New Media Alliance - Christopher Adamo

By Christopher G. Adamo

How long can Congressional Democrats hope to continue their anti-capitalist, anti-American agenda without facing accountability from the voting public? Current indicators are that they intend to hold firm on their signature issues, believing that the public will simply not recognize the correlation between their actions of recent years, and the horrendous economic fallout that ensued as a direct result. And nowhere can this relationship be seen more clearly than in the skyrocketing energy prices currently threatening to squeeze the vitality from the American middle class.

Simple economics, the principles of which are becoming painfully apparent to every American who stops to fill up the family sedan, dictate that when disproportionate multitudes of customers have to compete for a limited supply of fossil fuels, prices will rise. Thus all of the liberal/environmentalist efforts to curtail the availability of the world’s oil, specifically by hamstringing America’s ability to exploit its own natural resources, have only succeeded in driving up the cost of those resources for all who want or need them.

Concurrently, liberals are showcasing their disingenuousness by making two distinctly disparate claims regarding the economic repercussions of their actions. On the one hand, they castigate market speculators as the ultimate culprits of the current price spike. Yet in the very next breath, they deny any possible immediate benefits from renewed exploration, drilling and production by Americans. Rather, they insist that any advantage from expanded supplies would not be realized for at least a decade, as if those evil speculators could somehow remain totally blind to consequent changes in the oil market until newly produced American gasoline is running in the streets.

Even a cursory examination of the many contributing economic factors reveals how the current prices of diesel fuel and gasoline are being artificially inflated, and who is ultimately to blame for the problem. And the picture is not pretty.

From a worldwide perspective, the “free market” would currently yield a much lower price for a barrel of oil than recent numbers which exceed one hundred forty dollars. This fact being well understood among oil producing nations, particularly in the Middle East, where major oil producers banded together to form the infamous “Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries” or OPEC.

Under its auspices, participating nations agree to non-market driven limitations in their oil production, thus ensuring that any losses in profit from volume sales would be offset by increases in profit margins. This often tenuous agreement has at times completely collapsed, specifically when a member nation determines that it can reap significantly larger profits from selling a much higher volume at a lower price. Yet with worldwide demands as high as they currently are, the accord remains stable.

In essence, an artificial “monopoly” has been created among the member nations, whereby they can unilaterally determine what the rest of the world will pay for its energy needs. But for this monopoly to survive and thrive, it requires the defacto cooperation of all other parties involved. Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this situation is that such “cooperation” is effectively coming from the Democrat controlled Congress of the United States.

By stubbornly refusing any consideration of exploring, drilling, and thus expanding American oil production, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) and Senate Majority Harry Reid (D.-NV) along with their Democrat political machine in Washington, are effectively forcing the entire American oil industry into the role of collaborating OPEC members. In a sinister sense, America is officially refusing to increase the world production of oil, thus strengthening the OPEC monopoly and its ability to deliberately inflate the price of crude oil.

It makes no difference when paying the bill at the gas pump that Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal political cohorts are claiming to do their deed for the sake of the planet, as opposed to the Arab nations who simply want to maximize profits. The end product is the same. Americans are senselessly forced to crunch their personal budgets in order to keep the family car rolling.

Elsewhere around the world, the predictable fallout from liberal policy making hits much harder. Food prices are soaring, both as a result of higher costs to grow and transport edible crops, along with the insane practice of sapping food supplies in order to use basic grains for the production of ethanol in a dubious scheme to supplement gas supplies.

Meanwhile, those most responsible for the current energy calamity offer only environmental sanctimony, entwined in the hoax of “global warming,” as their justification.

However, some current signs indicate that the public may have grown wise to the environmentalist charade, which could produce an enormous backlash in the coming elections, if those on the right side of the issue have the wherewithal to properly portray the situation. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that public approval of Congress has dropped to the unbelievable number of nine percent. This represents the first ever dip into single digits since such polls were taken.

In other words, the American public is no longer buying the flowery liberal rhetoric and its empty promises of environmental utopia that somehow always degenerates into higher costs, less freedom, and of course, larger tax revenues for career politicians and their bureaucratic legions. Instead, the people of the heartland see an accelerating decay of their lifestyles and diminishing prospects of a better future for their children.

