Time For the Rule of Law

abovethelawWith the 2016 election in the bag, it’s time to look forward to the future.  One of the key components of HRC’s problems were her scandals, namely the email issue, of which many of us believe easily violates Federal law.  The question, already posed by Jenne, should we just put it all to rest and let it go?  To that idea, I say not just NO, but HELL NO!  This path will cause much angst with the Left and they will claim “WITCH HUNT”, which would actually be quite close to fact.

Regardless, we as a nation must have an unbiased investigation into the doings of Clinton, with the results being made fully public, up to and including an indictment if warranted.   More importantly, if the Federal government will not hold their own accountable, then their legitimacy is zero and they should be dissolved.  There is much at stake and the Republican’s have been given the power to get the ship right.  I have more doubt than hope, but at least I have a little hope.




  1. So, I’ll say it: thank you, Hillary. Thank you for running a campaign so beset by scandal and marred by duplicity divisiveness that it made President Barack Obama look like President Ronald Reagan. Eight years of Obama’s ugliness have left Americans giving each other the side-eye like the Hatfields and the McCoys. You needed to run a delicate, almost surgical campaign to keep from getting absorbed by the general din of Democrats’ hate machine. Instead, you brought a chainsaw.

    Thank you for not only cheating Senator Bernie Sanders out of a shot at the title, but doing it with such complete disregard for your own party apparatus that you alienated millions of likely voters in the process. Not one, but two DNC chairpersons laid down in traffic for you and you treated them like human sandbags. And you made almost as much effort hiding your game-fixing as you did hiding your disdain for dissent from “the little people.” I haven’t seen breakdowns on how many otherwise committed “progressives” decided to stay home on Election Day and reread The Motorcycle Diaries, but I bet it was more than a few.

    Thank you for promising to continue the Obama legacy. Even as the soon-to-be-ex-President’s “signature accomplishment” Obamacare began its last lap around the toilet bowl, you swore to keep it on life-support, even reminding everyone that your “Hillarycare” was partially responsible for the monstrosity. You kept trying to serve that crap sandwich no matter how many times we sent it back to the kitchen. Trump’s opposition to Obamacare was predictable, and unlikely to sway anyone not only already appalled. But you told people who were suffering that they would find no friend in you.

    Read the rest here: http://personalliberty.com/saluting-hillary/

  2. To all the liberal loonies still rioting because you claim Trump did not get the popular vote, get your meds now and prepare to be shocked because the finals results are in. Trump got 306 Electoral College vote while Hillary Clinton got 232. For #PopularVote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750

    This isn’t in stone yet, but if true will this qualify as a landslide in electoral votes?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Landslide in EC votes? NO!

      Look to Reagan v. Mondale if you want to know what a true landslide looks like.

    • G – where are you getting these numbers? Everywhere I am reading shows Clinton still ahead in the popular vote. And nowhere is showing these exact numbers…

  3. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The only reason Obama had a relatively scandal free presidency, is that Holder and Lynch refused to do their jobs. And on top of that were emeshed in the scandals themselves. Just before any the Fast and Furious debacle broke into the headlines, does anyone remember both Hillary and Obama were railing about the gun trade on the border and were trying to tangle us up into the UN deals on the gun trade….leaving it in the exclusive domain of the “government”…..the scandal stopped with Holder being held in contempt of congress, but claimed he knew nothing about the single biggest operation of the time in the DOJ/ATF…..go any further up the chain and the investigators would have found the big O’s and HRC’s finger prints also. IRS, Banking/Wall Street, Clinton INC.

    I hope the investigations come up through the Clinton Foundation ties, as Guilliani says a perfect example of racketeering and a Ricco case. He should know. He prosecuted enough of them…..and the second link up through the NYPD and Weiner’s and Abedin’s laptops

  4. It seems that the riots are OK with Obama and Clinton……..not a peep.

  5. The electoral process is all that matters…….that is the current system. There are plenty of elections that went both ways. ( pun intended ).

    • Colonel – agreed. The EC is the current system and the results should be respected. But that doesn’t mean the current system shouldn’t be changed.

      • As before, you and I are in agreement…..the question is how do you change it…..As I told you, I do not subscribe to a popular vote…how do we get it so each state has an equal say? You cannot allow population centers to control elections…..so how do we make it equal? The only way I see it is giving each state an equal say…regardless of population. Another question would be,,,,who, in the state calls it…..the popular vote of the state? The elected representatives? The Senators? Each State has two senators. Do you have the rule that as each state votes, so do the two Senators? Just throwing options out there.

        • First question for you – why should each state, as opposed to each person, have an equal say?

          Second question – what is your objection to the current EC system?

          • Because major metropolitan centers ahould not be able to control the vote….

            The current system, which allocates electors on the basis of population is still doing the same thing. Even though I am from Texas which carries a lot of clout, I am still not for it. The popular vote of a state does not guarantee the elector vote of the state. In this day and time, too much control can be exerted.

            now, I have no proof of my next statement, but I am betting that Hillary had 175 plus electors locked up before any vote. I have not looked at it but I know that electors in some states do not have to follow any vote….they are free to vote how they want.

            • I even line the idea of county by county voting…..If a state has 50 counties, then each county gets a vote…then the state must vote the majority. To me, that takes the professional politician out of the play and also shuts down electors that can change their vote on a whim…whether being paid off or not.

              • County by county even allows equal voting opportunity and probably will bring out more voters.

              • I guess my issue with your proposal is I can’t think of a good reason why we shouldn’t have 1 person 1 vote; whoever gets the majority wins. Why should my vote count less than someone else’s vote merely because of where I live?

                Sure having all large metropolitan areas vote for 1 candidate goes a long way, but so does having all rural areas nationwide vote for 1 candidate. And not to mention that not everyone in a city (or in the country) votes the same way.

              • It’s interesting, when one really thinks about the EC how brilliant it really is. It incorporates the individual vote and the several States at the same time. This is what allows the country to be a Constitutional Republic….NOT a Democracy.

          • Buck does not understand the purpose of the Constitution. Feel free to getting the ball rolling on changing it. I see a whole lot of bitchin but no petitions on Change.org.

            • SK – no I completely understand the constitution but don’t believe the EC is the way to go on voting for President any longer.

              I do wonder what you and everyone else on SUFA would be saying had Trump won the popular vote but Hillary was elected…

              • Buck….”ANY LONGER”…………..It’s really not a living document, is it ? Want to change it, there is a way.

              • G – when have I ever suggested that the EC can be abolished absent a constitutional amendment??

              • You haven’t. But we both know what you mean….it’s outdated. I think it works as intended.

                If you look at history, the prez should just be a mouthpiece as his.her powers are limited. The only real importance of a president should be at a time of war, when they are most relevant. Take wars away and………

              • Well, I think it is outdated as well but do not know how to fix it and I am not an anarchist nor am I unaware of the Constitution and its meaning. I do not think it is a living breathing document subject to change at a whim but you can change the Constitution through ratification.

              • What the good Colonel said.

                Minus not knowing how to fix it – my proposal would be to switch to popular vote.

              • Buck, I don’t think how the votes are counted as a problem…..I see political parties as the problem, because their members can be coerced (bought). I would say we need some serious campaign reforms, including “media” attention limitations.

              • One solution would be to have one elector from each congressional district plus 2 at large from each state. This would be weighted more towards the popular vote but allow states as a whole to be represented. The two at large could be by popular vote within the state or by an act of the state legislature. For example, CA has 55 EC votes. If the vote followed the CA congressional delegation count it would be 41 D and 14 R not 55 D. We saw virtually no campaigning in CA except when they came to raise money. Under this scheme, the minority party would at least spend time here for a few EC votes.

                I do not want to see it go to strictly popular vote as we lose the republic of states concept. The vote will be entirely dominated by the big metropolitan cities and they have shown time and again that they have no concept of the reality of rural life and small town America.

              • Technically speaking, Hill did not ‘win’ the popular vote. She only won 48% of the popular vote. To win the popular vote, one would have to win 50% + 1.

                Therefore if you select a President by the candidate that wins the popular vote…well, that may take a while. When was the last candidate that won 50% + 1?

  6. Holders true colors came out as well…..listening to him complaining about the EC.

    • Or how about Van Jones with the white-lash comment. I have a bad feeling those two will be pestering from the background for a long time.

  7. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/13/bewildered-eu-foreign-ministers-gather-to-grapple-with-trump-victory/

    Eight years ago, these same ministers or their predecessors were all extolling the new America president. Heck, they even gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for being present (aka a participation trophy). How well did the work for the last 8 years. The whole ME is in total chaos. We are militarily involved in more countries than ever before. What a farce. Wait as see what he does.

  8. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    More on Robert Reich from the Hoover Institute and a liberal


  9. I am glad that the media and Paul Ryan and Turkey neck McConnell (rhymes with gobble) have decided on Trump’s agenda. After giving Trump a Monica Lewinsky the other day, methinks Ryan may be in for a surprise.

    • You know Stephen……let them come after Trump…..really. I am now beginning to think that the Washington establishment ( both parties ) are running so scared….I bet his staff that he is picking is going to be so strong and not full of academia that Washington is afraid of losing its power.

