Back in 1992, political consultant James Carville coined the phrase “the economy, stupid” as one of the three top campaign messages for the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton.

While it was initially designed for only the Clinton staff, it eventually became the overall message of the campaign and the main rationale why the incumbent George H. W. Bush should be defeated.

Twenty-four years later, another Clinton is running for President, but this time as the de-facto incumbent. Hillary Clinton recognizes the severe economic problems in the nation; however, she vows to continue the policies of Barack Obama. Her only answer is to be more progressive than Obama. She promises to raise more taxes and expand government even more, with free college tuition and expanded Obamacare. In contrast, Donald Trump promises to cut taxes, restructure “bad” trade deals, end Obamacare, and expand domestic oil exploration. Unlike Clinton, Trump vows to protect coal industry jobs, while both candidates claim they will return more manufacturing jobs to the country.

The problem for Hillary is that millions of Americans are suffering financially and the overall economy is not doing very well. Once again, along with national security, the main issue in this presidential race will be “the economy, stupid.”

Today, the latest key indicator was announced, showing our economy grew at an anemic rate of only 1.2% in the second quarter. This was approximately half the level of growth expected by most economists. The report is especially troubling since the economy only grew by .8% in the first quarter and .9% in the last quarter of 2015. An economy in recovery should be growing at a 3% level or more, so our economy is sputtering at best.

Other indicators show serious economic problems as well. The level of home ownership in our country is now at a fifty year low, only 62.9%. The rate has been plunging ever since Barack Obama became President. Since the financial crisis of 2008, credit is much tighter and housing prices are increasing much faster than incomes. Even low mortgage rates have not succeeded in turning around the downward trend in home ownership. Buying a home used to be a major part of achieving the American dream, but today it is an unattainable fantasy for millions of people struggling in this economy.

While the President touts an unemployment rate of only 4.9%, the real picture only emerges after looking at the labor force participation rate which is only 62.7%, near a forty year low. Currently, there are almost 95 million Americans who are not in the labor force. Approximately 50 million Americans are impoverished with almost 44 million receiving food stamps.

With such economic woes, will Americans want to stay the course and elect Hillary Clinton or vote for change and support Donald Trump? In 1992, voters embraced change and elected Bill Clinton as President. If they see the economy in decline today, they will also likely reject the incumbent party and vote for Trump. It remains to be seen which candidate will have the most compelling argument, which is why the next three months will be so interesting.

It happened again last night at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. Another conservative speaker was harassed by liberal activists. In this case, Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was not allowed to finish his presentation to a group of students. He was bullied and threatened and his speech was literally shut down by a group of Black Lives Matter activists. In fact, one of the free speech haters ripped a microphone from the hands of the student interviewing Yiannopoulos.

 

Ironically, the protest leader was Edward Ward, a local church minister who claimed that the presentation was “hate speech” that needed to be halted. During the raucous protest, one of the activists threatened to punch the speaker if he did not stop talking.

 

While the event was ruined by these protesters, DePaul campus security looked on and refused to intervene. Amazingly, Breitbart paid for event security and is now asking for their money back.

 

In response to last night’s fiasco, the sponsoring organization, the DePaul University College Republicans, issued a statement. “Regrettably, militant protestors decided to hijack the event. Loud whistles, threats of violence and straight up suppression of speech. There was no discourse, no Q&A, just fascism. Additionally, DePaul security’s response to the thuggery was utterly shameful. We spent thousands of dollars and countless hours to get the proper security and put this event on, but when security was actually needed, they did nothing. At a minimum, DePaul University administrators should apologize and hold those responsible for the fiasco responsible for their behavior.”

 

The scared security staff at DePaul are no different from the scared campus administrators across the country who refuse to criticize hateful liberal activists. For example, last November at the University of Missouri, liberal activists forced the President and Chancellor to resign over supposed inaction about questionable “racist” events on campus. In February, at the University of California, Los Angeles, demonstrators disrupted a speech by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. They tried to storm the stage, pulled the fire alarm and did everything possible to prevent a conservative message from being presented to the students.

 

It is not just conservative speakers who are motivating these liberal protests. In recent weeks, students at Emory University in Atlanta and Scripps College in Claremont, California went ballistic when the name “Trump” was displayed on their campus. In one case “Trump” was written on a sidewalk and steps and in the other case it was written on a student’s white board. In both incidents, campus police were called, but unlike the event last night at DePaul University, they responded and investigated.

 

To clarify, it is not a crime to write the name “Trump” on a white board, but it is a crime to disrupt an event, threaten violence and forcibly rip a microphone away from an interviewer.