Congressional Democrats are banking on their ability to deflect scrutiny on the cause and effect relationship of their political alliances and resulting policies, along with the horrendous consequences reaped by middle America, at least until after the November elections. However, the public has begun to grasp the painful realities of the Democrat ruse, and is in no mood to accept any more of it.

America’s families suffer a loss of buying power, and American workers are barred from gainful employment among the abundant natural resources that exist across this land and just off its shores. In response, Representative Maxine Waters (D.-CA) expresses her desire for the government to nationalize the oil industry, and Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama reveals his contempt for middle America, which he believes is excessively lavish in its lifestyles and use of energy resources.

Consequently, even at this late date, a bold and aggressive Republican campaign offensive can properly characterize this issue along partisan lines, and put the Democrats to flight. On the other hand, if the average voter can successfully be prevented from “connecting the dots” for the remainder of the election season, Democrat ranks in the House and Senate will swell, and their hold on power will be cemented for the foreseeable future.

By Christopher Adamo

As far back as Sun Tzu, military strategists have well understood the concept that victory in war does not require the destruction of one’s enemy, but merely convincing that enemy that destruction is inevitable if the fight continues. Similarly, in a dictatorship, absolute control is neither necessary nor, in most cases, even possible. All that is needed for the dictator to endure is the presumption among the underlings that the leader does indeed hold a monopoly of power.

It is a point that Americans ought to seriously ponder, as the future of their nation appears to increasingly rise and fall on the basis of a single vote in the United States Supreme Court.

This past June, the ever more prominent annual ritual played out in which the Court handed down its latest batch of “decisions,” which increasingly appear less as judicial considerations and more as edicts. More disturbing is that a growing number of Americans seem to be accepting the latest whims of the court as some sort of celestial standard, determining with absolute finality what America can or cannot be, and what Americans can or cannot do.

This was never intended to be the role of the courts. Rather, the founders clearly sought to prevent such unaccountable governing practices by consigning the ultimate power of legislating to the Congress which, among the three branches of government, would in turn be most accountable to the people.

The Constitution was to be the embodiment and demarcation of the pact among the States, whereby they would cooperatively form a Federal Government to arbitrate between them and collectively represent them among foreign powers. In its most extreme exercise of power, the court was intended merely to ensure that all parties under the jurisdiction of the agreement (the States) would abide by its original terms, thus maintaining its integrity.

Changes were allowed, but only under a stringent set of rules, known as the amendment process. And once those changes were instituted, the only proper duty of the Court was to enforce them. In this manner, citizens could rely on the protections afforded them under the Constitution, and its execution in all matters of governing, to be conducted in a just manner that they themselves had enjoined.

In complete contrast to modern thinking, even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that its design does not empower government but, at every turn, restricts and regulates the means by which those in power can exercise their dominion over the people. Even the first five words of the First Amendment (which was placed at the top of the list for a reason), lend incontrovertible proof to this case: “Congress shall make No law…” Clearly, the restrictions of the First Amendment are imposed on the Congress. And any First Amendment matter before the Court should be adjudicated solely on that basis.
In contrast, the three most notable cases of the latest Supreme Court session give a clear indication of just how far beyond its original boundaries the Court has reached, and just how dire is the burgeoning threat it represents to America. That governing officials and pundits are essentially ignoring the Court’s overreaching behavior, and are instead focusing on the minutia of the individual decisions, suggests that the problem in American thinking must be corrected outside the Court before any real fix can be implemented within.

Absent any Constitutional authority or mandate, in “Kennedy v. Louisiana” the Court summarily struck down the death penalty for child rapists in all fifty states. Citing no Constitutional precept, it instead substituted its own interpretation of “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.”

Apparently, the majority believes it sees a trend away from such punishment, and in response issued a blanket decree prohibiting any variance from that perceived trend. Abominating the Constitution and the rule of law, the Court simply imposed its views above those of all elected legislatures and the people.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court did indeed reaffirm, albeit grudgingly, that the Bill of Rights does indeed assert an inherent right to keep and bear arms, as if the unambiguous text of the Second Amendment was ever in question among those who can read. But if anyone doubts that this 5 to 4 decision represents a tenuous hold on the reality of such a fundamental constitutional guarantee, consider the words of dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens, who expressed incredulity at the prospect that Second Amendment advocates “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In Justice Stevens’ mind (and he is clearly not alone in his thinking), the ultimate authority to regulate society lies with high officials such as himself. It was exactly for this reason that the founders recognized the vital importance of including the Second Amendment, in order that the limitations on the exercise of governmental power imposed by the Constitution would endure.