  10. Buck…….therein lies our differences. It is not correct for the inhabitants of 10 cities to be able to dictate the POTUS. New York does not know the rest of the country and neither does LA or Dallas or Atlanta or Chicago…..

    Let me ask you this…..what about my county by county proposal? That way, everyone gets a vote and it matters. As go the counties, so goes the state, and so on.

    Let’s even take your State of New York ( even though you live across the river )…..why should Suffolk County or Westchester County have more say so than Jefferson or St Lawrence County? Why not each county gets one vote and as goes the county, so the state must go. There are 62 counties in New York State. Each county gets one vote in deciding how the electors vote. If Clinton gets 32 or more counties, then it is a Clinton cast vote for the State.

    I feel the same about my Tarrant County and Potter County in far west Texas. There are 254 counties in Texas…..each should have an equal vote in how the electors for Texas vote.

    • You raise some valid points, but in my view why should Jefferson County with a population of around 120,000 have the same say as Kings County with a population of 2,500,000? There are issues with any method used, but to me, a pure popular vote makes the most sense.

      • Ok……I understand your view….I am offering a different stance…..now, I wonder how we can profer a better understanding of each other’s positon. Have to think on that one.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        This is obviously a discussion around the Electoral College. I read an article today on how the EC was designed to protect Slave States. Lets try today and I think in a way today it has turned the opposite….It is keeping us from as a nation from becoming SLAVES. HRC’s and Al Gores whole doctrines were we need to give up out soveriegnty, we need to submit to the group, the village, etc When the votes are so close and the 51% says well suck it up, that is the tyrany of the majority when they say you 49% don’t matter. Even the NYT is saying that they lost touch with 1/2 of the country. Their view was Manhattan, the border stops at the east river or the hudson, ot the Harlem. HRC has been selling out with her wall street connections America. For the immediate quarterly buck they are destroying what made america great……I can not for the life of me understad the millenials, and then OWS protests. I totally understand the protests, but then they vote for the person who has greased their slides into oblivion and slavery, BY debt for getting the college degree that is mostly useless.

  11. Buck, I am going to do a quick research on population centers and how that affects all states….I happen to feel that North Dakota should have the same impact as California or Texas, or New York or Florida.

    • Colonel – much of our difference in opinion on this goes to our respective views on federalism, as I’m sure you realize!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Exactly. Which is why in my view you have yet to give a good reason for popular voting for POTUS.

        Have you ever considered the benefit of having election over with in a fairly quick order and in a total that ends the debate? The EC does this and limits the recount problem to one or two states if it is as close as Gore. Notice this time Clinton did not contest the election.

        By the way, your vote is not worth less than anyone else because of where you live. It is worth as much as anyone else.

        But you get the advantage of getting extra votes because you live where there are way more people than where I live.

        As for those wanting to allocate votes by anything less than the State level you need to realize your asking for Congress to pick POTUS in the long run. Because more division of the votes will assure NO MAJORITY is reached in most elections.

        • If we go by popular vote, then it should be 50% + 1. No minority presidents. If less than 50% it should go to the House to be decided.

          • Very valid point T-Ray. I can get behind a popular vote requiring 50% + 1. But not sure where I stand on what ‘should’ happen if no one gets that magic number. Perhaps a new vote with ONLY the top 2 candidates on the ballot? I’ll have to give this more thought.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Just think in Idaho how many of your industries have been dismantled by those people thousands of miles away who are not impacted in the least by their decisions or voting power. When I was teaching in the UK there was a big debate about fox hunting. Ban it or what. The picture portraited was the rich nabobs riding over field destrying the labor of the poor farmers etc. The hunting was restricted to private estates that also had pheasant and grouse hunting preserves. The human kept the nature in balance by the hunting, because the larger predators were gone. The estate owners said that you ban fox hunting we will just have to eliminate the fox period, because left to their own they will destroy the bird population, by raiding the nests etc….The cities like London who overwhelmed the rural vote voted to ban the hunt, they probably never saw a fox.

        • “By the way, your vote is not worth less than anyone else because of where you live. It is worth as much as anyone else.

          But you get the advantage of getting extra votes because you live where there are way more people than where I live.”

          Perhaps it is because I am still only on my second cup of coffee today, but not following your logic on this point. In a nationwide popular vote, how does anyone get the advantage of extra votes because of where they live?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was arguing against your claim that your vote does not count for as much with the EC.

            I was pointing out that under the EC you actually get a little more power in your vote because you live in a populous State compared to me.

            The argument about extra votes or diluted voting or that we should all have equal votes is just a rationalization for a popular vote which is just a euphemism for mob, er. majority, rule.

            I have yet to hear a good argument for changing the system.

            • My argument is for one person one vote with the winner to take the Presidency. Not sure what more of an argument is required here…

              As I’ve stated, I don’t feel the purposes behind the EC are needed any more and can’t think of a good reason why we shouldn’t elect the president by popular vote.

              In terms of vote dilution, you need to look at voting age population as it relates to number of electoral votes. NJ, for instance, has a voting population of roughly 7,000,000 and carries 14 electoral votes. Idaho has a voting population of 1/6 that of NJ, yet 4 electoral votes. How is it that my vote counts more?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                14 is bigger than 4, thus “more” votes.

                You have not made an argument. You have simply stated your view.

                For example, you claim the EC is “no longer needed”. This means that in your view it was needed but now it is not.

                So why was it needed? What in your view has changed, making it no longer needed?

              • 14 is bigger than 4, but not 6 times bigger than 4…

                To be fair, I don’t know if it ever truly was needed. One of the rationales was communication issues; that no longer is an issue. Another rationale was putting a check on the public at large (in other words, not trusting the people). To this, I ask, what would be G’s reaction if the EC exercises this check on the public by voting for Clinton this election cycle?

                A third rationale – arguably the predominant reason for the EC in the first place and the one that makes the most sense to me even today – is that the President should be voted for by the states, as opposed to the public at large, and the EC is a compromise to allow those states with a larger population a larger voice. And this again gets to the core of my disagreement with the Colonel – the issue of federalism.

      • Yes sir….it does.

  12. Just to make a note, remember that I called a Trump win when he was in the primaries.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Your going to have to prove that one. I don’t remember you making that call.

      • Read the posts, old friend.

        I knew Trump would win – made a bundle on a bet too! 🙂

        • So did the bookies in England. They read the American people better than, well, the American people.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Didn’t the bookies in Great Britain get burned on Brexit? They learned quickly to read the tea leaves. The people in the UK were fed up with unelected regulators creating laws in Brussels, like 10’s of thousand per year and the people or parliment had NO SAY…..that was/is happening here….NO MAS

    • Not so fast. Anita was THE very first Trumper. You may have followed her lead, but she called this.

  13. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I went out tonight to watch the Dallas vs Pittsburgh football game and followed by the New England vs Seattle game….not a good night for my teams….Giants play tomorrow. During the slow parts of the games a political discussion would get going about the election. It was very interesting to say the least. There was a group of young folks at the end of the bar and they were like 24 years old….they all voted HRC. They were talking on and on and brought up Biden and how great he is……I interjected and asked them if anyone of them remember, obviously they couldn’t, that Biden was killed in the democratic primaries in the 80’s because he plagerized his thesis. That was lying and stealing….he was finished as a candidate. He couldn’t come close to Dukakis They all shrugged and said SO WHAT, what’s the problem….the bar tender looked at me and raised his eyebrows in disbelief……that to me is the problem….lying and cheating to get the edge is so common place it’s the norm…they look at HRC as she did nothing we wouldn’t do….the basic concept of right or wrong has so changed in the last generation or two because there is mostly no limit to what they would say or do to achieve their end. HRC would be their idol…..At one end of the bar were a group of middle aged black folks. The guy had returned home from NYC after the executives as smart as they were failed to recognize the technology shifts and lost Blockbuster. He was a manager and said the big guys were so stuck on their model and paradigm thet were blind…..One of the ladies sat and talked for quite a time. Born and raised in New Bern. She said she hated ever traveling NORTH. She said that it was so strange that people were so cold and insular with a bubble around them……That is why the places like NYC and LA should not decide just because of a massive population what the rest of the country should have…..sorry but they have no concept of decent humanity…..Remember I grew up in LA….We never associated with our neighbors. Did not have to. I remember after leaving LA, did some charter work in the Caribbean, but the guests on board were generally fro NYC and they treated you like shit. I went to TX and it was so foreign to me I thought I was on an alien planet…..people were NICE, so nice I thought that I was dipped in Karo syrup…..That is what I’ved loved about living in the South….generally folks are very friendly and talkative…regardless of race creed or gender.

  14. USAToday…..just another bullshit liberal rag. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/anti-trump-protests-proof-professional-activist-involvement

    The wikileaks emails show a true story about the very people USAToday calls everyday people. Disingenuous to say the least……LIARS to say the most. Will the Left EVER stop lying?

  15. Buck…while scanning around and doing some research, I found some interesting things.

    CAnada Immigration Policy:

    1) You must have an established bank account.
    2) You must have a marketable skill that is NEEDED in Canada.
    3) You must have three sponsors and those sponsors must be in good standing.
    4) Until you receive your citizenship, you must check in monthly with the Immigration office.
    5) The process is multi tiered and takes 10 years.