 

Today, the liberal activists own the conversation on college campuses. They have the vast majority of professors and administrators on their side. Liberal celebrities and politicians are invited to give commencement speeches and are welcome on campus throughout the school year, while conservatives are treated like an enemy and completely shunned. If they do happen to receive a rare invitation, they are besieged by hateful activists who are not interested in civil discourse and debate.

 

Colleges are supposed to be laboratories for ideas where debates are encouraged and a diverse set of viewpoints are welcome. Today, only liberalism is allowed and our students are not being educated, but indoctrinated.

 

The real losers are the students who are not allowed to investigate issues and explore different ideas. They are expected to follow the liberal orthodoxy without question.

 

With this type of background, it is no wonder that so many young people are ill equipped to succeed in the “real” world where contrary opinions are allowed and critical thinking is actually valued.

 

Universities are doing a very poor job preparing their students for post-college life. Many are saddled with not only thousands of dollars in student debt, but also a bevy of unworkable liberal ideas that have never been challenged.

Another week, another campus threatened by the dangerous slogan, “Trump 2016.”

Last week, the students of Emory University in Atlanta needed counseling and mental health evaluations after noticing their campus was polluted by disgusting chalk markings. The offensive words included “Trump,” “Trump 2016,” and “Vote Trump” and they were found on concrete steps and even, heaven forbid, the sidewalk.

Immediately after noticing the horrific chalk graffiti, 50 students demanded a meeting with Jim Wagner, Emory University President, because they felt “genuine concern and pain.” Even worse, Wagner met with the lunatic liberals and promised an “investigation,” which raises the true concern of whether free speech is even allowed on the campus.

This week, a student at Scripps College, an all-female liberal arts college in Southern California, noticed the dangerous phrase “Trump 2016” written on a marker board. Thereafter, student President Minjoo Kim took decisive action and called the police because the slogan was “racist” and obviously expressed “violence.”

Of course, such foul language had never before been seen on the pristine campuses. Never mind that slogans for Democrats and far left groups such as Black Lives Matters frequently have appeared on the Emory University campus. These markings never generated a scintilla of criticism, but the word “Trump” turned the students into piles of mush in need of psychiatric care.

At Scripps College, the offending “Trump” slogan was written on the marker board of a Mexican-American student. According to Kim, this marking was “intentional violence” that indicates “racism continues to be an undeniable problem and alarming threat on our campuses.”

Kim’s language is both hilariously dramatic and completely inappropriate. No one committed “violence” against the student. In fact, no one committed “violence” against the marker board either. Kim wants the offending artist to be “held accountable” since the “mental and emotional health of our students is our top concern.”

If the students of Scripps College cannot handle a word on a marker board, they are not going to be able to deal with the real world. Our colleges and universities are obviously educating millions of young nitwits who lack the courage and common sense of students in previous generations. It shows what unadulterated political correctness is doing to our young people today, a genuine tragedy.

These ridiculous episodes perfectly highlight what is happening to the vast majority of the college campuses of today, which are factories for liberalism and sensitivity training where no serious debate is even allowed. In fact, conservatives are rarely hired as professors or administrators or even allowed to speak on campuses. If one does actually get invited, they are met with howls of angry protests and calls to cancel the engagement.

This is exactly what happened a few weeks ago when conservative author Ben Shapiro was invited to speak at California State University, Los Angeles. He was met by hundreds of student protesters who tried to storm the auditorium and prevent him from speaking. It was such a chaotic scene that he needed police protection to safely leave the event.

Liberals on college campuses today do not want to allow conservatives to give commencement addresses, teach a class, speak or even write a slogan on a sidewalk or marker board. It shows that our college campuses, which should be laboratories for healthy discussion and debate, are actually stifling true intellectual curiosity. These campuses are not bastions of the First Amendment at all, in fact, free speech is discouraged.

A major reason for this oppressive environment is that liberal students, professors and administrators do not have any confidence in their convictions. They realize that if their positions on income inequality, racial justice, climate change or a myriad of other liberal causes are actually challenged by conservative opposition, the weakness of their arguments will be exposed.

It is the educational equivalent of one party rule. In such a sad state of affairs, chalk and markers have become dangerous methods of projecting either unacceptable ideas or even the name of a politically incorrect candidate such as Donald Trump.

In previous generations, America’s young people help defeat the Great Depression, Nazism and fascist tyranny. Today, our young people are captives of a system that is turning them into sniveling cowards afraid to debate and face the challenges of the real world. Alas, these developments do not bode well for our country’s future.

Once again, President Obama is in the wrong place at the wrong time. This week, it was Havana, Cuba, the home of the tyrannical Castro brothers, murderous communist dictators.