Where, one must wonder, does Justice Stevens deem rights to be inherent? Certainly not the rights of a child to be free from the threat of a grisly sexual assault. Yet in another arena, Stevens and his liberal cohorts do indeed embrace the concept of “unalienable rights,” at least for foreign Islamic terrorists.

“Boumediene v. Bush,” possibly the most abominable and traitorous decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court (and again a 5 to 4 ruling), gives a shocking glimpse into how thoroughly an unaccountable and unrestrained court can insidiously destroy the nation. By its very name, this case representing a terrorist suit against the President of the United States, reveals how an out-of control Court can become a weapon for America’s mortal enemies. And the Court’s appalling decision, effectively granting “Constitutional Rights” to the terrorists, represents a level of collaboration with the enemy not witnessed within this nation’s shores since the days of Benedict Arnold.

In truth, the Court can no more “grant rights” to non citizens than can it alter the reality of an unborn child. It can, by properly upholding its own responsibilities, maximize the God-given rights of Americans or, as it has done here, abridge them by bestowing unlawful protections to murderous enemy combatants.

Many Americans look to this next presidential election as a watershed moment, possibly determining whether the court will be returned to its constitutional roots, or by the appointment of a few more liberal “justices,” veer irretrievably away from the foundations of the nation. Yet a proper fix must go much further than that.

While it is unrealistic to expect a move towards the impeachment of any Justices despite their having clearly exceeded the authority of office, the Constitution clearly stipulates that the Congress can, at its own discretion, place certain issues beyond the realm of the Court. Until it musters the principle and courage to do so, this unchecked Supreme Court will undoubtedly continue its perversion of the Constitution and thus the rest of America.

By Christopher Adamo

Liberals inadvertently delivered a telling message in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In essence, it is the same message they have sent on the heels of every major calamity, whether natural or man-made, to befall the nation during the past several decades. Let a heat wave hit or a bridge collapse, and their first impulse is to assign guilt, invariably among their political opposition. But by their immediate and hysterical finger-pointing, they telegraph their desperation to avoid any culpability for the real problems at hand.

Thus, we were told, the hardship and suffering resulting from Katrina was not to be blamed on the lavishly funded but totally corrupted local and state governments that did almost nothing worthwhile prior to the catastrophe, despite having received enormous supplies of money to prepare for the inevitability of a major hurricane. Instead, the negative attention was directed at the lack of a sufficient federal response once the area had been devastated by the thoroughly anticipated storm.

So, years of liberal/Democrat graft and misuse of funds in Louisiana suddenly metamorphosed into accusations of racially motivated indifference within the Bush Administration. Worse yet, the success of this heinous ploy meant that those truly responsible would escape any accountability, virtually guaranteeing that New Orleans will suffer a similar fate whenever the next major storm makes landfall there.

Likewise, in the horrific hours following the Columbine massacre, people were honestly asking what had so poisoned the modern culture that might have allowed such demented ideas to fester in the minds of the two young men who did the killing. Facing a real possibility that their morally bankrupt and humanistic indoctrination of the young might receive severe scrutiny, liberals began shouting loudly about the need for more “gun control,” as if the two dozen laws already on the books were not sufficient to dissuade honest youths from killing their classmates.

Currently, with every ensuing statistical deviation in the frequency of natural disasters, unscrupulous opportunists are seizing on the latest event as a means of gaining political mileage of some sort, whether with respect to the lack of sufficient preparation or, as is increasingly the case, by invoking the convenient “bogey man” of global warming as the ultimate culprit.

This past spring has seen a profusion of tornadoes across the American heartland, much as is the case during most springs in recorded history. Nevertheless, any comparative increase in the number of violent storms is, we are told, a clear sign of “global warming,” and ultimately, evidence of the need for the Congress to confiscate more of the nation’s wealth in order to fund more pork barrel projects.