    When I kept digging, the immigration policy was established because of the Vietnam War. The draft dodgers that went there became wards of the state and free loaded. The result was that in 1968, Canada kicked them all out.

    That made me keep looking at other immigration policies around the world….out of curiosity, I picked Africa. Nigeria, Ghana,Camaroon, Angola, Congo, Nambia, Zimbabwe…..( I quit there ). They all have very strict immigration policies that include…..(you gotta love this) racial segregation and selective racial entrance in which ( you gotta sit down for this one )….Not all blacks are African nor African descendants.


    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      You’ve stated all along how tough it is to even emmigrate to Mexico. Spanish required, as one. The Canadian process is very arduous and as their government website says could take longer like 8 years + (than two full terms of Trump, my inclusion here). The healthcare is NOT free, that is reserved for citizens. Not a citizen, you have to pay the costs and or have insurance, In Canada there are some areas that they want to repopulate because the young are all heading to the big cities and the regions are dying. The work and weather are very hard and I doubt that most Americans especially the hollywood types or those that need a safe place would survive even one winter.

      Sicily is offering some great deals to go there and help a dying village. They literally give you the house, but a sizable bond has to be paid and your given 5 years to complete the project, then you get your deposit back. Again, no opportunity for the young and the target groups are middle age or retired…..you also have to have a guaranteed income.

  16. Just saw an interesting interview with Robert Fornaro….the Chief Executive Officer of Spirit Airlines. He was laughing about his offer to those who wish to leave the USA because Trump was elected. He offered, and still is offering until Dec 31, 2016….50% reductions in airfare for one way tickets to those who wish to leave…….no takers thus far.

    • Saw a meme last week talking about the celebrities leaving. Forgot the exact wording but it went something like…no Imma stay, Imma take advantage of some of deez tax cuts.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I remember back in the early seventies and I was working in the charter industry on St Maarten. ALL the people I knew were expatriots, the all had millions of dollars, they all had their business pumping money into their lives of the “Rich and Famous” They all had fine yachts, they all had grand villas up on the hill while the islanders gererally lived pretty basically, but everyone of them was bitching about the US and Nixon and how terrible it is. This was before Watergate. I finally severed my social ties with them by saying to the group…..you have the money and power,,,,go back home and change it if its so bad….talk about a social faux pas.

  17. New trick from the Clinton/Soros gang. Notice when the Clintons came out to concede they were dressed in purple. Yep, that’s Soros at it with the beginnings of the Purple Revolution. The protests started the same day. I’m so tired of this stuff.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The “purple revolution” was launched in 2008. Zero Hedge is running behind.

      The Clinton’s are just showing that they have given in to it. The Clinton Machine is dead, they need an allowance now so they will get completely on board with Soros. Otherwise they become irrelevant. And neither of them can stand to have that happen.

      • Watching FOX this evening…I don’t like it. Bret Baier and Krauthammer are both wearing purple ties. WUT?

  18. How funny….the New York Times wanting to make nice……I hope Trump does not play…..keep ’em off the plane and outta the WH press room.

    • I may be wrong but didn’t the Times say the same thing before. I have an incomplete memory of something like this happening before.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      It’s to bad that Christie had a serious lapse in judgement with “Bridgegate”. But it’s great that Trump dumped his ass quickly and said what a liability he was. amongst other words.
      This is where the phrase about Caesars wife comes in. The press will be merciless if any of his nominees have any smudges. Rudy will get hammered but he will be a great AG.
      Unfortunately the Dems will be totally obstructionist because they’ll cry about the SCOTUS nomination being held up…but McConnell only took a page from Chuck Schumer’s playbook.

      I hope Trump digs into middle America for nominees to posts in his government and gets outside the beltway and NYC.

  19. Let’s see just how afraid the world is of Trump…and the business sector…..Wall St…..health industry…..foreign markets…..

    Hmmmm…..the DOW did not crash….it is at all time highs. The foreign markets did not crash…money is literally flowing into the US now….in record numbers…Health Stocks climbing…..

    The Chinese President has now called Trump saying that it is time to get together…..Iranians now coming forward but trying to dictate to Trump about changing to fit the times knowing full well that the Iranian Nuclear deal is dead and Trump cannot be bought off.

    Russia saying it is time to move the NATO troops from all borders including the Ukraine….fat chance.

    And now………He is not going to take the POTUS salary of $400,000 per year…..he is going to take $1…..and who is screaming about not taking the salary? Progressive’s accusing him of grand standing.


    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      He should donate the salary it like you do with the farm subsidies…..Remember the story about Washington back in the Revoltionary war. He served without pay…he just asked the Continental Congress to pay his expenses….So when he became President he made the same offer and Congress said NO WAY.

    • Sorry sir, I think NATO should pull back. I do not think we would think kindly of Backfire bombers in Cuba or Venezuela.

      The whole mess with Russia started over messing with the Ukraine and threatening Russia’s access to the Black Sea. Wars have been fought over less.

      If I had my druthers and the former satellite states were worried, they should have created their own NATO equivalent. We could have sold them weapons and tech stuff but no NATO troops East of the old Warsaw Pact line. That is a clear and unwarranted provocation.

  20. Another interesting thing he has done……his first two team selections are diametrically opposed……as a business man….he does not appear to surround himself with yes men…..he has an appointment that is establishment and then offset it with a conservative. He gets both sides. If he continues to do this….interesting times ahead.

  21. Someone please explain to me why the protest movement in Fort Worth felt intimidated when they saw 200 private citizens lining the parade route with automatic weapons in sling position protecting business’.

    (Sarc intended)

    • Go Texas. Safety pins are flying off the shelves in Ft. Worth.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      The protesters should look at it another way…..these armed people were guaranteeing their safety against all those hate filled Texans……..The only people I hear talking hateful speech are the Liberals.

  22. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The world has got to be laughing at us right now. Trump has a tough road to hoe.

    Join the Nation’s Conversation
    To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs

    ‘Tolerant’ educators exile Trump voters from campus: Glenn Reynolds
    Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:28 a.m. EST November 14, 2016

    With puppies, Play-doh and coloring books, safe spaces and therapy sessions turn universities into a joke.
    At Wellesley College on Nov. 8, 2016, in Wellesley, Mass.(Photo: Steven Senne, AP)
    One of the more amusing bits of fallout from last week’s election has been the safe-space response of many colleges and universities to the election of the “wrong” candidate. But on closer examination, this response isn’t really amusing. In fact, it’s downright mean.

    Trump’s substantial victory, when most progressives expected a Hillary landslide, came as a shock to many. That shock seems to have been multiplied in academe, where few people seem to know any Trump supporters — or, at least, any Trump supporters who’ll admit to it.

    The response to the shock has been to turn campuses into kindergarten. The University of Michigan Law School announced a ”post-election self-care” event with “food and play,” including “coloring sheets, play dough [sic], positive card-making, Legos and bubbles with your fellow law students.” (Embarrassed by the attention, UM Law scrubbed the announcement from its website, perhaps concerned that people would wonder if its graduates would require Legos and bubbles in the event of stressful litigation.)

    Stanford emailed its students and faculty that psychological counseling was available for those experiencing “uncertainty, anger, anxiety and/or fear” following the election. So did the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

    Meanwhile, even the Ivy League wasn’t immune, with Penn (Trump’s alma mater) creating a post-election safe space with puppies and coloring books:

    Student Daniel Tancredi reported that the people who attended were “fearful” about the results of the election.

    “For the most part, students just hung out and ate snacks and made small talk,” Tancredi told The College Fix. “Of course, that was in addition to coloring and playing with the animals.”


    Trumping the liberal elite: Kirsten Powers

    At Cornell, meanwhile, students held a “Cry-in.”

    As the event took place, students — roughly 20 or so, according to the Sun’s video — wrote their reactions and emotions on poster boards with colored markers, or with chalk on the ground. A chilly day on the Ithaca campus, at one point the demonstrators huddled together as what appeared to be a barista brought them warm drinks. Several adults, most likely professors, stood around the group. The event appeared to take on the atmosphere of a funeral wake.

    Yale had a ”group scream.”

    At Tufts, the university offered arts and crafts, while the University of Kansas reminded students that there were plenty of “therapy dogs” available. At other schools, exams were cancelled and professors expressed their sympathy to traumatized students.

    It’s easy to mock this as juvenile silliness — because, well, it is juvenile silliness of the sort documented in Frank Furedi’s What Happened To The University? But that’s not all it is. It’s also exactly what these schools purport to abhor: An effort to marginalize and silence part of the university community.


    Look outside politics for heroes: Glenn Reynolds

    POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

    In an email to students, the University of Michigan’s President, Mark Schlissel, wrote: “Our responsibility is to remain committed to education, discovery and intellectual honesty — and to diversity, equity and inclusion. We are at our best when we come together to engage respectfully across our ideological differences; to support ALL who feel marginalized, threatened or unwelcome; and to pursue knowledge and understanding.”

