There was a time when we expected our political leaders to be pure, like Caesar’s wife.  Now, those were times when Americans were a bit naive and more rigid in their evaluation of what was “proper.”  I’m not longing for those days, understand, because our leaders never actually were pure of heart.  It was just that we had a lower tolerance for conduct which could end a person’s political career.

Once upon a time, a Catholic couldn’t be President.  We became more tolerant, and we got John Kennedy.  Someone who had been divorced couldn’t be President, but we became more tolerant, and we got Ronald Reagan.  Those are positive examples of increased tolerance.

Our views on personal conduct also have changed.  In the 1950’s President Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, took a vicuna coat from someone under investigation by the FTC.  He was forced to resign in shame.  In the 1960’s LBJ’s aide Walter Jenkins was forced to resign over a supposed morals charge.  In the 1970’s, Nixon resigned over Watergate.  A President mustn’t cover up a third-rate burglary.  Ted Kennedy was involved in the death of Mary Joe Kopechne, but we were more tolerant of that.  McGovern picked Eagleton as Vice-President, but when it was learned that he had undergone psychiatric treatment, he had to go.  In the 1990’s President Clinton nominated a succession of Attorneys General who had to decline the office because, horror of horrors, they had hired nannies without paying their Social Security taxes.

Nowadays we are much more tolerant.  We have a Republican  presidential candidate (Rick Perry) who is under Indictment.  It’s a bogus Indictment, but nobody mentions this problem.

That brings us to Hillary Clinton.  She was Secretary of State when four men were killed in Benghazi, and she never explained about that, but we’re tolerant.  She broke every rule in the book by installing her own personal internet server in her bathroom to conduct government business.  She swore there was nothing classified on it, and to prove it, she refused to surrender the server to the Justice Department until she had it erased.  She’s now facing a criminal investigation.  A number of classified emails have been recovered.  One such classified document was enough to convict General Petreus.  Hillary’s not saying much about it, other than continual lies.  What’s more, she regards any question about this matter as an unfair political attack.  Meanwhile, very few people trust Hillary, even those in her own Party, and yet, she is still the putative Democratic candidate.  Ain’t tolerance a wonderful thing?

I recently heard Newt Gingrich ask people to consider which animal each of the Republican presidential candidates resembles. Here are my picks.

Donald Trump – The first animal that comes to mind is a peacock, but in the end, I settled on the chameleon. We can’t be sure what the Donald is, not even if he’s a Republican.

Jeb Bush – He’s the old fire horse. He heard the alarm and he came out running, but he’s obsolete. We have better equipment to do the job.

Ted Cruz – An eagle. Our Constitution made America what it is. Ted Cruz isn’t willing to dismiss the Constitution as an outdated document. He supports it no matter the consequences. Then, there’s the resemblance.

Rand Paul – A pit bull. He’s always ready to attack, and when he takes hold he doesn’t let go.

Marco Rubio – A tough one. I settled on the tiger. The tiger is a leader, he protects the weak, but if you pull on the tiger’s tail, watch out for his claws.

Ben Carson – This one was easy. The wise old owl.

John Kasich – The work horse. He may not be fancy, but if you put him in harness he carries the load and gets things done.

Mike Huckabee – He’s the sheepdog who protects the flock. He may look a little sleepy, but wolves beware.

Chris Christie – The bull in the china shop. He’s big, he’s strong, and he can do a lot of damage.

Scott Walker – A turtle. He’s slow and steady, but I’m not sure slow and steady will win this race. He looked a little out of place up there on the stage.

A consistent theme in the main-stream media is the notion that Republicans are somehow at a disadvantage because there are just too many candidates for President.  Like most things repeated by the main-stream media, this doesn’t make sense.  The idea seems to be that a vigorous give and take among the candidates will lead to nasty attacks which will turn the mild-mannered, gentle voters against all Republicans.  Simply put, that is a crock.  First of all, keep in mind that this is a Republican primary contest.  The only people paying attention right now are Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries.  Those voters are not mild-mannered beings, likely to be offended by plain talk, blunt talk, hostile talk, name calling, open warfare, vile accusations, or even Donald Trump.  The Republican voter is mad as hell.  He’s sick and tired of listening to mealy-mouthed apologists who spend their time trying to make sure no one might be offended.  The Republican voter is seeking a candidate who actually stands for something, tells you what it is he stands for, and doesn’t back down just because some media puke doesn’t like it.  The golden rule I taught my children always was, “You never apologize for what you believe in.”  It’s about time we had a candidate who followed that rule.  Secondly, it’s about time we reject the premise that any objectionable statement by one candidate will taint all Republican candidates.  It’s a false premise, which apparently doesn’t apply to Democrats, so we shouldn’t play by the media’s rules.

