Pelosi Is Doomed

Nancy Pelosi is known to be a prolific fundraiser for her colleagues and a decent leader of the House of Representatives, until recently. Her decisions relating to the impeachment of President Trump have tarnished her legacy and have put the Democratic Party in peril.

Speakers of the House have very important roles to play. Among other things they must decide the order of business for the House. Additionally they must convince even the most independent and uncooperative members of their caucus to vote with the majority on important matters. Pelosi has failed in both regards during many agonizing months of Trump-bashing.

The Speaker has the responsibility to keep order and decorum and to abide by the Constitution. The venomous attitude from the first day of the Trump administration has done nothing other than to make a mockery of our political system. We have stooped to a level where every day a politician is calling others liars. The House is a hotbed for name-calling and disrespect

Several months ago Pelosi was dead set against impeaching President Trump unless there was bipartisan support for such a monumental undertaking. Rightly so, she resisted the unbridled and un-statesmen like urgings of new members of her caucus and some old members who despised the man that resided in the White House. Unfortunately for our democracy, our government, rule of law and respect among our lawmakers, Pelosi caved and sanctioned the unthinkable.

She agreed to move forward with impeachment without considering the weakness of the case against the president. Pelosi stood by and enabled left wing zealots to conduct a kangaroo court. She even allowed her colleagues to dash the rights of the accused. Witnesses were not called that had first hand knowledge. She and her liberal associates did what they were accusing Trump of, they attempted to influence an election.

The zealots pushed forward even though conviction was impossible. Republicans held a strong Senate majority and would never convict Trump of impeachable offenses given the flimsy evidence drummed up by Democrats. Pelosi knew this as well and yet she sanctioned the unholy trial of the president. She was persuaded to move ahead if it somehow would damage Trump’s chances in 2020. We know now that the opposite has happened- Trump has never seemed stronger.

How have Democrats hurt our country and it political system? Here is an abbreviated list.


  • Democrats conducted an impeachment proceeding that subverted the entire government. Everyone was focused on incriminating evidence and a smoking gun. They never materialized.
  • Important matters relating to defense, immigration, education, voting rights, income inequality, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, health care and so much more were put on the backburner so liberals could conduct their three ring circus.
  • Democrat lawmakers lied in their zeal to convict. The leaders of the committees that presented the impeachment were guilty of twisting and exaggerating and the truth.
  • Democrats trashed the rule of law.
  • Democrats did nothing to encourage a bipartisan proceeding. They ignored all requests by the opposition.
  • The impeachment was supported only by innuendo, gossip and second-hand testimony.
  • Democrats kept feeding unrealistic expectations to the liberal press, which was duped in the process.
  • Democrats indicated that Trump’s persona and attitude alone was impeachable. Not being nice is not an impeachable offense.
  • All comity between lawmakers has been lost. It will be a generation before it returns.
  • New rules by the House and violations of precedent will encourage frivolous efforts to impeach future presidents.
  • Democrats ignored the role of courts to deal with issues between the branches of government for expediency.


So, where are we now? Pelosi decided to not deliver articles of impeachment for a few weeks, thereby delaying the Senate trial. [Note: the articles are supposedly coming this week.] This will have an effect on the impending presidential campaign schedule and the primaries in several states.

Pelosi was holding on to get concessions from the Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell. She got nothing and will pay for her mismanagement along with her liberal confederates.

Many Democrats are now concerned that their political lives have been jeopardized by Pelosi, based upon the impeachment hoax. It just might come to pass.

Iran’s Intentions Are Growing Even “Fishier”

The Iran debacle has gotten even “fishier” overnight. The plot has thickened as talking heads and “Iranian experts” try to explain Iran’s role in the apparent attack on a commercial airplane. It was taking off from Tehran’s airport at the same time that Iran was launching missiles at military bases in Iraq.

Did Iran actually shoot down a commercial airplane? For what reason? There were no Americans on board the flight. Will the ayatollahs fess up and take responsibility, or will the regime somehow attribute the tragedy to the US?

It’s conceivable that Iranians manning a mobile rocket launcher thought that the commercial plane was an American fighter jet. The plane took off around the time that Iran was launching missiles at US locations. But it was only one aircraft, not a barrage of attack jets zeroing in on Iran’s capital city.

Did Iran decide to delay or minimize retaliation against the US in light of a terrible mistake by members of a missile team on the ground? Every day more questions arise about the actions of Iran’s leadership.