On Tuesday, the President concluded his historic visit to the island nation. It was the first official trip by a U.S. President since Calvin Coolidge 88 years ago.

The net effect of the visit is that Cuba scored massive propaganda points. They will soon start cashing in on more tourism and economic assistance. While the embargo is officially in place, the President is pleading with Congress to open up the economic floodgates to the communist nation.

The impact of more economic ties will be that the Castro brothers and their cronies will become wealthier, but the average Cuban will continue to suffer under communism. The Cubans will not open up their society or even release their political prisoners. In fact, the dictator Raul Castro even denies there are any political prisoners in Cuba.

In an interesting slight, when President Obama arrived in Cuba, neither of the Castro brothers greeted him at the Havana airport. Later, Raul Castro joined the President at a press briefing in which he had the audacity to lecture Americans about our civil rights record.

It was an amazing display of hypocrisy since it is the Castro regime that has conducted mass murders and still organizes daily repression of all types of freedoms in the country. He was lecturing a country where people are guaranteed constitutional rights only dreamed of in Cuba.

In a tragic irony, as the President was concluding the trip, terrorists struck in Brussels, Belgium. It was another deadly ISIS attack that targeted two locations, including the airport, killing at least 31 innocent people and injuring hundreds of others.

This is only the latest in a long line of jihadist attacks that have been going on for decades throughout the world. In fact, in recent months, ISIS has been effectively striking Western targets with seeming ease. In November, there were gruesome attacks throughout Paris, France and in December ISIS inspired terrorists killed 14 innocent people in San Bernardino, CA.

Even after the Brussels bombings, the Obama administration will continue with the facade of labeling the attacks “extremism.” The President is overly concerned about Muslim sensitivities and, as a result, the truth is a casualty.

Currently, there is no worldwide extremism other than Muslim extremism. Members of other religions are not organizing terror attacks in multiple countries targeting innocent people, but the President refuses to confront this truth.

In his initial remarks from Cuba, he spent just 51 seconds on the terror attacks, reserving most of his time to extol the virtues of the communist regime in Cuba. This was astonishing neglect toward a major terror attack that deserved much more of a response from the leader of the free world.

Hours later as the people of Brussels were still reeling from the bombings, Obama was seemingly carefree and doing the “wave’ with Raul Castro at an exhibition baseball game. It was the latest example of the President selfishly enjoying himself at the wrong time, sending the wrong message to the rest of the world.

Sadly, the U.S. President also has the wrong values and the wrong friends. Not only should he not be doing deals with communist dictators in Cuba, but he should also not be giving $150 billion to the radical Islamic clerics in Iran to use on terrorism.

In Egypt, the President tried mightily to support a corrupt Muslim Brotherhood regime led by Jew and Christian hating Mohamed Morsi. Fortunately, the Egyptian people eventually overthrew the radical Islamic theocracy and paved the way for General el-Sisi, a secular, pro-military leader who is waging war against ISIS.

In the final few months of the Obama administration, Americans may find the President doing more deals with enemies of the country. Let’s hope the President does not try to open the door for closer relations with the dictatorial madman in North Korea.

Whatever he does it will not be in the best interest of his country.

Today, our military is facing dangerous cutbacks and our financial situation is precarious. Thus, Barack Obama will leave office with our country in a weakened state and our enemies growing in power and influence.

No wonder, Bill Clinton recently admitted that the past eight years have left “an awful legacy.” Slick Willie doesn’t normally get it right, but, every now and then, the truth catches up to him.

Super Bowl 50 drew a massive television audience, although slightly lower than record set for last year’s game. For many non-football fans, the highlight of the telecast is the halftime show. After the controversy of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” in 2004, the NFL started booking legendary rock performers like Paul McCartney to perform at halftime.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the trend has been to feature the hottest music stars of today. Thus, for Super Bowl 50, the NFL decided to showcase the band Coldplay and pop stars Bruno Mars and Beyoncé. There must be limited talent in today’s music industry, for the NFL brought back two performers, Beyoncé and Bruno Mars, who had recently performed during Super Bowl halftime shows.

While the repeat performances were unusual, that was not the real problem with this year’s show. In contrast to Coldplay and Bruno Mars who were generally given positive reviews, Beyoncé’s performance was panned by many outraged viewers, including police officers.

For the show, Beyoncé and her backup dancers were dressed in militant outfits that paid homage to the Black Panthers movement, which sold drugs and engaged in criminal behavior such as extortion to finance a radical agenda. The group was also linked to numerous murders and was labeled by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to be “the greatest threat to internal security in the country.” One of the popular slogans of the Black Panther members was the disgusting chant, “The revolution has come. It’s time to pick up the guns, off the pigs.” It is little wonder that police officers were not amused by Beyoncé’s stunt.

