The U.S. abstained in a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements on disputed land. This enabled the Security Council to pass the resolution as all other members of the council voted in favor of it. The U.S. could have vetoed the resolution.

This decision by President Obama just a few weeks before his presidency ends was a final denunciation of PM Bibi Netanyahu after a very stormy eight-year relationship. During this time the U.S. has signaled that it would not unconditionally support the State of Israel as it had since its inception.

Hoping for a legacy moment, Obama wanted to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This was a pipe dream that had no realistic chances of being achieved especially considering the animosity in the one-state, two-state negotiations. No informed expert really thought the president would make any substantive advances in the Palestinian situation, and they were right.

Maybe Obama should be looking inward. He and John Kerry were neither effective nor skilled enough to craft a pathway to peace. Exacerbating the process, from the Israeli perspective, was the inane decision by the Obama administration to endorse Iran’s nuclear program.

The abstention by the U.S. enabled the U.N. Security Counsel to perpetuate its political attack on Israel. The most disturbing aspect of this latest Israeli denunciation is that Donald Trump personally asked Obama to veto the mostly symbolic resolution.

It’s Trump’s intention to reestablish good relations with Israel. For instance he has stated that he would tear up the Iran nuclear deal, an arrangement that Israel believes poses an existential threat to the country.

Opposition to Obama’s abstention is coming from all quarters including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader of the Senate. Numerous members of both political parties in the Senate and the House have also expressed their disapproval. The impudence of Obama to further upset U.S./Israeli relations at this late stage is inexcusable. It will certainly cause the international community of nations to think the old president and the new president are not on the same page.

The U.S. has been a staunch supporter of Israel since the country’s inception. Obama has negatively impacted the relationship between the countries by bickering with Netanyahu for eight years.

Trump should improve relations with Netanyahu on day one and state clearly that the U.S. stands strong with our most important ally in the Middle East. Unfortunately the U.S. will find little support from other countries.

Nevertheless Trump must be forceful dealing with Bibi moving forward. It’s unlikely that hostile terrorist groups will relent in the region so Israel will face continuing threats from a number of sources. Peace between Israel and Palestine would very beneficial to overall political stability in the region as elusive as it might seem.

Our world has become a much more dangerous place since World War II. Inappropriate responses to bad behavior by rogue nations have set the stage for continuing strife and conflict. The two most troublesome categories of global risk are the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism.

Nuclear proliferation is the deadliest threat to mankind. A global nuclear confrontation is too horrible to even consider. Fortunately the only players that could initiate such a calamity would be the U.S., China and Russia. All three are familiar with and appreciative of the major deterrent, mutual assured destruction.

Because advanced nations did not propose and implement international laws banning the development of nuclear weapons over the years, deliverable weapons of mass destruction are now in the hands of unstable countries including India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Exacerbating the nuclear threat are recent decisions by the U.S. and certain allies that paved the way for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. This dubious diplomatic ploy has greatly destabilized the Middle East and increased the possibility of a regional nuclear confrontation between Iran and Israel. Moreover it’s likely that other countries nearby will seek to obtain a nuclear capability in self-defense.

The other principal risk of a regional nuclear war relates to the actions of North Korea. For some reason China has not demanded North Korea end its nuclear development. The crazed leader of North Korea could direct its missiles at China or others in the Pacific Basin in a fit of rage. The U.S. is deeply concerned about this situation because it has treaties with South Korea and Japan, sworn enemies of North Korea. Any attack by North Korea against our allies would evoke a strong response from the U.S.

In recent years failed diplomatic efforts by the U.S. have paved the way for religious terrorism. The inability of several presidents to negotiate a pathway to peace for Israel and its neighbors has been one of the greatest failures in the region.

The leaders of the two competing religious sects, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are stoking the Sunni/Shia centuries-old conflict. The combatants always use the unsettled Palestinian conflict to justify seemingly unrelated actions against each other, a very unusual ploy since both parties pray to Allah.

Discontent in the Arab world has spread globally. The Arab Spring has fomented bloody changes in regimes around the world. Revolutions in lesser developed countries that begin with a demand for democracy (a political pipe dream in most cases) and religious freedom always seems to morph into violent conflict that is religious based involving adherents of Islam.

