Author: Poetrooper

Donald Trump would do himself and this country a huge favor if he would do to Hillary what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry in the 2004 election: bring together the people from her past who know the off-stage, off-camera, hard-focus Hillary, and let them share with America their experiences with this woman who would be queen. Those people are the state troopers in Arkansas and the U.S. Secret Service agents who once served on her protective details. Like those brave sailors who served with John Kerry when his true lack of character was on full display, these state and federal protectors have tales to tell about the former first lady when she wasn’t on camera, and those stories aren’t pretty.

Because the Clintons have required protection details from their early days in Arkansas in the governor’s mansion, right up to the present, there is no shortage of sworn officers who have been in position to observe this pair of grifters up close and personal. A few have made public disclosures to book authors, with Bill’s sexual dalliances being their primary focus, but according to one of Bill’s former mistresses, many of the Arkansas troopers were afraid to come forward for fear of losing their state jobs and pensions. Likewise, several former Secret Service agents from the White House protection detail have been quoted anonymously in books on the topic of the Clintons’ truly bad behavior, both in the White House and post-presidency.

What I’m suggesting is that Trump should send out investigators to interview some of these people to see if they would be willing to come forward and talk about their experiences with the Clintons, but with particular emphasis on their dealings with Hillary. The Trump campaign could schedule an initial event in Little Rock in a venue that could accommodate thousands and assemble former state troopers onstage recounting anecdotes from their days of guarding and transporting Hillary.

I absolutely hate attending large events, but that’s one I’d go to in a flash in the hopes I’d get to hear the trooper who was in attendance at the 1984 Easter egg hunt for developmentally disabled children at the governor’s mansion when an exasperated Hillary, angered over the time it was taking the children to find the eggs, reportedly stormed up to a state trooper and raged, “When are they going to get those f****** ree-tards out of here?!”

I can assure you that to witness, with my own eyes and ears, a trooper who was there affirm that quote would be truly priceless. It could also be deadly for Clinton’s presidential aspirations if the Trump campaign could incorporate the retard reference into endless television ads.

Similarly, Trump should stage the first of several huge campaign and media events, perhaps debuting in one of the large Midwestern swing states, but with secret service agents there on stage to describe their professional experiences with Hillary while providing her personal security. Again, the one I’d love to see up there telling his story is the agent who reputedly said to the first lady, “Good morning,” for which he received a totally classless but pure Hillary “f*** off!” Television ads featuring that nasty bit and that “effing ree-tards” remark would wake up a lot of Americans as to the sort of really dreadful person they are so eager to make their first female president.

Sorry for the crude language in this piece, but it is necessary, just as those troopers and Secret Service agents accurately quoting the foul-mouthed Hillary Clinton is, to show how the woman is simply too profane, hateful, angry, and unseemly to occupy the Oval Office. In that context, Hillary’s former bodyguards most likely can relate a string of such incidents, and enough strings can be braided into a rope. It would be good to see Hillary’s foul mouth and ugly personality provide the rope for her own political hanging.

Crossposted at American Thinker

In an American Thinker article recounting the seriously negative effects the backlash boycott against Target’s open bathroom policies is having, a commenter named Maggie said this:

Let me get this right….a male CEO pretty much just told women it’s not ok to use the restroom at Target with reasonable peace of mind because a minor handful of men need to feel special…another example of men telling women it’s ok as long as it doesn’t affect them. Identify with this, ovarian cancer, uterine cysts, PMS, rape…I’m sorry but, why not ask 157 Million “WOMEN” how they feel about it rather than make a decision for all of us just so a miniscule percentage of men can identify. Angry.

Think about that: Target’s $28-million-a-year CEO, Brian Cornell, has handed every Republican candidate in this country who is accused of being a part of the so-called War on Women by his Democrat opponent a double-barreled 12-gauge response to that phony charge. Essentially, all such Republicans need to do is remind their audience or media interrogators of the negative financial impact of the Target CEO’s decision to involve his company in an increasingly bizarre and unpopular liberal socio-political campaign and then turn the charge right back on Democrats with Maggie’s excellent point: a male CEO can simply dictate to the millions of women in his customer base, without any attempt to solicit their opinions, that they must set aside their long held cultural beliefs and their sense of personal safety to accommodate a Democrat sponsored, microscopic percentage of men? That a small group of males whose confused and questionable sexual self-identification is considered a mental aberration by the larger population including many medical professionals is more important to Target than their millions of female customers?

Boom! That’s the first barrel.

The second barrel comes when the Republican points out that what Target is doing is not at all different from what our male Democrat president is doing by federal dictate, using the power of federal school funding to enact and enforce the identity-confused platform of the Democratic National Committee. The candidate should then state that it is his position that such decisions should be determined by local customs, at no higher level than the state, but absolutely without any federal or national political party input. And that should be followed with:

“So tell me: just which political party is waging social war on the women of America?

Boom! That’s the second barrel.