The ostensible “connection” between the event and the liberal political reaction is far from coherent, and in truth represents a criminal exploitation of misfortune, heartbreak, and loss of life. Nevertheless, dire predictions are invariably offered in the wake of each tragedy, complete with grim promises that the disasters will continue until Congress acts.

Yet even when weather patterns become more benign, as has been the case with the current lull in Gulf Coast hurricanes since 2005, nobody suggests that the weather situation is improving, or that perhaps government plans to encroach on Americans’ freedoms need to be curtailed. Instead, some inane excuse is offered for the respite, followed by promises of even more devastating events if American citizens do not immediately heed the warnings, fork over their earnings, and elect Democrats.

However, all is not lost. The “playing field” appears to be shifting, as it almost always does whenever the devices of the left are allowed to advance unchecked for too long and people begin to feel their real consequences. Americans in particular, but also the rest of the world, are being exposed to a not-so-bright future that the current crop of leftists would impose on all of society if they get their way.

Even as recently as last year, when too few were sufficiently vigilant to notice all of the liberal/enviro meddling in their lives, it seemed entirely worthwhile and reasonable for average people to “save the planet” through the meager effort of purchasing and installing those funny little curly light bulbs. But the picture looks far more grim these days, with gasoline prices bolting beyond four dollars per gallon.

Worse yet from the perspective of the left, the general public is finally “connecting the dots,” recognizing that surging costs of fuel results from the limitations in its supply. And this condition can itself be directly linked to the stranglehold the environmental extremists have on any exploration or drilling for new fossil fuel sources. The general public is beginning to grasp the hardships it could eventually face, once electrical power providers are forced to compete for a limited supply of kilowatts in the same manner that gasoline distributors now must contend for each available gallon of gas.

Meanwhile, the earth’s climate has, in the past decade, stubbornly refused to cooperate with all those apocalyptic predictions. Absent from current weather measurements is any evidence of actual increase in atmospheric temperatures, an “inconvenient fact” that has forced many among the global warming alarmists to regroup. They claim now that any stark increases in global temperatures will be delayed until some time after the next two presidential election cycles.

According to Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil Germany, although the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a paltry .3 degree C increase in global temperatures over the next decade, the current pattern suggests no ensuing changes until 2015, after which the scorching of the planet will ostensibly begin in earnest.

In other words, any reliable computer model or prediction has yet to be achieved, despite all of the emotion and money thrown into the effort. Indeed, the only grim expectation that has been consistently met is that with the passing of each warm season, each cool season, each dry season, and each wet season, entrenched governmental bureaucrats and shameless political opportunists will seek to exploit the earth’s natural ebb and flow as a means of scaring the public into further subservience.

By Christopher Adamo

Forget about the rancor of the Democrat Primary season. That is all history now. In truth, the heated rivalry between the two candidates was hardly an indicator of any philosophical or moral differences between them, but only a strident argument about which liberal “messiah” deserved to be president. Even the fierceness of their efforts was itself a reflection of comparable components of raw ambition that each possesses.

One had to win eventually, so the fact that it was Barack Obama does not suggest a prevailing trend from “near left” to “far left” in the nation’s heartland, or anything nearly so profound as that. Rather, after a jackrabbit start in the early primaries, follow by mixed messages of tepid support and resounding rejection in later states, his supporters insisted that the momentum had begun to snowball in his direction. And since the Democrat playbook relies so heavily on the bent of the news media, their chosen candidate was bound to eventually prevail.

So, what might an Obama presidency portend for this nation? The thought is frightening indeed. On many fronts, too many fronts, it would amount to a “third term” of the Clintons. And that is bad enough. The telltale signs are far too numerous to ignore, particularly since the Obama/Democrat/media political spin machine is offering its own alarmist rhetoric asserting that a John McCain administration would amount to “Bush III.”

The profusion of Obama gaffes, retractions, and obfuscations of the past several months lend ample evidence to the concept that liberalism, whether delivered by Obama, Hillary, or any of the other notable liberal Democrats on the political scene, is merely liberalism. And in the rare event that a Democrat politician attempts to rise even to a slight degree above the cesspool of leftist thought, as has Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the rest of the pack is on hand to either beat him back into line, or otherwise punish him for committing the transgression of independent thought. In the end, the mindless ideology of the left will prevail, no matter how many of its principals end up as casualties.