    But when you treat an election in which the “wrong” candidate wins as a traumatic event on a par with the 9/11 attacks, calling for counseling and safe spaces, you’re implicitly saying that everyone who supported that “wrong” candidate is, well, unsafe. Despite the talk about diversity and inclusion, this is really sending the signal that people who supported Trump — and Trump carried the state of Michigan, so there are probably quite a few on campus — aren’t really included in acceptable campus culture. It’s not promoting diversity, it’s enforcing uniformity. It’s not promoting inclusion, it’s practicing exclusion. And, though it pretends to be about nurturing, it’s actually about being mean to those who don’t fall in the nurtured class. Schlissel says he wants the University of Michigan to be “a welcoming place for all members of society,” but how welcome can students who backed Trump feel in the wake of this performance?

    A viral (and profane) YouTube rant by Jonathan Pie points out that this sort of fear and “othering” of political opponents is why Trump won, and why Democrats were shocked by his victory. Pie’s right to tell people that they should engage in discussion rather than dismissal of people they disagree with, and colleges and universities should listen to him.

    If, that is, it’s not too triggering.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

    You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.

  23. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The most dangerous man in America today is George Soros.

  24. The bride informs me that they have started to count Absentee and Military ballots. Do not expect Hillary to maintain the popular vote lead. Let us see if any of this is reported!

  25. Just A Citizen says:
  26. Just A Citizen says:


    First, I find it funny how you used “eligible voters” to make the argument about proportional EC votes. The representatives are based on “population”.

    If you have a problem with the relative power of NJ vs. ID then take it up with Congress. You see the limit on House members is what creates some of the distortion.

    As I have said before, your support of the popular vote is truly rooted in your dislike of our Constitutional Republic as it was envisioned.

    I think some of it is also in the difference of how you view the proper role of POTUS vs what some of us dinosaurs think it should be.

    By the way, I have never seen any real reference to the reasons for the EC that you cited. There was suspicion of popular voting in the context of true Democracy. But it was the issue of balance between individuals and States that really created the EC method. Especially the fear of the Southern States taking control of the Govt.

    The same fear exists today only it is not the slavers of the south but the Progressives of the right and left coast that are the problem for the rest of us.

    Now for a new idea. LIMIT the power of POTUS to the original intent, and make political parties illegal and I might consider some form of popular election. On second thought, I just finished reading comments on HuffPo so I am not sure I could support popular voting. Maybe we should be thinking about some form of testing instead. Sarcasm, kind of, maybe! 🙂

    • First, I find it funny how you used “eligible voters” to make the argument about proportional EC votes. The representatives are based on “population”. == OK switch my argument to total population; my argument still stands.

      As I have said before, your support of the popular vote is truly rooted in your dislike of our Constitutional Republic as it was envisioned == As I said, this goes back to our differences of opinion on the concept of federalism. Of course this would require a constitutional amendment to change.

      By the way, I have never seen any real reference to the reasons for the EC that you cited. There was suspicion of popular voting in the context of true Democracy. But it was the issue of balance between individuals and States that really created the EC method == Again, I said this was arguably the paramount concern in its creation, and as I said, the only rationale that may still have a place depending on one’s views on federalism.

      The same fear exists today only it is not the slavers of the south but the Progressives of the right and left coast that are the problem for the rest of us == We’re not a problem…we see ourselves as the solution 🙂 Or, if anything, we see the rest of you as the problem…

      • So, we want to go popular vote but we do not want voter ID. Seems a bit risky to me.

        • Why?

          • I cannot believe that you think people do not cheat. For God’s sake take a look at Medicaid!

            • And exactly what is the big problem with showing ID? You need it to pick up a package at the post office, get on an airplane, enter an office building in New York City.

              • As I’ve said before, I don’t have an issue with ID per se. But the way that its often instituted, it winds up imposing a financial burden on certain people. That I do have an issue with.

                By the way, I’ve never once had to show ID to vote. Just seems strange to me…

            • First off, voter fraud is just not nearly as large of an issue as many on the right make it out to be.

              Second, and perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of the (few) instances of voter fraud that do occur will not be resolved by voter ID.

              How about we look to expand voting and not restrict it? How about we work to get more people to the polls? How about, as Mathius has suggested, we allow for voting for more than just a random Tuesday when the majority of voters are working?

              • Let’s see……according to the State AG….our voter ID caught just over 3,000 in Harris County (Houston) alone…..have not seen the results of other counties yet.

              • Need more info on this claim Colonel.

                Harris County was used as a ‘prime’ example of voter fraud a number of years ago if I remember correctly and such claims were largely debunked. The claims had more to do with voter registration I believe.

              • Actually no, they were not debunked. The mayor actually got elected for two reasons….(1) only 17% of eligible voters turned out to vote….that is Houston’s fault and (2) two precincts had more voters that voted than were registered. However, after about two years of investigating, addresses were used that had been destroyed…..several mall addresses were used and there was no picture ID…

                That said, with picture ID there were several thousand….(some say as many as 10,000) that were stopped from voting. Here are the reasons.

                1) Until last year, there was no way to verify mail in ballots and voting day attempts. This year, there were many people that tried to vote, with proper ID, after they received mail in ballots. The computer system now catches that. I saw this personally when I stood in line to vote. It was a black lady that came into vote with 4 others and she tried it. When they asked her about the mail in ballot, she could not remember. When they caught her at it, the others left as well without trying to vote.

                2) Using fake Texas ID’s…..this is actually a stupid move on anyone’s part. Our new Driver’s License now has water marks on it like our currency. Even the State ID has the same water marks on it that prevent fraudulent voting. I also witnessed on person trying this and that person was Hispanic. When the election monitors asked for another form of ID, including a W2 form or some tax or water bill verifiable, he did not have one and then started feigning that he did not understand English very well, despite the fact that he was talking perfect English earlier.

                3) Trying to vote in one county after registering in another county. I also saw this but came to the conclusion that it was purely accidental. It was an Oriental lady that once lived in Louisiana and moved to Dallas and registered there (DAllas County) and tried to vote in Tarrant County with a Louisiana ID. That, of course, did not fly but it was determined that she had a passport at home with the correct ID and was told to go get it and come back. So, I think that one was legit.

                4) I cannot confirm this next report because it was on TV and I have no independent verification, however, it was reported that several thousand Hispanics tried to vote with outdated Texas Driver’s License’s and the dates on the licenses said they were current….so it does exist and I think it exists greater than what is reported.

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any issues with the EC in 2008 or 2012. It seems nobody on the left had an issue with then, now………………..:wink:

      • Actually many people I know have been saying we should have popular vote since before Bush-Gore in 2000.

        But you didn’t hear much of it in 2008 or 2012 because the winner of the popular vote also won the EC…

  27. Let’s see if this works…


  28. JAC……I think we just sit back and let the Progressives self destruct…..all of this crying, safety pins, safe places, walking out of classes, violence in beating up pro Trump people, Soros meeting with high Democratic leaders and the Stop Trump at all cost meeting now taking place………all of this is having a Progressive mantra attached to it…..we just need to let them self destruct. So……Buck, being a progressive, supports all that is going on by association.

    I have never seen a country so full of hate and wimps………never…..unless you go to Europe.

  29. Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.

    If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.

    “We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.

    According to current indications, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 630,000 votes, although around 7 million ballots remain uncounted.

    Virtually all of the votes cast by 3 million illegal immigrants are likely to have been for Hillary Clinton, meaning Trump might have won the popular vote when this number is taken into account.

    Vote fraud using ballots cast in the name of dead people and illegal alien voters was a huge concern before the election.

    On the morning of the election there were 4 million dead people on U.S. voter rolls.

    Although some states require some form of ID before voting, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. all require no identification before voting.

  30. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The revolution will be a short one, given the millenials as “Peaceful” human beings do not believe in personal protection devices. In fact a few well chosen words may send them screaming to their safe places.

    The sad thing is that our president has been silent as is Hillary, the AG etc. They by their silence condone the behavior to violate the law and overturn the election……strangely by force and intimidation. As they were with OWS when they took millions from the very same people that were being protested against…..it shows the idiocy and lack of true understanding of what they are protesting.

    Maybe we just might have a gap in the generations if this behavior continues.

  31. Dale A. Albrecht says:


    They just do not get it….Jefferson for all his faults was a product of millenias of human behavior. The fact that he and the other founders even came up with the ideals they did is the message that should be debated. We fought a bloodly civil war to bring those ideals to all the people (not without a lot of speed bumps along the way since then)

    sarcastically speaking, he is the very image of the modern man. debt debt debt and upon his death everything was sold to satisfy his creditors. He used unilateral executive decisions that are very similar to what our current presdidents use.

  32. Buck…would be interested to know your thoughts on Trump’s first two selections…..a far right person and a center/left…..and yes, Priebus is center left.

    • Bannon gives me a lot of pause and concern.

      Priebus is probably a decent pick for the position, despite my thoughts on his political views.

  33. Is anyone here (other than you Mathius) at all concerned about Trump’s business holdings and a conflict of interest?

    It surprises me that Trump hasn’t done a single thing to address this issue…

    • No. Trump isn’t the first guy to have a blind trust while president. Were you concerned about Bloomberg running NYC?

      • Anita – I have no objection to a blind trust. Having your children run your business is not a blind trust.

        • I’m sure you guys will keep a close eye on it for us. Actually, in the 60 minutes interview, he said at this point “who cares” (real quote or pretty close) about the business. He sees his job as president to be much more important.