There are several things that are disconcerting about recent events. Why were Iran’s missiles so inaccurate and ineffective? Was it because the Iranians did not want to kick-start a major conflict by killing more Americans? In fact, the Iranians supposedly warned the US about incoming missiles.

And why were missiles launched from Iran, several hundred miles away rather than by friendly Iran militia missile batteries close to US troops?

It should be noted that Iran was probably responsible for a pinpoint missile attack against a major Saudi oil facility. Why would that attack be so successful and the one against the US so ineffective?

Many analysts are attributing much of this to an Iranian government that does not want to engage the US at this time. Rather they would prefer to chip away at US interests in the region, the end game being no major response from the US and its departure from the region.

Trump quashed this notion by publicly stating that the US is not disengaging because the US is intent on preventing Iran from building a nuke, and will fight Iran’s continuing efforts to destabilize non-Shiite regimes.

The speculation about Iran’s intentions is creating great angst for many Iran watchers. Let’s hope that the real reason for Iran’ meek response to the assassination of Soleimani was domestic turmoil resulting from economic sanctions and not an impending all-out military response by Iran that includes a weapon of mass destruction, which has already been secretly built by the rogue regime.

There’s Something Fishy Going On With Iran

Is anyone suspicious about the circumstances surrounding the latest confrontation with Iran? Surprisingly, a very dangerous situation petered out with no US casualties. Both sides exhibited great restraint avoiding an all out clash.

Let’s consider the facts, as we know them. Iran conducted an operation in Iraq that left an American contractor dead. President Trump was outraged by the death and unleashed drones that killed one of the most notorious and renown generals in the Iran military. How the precise whereabouts of Soleimani were ascertained is a mystery.

Supposedly the general was a close confidante of the ayatollahs. And so, Iran protested the assassination and vowed to avenge his death. Fifteen, or so, ballistic missiles were launched from Iran, and they struck military targets in Iraq where US soldiers were stationed. A few of the missiles were duds, and the rest failed to kill or injure any Americans.

For some reason the US was given a heads up about the missiles, enabling them to protect its soldiers. In spite of the benign results of the missile attack, the ayatollahs proclaimed that Soliemani’s death had been avenged, and there would be no further ramifications. Even the marching and protesting in Iran has ceased. Pretty strange, don’t you think?

Did anyone believe that our president and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were capable of acting in such a restrained manner? The two men have indicated repeatedly that the other side is a mortal enemy, and that military conflict is virtually assured. Well both men had the opportunity to make this premonition a reality, and then they walked away. Don’t get me wrong, diplomacy is a much better way to settle disputes, but I, for one, didn’t think these men had it in them.

Perhaps Trump’s strategy and unpredictability spooked the ayatollah. The latter must know that an all out conflict would result in the death of the Iran state and regime change. So maybe Khamenei is a pragmatist deep down under. As far as Trump is concerned, he missed an opportunity to justify a fight that may have to take place sometime in the future. But, he acted with great poise in this instance.

So what’s fishy about the turn of events? Somebody blabbed about the whereabouts of Soleimani. Was it good intelligence generated by US sources, or maybe Khamenei wanted to get rid of his primo general because of his notoriety? Usually these types of manhunts are long and drawn out. This was a quick hit.

Why didn’t Trump respond to the missiles launched by Iran at our soldiers? It was an opportunity to teach the ayatollahs a lesson. Did Trump want to give Iran an opportunity to save face and avoid a bigger confrontation? Or maybe American forces were not prepared for a larger conflict at this moment. The president promised to hit back, hard, if Iran targeted US troops.

Is Trump conducting secret conversations through intermediaries? Is Iran caving because of crushing economic sanctions? Is Iran willing to agree to end its policy of destabilizing the region? Are we close to a new deal with Iran?

Why didn’t Iran use third parties to attack the US? Was the ploy too sensitive to use militia groups in Iraq?

As you can see, there are many unanswered questions.

The events during the past week could have been really damaging and led to a more extensive conflict between the US and Iran. Thankfully, it did not go down that path and no Americans were killed or injured. And, the US seemed to have gotten the best press out of what did transpired.

Iran Inches Towards Self Destruction

[This post was written before Iraq retaliated against US missile attacks last night.]