Now we are witnessing an absurd call for religious orthodoxy that begun with civil war in places like Iraq and Syria. These conflicts were initiated by Al Qaeda and then continued by the more violent ISIS group. The next stage of this phenomenon included indoctrination of new ISIS recruits among the millions of people with no hope in both developed and undeveloped countries.

A great derivative product of radical Islam has been the mass exodus of innocents in the Middle East. The migration of abused people began in Syria. Millions sought refuge from the civil war in the country by crossing into neighboring countries like Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. The number of migrants grew into the millions and a humanitarian crisis ensued. Now these immigrants are seeking passage to Europe and to other countries including the U.S. As an aside it’s difficult to vet these immigrants to determine whether they have been indoctrinated by radical elements.

The mass exodus of so many people causes great political and economic stress. Any country faced with more than one million new aliens, such as Turkey, would have a difficult time providing the most basic services much less assimilation of the interlopers into their population.

The point to be made is that one diplomatic failure after another has created a global crisis of epic proportions. Peace has been totally elusive in the Middle East. Unhappy and disenfranchised people are resorting to religion for comfort and strength, and are bombarded with radical ideology that vilifies others who have good lives. The result is terrorism and the murder of innocent people.

The path ahead is problematic. The U.S. and other nations have emboldened terrorists and anarchists. Overpowering these elements with military power is fraught with danger as collateral damage will be unavoidable. Syria is a case in point. Hundreds of thousands of innocents have already been killed during its bloody civil war.

The great nations of the world must join together to end nuclear proliferation beginning with Iran and North Korea. At the same time radical elements in the Middle East and elsewhere must be crushed before they export more pain and suffering to peace-loving countries.

President Donald Trump must serve as the leader of the free world. U.S. isolationism is not advisable. And a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine must be negotiated very soon.

After a ridiculous effort to impinge Donald Trump’s claim to the presidency the instigators have departed with their tails between their legs.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton lost more electors  than Trump (5 versus 2). The only thing that can be said about this charade of democracy is that not since James Madison have so many electors (also 7) rebelled against their duty to reflect the will of the voters in their states. This relates to the 538 members in total representing 50 states and Washington D.C. The final electoral vote was 306 for Trump and 232 for Clinton with 270 needed to win.

The Democrat sore losers are trying their damndest to create a scandal and disrupt the new administration. First they blamed FBI Director James Comey  and his investigations of Clinton scandals for their losses. By the way Comey was serving at the pleasure of Barrack Obama and reported to his Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Next it was the Russian hack of the Democratic leadership that resulted in the disgraced departure of the two top political hacks (pun intended) at the Democratic National Committee. How can the bad behavior revealed by a third party be Trump’s fault? Remember all you felons, adulterers and unhappy workers, don’t express your opinions on social media.

Now we hear that president Obama withheld information about the Russian hack for months. Really? He said he didn’t want to upset the elections. What right did he have to keep information that could have easily influenced the election from American voters?

And finally inspectors in each state have confirmed that perpetrators of voter fraud were “minuscule” per the New York Times.

Can we finally move on and allow the president-elect to build his administration? So much for the smooth transition that Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton promised America. They are proving to be distrustful to the bitter end.

The Russian hacking episode should be investigated and Trump should support it. It will not benefit the bromance between Trump and Putin out of the box, but Putin is not to be trusted based upon recent events. And Obama told Putin to “cut it out,” which he ignored. Once again an Obama threat against a rogue world leader for bad behavior has not been taken seriously. Obama has not followed through on any lines he drew in the sand during his tenure.

It’s been several weeks since Election Day, and Trump bashing has continued unabated?

Democrats haven’t stopped whining for one second. Their excuses for losing include:

• FBI Director Comey’s investigations of Clinton’s emails and foundation
• Russian hacking of Democrats and subsequent Wikileaks disclosures
• Ignorance of the deplorables who voterd for Trump

Notwithstanding the syrupy and enthusiastic support of President Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, a host of celebrities who don’t know a damn thing about the issues facing Americans and about 95% of the press, Hillary couldn’t pull off a victory. Maybe her apologists should finally recognize she was not deserving of the presidency.

Why you ask? Because her campaign sucked. She was a lousy candidate, lied continuously, threatened our national security by mishandling emails and didn’t even realize that Americans wanted change. Her campaign focused on every group except white males in rural places, and it cost her the election.