Obama’s misguided insistence on pushing this trans insanity and using federal education funding as a club to beat the states into compliance is a gift to the Republican Party in state and local races. There are millions of women out there like Maggie who are angry over having males cram this trannie issue down their throats, and Obama’s threatening their children’s school funding has to make them even more so. But Barack Obama has failed to heed his own advice: he’s brought a club to a gunfight. As soon as active campaigning starts, every Republican candidate should gratefully take Maggie’s 12-gauge in hand and start blasting.

Crossposted at American Thinker

As the Trump bandwagon rolls on and the parade grows behind it, there has to be a growing unease in many federal office buildings throughout the country that computers and file cabinets may contain emails and documents that could be used against them if Republicans take total control of the government. Even if a Trump justice department chose not to determine the truth about Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the IRS scandals and take prosecutorial action, a friendly administration might allow hundreds if not thousands of civil suits to be filed against federal departments and employees by citizens and organizations who consider themselves damaged by the Obama administration’s dishonesty and many abuses of power.

What if all those FOIA requests for documents and information that have been routinely stonewalled by multiple federal agencies and departments for the past eight years were suddenly honored by a Trump administration? Such an action could very well result in a treasure trove of culpability falling into the waiting hands of countless plaintiffs’ lawyers or even federal prosecutors. The thought of that happening has to be keeping some bureaucrats, as well as elected and appointed politicians, from sleeping too soundly as Trump’s election appears more possible with every passing day. You would have to be naïve beyond belief to not realize that there must be thousands or more of those individuals who are beginning to wonder just what’s in their files that could provide the rope that hangs them. And of course, the very next thought that follows that mental inventory is what can be done to get rid of the rope.

Trump could enhance his popularity immediately and immensely if he were to add to his stump speeches the promise that those in the Obama administration who have ignored the law or acted illegally on behalf of their political masters won’t necessarily be investigated for such actions by a Trump administration, but they will most certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent if they attempt to obstruct justice by destroying official communications and records. He should cement that thought in their minds by reminding them that even if they destroy electronic and paper evidence in their personal possession, in this day and age, there are always copies of those records in other computers and file cabinets that inevitably will be found. And that evidence could very well provide the obstruction of justice rope they hang by. Trump should emphasize that even someone as powerful as Hillary can’t escape investigation for mishandling and likely destruction of official communications and documents; she may avoid prosecution perhaps, but then bureaucrats aren’t Hillary, with all that Clinton Teflon magic.

To absolutely mangle Dr. Samuel Johnson: The thought of your hanging by the next administration, should wonderfully concentrate the mind of a federal bureaucrat.

Crossposted at American Thinker

From the Poetrooper archives circa December 16, 2006;

I have just read a mea culpa by Vietnam War protestor, novelist and poet, Pat Conroy, who possesses the literary skills to express what I am willing to bet many other older American males, his former brothers at the barricades, also feel, but lack the skills and the honesty to articulate. It is left to men like the politically born again David Horowitz and novelist Conroy to speak for these old troupers of the Left’s long-haired legions, to reveal their long hidden recognition that they were possibly misguided in their protesting but more often than most will ever admit, motivated more by fear of serving in combat than by any sense of moral/political rectitude.

For that reason this is an issue that reverberates only within the ranks of male protestors of that era. For the braless, hygiene and make-up challenged young women of the movement, there existed no threat of death or disfigurement in combat, so the purity of their motives is questionable only in the intellectual, not the moral sense. They may have been naïve fools but they weren’t hiding a blushing personal cowardice behind the skirts of world socialism. This then, is an issue of character only for these now old, greying men who, like Conroy, must eventually face the moral consequences of their actions in those turbulent days.

As someone who, like most of us, has experienced events in my life where I now wish that I had shown more moral and physical courage, more honesty, and most importantly, more unquestioning love and understanding of family, I know how those failures live with you long after the memories of trying to do so many things right have dimmed. Many of my lapses involved nothing more than minor events where I failed to speak up, or stand up and be counted, or even stand up and be knocked down; but regardless of their minor nature, it is these life events that forever remain active in my psyche. In my mid-sixties now, I have learned all too well that it’s not the fights you won or even the fights you lost that keep niggling away at the edges of your conscience: it’s the fights you failed to fight when you knew damned well that you should.

Deceased author John D. MacDonald, who wrote the wonderful Travis McGee mystery series, once explained through his fictional hero, McGee, the way to make correct moral decisions and it is a simple wisdom that has stayed in my brain, but not always exemplified by my behavior, through the remainder of my life. It is nothing more than this: do the hard thing. When faced with tough choices, look to that course of action which is the one you want least to follow because it appears to be the most difficult for you; it may hurt personally, but almost always, it is the right course for you to follow for the good of others.

My belief is that a lot of Vietnam War protestors were rightfully fearful of the physical perils of combat, as were all those of us who chose to serve there; but where we tamped down those fears and continued the mission, they wrongfully used a contrived moral outrage against the war as convenient cover to conceal their cowardice. To buttress that theory one simply has to look at how the huge, angry protests diminished, and ultimately disappeared in a remarkably short time once Congress ended the military draft. As young, draft-age men, all those angry protestors were able at the time to righteously rationalize away their true motivation until Congress stole their alibi, and only now, with the awareness and self-accounting that comes with age, are they, like Pat Conroy, facing the truth of their personal cowardice. Sadly, too late, they have come to realize the truth of Conroy’s most perceptive quote:

“America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.”