The response in Iran to the assassination, or “targeted killing,” of an Iranian general is predictably overstated. The ayatollahs are saying they will avenge the US missile attack, and Iranians are marching in the streets mourning their dear departed murderer and terrorist, Soleimani.

The US and President Trump should not be intimidated by the ayatollahs, the American press or the liberal left, for that matter. Any act of aggression against the US or any citizens must be responded to with an appropriate amount of firepower. Iran should pay dearly if it decides to ramp up this tit for tat exchange with the US.

Iranian people have been incited by their leaders. They are trying to convince their citizens that the US has bad intentions in the Middle East. The people are suffering from punishing sanctions by the US, so it’s not surprising to see them expressing their outrage against America.

The US has been on a collision course with Iran since the US Embassy was overrun during the Carter administration. More conflict is inevitable, the severity of which is dependent upon the reaction of the Iran government in the coming days.

Yet, Iran will be wise to tread carefully, and not push the US into a full-scale military response. Iran would surely suffer devastating casualties and destruction that will bring down its current regime. All the current static from Iran is bluster that cannot be supported with military might.

President Trump should not back down. A sign of weakness will only increase Iranian resolve. The decision to take cultural targets off the table was a no-brainer. But all military targets are fair game if Iran confronts our troops in the region.

It’s about time that Iran is taken down a few notches by the US. It is a nasty and unreasonable theocracy. The leaders hate every group that does not bow to Allah and some that do, including Sunni Arabs. The decision to give such a country a road map to nuclear armaments was one of the worst in history. How can Iran be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction? What was Obama thinking?

Moreover, the military power of Iran is inconsequential when compared to the US, just like the “elite” forces of Saddam Hussein. Iran’s military will be obliterated in hours in an all out struggle.

The time has come, before Iran develops a nuke, to draw a line in the sand. Iran may be in a position to bully weak regimes in the region, but it is no match for the US military.

Trump Should Be More Aggressive With Iran

Iran’s violent and aggressive posture towards the US has resulted in an exchange of relatively minor attacks during the past week, and a strong reaction from many in the region. Increased military action on both sides was, and is, inevitable, based upon the rhetoric emanating from both parties, and to a great extent, Iranian attempts to create instability in the Middle East.

A US strike with drones was conducted against an Iranian-backed militia group in Iraq. President Trump ordered it in response to the murder of an American contractor in the country. The drone killed 24 insurgents along with Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an Iranian terrorist who has targeted Americans in the region.

Trump said the strike was ordered “to stop a war and to prevent future attacks on Americans.” He also said “Suliemani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”

This all raises the question of whether a US president has the authority to hunt down killers like Suleimani. The US did the same and captured Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. They were either brought to justice and executed or killed on the spot.

There was no outrage from the opposing political party in the US or from the press at the time. Why are Trump’s motivations and actions always under such negative scrutiny? Is it possible that Democrats and their liberal press allies are siding with the maniacal actions and ideology of Iran?

Although it is difficult to believe, Trump also indicated that he’s not trying to encourage regime change in Iran. Rather, he call for Iran’s “aggression in the region to end immediately.” In fact Trump should be doing everything in his power to stymie the efforts of Iran to build a nuclear bomb and to destabilize the Middle East. He cannot allow Iran Shiites to dominate the region and persecute Sunnis and other religious groups.

There is little doubt that the trajectory of the US/Iran relationship is moving towards greater conflict. Iran will continue to conduct violent operations in Iraq (which for some reason believes having Iranian militias in the country is better than having American peacekeepers), and elsewhere in the region that soon should provoke even greater and more violent responses from the US.

The real problem for Iran is the abrogation of Obama’s nuclear treaty and economic sanctions. The former makes Iran vulnerable to an all-out assault by the US when and if Trump decides that Iran is close to building a deliverable nuclear strike, thereby threatening other non-Shiite countries including Israel.

The latter, economic sanctions, are decimating Iran, especially restrictions relating to oil production and sales. In fact regime change will most likely be greatly influenced by the total economic failure of Iran.

In the meantime Iran will utilize social media and staged protests against America. The Iranians have employed high tech criminals to foment anti-American sentiment on the Internet. And it will probably attempt to employ cyber warfare tactics to disrupt our elections an/or private industry in the US.