The Russian episode is particularly disconcerting. This is not to say that it’s okay for one of America’s mortal enemies to interfere in our election process. What is inane is Hillary and her loser minions claiming that Trump and Putin are in cahoots . The whole theory is preposterous and besides there is no evidence of any conspiracy. The latest development is that President Obama knew about the hacking months ago but kept it quiet. The rationale of this tactic is being debated at this time- another Obama grand scheme that backfired.

Assuming that the hackers were Russians, and they wanted Trump to win, what does that have to do with Trump and his campaign? The hackers uncovered embarrassing  emails sent by Democrats  and leaked them to Wikileaks. Is that Trump’s fault?  Democratic condemnations ignore the fact that high ranking party members stupidly exposed themselves on their communication devices.

Apparently Democrats never got the memo that felons, adulterers and those who have negative things to say about colleagues shouldn’t discuss these things on email or in text messages.

It’s obvious that Democrats are pissed off that hackers didn’t provide any embarrassing information to Wikileaks about Republicans. They were playing unfair. Right!

The response to Trump’s election by some is starting to sound pathetic. Still, I hear from Hillary backers that Trump is a horrible person who is going to round up 12 million Hispanics and deport them. Here’s a flash: this would be virtually impossible to implement from every perspective, logistically, ethically, financially and socially. The illegals will soon have a path to citizenship assuming they have stayed out of trouble. Trump is going to root out murderers, drug dealers, kidnappers and other felons and deport them to their countries of origin. Sound like a good strategy to me. Jay walkers and those who spit gum on the sidewalk (even though it is a gross thing to do) are not in any danger of deportation.

Illegal aliens are not in jeopardy unless they break another law (beside the one of entering the U.S. illegally), so they need not worry about the secret police dragging them out of their homes in the middle of the night.

Another common concern is that Trump’s misogynistic past will encourage more sexual abuse. This illegal activity is front and center in business, government, education and society in general. Women need to be diligent, but it’s not because of Trump’s overactive libido and sordid past.

Donald Trump made promises to his supporters about immigration, trade, taxes, ISIS, Obamacare, etc. He has been hiring informed people to assist him in each of these areas. By doing so Trump is in effect stipulating that he is not qualified to craft policies for all these issues- no other man or women is. Cabinet members and other advisors will create policy for Trump, and he will sell them to Congress and the public.

Just a reminder. Trump won. If you were a Clinton supporter you lost and need to wait four years to replace him. Another flash: if Trump keeps his promises you will not be able to oust him. Americans will be so overjoyed that someone in the White House is taking care of America’s business after eight years of stagnation.

 

Income inequality is all the rage these days among liberals, young people and the media. Left-wing politicians led by President Obama have encouraged class warfare by denigrating capitalism and the awards affiliated with it.

What is income inequality? Some define it as an imbalance between the accumulated wealth of the affluent and average Americans. Others say it is the compensation gap between rich Americans and the rest of society.

Why do so many 99%ers begrudge those who have great wealth and those that are highly compensated? Do highly compensated workers deliver value added service that warrants their compensation?

The most common complaint about inequality relates to corporate executives. Yet opponents of high compensation have not attempted to understand the complexity of management and what corporate executives do year in and year out to earn their out-sized salaries.

Those that scream about income inequality say it is criminal for the chief executive officer of a corporation to earn one hundred times the amount of a common laborer. To assess this situation properly one should compare what each of these workers contributes to the company.

The CEO could be the founder of the company, which he created from scratch. The financial gains associated with successful privately held companies being sold to larger competitors can be gigantic. Keep in mind the founder assumed great risk from the outset and might have been building the business over decades. A sale after many years of hard work certainly should legitimize a large payoff.

The daily grind of a CEO at a major corporation requires great business acumen and perseverance. The buck stops with him, and he will receive the lion’s share of kudos when things go well and most of the blame if the company is unsuccessful.

The CEO is responsible for all aspects of the business including revenue and earnings growth, operations, human resources, finance and financial reporting. The CEO is also the principal liaison between the company, its board of directors and outside shareholders.

In comparison a person “on the manufacturing line” might have only one duty that he performs over and again. Should this person earn more than one one-hundredth of what the CEO earns?

The point is that critics of high compensation should be more analytical before calling for some kind of compensation equalization.

The compensation of the top group of executives at big companies are crafted by the board of directors, and specifically by compensation committees. Continuously the pay of top executives are reevaluated considering the importance of a particular job, the performance of the individual and the compensation of workers who have the same job at other companies.