          • I don’t understand- so do you disagree that there is an issue here? Or do you acknowledge there is an issue but just don’t care because you’re guy won?

            • i just don’t care because for one, it’s not illegal to have business interests while president. I don’t care because the man already has billions. I think that he’s true to his word about the country being more important TO HIM. He’s never going to be able to satisfy 100% of the people.

              • Would you similarly not care about Clinton and the Clinton Foundation?

                After all, it isn’t illegal for a President to have a foundation, she’s already worth millions, and she can’t possibly satisfy everyone.

              • I am sooo happy that I don’t have to worry about not caring about her conflicts of interest either.

                I’ll admit to having reservations about her in particular, given her past deceit problems. I’d give her benefit of the doubt if she was my pick.I (wasn’t aware of it being an issue to begin with) wouldn’t have cared about Bloomberg in NYC and I dont recall him making any suspicious deals to his benefit. I don’t care about Trump. He has a very unique situation too though. His kids would have to shoot themselves in the foot for their dad to be president. It one of those gray areas that you always bring up.

              • Actually it was an issue with Bloomberg and he put much of his fortune in a blind trust and worked with the conflicts board on several issues regarding his involvement:

                Under the rules approved by the City Conflicts of Interest Board in December, the mayor is allowed to advise the investment firms about categories of investments and to hire or fire managers based on reports about their performance. But the mayor must receive no information about the specific holdings in his or the foundation’s accounts and must not know the identities of the managers.

                Clinton was my choice and I still would have expected her to take certain steps with the inherent conflict of interest. I wouldn’t give her a complete pass and I don’t give Trump one either.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      According to the leaked emails Hillary as SOS had plenty of conflicts of interest with the Foundation.

      • Way to answer the question!

        By the way, I agree there were some issues there that would have needed to be addressed. But why the refusal this far from Trump to address the issues on his end?

        • Because all he has to do is follow the law. After that it’s none of your business. I’m not throwing shade your way. I’m just saying that I have a feeling you’ll be hearing words to those effect for four years. He doesn’t care what you think. Dang, that sounds rude but that’s how is…meaning that’s how he thinks. I agree.

          • I feel you trivialize the conflict of interest his business poses, especially when we still don’t know the full extent of his holdings, debts, etc.

            I’m not saying here that I believe Trump will act illegally, but as an attorney you are taught early on to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Far from avoiding it, Trump seems to be embracing it!

            There is no rational reason for him not to get ahead of this issue – be more transparent with the public, set up a blind trust, and establish guidelines for his and his family’s continued involvement. If, as you say, he already has billions, why not limit involvement for the duration of his presidency?

            • You’re missing the part about him not caring what you think. That is not going to change. He has addressed the issue. Pretty sure his attorneys are on it. He knows he has to play by the rules.

              You say I’m trivializing. I say you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.

              • He hasn’t addressed the issue at all. That’s the whole problem.

                To answer G’s point below, I’m not expecting him to completely resolve the issue and tie up his financial affairs. But this isn’t an issue that just came up. He was asked about it during the campaign and still hasn’t addressed the issue.

                I do find it very frustrating (even if not surprising) to find the two of you give a complete pass to Trump on this issue while indicating your major concerns with Clinton.

              • Because she has a credibility problem.

              • So does Trump.

              • And what about Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, et. al. on both sides that use insider information to enrich themselves?

              • They all have a credibility problem too. What’s your point?

                So far, and correct me if I’m wrong, the general consensus is Trump’s business holdings (and the conflict of interest they create) do not concern you because Trump is you’re guy and you inherently trust him.

        • Buck, I’m not sure what all is entailed in dealing with these issues, but Trump hasn’t even been the President Elect for a full week yet and you want all his personal matters resolved like he’s a damn X-men member with special powers. Good grief, I’m sure the business is going to his family. With that said, what can he do to make you happy?

          As Anita said, I don’t think he cares what today’s Liberals say or think, last I checked, you still don’t have his taxes and he’s still the President Elect. Shit, I wish you were this concerned about Clinton when she was SoS, but I don’t recall a peep from you or Mathius (or anyone else on the Left).

          As far as his business……I don’t care either, as long as there is no appearance of wrong doing…..unlike HRC’s glaring RICO violations. There lies the whole picture in a small frame….If HRC is pardoned or simply let off the hook then what do you have to say? Because at that point, the hypocrisy would be glaring with any questioning what so ever.

    • Buck….no it does not bother me at all. There are tons of Senators and Representatives that own and operate business’ without a blind trust.

      The rule of law has been overlooked the entire time of the Clinton Foundation….the travel…and the selling of influence. Why would you be concerned with Trump?

  34. Buck

    “I will sever my connections and I’ll have my children and executives run the company, and I wouldn’t discuss it with them,” Trump said in reference to a Newsweek magazine article about the potential conflicts of interest caused by Trump’s business holdings in India, South Korea, Russia and elsewhere. CNN

    This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this addressed. Granted, he hasn’t given out a whole lot of info about it…because it’s none of your business.

    • Anita – it absolutely is my and every other American’s business.

      Having your children run the business (the same children who are helping run the transition and may even be part of the presidential staff or play some role in the administration) and promising not to discuss it with them is not a blind trust and doesn’t give me much confidence.

      • You’re punching at shadows. He’s addressed it to the extent that you need to know. When did it become a problem for a rich guy to become president?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          It becomes a problem when his is making policy or directing agencies that could affect his business. Come on, you can’t be so cavalier on Trump and so hard on Clinton and others.

          Just as Buck is hypocritical pointing to the “appearance” of a conflict yet voted for Clinton. The one person who had conflicts of interest both real, imagined and appearance thereof.

          • Wrong JAC. I said above that I wouldn’t care about Clinton if she was my pick. I don’t care about Bloomberg. I don’t care about Trump. Just follow the rules.

            • What do you mean, “if Clinton was my pick”?

              Are you saying you give Trump a pass merely because he’s your candidate?

          • Hey – voting for Clinton isn’t hypocritical. I long said I had issues with her, she wasn’t my first choice, and on this specific issue I’d expect her to adopt some measures on the conflict of interest.

            • She gave up her right earlier Buck….you cannot give a pass to a Secretaery of State and then say because she is PResident, then you expect her to adhere to something? The administration that you backed has no concern for law….you know it, I know it and everybody that has a microbe brain knows it.

        • How has he addressed it to the extent I need to know? By ducking the issue and placing his children in charge?

          I don’t quite understand how or why you feel this is adequate. Why not work on establishing some guidelines and utilizing a blind trust? Take a page out of Bloomberg’s book on this issue..

          • Buck, you said above that you don’t believe Trump would do anything illegal. But now he has to pass some purity test for you? Which way are you going to run with this?

            • A conflict of interest does not necessarily equate with illegality.

              • So what’s the problem?

              • As JAC said – It becomes a problem when his is making policy or directing agencies that could affect his business

              • But you will never know that unless it was to happen. Same thing could happen with a poor guy president. So we’re back to the purity test again.

              • A conflict of interest does not necessarily equate with illegality.

                Yes..it certainly does….and I would dare say that a simple conflict of interest does not a criminal make…..Policy is made all the time….Clinton did it….Obama did it…..the only thing for Obama, is he did not actually sell out our country….Clinton did….sorry, but the rule of law has been negated.

              • Anita, there is no problem.

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    I do share your concerns about Trump and his businesses.

    He doesn’t need a blind trust to address these as far as I am concerned. He needs to show that he has NOTHING to do with the business operations.

    If he retains “shares” then he must prove those as passive shares. No control or say in company business.

    If the kids are willing to sell back his shares after he is done being POTUS then so be it. At that point he will be subject to his own “laws” regarding conflicts of interest that he suggested during the campaign.

    There is another way, but less definitive. He could recuse himself from any decisions or polices that affect his business.

    I expect he will do what is needed to address the issue. He may not care what some think but he is listening to advisors. They will tell him that if he does not do something properly it could completely derail his Presidency from the get go.

    • JAC,

      I mostly agree with you, and do believe he’ll at least take some measures with respect to certain business holdings. But I disagree that merely placing your children in charge is sufficient.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If he has no ownership then why is placing his children in charge not enough?

        Or do you mean if he keeps some form of ownership?

        • Sorry for not clarifying — yes, I mean assuming Trump maintains some form of ownership.

          If he has 0 ownership interest (either individually or through trusts — I know very well how these work, ya know!), then I don’t have nearly as much of an issue with his children who do have an ownership interest continuing their involvement in the business. My only issue there would be the nature of their involvement in the administration.

          But we both know that isn’t the case.

  36. Buck, I never said that I will give Trump a pass. I do not want anyone enriching themselves over government service. But why does he need to put everything into a blind trust and force his kids to do the same? Do they not have rights to conduct their business? How do you put into a trust the Trump brand which is all over the place? Would it not be sufficient to just reveal all his business connections so that nothing is hidden? Transparency is sufficient.

    • Transparency goes a long way, but it doesn’t entirely solve the problem. Knowing all of his connections with nothing more could do more harm than good if he winds up pushing a policy proposal that incidentally benefits his business. But at least it would be open and the issue raised.