I believe those are words worthy of being carved into every war memorial in America. And I am thankful that I and all my brothers and sisters at arms who served then, and those who serve now, possessed then and now, but even in our callow youth, the intrinsic wisdom to recognize that truth. All Americans must die, but those who understand this fundamental reality about this very unique nation will die with their chins held just a few degrees higher than those who didn’t realize it when they should have, but now do, like Conroy and his legions, and sadly, those young people of today who still do not.

Crossposted from American Thinker

My first reaction when I saw the photos of the black female West Point graduates in their seemingly defiant, fists-raised black power poses was probably similar to that of a large segment of conservative America: “What the hell is going on here?” That was accompanied by an old Army vet’s revulsion that the barracks, uniforms, and prestige of a hallowed American military institution were being used to showcase support by junior Army officers for what I consider racist black supremacist politics.

Then I started reading reader reactions to the many articles that mushroomed all over the internet, including the one written here at AT. It was while reading comments to this piece that what was bothering me about the hundreds of responses I’d read here and elsewhere gelled in my mind. I’d expected the widespread angry reaction, but what I had not expected was the openly expressed racial bitterness and censure directed at a group of young women who without question had made a very thoughtless and truly dumb mistake. Some of those comments were absolutely venomous and left no doubt that their venom sprang from a very deep racial antagonism. There was much discussion that these young officers were only on that porch by virtue of affirmative action and that their demonstration confirmed a common lack of emotional control among Africans. There were many questions regarding their intellectual qualifications to be there, and only the rare commenter ventured that there might be some very bright young women in that group.

Don’t get me wrong; I was once an infantry NCO, and as such, I would have been furious with any second lieutenant who showed such a poor lack of judgment as to bring such public disapproval on my unit and my soldiers. Were I her platoon sergeant, I’d be having a really intense discussion with that butterbar on the basics of leadership, and if the lieutenant chose to blow me off, then she’d be having a likely more intense discussion with the company executive officer. Similar feelings to mine were expressed by many veteran commenters, both retired officers and enlisted, all of whom are well aware of the foolhardiness of any officer openly demonstrating such political racial solidarity.

But the main takeaway from this incident is that had this same event taken place ten years ago, it would have drawn similar media attention but most likely fewer critical comments by readers, and most assuredly the racial intensity and hostility expressed in those comments wouldn’t have been even close to what they are today. Most certainly a large number of them, especially here at American Thinker, would have been blocked for being too racially insensitive – but now, after almost eight years of a black president, they’re just part of the acceptable racial narrative. It’s no secret that Eric Holder was speaking for his boss and setting out the racial position for the Obama administration when he described black felons as his people. Obama’s recent black college commencement address where he lapsed into black vernacular demonstrates that it’s still in place. Gullible voters put Obama in office and kept him there all this time based on the hope that he would end racial strife. They may as well have hoped for the Tooth Fairy to leave it under their pillows.

If Obama wants to know what his real legacy is, he should start reading web comments.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Those of you decreeing disaster for the Republican Party in November, Breitbart has compiled some interesting data from the Indiana primary that you may want to ponder before continuing your tirade against Trump. Various sources have been reporting that overall Democrat turnout is down this year, and of that reduced turnout, a significant portion belongs to Bernie Sanders, as it did in Indiana this past Tuesday. Conversely, the Trump movement has been ginning up voter turnout numbers since the primary season started. Tuesday’s numbers bear that out.

According to Breitbart’s authoritative sources*, Democrat primary turnout in Indiana in 2016 was 628,433, dropping 50.84% from the 2008 turnout, when Hillary last ran there, of 1,278,355. Hillary’s share of that was a 2016 figure of 296,988, down a huge 54.05% from 2008, when she captured 646,282 votes.

Now compare those dramatic declines in the Democrat vote with the Republican primary history from Indiana. In 2016, the overall Republican turnout in Indiana’s primary was up a whopping 73.35% from 2012, with 1,101,777 votes cast this year as opposed to 635,589 in the earlier primary. Back in 2012, frontrunner Mitt Romney garnered 410,635 votes compared to the total of 587,273 for Donald Trump this year, an increase of 43.02%.

Looking back at state primaries from earlier this year, this 2016 Republican surge vs. a Democrat decline appears to be a trend that defies the proclamations from pouting pundits and partisan pollsters that Donald can’t do it in November.

*Breitbart News compiled this data analysis from information purchased from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. That data, available at USElectionAtlas.org, is widely used by academics and media organizations including the New York Times, The Economist, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and many more reputable organizations.

The 2016 totals were based on the latest numbers put forward by the New York Times at 11 a.m. ET on Wednesday May 4, the day after the primary, so they will change slightly as final totals shift into place.

Crossposted at American Thinker