So, the Holidays are finally over, and we can begin to concentrate on the Presidential campaign.  Since the inception of Frank on Friday last February, I have been arguing against the notion that the election of Hillary Clinton was a foregone conclusion.  For the record, I made this point on March 13, 2015 in Death Is Inevitable, Hillary … Not So Much.  On July 31, 2015, in What’s So Great About Hillary?, I predicted that the Democrats will cut her loose when she became a liability.  On August 28, 2015, in Hillary In The Dock,  I suggested that she would not be the Democratic candidate in 2016.  I thought Joe Biden might run.  When Biden announced in October that he wasn’t running, I still wasn’t convinced.  Since that time, I have been telling friends that Joe Biden is still waiting in the wings.

Here’s my scenario.  Recent reports confirm that the FBI has compiled a mountain of evidence proving that Hillary violated Federal laws by using the private email server she had installed in a Connecticut bathroom.  General Petraeus was indicted and convicted for two classified emails.  To date, investigators have identified nearly 1,300 classified emails on Hillary’s server.  Reports this week suggest that there could be a revolt in the FBI if she is not charged.  Sure, Obama can try to cover it up, but the truth will be leaked bit by bit during the election campaign.  That Obama hates the Clintons is not a secret.  And, as we have seen, Obama is all about Obama.  He wants to cement his legacy, and the moment he decides that Hillary can’t continue his march toward a Socialist Utopia, make no mistake, Obama will pull the plug on her.  All it would take is one phone call to the Attorney General – “Hello, Loretta?  It’s B.O. – do it.”

But then what?  Well, Joe Biden is tanned, rested and ready to go.  Just this week, Biden announced that he regrets not running for President “every day.”  By not running, he avoided being a target of Hillary.  Nobody from either Party is badmouthing Joe.  But wait.  Just yesterday, the Washington Post warned that Biden already has missed the filing dates for about a third of the State primaries.  So how can he get in now?  Here’s how.  State laws say it’s too late to get on the ballot?  Since when does the law stop the Democrats from doing what they want to do?  Hey, I’m from New Jersey.  A while back, we had a U.S. Senator named Bob Torricelli who was up for reelection.  He had some ethical problems, well, more than “some.”  It looked like his Republican opponent was going to win.  Then, 36 days before the election, not the primary mind you, but the November election, Torricelli withdrew.  The Democrats quickly roused Count Dracula lookalike Frank Lautenberg from his crypt, propped him up, and replaced Torricelli on the ballot with Lautenberg.  New Jersey law did not permit this change so close to an election.  No problem.  Two days later, the New Jersey Supreme Court overlooked the statute, ruling “It is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all other qualifying parties.”  Even if Biden doesn’t get on some State ballots, neither an indicted Hillary nor the ever-present Bernie Sanders would likely get enough delegates to win on the first ballot.  Faced with a choice between Biden and Sanders, Democrats will opt for 73 year old Joe, rather than the 75 year old Socialist Sanders.

Bottom line, I don’t know how this will play out.  It could be that Obama will just let Hillary crash and burn in November under the weight of the criminal accusations.  Obama doesn’t intend to go away in 2017, and it will be a lot easier for Obama to constantly criticize a Republican President than President Hillary.  On the other hand, if the Democrat candidate turns out to be Crazy old Joe Biden, remember, you heard it here first.

When they created our system of government, the Founders gave us a Chief Executive – the President of the United States.  The Founders were very specific.  The Constitution did not make the President a king, but rather, a magistrate.  A magistrate is an administrator who carries out the laws enacted by the Congress.  In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President would be more like a State Governor than a king.  You see, the Founders knew that monarchy inevitably leads to tyranny.  When he was asked at the Constitutional Convention, “What sort of government have you given us?,” Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”  In 2016, the issue remains in doubt, because in 2016, we have a Chief Executive who has nothing but scorn for the Founders, and who regards the United States Constitution as little more than an annoying obstacle.

Il Duce Obama prefers to rule by decree.  Sure, he would be content if Congress simply did his bidding without question, but, “If Congress won’t act, I will.”  He’ll just order what he wants.  He’s done that throughout his seven year tenure.  It’s unconstitutional?  Don’t bother me with something so trivial as the supreme law of the land.  The feckless Congress has made it abundantly clear that it will do nothing to stop Obama’s overreach.  Now that Obama is in his last year, stand by for his most outrageous executive orders yet.  Here are some predictions.

Last year, Obama renamed Mt. McKinley.  McKinley was a Republican, after all.  So now it’s Denali.  This year he’ll take care of Mt. St. Helens.  That mountain is named for Lord St. Helens, a British explorer, a European colonial oppressor.  The mountain constantly spews out noxious gases, so Obama will rename it Mt. Sharpton, after Reverend Al.  Perfect.  We’ve got some airports named for Republican Presidents.  He’ll certainly have to change that.  So this year, Houston’s George Bush International will be renamed La Raza International, and Washington’s Reagan National will become Saul Alinsky Internationale.  What about Dulles?  It was named for John Foster Dulles, an anti-Communist who installed the Shah of Iran in power, had a brother who ran the CIA, and a son who was a Catholic Cardinal.  Can’t have that.  Obama will rename Dulles Imam Khomeini International.  Hands across the sea, don’t you know.

In 2016 Obama will order that the railroad tunnel planned for the Hudson River will be moved to the area south of McAllen, Texas, where it will cross under the Rio Bravo and connect Texas with Mexico.  The tunnel will have a Visitor Center which will hand out voter registration cards and vouchers for free college tuition to anyone coming North.  It will be a one-way tunnel.  Guess which way.  But Obama’s not done yet.  He wants to leave his mark on Washington, D.C., so he will order Constitution Avenue renamed, “Executive Order Avenue”, and Independence Avenue will be renamed “Servitude Street”.  At the National Archives, Obama will order the Declaration of Independence on exhibit there replaced by a first edition of Dreams From My Father.  Obama will ring out 2016 and his presidency by renaming Arlington’s Tomb of the Unknown Soldier “The Tomb of the Known Socialist.”  He’s not ready for it yet, but pays to plan ahead.

So Happy New Year, and let’s hope that when 2016 comes to an end, we’ll be looking forward to the inauguration of a Republican President who will be a magistrate, rather than a potentate.

Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, is one of the most popular holiday classics. It always has been a particular favorite of mine. It is such a staple of the Christmas season, that it has inspired countless retellings in films, on the stage and on television. The role of Ebenezer Scrooge has been portrayed by such luminaries as George C. Scott and Mr. Magoo. There even was a stage version of the story presented entirely in Klingon. The name “Scrooge” has entered the lexicon as a term for a miserly person. When it was published, the portrayal of Scrooge as a stingy, narrow-minded misanthrope, who was ignorant of and indifferent to the plight of the poor had considerable currency. Victorian England was a society marked by strict class divisions. Unlike present day America, income inequality was a real problem.  A social safety net did not exist. Within two years of the story’s publication, the Irish potato famine took as many as one million lives in Ireland, while the British Parliament did nothing to help.  Under those circumstances, casting Ebenezer Scrooge as the villain was appropriate.  However, in present day America we must consider whether Scrooge is being mistreated.  After all, Democrats encourage all of us to view ourselves as victims.  Ebenezer Scrooge should be no exception.  I long have believed that Scrooge is getting a raw deal.  Whenever I see the story on TV, I feel Scrooge’s pain.  The plain truth is that in our society, Ebenezer Scrooge is a crime victim.
Let’s review the facts.  Scrooge took a small inheritance from his father and built a thriving business.  He and his partner Jacob Marley worked hard for long hours, and after many years, Scrooge became a wealthy man.  He was a money lender and a commodities broker, clearly part of what present day American Marxists would call “the one percent.”  Scrooge complied with all government regulations, he paid all taxes due, and he provided employment for employees such as his clerk, Bob Cratchit.  He was a tough businessman who drove a hard bargain.  He didn’t live a life of luxury, but resided in a modest home. He was frugal.  So what happened to Mr. Scrooge?  Scrooge insults his nephew, and putative heir, Fred Holywell.  Immediately thereafter, two men show up at his office demanding money – “for the children,” sound familiar?  Now remember, in 1843, public welfare in England consisted of Debtor’s Prisons and Workhouses.  Not so today.  Given present day America’s plethora of social welfare programs from public assistance, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and such, what happened to Scrooge must be viewed in another light.  Everywhere Scrooge went, he was followed by a noisy band of carolers demanding that he give to the underprivileged.  Presumably, the vanguard of the Occupy London movement.  When Scrooge refuses to pay the two men at his office, Fred Holywell has a secret meeting with Bob Cratchit.  Immediately thereafter, a series of burglars break into Scrooge’s home.  They terrorize Scrooge, they repeatedly threaten the life of the sleep deprived Scrooge, and promise him eternal damnation, unless he pays up.  A classic protection racket if you ask me.  Scrooge had no choice but to pay the money that was demanded.  He gives Bob Cratchit extra money, and pays for the medical care of Tiny Tim.  I thought Obamacare had solved that problem.  Scrooge then reconciles with his nephew Fred.   Scrooge should have called the police.  The burglars had access to intimate details of Scrooge’s life, detailed information about his finances and knew how to gain access to his home.  Only one conclusion is possible. This was an inside job. As a career prosecutor, and after due investigation, I have uncovered the evidence.  Ebenezer Scrooge was the victim of a far-ranging criminal conspiracy.  As is usually the case, the responsible parties are those who had the most to gain from the crimes.
The defendants: The Cratchit cartel.  The Cratchits were actually a Gypsy clan. Indicted were Bob Cratchit, a/k/a Bob Crutcher; his wife FNU (first name unknown) Cratchit; Peter Cratchit, a/k/a/ Marley’s Ghost; Martha Cratchit, a/k/a Spirit of Christmas Past; Matthew Cratchit, a/k/a Spirit of Christmas Present; Belinda Cratchit, a/k/a Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come; Tim Cratchit, a/k/a Tim Blythe (an ancestor of William Blythe Clinton), actually a Scottish gypsy midget; and Fred Holywell, Scrooge’s nephew, who conspired with Bob Cratchit/Crutcher, and who solicited and financed the attacks against Scrooge.
The crimes: conspiracy, terroristic threats, extortion, theft by deception, criminal impersonation, burglary while armed (two burglars carried weapons, a heavy chain and a large sharp scythe), kidnapping, criminal restraint, and illegally parking in a handicap space.  It’s a shame that it took over 140 years to bring the guilty to justice, but finally the name of Ebenezer Scrooge has been cleared. Instead of A Christmas Carol, it was a Christmas Crime.
So Merry Christmas to all, and God bless us everyone.