Compensation experts carefully consider all the factors and help the compensation committee either confirm that salaries are appropriate and competitive, or they recommend changes.

The standard resume of a high-ranking executive generally includes great schooling and advanced degrees in business and/or other areas such as economics, science or engineering. And it always includes many years of experience.

Line workers, on the other hand, could be very young and inexperienced with little education. No one except uninformed critics expect these two individuals to have compensation that is in the same universe.

Critics of income inequality frequently call for redistribution of wealth. Of all things this concept is the most disconcerting as it suggests that wealth has not been, and is not being, earned legally and ethically, or it is based upon favoritism directed towards certain workers.

The principal issue that opponents of capitalism should appreciate is that nobody is paid millions of dollars unless they are providing significant value. Corporations do not bestow favors on any employees.

Value added service could have many faces. The obvious one is that an employee has special talents that result in increased revenues or decreased costs, both of which increase the net profits of a business.

Over time executives accumulate wealth from outsized compensation and equity awards. It should be noted that executives receiving shares of the company, in lieu of cash, are taking long-term risk in the business that are perfectly aligned with outside stockholders.

Vast fortunes that accrue to executives could very well be benefits that reflect long-term performance and loyalty. Any efforts to abscond this wealth would be unfair and detrimental to our capitalist system.

Every day liberals conjure up new ways to disgorge wealth from the best performers in our society. The simplest and most degrading is through unfair taxation. There is no number that is “fair.” Rather tax rates should reflect the needs of the government for the common good- everything from defense to welfare- assuming our tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Here is the rub. Some Americans are not confident that the federal government is in control of expenses. Old and ineffective programs are never cancelled. When was the last time the federal government questioned any antiquated expenditure? Recently President-elect Trump indicated that Boeing was gouging the government for the production of new aircraft for the sitting president. This criticism by Trump is revolutionary and certainly welcomed by many Americans.

Obamacare poses a different type of waste. This entitlement proceeded even though it was not well conceived. President Obama rammed the legislation through Congress to ensure his legacy (it didn’t). Several trillion dollars later the entitlement is unraveling before our eyes and will soon be abrogated or radically amended. Just imagine the needs that could have been met with this money.

Welfare is yet another questionable federal entitlement. How can it possibly make sense to pay Americans to stay home? Every able-bodied person should be required to work to get assistance. Giving citizens money without anything in return is bad policy. The growth of welfare over the years is proof that our current system needs reform.

Having said this, if the federal government is going to pay the needy only if they work, it must guarantee that jobs are available as they were during the Great Depression.

Most taxpayers would be ready and willing to pay their “fair share” if they had confidence in those who allocate our tax dollars.

Redistributing money from the wealthy to the needy with no strings attached is not going to fly in the long run. The system will eventually collapse. Resistance will continue to grow and those in real need will suffer.

With the election of Donald Trump as the next president, we have a chance to reset our priorities, objectives and plans. Much needs to be done to give rich and middle class citizens a square deal. The needy will be the biggest beneficiaries of a more thoughtful process.

The growing opposition to President-elect Trump’s promise to reform immigration is misguided.

No where in our Constitution or in our laws is there a requirement to accept immigrants into the country. Nevertheless from the early days of our nation to the present day, America has welcomed millions from all over the world.

The reasons why foreigners want to become U.S. citizens are varied. Some believe they can make a better life for their families, some seek religious freedom, some want to live in a democratic society and some want to escape poverty and/or persecution.

During the early 1900s Irish and Italians came to our shores in droves. My grandparents were among this group of Europeans. They followed the rules and eventually gain citizenship. This compares to the total chaos at our southern borders where millions have entered our country illegally and are now draining significant resources from our federal and state governments.

To say these people are victims is completely absurd. U.S. citizens lives have been disrupted by illegal immigration and the American taxpayers are the real victims. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent caring for illegals in schools and for their health care, money that should have been spent in our ghettos and for needy citizens across the country.

Americas are altruistic. Our inclination is to help those in need even if they are in the country without permission. So it is insulting to say the least when ultra-liberals indicate that we have an obligation to care for the millions that have broken our laws. It is even more disconcerting when large city mayors unilaterally decide to support illegals by setting up sanctuary cities in defiance of federal laws.

Our country has allowed illegal immigration to go on too long. It is not feasible for our government to round up 10-12 million illegals and send them back to their countries of origin. Neither Trump nor our Congress is going to do so, no matter what some say. Illegals already in the country will eventually have a path to citizenship in spite of the  financial and social costs of such a plan.

It’s perfectly reasonable to shut down new illegal immigration with a wall or a fence or with more border guards. It is also reasonable to deport illegal immigrants who have or will commit felonies, no questions asked and no exceptions. It is idiotic to incarcerate felons in the U.S. and bear that expense as well.

No, we are not talking about jaywalking, spitting on the pavement, not picking up after dogs or other petty crimes. if you’re illegal and you murder someone, commit armed robbery, rape someone, destroy property, etc. you are out, no pity, no clemency, no excuses.

Massive immigration of people has occurred throughout history. Sometimes they are welcomed in their new environs and sometimes they are scorned. America has done more than its fair share of accepting immigrants over the years. In fact we are a country of immigrants.

Our federal and state governments should enforce laws to prevent further illegal entry into the country, especially since we are going to be kind and receptive to millions that have already come to America without authorization.

Many Americans are beginning to accept the fact that Donald Trump has abilities and character traits that will make him a good president. Some don’t think so and believe that the next few years will be a great challenge for the country. This essay will consider issues that give some of us pause about Trump.

The presidency is not a family affair. America voted for Trump, not his immediate family. Some have expressed anxiety about their  involvement in the transition. Trump’s immediate job job is to pick great people to advise him and prepare him to make important decisions that will affect the world. It’s disconcerting that he has depended on his children to such a great degree.

The Trump Organization is going to cause great conflicts for the new president if they are not dealt with  immediately. It’s important that Trump put this all behind him and get on with developing relationships with Congress and other world leaders. He made promises to voters and any diversions like day-to-day matters at his company will only serve to decrease his effectiveness. Certainly the importance of matters of state “trump” his private business.

This month the Trump Organization will announce plans to transfer responsibility for his businesses to his family. The break between personal and governmental must be clean and without ambiguity. Sale of ownership is the only way to ensure such an outcome, but it is unlikely.

In the same vein, no matter how great Trump’s children and their spouses are, he must not entangle them in his work as president. They are too young and inexperienced for one thing. And their independence given Trump’s control over them is suspect.

The selection of certain types of advisors, as opposed to their specific stances on issues, has given the liberal press an opportunity to bash Trump. For instance he is seduced by military officers. It’s true that these men are great leaders and highly successful tacticians, but they think alike. Every confrontation is a war of sorts. Government has an important military and security component so engagement by military types is critical. But to be inundated in the highest ranks of government by two, three or even four of these personalities is excessive. The diversity of input may be diminished. Many believe the nomination of Mitt Romney for Secretary of State would mitigate the aforementioned problems to a certain extent.

It will be interesting to measure what extent the generals will influence Trump on matters of security. Will they be hawkish? For sure. Will Trump engage enemies when his generals tell him to do so? We shall see. Will the generals’ military tilt overwhelm diplomatic alternatives? We hope not.

Frankly most of Trump’s other selections and current candidates are pushy and right wing. Many Americans are not happy about this concentration because the flow of advice is going to be one-sided. Aggression, as opposed to statesmanship, is not the preferred course of action in most affairs of government. When the time comes to use force, be it military or economic, we must always win. Yet it’s wise to consider more peaceful options before going nuclear, so to speak.

Finally I believe Trump’s attitude and overconfidence still needs to be tempered. World leaders will find his perspectives to be parochial and potentially dangerous if they are communicated without careful consideration and tact.

Trump is learning and evolving. He needs to be more humble and move on from the election victory. The hard part of the job starts now. America must be protected at all costs and this may put our soldiers in harm’s way. We need a thoughtful, decisive and open-minded leader.

Since the election most of the political dialog in the U.S. has related to “peaceful” issues like tax reform, trade policy, immigration and the economy. But very soon the new administration will need to explain to the world what it will do about the never ending problems in the Middle East.

President-elect Trump  must still select a Secretary of State to round out his national security team, which is probably why so little has been said about the Iran nuke deal, Syrian military efforts, the plight of refugees, the Israel/Palestinian conflict and continuing Arab Spring implications to embedded regimes .

Also our national security is directly related to the aforementioned as the U.S. is under constant threat of terrorist violence by jihad perpetrated by individuals indoctrinated by violent Islamic organizations in the Middle East and in America.