During this time of strife, nuclear threats, cyber attacks and social media activity, it is unwise to do anything less than support Trump as he deals with our greatest enemy, Iran. In the past the press has moderated its criticism, as did Congress. They should allow Trump and his intelligence advisors to address the Iranian threat. To this point Trump has responded with restraint, which will need to change as Iran strives to create more hostility in various hot spots throughout the Middle East.


NY Times Krugman Scrooges Trump

For the holidays, Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, is fomenting class warfare by unfairly denigrating Republicans. He believes that tearing the country apart is good for our nation. Honest disagreement is unacceptable to Krugman, so he twists facts so they are consistent with his ideology and distorted opinion of people he despises.

Krugman earns his money by dreaming up new ways to portray the “cruelty” of conservatives and Republicans. This year-end, he claims that calling president Trump and his supporters Scrooge, Dickens ’protagonist in “A Christmas Carol,” is insulting to Scrooge. The character is not innately amoral, as compared to Republicans who spend every waking moment trying to conjure up ways to steal from the poor and cut taxes for themselves.

Many in the Democratic Party have embraced Krugman’s warped perspectives by pushing further and further to the left. There is no entitlement or other giveaway for non-affluent Americans that is over the line. This is one of the reasons why liberal candidates are doing so poorly in the presidential polls, and electorate is drifting towards Republicans in spite of the horrendous antics of the Trump administration and all the inane investigations.

Some Democrats are so hard up for a moderate contender, they are willing to endorse Joe Biden, an unsteady elderly man, whose claim to fame is that he worked for a president who accomplished nothing, and a neophyte, who leads South Bend, Indiana, a metropolis with just over 100,000 residents. Really? One man can’t keep his foot out of his mouth and the other leads, and not without controversy, a handful of Hoosiers. As a graduate of Notre Dame, I can attest that South Bend is not a training ground for the presidency of this country.

Left-wing progressives, whose aim is to socialize the greatest capitalistic country in the world, have infiltrated the Democratic Party. Competition and exceptionalism have made our country an economic and military powerhouse. We don’t want to be clones that receive the same stipend every month, and who wait on long lines at hospitals to get treatment for our sore throats. History has proven many times that socialism is a failed economic institution, and that capitalism coupled with democracy are a winning combination.

Back to Krugman. If we assume that socialism is not an acceptable alternative for capitalism, then axiomatically Americans would support a system where everyone earns a compensatory wage. Our government should guarantee a job to every able-bodied citizen, not provide a check that encourages him or her to sit at home and avoid work. Why can’t Democrats accept that there are other perspectives regarding the distribution of wealth than theirs? Why don’t liberals celebrate successful Americans?

Who is Krugman, a millionaire in his own right, to tell us that being affluent is evil and amoral, and refers to us as Scrooges? Krugman, left-wing radicals along with sanctimonious critics of hard working Americans have no right to steal other people’s money or tell them how to spend their hard earned dollars.

Class warfare is what mongers like Krugman thrive upon. He clearly has no intention of giving credit where it is due. The US economy is benefitting almost every American. Even minorities are enjoying high levels of employment and greater wages. Krugman is a naysayer, a hater of successful people. He wants conservatives and liberals to be at odds. He is supposed to be an economic expert, but he can’t add. If he could, he would know that open borders, one-payer medical insurance, 70% taxes on the rich and free college tuition will ultimately be a disaster for the country.

I wish all my readers a healthy and happy holiday season.

Democrat Lies And The Impeachment Hoax

I’m disgusted and frustrated by the ongoing spectacle of impeachment that is taking place in Washington and have a strong sense that my readers are equally ashamed and disillusioned by the behavior of our elected officials.

The problem I have is based upon the underhanded, unfair and deceitful actions of House Democrats to effectively attempt a coup d’état of the US Government.

Donald Trump has contributed greatly to the current imbroglio. He’s a despicable person, and one that I didn’t vote for in 2016 and have no intention of voting for in 2020. My blog, Softball Politics, has repeatedly criticized the president’s un-statesmanlike persona, attitude, racism, self-aggrandizement and narcissism.

Our current leader is not the kind of person we should have in the White House. Nevertheless, he won the 2016 Election, in spite of all his shortcomings.

All the twisted and partisan crap relating to collusion between Trump and Russia has been debunked. Frankly, Trump’s minions didn’t, and still don’t have, the experience or the chops to orchestrate a voter fraud on a national level. There should be no concern that Trump will do anything sinister in 2020 regarding the election.

Trump has surprised Americans and the rest of the world with shrewd gambits. He’s crude in his execution, but you can’t deny that the US economy is moving ahead great guns. Trump has exposed the inequities in economic and strategic military agreements. He has no inhibition about calling out anyone who attempts to cheat our country. The president has been an unfaltering supporter of Israel. Many of his domestic policies have positively impacted the employment and lifestyles of minorities.

But disingenuous liberals are leading too many Americans down a primrose path. House Democrats have convinced each other that a sitting president is fair game for frivolous impeachment charges in the interest of partisan politics. In reality a president should only be threatened by the specter of impeachment if he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and his accusers can prove it.

The same group of Democrats who bungled every aspect of the Russian collusion fiasco has trumped up new charges that at one point or another involved bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress and other lesser accusations that, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Yet, with the majority in the House, Democrats are wasting time and money in a monstrous hoax.

In fact, the Democrats are the ones guilty of abuse of power. They have twisted hearsay and innuendo into impeachable indictments of the president. These malcontent politicians are sanctimonious liars whose mission in life is to destroy a US president who sees the world differently than they do. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have created a constitutional crisis. This was unnecessary because in a few short months Americans will have the opportunity to vote for Trump, or one of his Democratic rivals.

I’m sickened by the thought of hearing more of Trump’s hyperbole and inarticulate blathering about his greatness. Yet I’m even more disheartened that House Democrats have exceeded their constitutional authority. Deposing a president should only be possible if you can prove high crimes with real evidence according to the rule of law.


House Democrats Erode Our Democratic System

House Democrats have seriously damaged our democracy. Their relentless pursuit of dubious charges against the president has created a constitutional crisis. House actions to this point have blurred the lines of power between the three major branches of our government.

The founders created a mechanism to depose a president if he or she oversteps their authority. At the same time they were careful about delineating crimes of a president that might qualify him or her for impeachment. They used words like high crimes and misdemeanors that portray a guilty president as one who is detrimental to our democracy because his crimes were heinous under any circumstances. Visions of treason, sedition and murder are the crimes that come to mind.

The founders certainly didn’t envision presidents being ousted for speculative indiscretions that couldn’t be proven or were based upon hearsay without being processed under the rule of law. Keep in mind almost all of the initial testifiers in the Judiciary Committee’s investigation of Trump had second and third hand information about the president’s actions and conversations. Most of the evidence was hearsay that wouldn’t be admissible in a court of law. When the proceedings move to the Senate, the president will benefit by the usual amenities of a court of law that will include facing accusers (including the whistle-blower), representation by counsel and calling witnesses.

But the real damage by Democratic shenanigans over the past few weeks is that impeachment is now a tool readily available to any opposition-led majority in the House of Representatives. For frivolous and unpopular actions future presidents will be subjected to yet another three-ring circus, as we witnessed in recent weeks. The bar for impeachment is now on the ground as if we were prosecuting a common thief, as opposed to the leader of the free world.

The lesson about “lowering the bar” should have been obvious to liberal lawmakers in the House based upon a similar episode in the Senate a few years ago. For decades the filibuster was used to stymie appointments to federal courts by the minority. Democrats, in frustration, changed the rules of the Senate enabling senators to confirm judges with a simple majority, and not a super majority, for all judges except Supreme Court justices.

Democrats, thinking that they outwitted their rivals, disregarded the reality that they might face if control reverted back to Republicans, which it did. Republicans, upon assuming power changed the rule further to include Supreme Court justices. Democrats objected, but were drowned out by their own stupidity.

The result was confirmation of a series of young conservative justices to the highest court in the land that will affect the law and our society for many years. It was a naïve and tragic miscalculation.

Here we are at the same crossroads. Prospectively, Americans should expect a hair trigger when Republicans regain the House, which could be in 2020 even if Trump loses the presidency. If Warren is elected, perhaps Republicans will impeach her for lying about her background to the electorate and to Harvard University when she applied for a position at the law school.

Trump Is Not Anti-Semitic

There were conflicting articles this week in the New York Times pertaining to the relationship of Donald Trump and Jews.

Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the Times, dredged up a distasteful, public comment made by Trump in his piece on Tuesday. Krugman believes it substantiates that the president is anti-Semitic. Specifically, in a speech to the Israeli American Counsel, Trump said, “that many in his audience were not nice people at all, but that [they] have to vote for him because Democrats would raise taxes.”