Well, it’s time to choose another Republican presidential nominee, and so it’s time for Establishment Republicans to warn against nominating a conservative.  The most frequent target of the Establishment masterminds is my candidate, Ted Cruz.  He’s a purist, too extreme, too conservative, too radical, too disliked to be elected.  He’s a “false leader”, a “fraud” who engages in “governmental terrorism.”  Mind you, these are things that Republicans have said about Ted Cruz.  It’s not surprising.  Ted Cruz is a threat to what he rightly refers to as the Washington Cartel.  The Washington Cartel is the ruling cabal in our Nation’s Capitol, comprised of representatives from both Parties.  The Cartel members, who were elected to represent the people, actually hold office for only two purposes:  to get themselves reelected; and to provide government support for the interests that finance their campaigns.  Simply put, the Cartel serves only corruption and cronyism, and it matters not which Party is in control.  Case in point, just yesterday, the Republican controlled House passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill, that funds all of Il Duce Obama’s extra-constitutional projects, and gives $622 billion in tax breaks to interests friendly to the Cartel.  As a threat to this corrupt business as usual, Ted Cruz must be attacked.  You see, although the Establishment Republicans would like to win the presidency, winning is not essential to the Cartel.  So the Establishment is content to offer yet another good loser as the Republican nominee.  Only Gerald Ford can win; only Bob Dole can win; only John McCain can win; only Mitt Romney can win; and now, only Jeb Bush, John Kasich, etc., etc., can win.  The fact that none of them ever win is not important to the Establishment.  So, Ted Cruz is too radical to win.  If you are under 50, that might not sound familiar, but if you are over 50, you have heard it all before.  In 1980, these same lemmings told us Ronald Reagan couldn’t win.  He was too conservative, too radical, too old, an “amiable dunce.”  In 1980, Reagan only won 43 of 50 States; he won 49 of 50 in 1984.  No matter, the Establishment knows better.  They even use the same words.  George Will described Reagan supporters as “the kamikaze conservatives.”  Now, Kim Strassel derides the Ted Cruz “kamikaze caucus.”  He can’t win, you see.  The Establishment even pulled out its big gun:  a Ted Cruz candidacy will be Goldwater all over again.  The only problem is, that makes as little sense as the prediction that Reagan couldn’t win.