The Secretary of State bake-off is still under way. More names have been added to the list of candidates. Hopefully our next president is learning more each day from the interviews. These discussions will likely be the foundation from which American policy for the Middle East emanates.

The following is an abridged review of the most important issues that will soon rise to the top of the new administration’s agenda.

Iran Nuke Deal. Congress is already working to extend the U.S.’s ability to impose greater sanctions on Iran if it does not live up to the terms of Obama’s deal ( highly probable because Iran cannot be trusted). The real question is whether Trump will abrogate, renegotiate or just tear up the current deal.

As expected Iran leadership is acting aggressively as if it has any influence over U.S. actions. It is threatening very serious consequences to any new sanctions imposed and says Trump cannot tear up the existing arrangement. Iran continues to misbehave every day in the region fomenting terror and attempting to gain more influence over the Arab world. Just imaging its bargaining strength if and when it has a nuclear weapon.

Hopefully Trump and his new security team will respond to Iran by tossing the current nuke arrangement, which is truly the worst deal in recent history, and impose more sanctions on Iran that will bankrupt the country and destabilize the current regime.

Israel and Palestine. Bibi Netanyahu, PM of Israel, has been very quiet to this point. The day that Trump takes office he will rev up his campaign to garner support for increased Israeli security. New settlements will be one of the primary areas of discussion along with a renewed debate about whether a one state or a divided Israel is the best course. So long as Iran and the other Arab countries support violent Palestinian activities, conflict will not abate. Yet the U.S. should immediately and unequivocally support Israel’s positions regardless of Arab considerations.

ISIS. So far every national security position in the new administration has been filled with hawkish candidates. This suggests that the Trump administration will be very aggressive in its efforts to root out and kill ISIS.

But there are some huge hurdles that must be dealt with. For instance the hub of ISIS activity is Syria, and its despot, Bashar al-Assad, is being supported by Russia and Iran. Most endgame assessments have Assad regaining control of his country in spite of his murderous ways and the creation of a refugee crisis that impacts every country in the region and Europe.

American policy, which has been difficult to assess under the Obama administration, appears to call for the U.S. to stand down and avoid any leadership roles in the Syrian conflict, although the elimination of ISIS is still an objective. Will Trump’s national security team change U.S. behavior and reinstate the original goal of deposing Assad? No one knows yet, although Trump seems to think he can  deal effectively with the Russians (fat chance).

Making matters worse are  Turkish aspirations. In a few words it wants to eliminate ISIS, dethrone Assad, stop immigration into Turkey and obliterate Kurds. Turkey’s actions prospectively could have a meaningful impact on the Syrian situation.

There are many other important issues for the Middle East. It will dominate a great deal of the new administrations efforts. One specific item is worth mentioning as it will define U.S. actions moving forward. Will the U.S. employ ground forces to finish off ISIS? And/or will the U.S. support/participate in bombing activity in Syria that results in great collateral damage? If neither of these become American policy, the ISIS threat will continue to plague the region for a long time.

The New York Times’ columnists are still not responding civilly or constructively to the landmark victory of Donald Trump. The City’s journalistic elite continues to be apoplectic about Trump’s thrashing of Hillary Clinton calling it criminal, a fluke and an outrage. Yet the paper’s limited circulation means that only a small number of Americans are really impacted by the Times’ vicious attacks on the new administration.

What’s really disturbing is that such a prestigious newspaper with a mere 1.2 million in daily circulation, actually believes that the warped perspective of their columnists carries any real weight around the country. The Times’ circulation is the third largest in the U.S. behind USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. It should be noted that over 126 million people voted in the 2016 election. So only a tiny fraction of the electorate have been subjected to the Times’ left wing tilt during the presidential campaign.

Continuing its 18-month onslaught against Trump, the Times published three op-eds on December 5 that flayed the president-elect. They are titled “The Constitution In Danger,” “Trump’s Agents of Idiocracy” and “The Art of The Scam.” The titles speak for themselves. You can deduce what they are about. Suffice it to say the Times thinks Trump supporters are fools for voting for him.

Donald Trump has many faults that this blog has exposed repeatedly during the presidential campaign. The electorate already knows the man’s an egomaniac and a very tough businessman. We know he’s a misogynist and not particularly conversant about details relating to complex issues he blathers about.