      Also I did not mean to imply that his children cannot maintain their interests and run their own businesses. Just that I don’t believe it sufficient for Trump to merely place his children in charge of his interests for the duration of his presidency.

  37. Buck/JAC…you guys are way off on this……way off…in my opinion.

    • Why do I see you guys wanting all this transparency when absolutely nothing has been transparent previously? I don’t get it. Ya’ll are all over the map on this….again in my opinion. You worry about blind trusts but you do not worry about the influence peddling of Senators and Representatives…….why do you feel that only the POTUS should be subject to this?

      • Cool you showed up. I’ve been thinking while this has been going on…what would these guys think if the Colonel ran for president? You probably wouldn’t pass the test either.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Where have I ever said I don’t care about conflicts of interest with Congressmen or other Govt. officials?

        Remember my howling about Reid’s family benefiting from his “insider” info., or the same for Pelosi and Feinstein and the late Senator from Alaska?

        Any federal employee above about GS 12 has to disclose ALL financial dealings and eliminate any holdings that can “create the appearance of a conflict of interest”.

        The same should hold true for their boss.

        • GS12 rules, as they have been previously called, are moot.They have not been adhered to for ages….and they certainly are not adhered to now. Blind trusts were a great idea at one time…..but the rules are not adhered to now….were not adhered to when implemented….and will never be adhered to in the future. Biden owns and operates his business now and has a direct influence.

          Trump is a business man. I do not expect him to divest his holdings in anything. He does not and should not have to sell anything simply because he is President. How many Boards of Directors has Bill Clinton sat on since he was POTUS while Hillary was in positions of power. I believe the number is14…have to go check on that.

          So, here is my question. IFyou are going to hold a POTUS to a strict adherence to GS 12 rules, then you have to hold everybody in government to the same….and that means that anyone….who owns one share of stock, one mutual fund, one hedge fund, one bond must sell everything they own to run for or hold public office. That would mean that anyone, who was in private life, prior to public that owns a 401(k) has to sell it….why? Because anyone that is in power to vote, give license, regulate commerce trhough rule making, paper shufflers that have an agenda…..any where along the line….can thwart anything. That has already been proven.

          The biggest violator of GS12 rules is Hillary Clinton and a foundation falls under that provision as does her husband, daughter, and grandchildren in ownership, direction, or control whether public or private. Nothing was said then….why now? The progressive mantra is our way is always better except when it applies to us.

          So, let me ask a question out right…….Even if Trump puts everything into a blind trust, how does that stop him from making decisions that affect it? Or are you two guys saying, he must sell everything, give up ownership, etc…..when no one else has.

          And, as I have seen…GS 12 rules adhered to where people have followed them and simply transferred ownership to family members and took control back once again when they step down from public life. Regardless, GS 12 rules, are great to look at but impossible to enforce….

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I assure you that the rules for conflict of interest are enforced on lower level govt. employees.

            They are not required to divest of all investments or business interests, however, because they do not have influence over nor can gain from insider info. on all investments.

            They are REQUIRED to divest of all assets where the “appearance of a conflict” can occur.

            As for the Clintons, I raised the issue in the late 90’s when they started talking about NGO’s being the future. I personally opposed, to my professional detriment, the creation of NGO’s to do Govt. contracts. Why? Because it created a conflict of interest among the local citizens and govt. officials who sat on the various “public committees”.

            • According to Giuliani there is no law requiring Trump to put his interest in a blind trust, although that generally has been the practice.

              Trump has said he would back off. I have a feeling it’s going to be a sore spot for you and Buck for years. He can’t win.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Neither Buck or I said the law required him to set up a blind trust. That is but one option that was made available to resolve the conflict of interest problem.

                It will not be a sore spot with me if he addresses the conflict of interest problem. Especially since it was a major theme of his campaign. That whole “corruption” thingy????

                There are probably several way he can address this and maintain and income stream from his investments.

              • He needs to do something Anita, to protect himself as much as anything else-what that is-I’m not sure.

              • ” I will sever my connections…….. ” I have a feeling he’s got this.

              • I hope so because the progressives and the media are gonna be on the attack 24/7. They were saying before the election that his tax plan was gonna help his business and save him money. Like that was the only reason he wanted to lower taxes-and it’s not like his policy would only help his business. But being fair isn’t a character trait of the liberal media..

        • JAC, I know you care about it….but how do you stop it, change it, amend it………and why now? I know why the progressives want to do it…I am a little surprised in your position.

          The only area that I can see your reasoning is if we adhere to them now and Trump sets the example….surely, you are not naive enough to beleive it would hold….No, I know you are not…..so…..why now?

          • Anyone who can answer-How does a blind trust work?

            • A very basic definition…..as follows as it pertains to Federal officials:

              “A blind trust, as discussed in this report, is a device employed by a federal official
              to hold, administer and manage the private financial assets, investments and ownerships
              of the official, and his or her spouse and dependant children, as a method of conflict of
              interest avoidance. In establishing a qualified blind trust upon the approval of the
              appropriate supervisory ethics entity, the official transfers, without restriction, control
              and management of private assets to an independent trustee who may not communicate
              information about the identity of the holdings in the trust to the official. The trust is
              considered “blind” because eventually, through the sale of transferred assets and the
              purchase of new ones, the public officer will be shielded from knowledge of the identity
              of the specific assets in the trust. Without such knowledge, conflict of interest issues
              would be avoided because no particular asset in the trust could act as an influence upon
              the official duties that the officer performs for the Government.

              Initially, it should be notedthat there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict ofinterest avoidance under federal law and regulation. There are now uniform statutory requirements for the establishment and maintenance of blind trusts, and federal officials who are to use such devices, either voluntarily or as a remedial measure for identified conflicts of interest, must receive from their supervisory ethics office prior approval of the proposed trustee and the trust instrument to qualify the blind trust for ethics purposes. ”

              Now, VH, there are many many different trusts that can operate the same as a blind trust. But the one over-riding issue….not trust is truly “blind”. Unfortunately, I am the recipient of trusts, the beneficiary of trusts, the administrator of one of my late father’s blind trust, and the trustee of others. It is a ROYAL pain in the ass….but necessary to protect assets.

              • Wow, that seems totally unreasonable to me. To be forced to put everything you have worked your life to create into the hands of a complete stranger, who you don’t know, who might run your business into the ground. I don’t have that much trust in me, especially for a job that will last a total of 4 maybe 8 years.

              • The colonel is giving one (albeit, a very good one) definition of a blind trust. In an ideal world this is exactly how I would like to see it. But it isn’t an ideal world and I don’t expect ANYONE to follow such a stringent procedure.

                I am looking more towards what Bloomberg had done as mayor of NY as a reasonable compromise:

                1) He was more transparent about his business holdings and investments
                2) He put much of his assets in a ‘blind trust’
                3) He worked with the conflicts board to set up some reasonable guidelines to (x) avoid some of the appearance of conflicts of interest and (y) adequately protect himself and his interests (as he should be able to do).

                The long and short of it was that Bloomberg retained the power to hire and fire investment managers and receive reports of overall performance. What he was not privy to were specific decisions being made and specific holdings within his portfolio.

              • That sounds a little more reasonable but not much. But what about his children they work there or they may well own part of the company-what about their interests in the family business?

              • VH – as I said to JAC, if Trump owns 0, I have no objection to his children maintaining their ownership and being directly involved in the affairs of the Trump Organization. My one caveat would only be to look at the children’s direct involvement in the Trump Presidency — if they are directly involved in the administration (e.g., paid advisors), then they would need to address the apparent conflicts of interest they, individually, may have.

                Merely placing his children in charge of running the business while Trump maintains his ownership interest is simply refusing to address the issue at all.

              • Are you talking 0 ownership or 0 Control?

              • Both

              • Explain—–“I agree – no one should be forced to divest all their investments and business holdings.”

              • What’s to explain – No one should be forced to divest themselves of all of their assets as a prerequisite to public service.

                A blind trust doesn’t mean divestiture.

          • Trump enters the Presidency using the phrase “Drain theSwamp” and his business’s are going to be a problem from day one based on the “appearance of conflict”. These two facts make it very important that he does everything reasonably possible to remove that appearance.

            It is also a fact that we don’t want successful people to be barred from serving in the government because they are successful. I don’t see anyway short of selling all your interests to someone who isn’t a part of your family to completely remove that “appearance” Which would be totally unreasonable to require of anyone.

            So what’s the answer? Because it does matter.

            • I agree – no one should be forced to divest all their investments and business holdings.

              That’s why the blind trust was created.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            What do you mean why “now”? I have had the same view ALWAYS.

            Trump is no different than me or you or anyone else serving in Govt. He should be treated the same.

            As far as enforcement well there in lies a problem. Because the executive branch and congress have that power. But only seem to use it for political purposes.

            • Ok…..did not really know your view actually….but you hit it perfectly…”As far as enforcement well there in lies a problem. Because the executive branch and congress have that power. But only seem to use it for political purposes.”

              Now, I would never propose to start with Trump but if you exercised the blind trust right now with everyone already established….prosecute Clinton for violations of RICO…..I will jump on board.

              How’s that?