Thus can be explained Obama’s odd behavior in response to the “Reverend Wright” debacle. First, Obama thought it best to castigate Wright’s critics, and deflect criticism by attempting to point out faults among the race of Wright’s presumed detractors, including Obama’s own white grandmother. Then, when this ploy proved ineffective, Obama did the exact thing he had previously insisted he would not do, which was to disavow Wright who was, it turns out, expendable.

Most telling of all was Obama’s inarguably “Clintonian” excuse for the switch, claiming lamely that Wright’s latest anti-America rants were a manifestation of some new malevolence that was never before revealed to Obama. No doubt. And everyone likewise accepted the excuse that Hillary, reputedly the most brilliant woman to ever tread the hallowed halls of Washington, could competently manage the international affairs of an entire country while remaining blissfully ignorant of her own husband’s affairs within the walls of the White House.

Were this mode of rationalization to be believed, one might wonder just how long it would take Obama to grasp the reality that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also hates America, being that two decades of such virulence against the U.S. from his own pastor was somehow lost to the amazing young politician. But to even ask such a question would require a profound extension of faith in Obama’s sincerity. To date, few on either side of the aisle are expending much energy in the effort.

In truth, across the political spectrum it is generally recognized that Obama merely invented a new excuse when he realized that the first approach was not going to succeed. And while those on the right find his demonstrated lack of character thoroughly defining, within his camp such behavior simply represents the “business as usual” as they have come to expect it from their “leaders.”

On another notable occasion, Obama credited his own birth to an airlift that brought his father from Kenya to America. Though dramatic and compelling on the campaign stump, the event actually occurred when he was four years old. Here again, he reveals a disturbing similarity to Hillary who once pandered to the New Zealanders, claiming that she was named after famed mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary despite the fact that his fame for being the first individual to scale Mount Everest was not attained until almost six years after her birth.

Equally “unforgettable” (excepting that Obama apparently “forgot” all of the pertinent facts) is the Illinois Senator’s spurious claim that his grandfather had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz, most likely while under a hail of Bosnian sniper fire.

Illustrating something beyond a tenuous connection with reality, such juvenile story telling by Obama and Clinton actually points to an inherent contempt for their audiences, who are expected to take the bait without question. It is further telling that both have clearly been surprised whenever they are called on such obvious blunders.

Just as Hillary’s disdain for the sensibilities of real America was frequently displayed whenever she offered her “I don’t recall” caveat in Congressional hearings, Obama waved his own like a red flag during that now-famous San Francisco speech to a closed meeting of wealthy donors. His reference to the “angry” ranks of middle America with their phobic need for religion and guns said far more about his own elitism and condescension than it did about its intended subjects. His bonds are clearly with that arrogant class of the “privileged” where Hillary would feel right at home.

At this most opportune moment of the general election cycle, Obama has begun sounding distinctly more “mainstream” than Jeremiah Wright, just as Hillary expressed a political philosophy during the past few months that was far more middle-of-the-road than the tenets of her co-presidential agenda during the 1990s. Yet, the media have finally been willing to remind us, and in some cases, inform us for the first time, just how unacceptable of a candidate Hillary is. In reality, they are telegraphing how dangerous to America liberalism itself, and Obama by his intimate association, really are.

Young and seemingly likeable though he may be, Obama represents no worthy alternative to the nightmarish implications of a Hillary Clinton Administration. In the end, their leftist similarities vastly outweigh any differences.

By Christopher Adamo

Momentarily setting aside the tragic impact on America, should Barack Obama be elected president, it is nonetheless worthwhile to ponder the significance of Hillary Clinton’s announcement last Saturday that she is dropping out of the presidential race. To be precise, she is “suspending” her campaign which, considering the history of the Clinton dynasty, could indicate that in her mind, this contest is not yet settled.

Nevertheless, her announcement highlights an awareness on her part that, at least for the moment, she cannot succeed in a toe-to-toe contest against Obama. So despite the many ominous circumstances facing this country, heartland America can heave a collective sigh of relief. The nightmare of the Clinton epoch appears to be over. Indeed, Obama’s empty rhetoric about “change and hope” belies his intellectually vacant political philosophy. But in light of past experience with the Clintons and their reputation of promoting themselves at everyone else’s expense, almost any “change” would seem to portend an improvement.

From the moment she burst upon the national scene in 1992, Hillary Clinton displayed an understanding of the qualities necessary for political dominance in an environment where the law represents a mere obstacle to the aspirations and methods of the blindly ambitious. On more than one occasion during her Congressional testimonies, she all but challenged her inquisitors with her audacious “I do not recall” responses, mocking them and essentially daring them to resort to increase the heat in efforts to make her confess to wrongdoing.

As this facet of the Clinton scheme played out, the truth became completely irrelevant. Instead of matters being determined on the basis of facts, things degenerated into a battle of nerves which she knew she would win.

Clearly, she was the driving force behind the Clintonian strategy of flouting the law not only as a means of ensuring a particular end, but as a challenge to any who might take exception. In essence her actions announced “This is my plan. Interfere at your own risk.” Time and again, her method paid off handsomely. Few on the Republican side of the aisle had the resolve to stand against her. And as the impeachment debacle proved, those who attempted to do so were all too often undermined by fellow “Republicans.”

The most unfortunate aspect of the situation as it currently stands is that it took a Democrat to shatter Hillary’s concocted aura of invincibility. Midway through Bill Clinton’s second term, it became obvious that Hillary had her sights on the White House, and would stop at nothing to get there. Reacting to her telegraphed ambitions, much of the Republican Party has been running terrified ever since, essentially accepting the notion of her “invincibility,” and politicking on that basis, often at the expense of its own governing philosophies.

Throughout the final term of George W. Bush’s presidency, and particularly after the dismal 2006 midterm elections, much of the leadership of the GOP has been fixated only on one thing, how to prevail against the presumably unstoppable Hillary juggernaut. Had Republicans shown a bit more collective spine, and not let themselves be so intimidated by her now thoroughly discredited persona of political prowess, they might well have pursued a proactive agenda touting traditional conservative principles to much greater benefit for the nation as well as to their own political fortunes.

Even the field of Republican presidential candidates who ended up running, along with some whose names were floated for several years prior to the race, often reflected a myopic strategy of prevailing over Hillary’s “super candidate” persona instead of establishing a rallying point for real conservatives.

Among others, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was suggested, not for her leadership qualities or a conservative political philosophy that could resonate with the Republican grassroots, but merely on the basis that being a woman, she might somehow neutralize Hillary’s strongest (we were told) suit. In the process, Republicans forgot to formulate campaigns that truly embodied the winning Republican/conservative principles of smaller government, and support for the moral fabric of a healthy society that enables it to flourish and prosper without the intrusions of the nanny state.

Ironically, the entire air of Clintonian political radiance was, from the beginning, merely a media fabrication. Bill won his two presidential elections with less than half of the smallest voter turnout in nearly a century. And Hillary vaulted into the United States Senate merely as a result of Rudy Giuliani’s untimely bout with prostate cancer. Only a cowardly opposition would grant them political dominance under such circumstances. But, being the opportunists that they are, the Clintons recognized that such was precisely the nature of their Republican adversaries.

Many politicians lie, but the Clintons raised the behavior to an overt level previously unseen, even in Washington. Many politicians engage in shady dealings, but the Clintons flagrantly consorted with the Communist Chinese and their Indonesian surrogates, simply ignoring cries of outrage as literal bags of dirty money passed into their hands. And many politicians attempt to intimidate their opposition, but the Clintons did so by brazenly involving the FBI, IRS, and other federal agencies as they attempted to destroy any who stood in their way.

Washington, and indeed the nation, have been irreparably changed by the Clintons. The “hardball” politics of the past has given way to Congressional “debates” in which facts and truth are irrelevant. Conventions that recognized the need to stand unified against the threats of foreign adversaries have putrefied and degenerated to a level where in their quest for power the Democrats now voice overt sympathies towards America’s mortal enemies while castigating the U.S. military on specious and often totally contrived grounds.

So, despite the myriad of perils that the nation faces, it is nonetheless fitting that at this precipitous time, the Clintons are being unceremoniously expelled by the pitiless political monster they worked so feverishly to create.