But the Times has gone one step further and conjured up a new journalistic alchemy in which it mixes together all of the president-elect’s shortcomings and concludes that he will violate the Constitution, be an agent of idiocracy (this is not a real word, by the way) and be a scam artist in the White House.

Let’s face it, nearly all the Times’ columnists and reporters are left wing, self-proclaimed intellectuals who despise the person who will be our next president as if he has already hurt them personally. These writers are smug and condescending critics of any ideology that doesn’t line up with their worldview.

They have no patience and zero tolerance for the deplorable people, idiots, morons, cretins and dumbasses who believe our government just might be too bureaucratic, wasteful and intrusive. They are aghast whenever anyone criticizes their heroes, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are the purveyors of political correctness even as they spew their venom on Americans that don’t read the Times, which totals about 320 million people each day.

What the Times has failed to accept is that about half of the voters in the country are unhappy with the federal government. These people responded to Trump’s call to drain the swamp and to change the way things are done in Washington.

The swamp represents the establishment that has perpetuated misgovernment for the past several decades and includes both major parties. Granted, Trump’s rhetoric is sometimes exuberant. But his proposals are enticing for average Americans, if not for the Mensa crowd at the Times. What’s wrong with a stronger military, more jobs, less frivolous spending, an end to illegal immigration and a whole lot of change?

Every time I read another attack ad in the Times I can’t help thinking about the alternative candidate in 2016. [Note: I thought Trump and Clinton were horrible candidates, and didn’t vote for either of them]. Does anyone not think that Hillary and Bill are corrupt? The proof of their misbehavior is strewn across the past thirty years. How many times were the people of this country going to drink the Clintons’ poisonous Kool Aid? Not in 2016. Trump supporters knew that the Clintons would use their power to line their pockets and sate their relentless odyssey for

power.

Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and the naysayers and crybabies are saying nay and whining every day. Give the guy an opportunity to lead the country- he earned it. I predict that if Trump keeps his promises he will be a very popular president. His methods and temperament are disconcerting, but if he improves the economy, makes us safer and does all the other things he spoke about during the election his credibility will soar no matter how many times the New York Times rains on his parades and calls him names.

When Donald Trump won the election several days ago he was gracious, statesman-like and somewhat humble, unlike every second of his campaign. As he delivered his acceptance speech in the wee hours of the morning, the financial markets soared because of his outstanding, scripted speech. Skeptical supporters were heartened by his diversion from a life-long ego trip.

It didn’t’ last very long. Before we even had a chance to wallow in greater expectations for the new president, “the great communicator” started acting like a megalomaniac again.

Trump needs to focus exclusively on the promises he made during the campaign and lose his attitude. If he doesn’t hire the best people to help him end Obamacare, kill ISIS, create jobs, improve the economy, stop illegal immigration, end the suffering in the ghettos, build new infrastructure and nullify the idiotic Iran nuke deal, America will respond in the most violent way against him and his new brand of populism.

Up until now Trump supporters are generally happy about his cabinet choices. He didn’t quite drain the swamp, but he’s selecting qualified men and women and minorities to help him with his agenda. Hiring Mitt Romney to be Secretary of State would be icing on the cake and a feather in his political cap.

Unfortunately his aides have not yet collected and smashed to pieces his social network devices, and his speechwriters have not demanded that he stick with a scripted message when he is addressing large crowds- not doing so always leads to confusion in the aftermath.

Trump won the election. He is president of the United States. There is no need to constantly respond to critics in the press or elsewhere. He no longer needs to settle old feuds. The man has reached the pinnacle of success and has an opportunity to be one of the greatest men in history. Trump’s ego and lack of discipline could distract him from the job ahead to make America great again.

I want Trump to succeed. The definition of success is getting done what he promised to do. He needs to surround himself with experts to navigate through the thousands of problems that face a president every day. Trump will not have time to mess around with every naysayer and crybaby. He’s president and they are irrelevant so long as he performs.

The idea of having a victory tour is a good one. Trump should thank average Americans for electing him. But these people want results. They want a better life, not platitudes and threats.

Rumors that Trump has not accepted briefings before speaking with other world leaders is disconcerting. He must be informed about sensitivities that could dramatically deter his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and to redo military and trade agreements. Mr. President, you must do your homework and not contradict previous statements to gain credibility as a world leader.

It’s going to be a long and excruciating four years if our new president doesn’t clean up his act.