  38. Interesting comment from Obama…….I actually see Trump as pragmatic and no ideology.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Well the POTUS is suppose to just “administer” the laws passed by Congress and NOT create law. The POTUS is the face of America to the world and the ideology should only be “America First” and is this deal, good or bad for AMERICA. The last 30 years of deals an actions have done nothing but weaken America. Just making us just “One of the Guys” and nothing special.

      • “The nation state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.” Trump

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Good grief.

          Wonder if the people of Africa, South America, Middle East, N. Korea, China and Russia would all agree?

          • You’re giving me a headache JAC. If there is anything we have learned form our election and Brexit, it’s that there are more of us than them. For a guy who is for limited government and individualism…it just makes me wonder about you.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              YES, I am for limited Govt,., Freedom, Liberty and Justice.

              The FOUNDATION of those things is a moral standard that recognizes these values as core values. It is NOT the Nation State.

              So I do not understand why you would “wonder” about me. I think I have been pretty consistent.

              And just because I accept the concept of a Nation State, for many reasons, that does not mean it is the “foundation” for our happiness or prosperity.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              P.S.: There is not more of you than them. THEY outnumber you by huge amounts.

              Don’t confuse the results of an election with little excitement with some mandate. Don’t start believing that those who voted for Trump are with you from now on. They will just as quickly change sides again if they are promised shiny objects and free cookies.

              • I could not disagree more JAC. You and I and Americans, and Brits, and populations around the world are suffering battered citizen syndrome. It’s been years of continually worse propaganda. I’ve been saying that you (royal you) are playing by the old rules. Those old rules are so complicated, purposely, that you can’t see outside the box. And with respect it’s made you very cynical. It’s not about R v D anymore. It’s not conservative v liberal. It’s about the elite v us. The battle between good and evil. How do I know that? Because it’s worldwide. All on tape. Country after country. That evil is out there, but people are fighting back now. Look what good Wikileaks has done for the world. It exposed downright evil. Weather it was spirit cooking, sending goon squads out to cause destruction, Clinton Crookery. You know where I’m going with this. You’re going to try to tell me that there are more of those types in the world than me? There is no way JAC. God would have blown this planet up if that was the case. Look what Trump himself has exposed? Evil, right here. Politicians, media, all of it laid bare. But look what he brought to the table. A positive message. People are dying for that. He dares to say the words law and order. He challenged corporate America to fall in line. Hes challenging trade treaties. He’s not looking for more war. He has world leaders offering cooperation. His thing is economics. He’s going to straighten the money problem out and it won’t even be hard. You want to bet that he’s going to run this government on a budget? You’ve hit me in the past about base line budgeting being a myth. Watch. Hes going to go with a zero based budget and you better be able to account for it. You want to know how we got trillions more in debt with Obama? Remember the American Recovery Act. 900 billion? With these continuing resolutions , that 900 billion got spent every year since then. Tack on a couple Solyndras, a couple wars, some Obamacare, and we’re hit. Trump is not gonna play those games. He has people with him now. Wait til he starts dropping regulations and see how many jobs open up. I wouldn’t doubt if he has some welfare to work program up his sleeve. Get rid of these stupid sanctuary cities. People are aware of this stuff and are more awake now. This kind of shift wouldn’t have happened any time but now. Look at the comment sections of blogs at how many people no longer have cable? Look at the NFL ratings this year. Look how rap music has toned down from the gansta days. Get these people back to work and see if they have a change of heart. Cause there’s that good and evil again. People are not born evil. They’re brainwashed evil. But they’re not irredeemable. Wishful thinking but adding a little faith to the mix and things can turn around in a hurry. It’s not that complicated. Leadership is key. We’re on the right track. I believe that.

          • I was too tired to deal with this one last night. That quote came at the tail end of his screed about us putting up with the “false song of globalism” More cynicism from you JAC. Or maybe you don’t see..or want to give benefit…to the America First idea. Or as the Colonel points out time and time again, Texas first. They’re making it work. I want Michigan first. I hope you want Big Sky Country first. I’m thinking you need a little less theory and a lot more pragmatism. Here’s another one for you…The future belongs to the dreamers not the cynics and not the critics. We just need to make it happen.

            Tell you what…Detroit is under reconstruction big time right now. Everywhere you look, buildings are being renovated. Jobs are a dime a dozen. Let Trump throw some new concrete down through SE Mich and we’re well on our way. I see a bright future ahead for my son’s crowd.

    • Me too. I’ve never come out and said that for fear of ‘the man has no principles’ lecture. People in the Trump circle…family, friends, employees, tv show contestants, even ex wives for crying out loud, have nothing but good to say about him. Center right. Tries to be all inclusive.

      One issue he ran on…the childcare thing…seems to be a lefty kind of thing. OH, see, he’s big government…but really, it’s a tax cut- a conservative thing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Some of Trump’s past associates have had negative things to say about him. Including the lady he made the first female construction supervisor, probably in the USA.

        Can we all just admit the guy has some real issues and start focusing on what he is doing now?

  39. Laugher of the year 😀

    Rahm Emanuel tells illegals to come to Chicago where they will be safe. BWAHAHAHA!

    As far as the sanctuary city issue. Why can’t victims of crimes committed by Illegal’s who are given safe haven in these cities, sue these cities as being liable for the crimes committed?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Safe in Chicago? That is a laugh. Maybe because they are illegal and have NO rights in this country, they can be used as target practice for the thugs that are killing their own. Sort of deflecting the anger…I know this isn’t PC but Emmanuel’s idea will not turn out well. They’d be safer to go back home, except Syria

  40. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I finally figured out Trump’s outgoing face….he’s glowering like Winston Churchill. Trump certainly will never achieve Churchill’s skill for speech, which were practiced and practiced for each and every one, no time today. But Churchill was pragmatic and only did things that he thought were “GOOD” for Great Britain. He constantly switched party affiliations.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      He even practiced zingers and would get sorely put out if the opposition wouldn’t step into the obvious trap and allow him to use the jibe.

  41. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The Clinton email scandal will not and should not go away. If Obama as he leaves office pardons her and her staff and the Foundation, BEFORE and grand jury or court cases putting the final period to this scandal, that would be a complete admission that she broke the law and not just some interpretation….this is an out take of a larger article published yesterday

    “The criminal nature of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was highlighted further last week by the State Department’s release of 74 additional emails recovered by the FBI in its investigation of Clinton’s use of a non-state.gov email system.

    Included in the new documents was an email in which Clinton forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea, at the unsecure email address dreynolds@clintonemail.com.

    Before releasing the heavily redacted email to Judicial Watch, the State Department marked it “B1.4(b)” and “B1.4(d),” indicating that it contained “Foreign Government Information’ and “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US including confidential sources.” The State Department also misleadingly labeled the email with the term “near duplicate.”

    No wonder Hillary Clinton deleted this email. Her sharing of classified information with her daughter shows criminal disregard for national security.”

    Back to my opinion. The very fact that people in the administration and others used “Aliases” to try and hide their identity is a validation of “INTENT” to violate the law and avoid any Congressional oversight.

  42. Almost had an accident while driving today……hysterical laughing and tears in my eyes.

    A 30 ft bobtail truck driving around with this painted on the side.

    2 Republicans and a Truck.
    Helping you move to Canada is our specialty
    because you can’t find 2 Democrats who will work.

  43. Hmmm, Giuliani as possible Sec of State-I figured he was perfect for Attorney General.

    • Oh…I think that Cruz is on the short list for AG…..that would cause me to have a plexy.

      • wouldn’t bother me at all. 🙂

        • Understand your opinion…but you have to understand Texas…..he will lose his Senate seat if he does not take the AG job…..he better.

          He will lose his Senate seat because he did not uphold Texas values. He did not exhibit the Lone Star attitude and could not accept that he lost. Instead of fighting back and saying…next year….he “slunk” off like a snake in the wagon rut and whined.

          ****yes, we use the term “slunk”. You should know by now, we have our own dictionary.

  44. I find it interesting that the ‘conflict of interest” has become such a debate here. After all, these young Congressmen go into the building as Middle Class and leave millionaires in jus a couple years (or get re-elected and become even wealthier). Yet the debate is a worry that someone already very wealthy has an issue. Strange, but OK, if ya’ll say so.

    @Buck……You told Dale last month that you didn’t think Clinton would have to have a blind trust involving the Clinton Foundation. Can you explain why you feel that way?

    • I’ve long said there were issues that Clinton would need to address with respect to the Clinton Foundation. However, I don’t believe this situation necessitates a blind trust.

      There is a very big difference between owning and operating a for profit business and having family members sit on the board of a non-profit.

      Even with the for profit business, I have been clear that I wouldn’t expect nor require Trump’s children to sever their ties or utilize a blind trust.

      • I’m getting confused and I freely admit I don’t know the correct answer–so how about you just tell me what you think Trump should do, that would satisfy you, if his family is going to run the company. 🙂

        • Perhaps I’m not being as clear as I think I’m being.

          With respect to Trump, assuming he isn’t going to divest himself of ownership, I believe a blind trust is the best option, coupled with being more transparent about his business holdings and setting up some reasonable guidelines. Again, look towards what Bloomberg had done.

          With respect to Trump’s children, I have no objection to them maintaining their ownership and direct involvement in the business. Unless, of course, they wind up also being key members of Trump’s administration – then I would like them to also utilize the blind trust concept for the same reasons Trump himself should.