Too many candidates?  That implies the Democrats have an advantage by virtue of the fact that their bench consists only of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.  Hillary Clinton is what Charles Laughton would call “a chronic and habitual liar.”  She’s old news, she’s not trusted, she’s a terrible campaigner; and, oh yes, she’s the subject of a criminal investigation.  Only one?  Bernie Sanders is a senile avowed Socialist who thinks Obama is too conservative.  Few people have ever heard of him, and many who think they know who he is assume that he cooks chickens.  Martin O’Malley?  Who?  Enough said.  But wait, Joe Biden may get into the act.  Boy, I hope so.

Many people, including people who know  lot about politics who I respect, seem to think that Hillary is a shoe-in to be elected President.   I don’t.  I keep being told that the Democrats start out with 47% of the vote and only Colorado, Virginia, Florida and Ohio are in play, and I just don’t buy it.  I said it before and I’ll say it again, there is an opening for a conservative populist candidate who will win States previously thought to be out of Republican control.  The proof is Donald Trump.  Don’t get excited.  I don’t foresee Trump as the nominee, despite the showings he makes in the polls.  Understand, Trump is popular, not because people like Trump the man, but because people like the message of Trump.  The message is popular because it’s different.  Many voters are simply sick and tired of politicians who spend the bulk of their time trying not offend anyone, and constantly apologizing, “if anyone was offended.”  Some people are always offended.  Some people always pretend to be offended.  They know the mealy-mouthed apologists will always apologize when they are prompted to do so.  What is refreshing to voters, is a candidate who actually tells you what he believes, and if you don’t like it, he tells you you can lump it.  Candid speech is not the problem.  Candidates who assume that they shouldn’t take any position on any issue are the problem.  That’s what Trump provides.

Hillary?  She lies, she hides, she dissembles, she evades, and at the end of the day, she’s still a criminal, who doesn’t possess one tenth the ability that her criminal husband had to fool 43 or 48% of the people some of the time.  Her unfavorable rating is now 51%.  Once the Democrats figure out she’s a liability, they will cut her loose as fast as they did in 2008.  Republicans need to nominate a candidate who will say what he or she means and mean what he or she says.  People are thirsting for a real leader.  It’s really not that difficult.

No doubt about it, America is a nation of immigrants.  My ancestors are among them.  It wasn’t easy to get here.  They came here with nothing.  They weren’t particularly welcome when they arrived.  They worked hard, and they assimilated.  None of them really believed the stories of streets paved with gold.  They came to America to better their own lives, and most assuredly, they did.  But here’s the thing missing from today’s immigration debate – those immigrants came here in compliance with a strict set of laws regulating immigration.  You know, little things like making sure they didn’t suffer from a communicable disease or mental illness; and  actually checking to see whether they were violent criminals in the old country.  In those days, we wouldn’t take in someone who might become a public charge.  We weren’t worried about having to provide welfare, or food stamps, or Medicaid or Social Security, or disability, or workmen’s compensation, or healthcare subsidies, or Title Eight housing (need I go on?) because none of those programs existed when they came here.  We’re too progressive to worry about epidemics of disease or crime nowadays.  Yesterday’s immigrants also understood two basic facts which are lost both on today’s immigrants and on those who advocate for open borders –  they knew that they they were being taken in so that, by their work, they could benefit America; and they knew that they had to prove themselves so that they could become Americans.

We have lost our way, and not surprisingly, liberals are to blame.  You see, America was a melting pot – you came in from wherever, you assimilated and were reforged as an American.  Liberals were uncomfortable with that.  They preferred to call us “A Salad Bowl” where all immigrant cultures remained intact.  That wasn’t good enough either.  Someway, somehow, the liberal view of America has transformed.  They don’t see us a land of opportunity where new arrivals become Americans to strengthen the United States.  Instead, they see us as a land whose singular purpose is welcome as many foreigners as possible, no matter who they are, or how they got here, in order to remedy the ills of the world.  Once here, the new immigrant doesn’t have to prove himself to us.  Instead, we have to prove ourselves to them; mustn’t criticize, you know.  And, if a few immigrants run amok and murder some people, well, you have to take the good with the bad, right?  Wrong!

We have reached a point where illegal immigrants are more important to most politicians than American citizens.  There is only one word for that -INSANITY.  When you close an U.S. monument to American war veterans, and at the same time open public property to illegal aliens who want to protest in a place where they don’t belong, for rights they do not and should not have,  and which can come only from the very government they are seeking to destroy, something is terribly wrong.  I don’t blame the immigrants – it’s us – we must be nuts, and if we don’t stop the madness, we will lose the America built by yesterday’s immigrants.