The invocation of “it will be 1964 all over again” is sad, because it is proof positive that the Establishment doesn’t care if a Republican is elected in 2016.  They would rather deal with Hillary Clinton (shudder) than any conservative.  But let’s indulge them, is 2016 more like 1964 or 1980?  Let’s see.  In 1964, the country was not far away from 8 years of Eisenhower, which culminated in the 1960 election of JFK, a fresh face, the first President born in the 20th Century, the New Frontier, Camelot … you get the picture.  Less than a year before the 1964 election, JFK was assassinated.  LBJ became President, promising to carry out the JFK agenda.  The economy was good, LBJ promised tax cuts, Vietnam was not yet a problem, and LBJ was supremely popular, his 1964 approval rating topping out at 79%.  In short, no Republican was going to be elected President in 1964, the proof of this being the fact that the smartest Republican of that time, Richard Nixon, did not consider running.  In 1980 Jimmy Carter presided over a woeful economy, high interest rates, inflation, and trouble in the Middle-East, the Iran hostage crisis.  Carter’s approval average was in the mid-40% range throughout his presidency.  Does any of this sound familiar?  We are now in the last year of Obama.  Democrats face Obama fatigue, much as the Republicans faced Bush fatigue in 2008.  Obama’s approval is in the mid 40’s, not the 70’s.  And Hillary’s approval rating is 42%.  In addition, lie as he might, the Obama economy stinks, with more than 90 million Americans out of the workforce.  We have trouble in the Middle-East (Iran again), terrorists running wild over there and killing Americans over here, and this President’s refusal to control the borders has made illegal immigration a hot issue.  In 1964 there was no call for a change.  In 1980 just as now, Americans are crying out for change and are thirsting for leadership.  2016 looks decidedly more like 1980 than it does 1964.  So let’s call a spade a spade, the Establishment isn’t worried that Ted Cruz can’t win, it is scared to death that he will win, and put a stake in the heart of the Washington Cartel.  Let’s help him do it.  I’ll get the stake, you get the hammer and President Cruz will do the rest.

The most important responsibility of any government is to ensure the safety of its citizens in their homes and on the street.  In this, the Obama Administration has failed miserably.  In the aftermath of the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, fears were heightened.  People looked to the President for reassurance, admittedly a futile act, but where else did they have to look?  On Sunday night, the President made a speech about terrorism.  Surprising no one, it did not help.  While grudgingly admitting that the San Bernardino shooters were terrorists, he had to point out that there was no evidence that they were directed by a foreign terrorist organization.  Really?  Obama claimed that we will destroy “ISIL.”  Get that, the man who refuses to say “Islamic terrorists” can’t even call ISIS what it calls itself.  Obama then warned Americans that “our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning our values, or giving in to fear.  That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for.”  That remark was aimed at Republicans who are advocating military action, and like most Obama blathering it was both weak and nonsensical.  Mr. President, taking decisive action isn’t giving in to fear, the object is to instill fear in the terrorists.  That’s what ISIL is hoping for?  Ted Cruz said ISIS should be “carpet bombed into oblivion.  I don’t know if sand glows in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”  You really think the ISIS thugs are hoping for that?  So what is Obama doing?  He claims the U.S. is leading a coalition of 65 nations united to combat ISIL.  Can you name five of those nations?  Obama didn’t.  He vowed to continue airstrikes against ISIL.  We have been conducting airstrikes since September 2014.  In those 15 months, ISIS has only gotten stronger and expanded its territory.  Obama assured us that he is asking Turkey to close its border with Syria.  This one would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.  Obama wants Turkey to close its border and stop Syrians from entering Turkey, but he refuses to secure U.S. borders, and he wants to admit 100,000 Syrians as refugees.  That is too sick to take seriously.  And, of course, the Obama remedy for terrorism is more gun control laws.  The guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally, even under California’s restrictive gun laws.  But pass another law, we’ll all feel much better, if not safer.  Perhaps most infuriating of all was Obama’s oft-stated warning that we are not at war with Islam.  Obama’s putative replacement as Whiner-in-Chief, Hillary Clinton, gave the same warning.  We’ve heard this time and time again.  Mr. President, we understand that we are not at war with Islam.  We’re not fighting against any religion, we are defending civilization against barbarians who, this time, happen to be Muslims.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an arm of the HAMAS terrorist organization which is run by the Muslim Brotherhood, chimed right in warning that there better not be a “backlash against Muslims.”  We hear the same warning every time some Islamic terrorists murder a bunch of innocent people.  Here’s a good question.  Has there ever been a backlash?  If one innocent Muslim turned up dead under circumstances suggesting retribution for a terrorist act, I think we would have heard about it.  We haven’t, because it never happened.  And anyway, what right does a terrorist apologist group have to dictate to Americans how we should react to an attack on our homeland?  We’re supposed to rely on our President to take the appropriate action.  This President won’t, and his putative successor will be no better.  Simply put, Obama fails to lead, either because he chooses not to lead, or because he doesn’t know how to lead.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.  He doesn’t have a clue.  That’s what you get when you elect a President who never held a job and never ran anything other than his own mouth.