          And again, I’m leaning towards a blind trust as the best option, but am open to other ideas and solutions.

          • Buck, curious as to how you would operate a blind trust. So, Colonel D, as a defense contractor decides to run as POTUS…..good old Colonel D says…” I will form a blind trust andput someone else in charge who will run the day to day operations and make decisions.”

            “YAY…look at what Colonel D is doing.” And everybody is happy. So, all Colonel D does is hire his most trust worthy friend to run his corporation who thinks exactly like Colonel D….they can still play golf together, drink Dr Pepper, and discuss business things.”

            Just what has been accomplished?

            • Ill point to Bloomberg once again – a trusted friend was placed in charge, and Bloomberg was permitted to get basic information in terms of performance and make decisions on advisors to use.

              He was not permitted to see the underlying holdings to avoid a conflict.

              Yes, of course he and his friend could (and probably did) have conversations that they should not have been having. And sure it isn’t a perfect solution. But it does effectively get around, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety and, if both parties act ethically, it can avoid actual conflicts as well.

              Again, I’m all ears for a different solution to the problem.

  45. Dale A. Albrecht says:


    Even if Obama pardons Hillary and the foundation for any or future crimes or alleged…the investigation MUST take place with all honesty, lay it all out in black and white.

  46. ROFLMAO!

  47. Hillary Clinton reportedly became “physically violent” towards her own campaign staff after she realized she had lost the presidential election, according to radio host Todd Kincannon.

    “CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained,” tweeted Kincannon.

    It was Podesta who was sent out to talk to Hillary’s dejected supporters shortly before Hillary called Donald Trump to concede, with Clinton nowhere to be seen until the following day.

    When asked about rumors that Hillary was drunk on election night, Kincannon responded, “She was. I posted about that too. She was in a “psychotic drunken rage” according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix.”

    Kincannon then claimed that CNN blocked the reporter from publishing what would have been a bombshell story.

    “The CNN reporter didn’t fail to report it. His editors will not let him. CNN has banned all “Hillary in the bunker” stories,” he tweeted.

    Secret Service officials and other staff who worked closely alongside Hillary have previously reported her problems with angry tantrums on numerous occasions.

    Last year it was also reported that Clinton’s own campaign staffers feared she could have a serious meltdown and that Hillary had “been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work.”

    In addition to claims that she became irate, author Ed Klein said a source told him Hillary cried inconsolably to a friend after the results came in, blaming FBI director Comey and President Barack Obama for not doing enough to stop the FBI investigation into her email scandal.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      So who is intimidating voters???? Not Trump people who were most likely poll watchers like Hillary was during the Nixon and Kennedy vote.

      2/3’s of the NYT front page were taken up with negative Trump articles. The last 1/3 were page fillers. Can’t see how the Times editors coudn’t come up with two more

      Even if the individual vote count stays roughly 600K difference across the board, that only is 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast. That’s 1/2 of the population of Raleigh NC, or 5% of NYC The difference is a statistical draw for all intents and purposes. I like the combination of individual and State electing the president with the electoral college. A State has every right to have the electoral vote divided up proportionally like Maine and Nebraska do. All the others by their law says winner take all even it 49.9% voted for the other person. It that is not disenfranchisement I don’t know what is. Change the law in a State like CA or NY, ILL to apportioning the electoral votes……My bet Trump’s win would have been bigger.

  48. Is Trump great or what?………..people are being paid to protest him……hell, he is already creating jobs and he ain’t even POTUS yet.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Notice how Obama went to another country to diss the US and caution against devisiveness, when he spent 8 years opening up wounds and pitting everyone in this country against each other. Can’t the Nobel Committee take back a prize, for being so grieviously wrong.

  49. Texas mobilizing an extra 1,500 guard troops for border. That no makes 4,500 on 24/7 patrol.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I’m 1/5 of the way through breaking out proportionally the states by their popular to their allocated electoral votes…..just a note CA people who voted for the OTHER person had as many votes as the left is bitching about saying Hillary won. Just shy of 600K.

      • In CA HRC 6,248,958, DJT 3,369,654 with 4M left to count. How many of them will be military ballots?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Sir…is this to assist those that are wishing, in an orderly fashion, to leave? Maybe you ought to send troops to CA with all the hollywood types wishing to go leave….try Venezuela, Cuba, etal

  50. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Folks…..I broke out the percentage of votes by State per candidate and allocated them to the electoral votes per State, which changes with census reports, up or down. I used the NYT’s data, which stopped updating after the election was called. So the 4M votes still in CA and others have not been included…….The results were interesting…..NEITHER candidate met the 270 electoral vote threshhold to win, when the popular vote was apportioned to the # of electoral votes in each State…..They were within 3 votes of each other….The kicker is the left is complaining that Trump is not our President because Hillary won the popular vote in a vague way, like 500K…….They are discounting almost 6,000,000 votes that voted for NEITHER major major party candidate. Based on 51 States because of DC Trump won 58.8% of the states and Hillary only 41.2%

    With or curious blend of State and popular vote and each State deciding how to apportion their allocated electoral votes by population, not registed voters or those that voted…our framers came up with a pretty ingenious system. They also were trying to minimize the “favorite son” vote which would throw the results all over the place with no clear winner in the least.

    There is NO way that the 6 million counted votes that voted “other” would all go for HRC. Trump more fit the Libertarian profile than HRC anyday and those voters made up the vast majority of the other bucket……If the top two candidates stayed on the ballot and those that voted for the “Other” candidates had to go back and make a choice between HRC or Trump, more States would go to Trump and electoral votes based on % and also he would surely make up 500K votes out of the 6M above and beyond and win the total popular vote also

    As I posted earlier, there were almost as many votes “other candidates” in just CA as the left is complaining about in total,all States, difference between HRC and DJT

    Only the voters that voted for another candidate get to go back and choose between the top two, if NO majority of threshold was met and the laws in each State are changed to proportional electoral votes……..Neither HRC or DJT met a popular majority that is 50.1% of the ballots cast, nor met the 270 electoral votes required,

  51. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I just loved the protests “Not my President” by High School students. Just how many of them actually were 18 and eligible to vote, much less registered and voted and also registered for the draft….my bet is virtually none. Unless they’d been set back a few times and are over 18 but then probably to stupid to vote on something as important as President. Only source of their info would have been twitter and facebook. in 140 chacters or less. probaly used Pokeman to find their polling station.


    You guys on the left cannot seriously be backing all this college protest.

    Cruz…..if you are offered the AG position…you better take it. You are toast in Texas.

    News Media…..one week into Trump cabinet picks and you are upset because you did not get invited to a steak dinner. And, because you were not invited, you are now claiming that Trump is not transparent? Really? Because you did not get invited to a members only club to get a free steak? Suck it up, Buttercup.

    I love this part…..Sanctuary cities and now sanctuary colleges. New York openly violating Federal Law by issuing local ID’s to illegal immigrants…..come to New York, come to California, come to Chicago…..you will be protected and we will destroy all eveidence of your applications to protect you……..I got to thinking about it. Let ’em go. Let New York and California and sanctuary take ’em. Cut Federal funding and let the local taxes take care of the illegals and sanctuary types. The we shall see what happens. NOE TO MR.TRUMP: ENFORCE THE LAW. ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

    Greg Abbott laughing about the sudden surge on the Texas border….you will be caught…you will be finger printed…you will be prosectued…we will enforce Federal Law…..don’t like it? Go to California.

  53. Chairman of the Iowa house oversight committee has had enough ( the originator of the Suck it up, Buttercup) filed a state bill to drop state funding of any college using public funds to establish safe zones, crying rooms, Play dough and water color rooms so people can cope. Rep. Bobby Kaufman says…”Suck it up, Buttercup”….not on public funds…..go home and cry.

    Rutgers University wanting to create a sanctuary campus and safe zone for those upset about the election of Trump. Thousands of students there and elsewhere giong to walk out. Let them do it, and give them an unexcudes absence and if they miss a test, give them a zero. Pretty simple.

  54. Democrats slowly eating their own. Trump has said, we need to drain the swamp…so yesterday all transition team lobbyists were given their walking papers.

    Dems now postponing their votes and younger dems are finally getting their guts and taking over and challenging the establishment within the Dem party……interesting.

  55. Los Angeles California…….high school students who walked out….questioned by media…if trump takes away our food and medical, how do we live? PERHAPS, you get a job.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Sorry, the illegals and other low end educated legal migrants have all the jobs that you as an uneducated person may want.

  56. Side Note to Buck…….I am getting a crash course in GSTT’s. As a TTEE…..it was not the trust that is the problem ……..it is now trying to figure out how to fund it..Fortunately, my parents foresaw some of the pitfalls….and we have managed to avoid most of them but some of them are inevitable….especially with exempt and non exempt status.

    • Ah yes, GST – tons of fun! I don’t envy you on having to wade through that topic.

      What do you mean by funding – I assume you’re talking about picking and choosing which assets to put in the exempt vs non-exempt?

      Just remember – GST 101 – you do NOT want to deal with a trust that is only partially exempt! Enjoy!!

  57. New article will be posted shortly

%d bloggers like this: