  As I have repeatedly mentioned, I believe "political correctness" has led to a sense of oppression for many Americans tired of holding their tongues when issues dear to them arise.  And I can't blame them for feeling this way.  Being honest about how one feels has somehow taken a back seat to caring so much about how others might interpret what you say.  And as a writer of blogs, I can certainly appreciate the frustration many have when others discount your thoughts as being "too provocative."
     Yet, political correctness should not apply when the speaker of ideas is really a purveyor of ignorance and hate. And that seems to be exactly what Trump has been capitalizing on.  Ted Cruz on the other hand, cynically plays the "I hate government" card in ways that makes those with little understanding of our government and politics believe that he is the oracle of truth.  In fact, Cruz is the exact opposite of what he claims to be.  Educated at Yale and Harvard, he is hardly the typical rebel from Texas as portrayed.  In fact, one of the many promoters (See Trump) of the "Birther" movement against Obama's citizenship, Cruz himself  is now fighting some on his own side of the aisle about his citizenship (considering he admits he was born in Canada and not the United States)! (See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-mccain-ted-cruz-citizenship-20160107-story.html).   Marco Rubio seems stuck addressing his own political skeletons and no matter how hard the GOP "Establishment" wishes he was the frontrunner, his poll numbers remain weak.  Sorry folks, Rubio's persistent AWOL from the United States Senate makes HIM a "Moocher and Taker".  How can I make this claim?  Because he is MY United States Senator, and I expect him to be at his post and not off somewhere fundraising (for over two straight years).  When Rubio loses (and he will), he will be well set financially based upon all of his political fundraising and networking.  Can we as citizens of Florida then politely ask Rubio to please refund us his salary he never earned while missing most of the Senate's votes during his absent tenure?   Not likely huh!?  And Jeb?  His campaign is only around because it seems to have some form of a pace maker keeping the beat going.  Obviously, Jeb's "not in it to win it" and won't. 
        A lot was discussed on Fox this week about President Obama's Executive Actions as they relate to firearms. The biggest issue for Fox and Friends?  Their belief that the emotions shown by Obama were merely staged theater and where were his emotions when it comes to terrorism?  Really?  (See: http://www.thejournal.ie/obama-fake-tears-2532952-Jan2016/.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/06/trevor-noah-hits-fox-news-for-mocking-obama-s-tears-are-you-f-cking-kidding-me.html). 
        But what really is going on with our current state of politics?  More of the same.  Biden now says he wishes he had entered the presidential race, Sanders is still un-electable and the GOP is making a concerted effort to tie Hillary to Bill's past sexual dalliances.  Call it the "Cosby Effect?"  Is that the best the GOP can do?  "Killary" is their new name for Hillary, but that conveys a certain fifth grade feel to it, right?  
        And what about the Bundy child now illegally occupying a Federal Wildlife Refuge in Oregon with his "Militia" (even though there is no such militia in existence)?  Why bother?  These nut jobs will eventually give up and take their guns home with them.  If not, they should be put down like the Whiskey Rebellion gangs and embarrassed by the media for actively engaging in sedition.  Have any of the political candidates so much as made this statement?  Nope!  Some on the Far Right have even seemed to endorse this action by saying "I understand their frustration."​  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601832/Western-GOP-Panel-Bundy-symptomatic-of-larger-problem.html?pg=all).  One slight problem folks - Western States NEVER owned ANY of the lands they claim the Feds have taken from them.  Did Oregon send citizens to fight the British in Canada in the War of 1812?  Did citizens of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California or Nevada send citizens to fight Mexico in 1846?  No!  So why the perpetual demands that the Federal Government is acting unlawfully by keeping and maintaining land use restrictions on Federal Reserves?  Ever read Article VI of the Constitution? Obviously do to so would be inconvenient for the cynical and hyper-partisan.  
        Which leads me to my final thought of the week!  Now that the hang-overs of the New Year are gone, can we begin to bring this nation back together or do we have to wait until after the election of 2016?  I fear waiting will only make matters that much worse in our great nation.  Trump wants to "Make America Great Again!"  If he honestly believes that, he would be the first to stop denigrating everyone that does not look, think and act like him.  As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote; "Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."
The longer we wait for real action, the longer our nation will suffer from misdirection, manipulation and misinformation from our current slate of presidential hopefuls (Democrats and Republicans alike).   Let's all stop trusting in rhetoric and the political parties that have mastered its use.  Have a great week!

    Just returned from a two and one half week voyage visiting a slew of Islands.  Interesting trip with interesting folks.  Now back to the classroom and a slow recovery from vacation.  I'll be back to posting this coming Sunday, promise!  Until then, be well and again, Happy New Year!