Krugman indicated that the president was “peddling an anti-Semitic stereotype, portraying Jews as money-grubbing types who only care about their wealth.” Actually, the observation that some Americans (including Jews) will vote for Trump because he is committed to decreasing taxes is factual. The money-grubbing reference is typical Krugam left wing rhetoric.

It’s undeniable that the president frequently makes stupid, inane and untrue statements, especially on social media. He’s not a role model for aspiring statesmen; that’s for sure. But he appears to be very sympathetic to the plight of Jews as they continue their never-ending fight against bigotry.

In fact, the Times reported on Thursday that Trump plans to issue an executive order that addresses anti-Semitism on college campuses. Federal money will be withheld from educational institutions that “fail to combat discrimination.”

Judaism will be defined as a race or nationality, not just a religion, so that colleges and universities will be sanctioned if they don’t meet their responsibility “to foster an open climate for minority students [such as Jews]”

Opponents of this policy say it could be used to “stifle free speech and legitimate protest of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.” Of course, this is an overstatement by those unhappy with Israel’s righteous obsession with security.

This action by Trump hardly portrays a person who is biased against Jews. And, Trump has taken other actions that further solidify his efforts to protect Jews and the Israeli state. He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, supported settlements in the West Bank and recognized seizure of the Golan Heights. Trump even attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar when she said support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins,” a reference to money.

Anti-Semitism continues to flourish around the world and in the US. America must stand behind Israel as we have done since the birth of the Jewish nation after World War II. To justify our efforts overseas for the benefit of Israel, we must ensure that bigotry directed at Jews in the US is an illegal act.

Democrat Candidates Are The Pits

Some members of the left are beside themselves because Kamala Harris has given up her dream to becoming the first black female to win the presidency, for now. Just like Clinton, she and her crybaby followers are screaming misogyny and racism. Everyone is to blame except the candidate herself for her terrible performance.

Who are Harris and her minions pointing their fingers at? The electorate, Democrat leaders and, believe it or not, the “liberal media” are a few of the targets.

The electorate is culpable because it doesn’t want a female, black president. Really? I would remind the reader that half the people who vote, or more, are women. Most people believe liberals would die to have a black woman in the White House, as president. In fact several black, female celebrities have been mentioned during the past year or so. Of note are Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. But neither was amenable to compete, thank heavens.

Democrat leaders supposedly didn’t give Harris the support she needed. With 20+ individuals vying for the nomination, the Democrat higher-ups decided to see who distinguished themselves before backing anyone. This makes perfect sense. And what did Harris fail to do during her campaign? She was inept at justifying her actions as a fierce prosecutor of drug dealers and users, and she attacked Joe Biden for his perspectives and actions 20, 30 and 40 years ago. The irony is that blacks are very fond of Biden, more so than for Harris and Booker.

Harris supporters say the press has been unfair to the candidate. The only thing the press is guilty of is reporting the facts about Harris lousy campaign, and inability to get campaign funding to stay in the race.

Compared to the incredible venomous treatment Trump has received from the press, Harris’ was tame. No president has been assaulted to the extent that Trump has been. It appears that future presidents will have to be prepared to be sliced and diced by the media on a daily basis. Kamala is not. Social media will make politician’s lives intolerable in the future.

From the Democratic perspective there is little bias in politics against people of color or women. Obama proved that blacks can endear themselves to expansive swathes of the electorate. Hillary Clinton proved that women are acceptable candidates when she received the majority of votes in 2016. And Nikki Haley will soon prove that a woman can become president in 2024.

A round robin of Democratic candidates reveals the following. Mayor Pete is the apparent winner in Iowa. He has no support from blacks, so his performance should slide off greatly in South Carolina.

Biden is still running on Obama’s “non-accomplishments,” but without Barrack’s endorsement. Biden’s staff is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for his next gaffe. Joe has a tendency of saying stupid and untoward things. And he still needs to tell America about his son’s (and his) exploits in Ukraine. He will likely kill it in South Carolina given the size of the black vote.

Warren is freaking out Americans who have any idea about what it takes to effectively manage our economy. Her proposed giveaways are dangerous and have no chance of enactment.

Sanders is old and too fragile to continue much longer. Young people love his anti-establishment credentials, but will they even show up at the polls?

And who knows whether Bloomberg will be able to buy the nomination in this day and age?

The rest of the field is moot.

Take away: Trump wins the election easily.