During the Super Bowl performance, the group also formed the letter “X” on the field to honor the late Civil Rights Activist Malcolm “X” who promoted racial separatism and preached a message of violence in contrast to the peaceful tactics of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This controversial theme generated a storm of criticism, including a protest planned for Tuesday February 16 at NFL headquarters in New York City. Obviously, the NFL knew of Beyoncé’s performance and approved of it, even though it was totally inappropriate for a Super Bowl halftime show. It was quite a contrast from the patriotic and widely praised pregame entertainment, which included a rousing National Anthem sung by Lady Gaga.

It is unfortunate that the NFL highlighted an entertainer who promoted both racial divisiveness and criticism of police officers. In Beyoncé’s new music video there is a scene showing a hoodie clad African American youngster being confronted by obviously evil police officers as the words “stop shooting us” are displayed in the background.

This was too much for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who called her performance “outrageous.” He said that Beyoncé used it “as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us and keep us alive.” He also blasted the NFL’s decision to allow Beyoncé’s act to appear in the halftime show. According to Giuliani, “if you’re going to have entertainment, let’s have decent, wholesome entertainment.”

Exactly, Mr. Mayor! Beyoncé’s theme was anything but wholesome. She wore military attire with fake bullets attached to her outfit. To make matters worse, her dancers were pictured with Beyoncé’s mother with their fists raised in the air in a “Black Power” salute.

In fact, some commentators noted that Beyoncé’s performance was also a tribute to the radical activists of the Black Lives Matter movement, which formed after acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African American teenager Trayvon Martin. One leader of the movement gushed that Beyoncé used “artistry to advance social justice.” In reality, it was not art, but a political statement. Sadly, the NFL promoted both a leftist political agenda and racial divisiveness by allowing Beyoncé to appear on the halftime show.

It is the last thing Americans should be exposed to when they are just trying to watch a football game on television. While this might not have been a “wardrobe malfunction,” it was a decency malfunction and the NFL should be ashamed.

For many years, we have bestowed a Ringside Politics Turkey of the Year Award to a worthy celebrity or politician. This designation is anything but flattering, so last year we decided to start a positive award category by recognizing an annual Champion of the Year.

The 2014 recipient was quite deserving, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Ever since he burst upon the national stage, Cruz has stood up for conservative values in the midst of withering criticism. He has run a very efficient and effective presidential campaign and is now unquestionably in second place in the national polls of Republican Party voters.

The front-runner in the national polls is also the winner of the 2015 Ringside Politics Champion of the Year Award, Donald Trump. Even though the past year has been a crazy one in American politics, it has been dominated by one person, Donald Trump, who stole the spotlight from President Barack Obama.

Ever since he entered the presidential race in June, Trump has captured the media headlines. All of the other candidates have responded to his statements and his positions on the issues.

The public has responded very favorably to Trump’s politically incorrect message. While other politicians apologize on a regular basis for making controversial statements, Trump does the opposite, he doubles down.

Whether the issue is illegal aliens, the border wall, relations with Mexico, trade with China, Muslim immigration, or Hillary Clinton, Trump refuses to play the normal political games and let the media dictate the conversation.

His rallies generate massive crowds and enthusiasm. Unlike other candidates, Trump is not scripted and actually takes questions from the audience and the media. He will go on all of the national political shows, avoiding none of them, as opposed to Hillary Clinton who only appears on friendly programs.

In one respect, he has won all five of the presidential debates, because his presence has attracted massive viewership. The ratings for the GOP debates have been spectacular due to one person, Donald Trump. On the other side, the Democrat presidential candidates drew only 8 million viewers to their last debate on ABC, which is a paltry one-third of the audience that watched of the first Republican debate on Fox News.

All of the attention is due to the fact that Americans have never seen a presidential candidate like Donald Trump. He is a lifelong businessman who has been extremely successful building a real estate empire worth $10 billion. He has also valuable experience in the media by hosting a successful reality TV show, The Apprentice. What distinguishes Trump from the other candidates is not only his business background, but also his track record of accomplishment in the private sector, which is quite a contrast to most of his opponents, who are career politicians.

As a shrewd capitalist, Trump has run a very unorthodox and streamlined campaign, spending very little money. Since he generates such massive media attention, Trump does not need to traditional advertising to bolster name recognition. Nonetheless, he will start to advertise in the next month and spend some of his fortune to bolster his frontrunner status.

While most politicians have to spend precious time and energy raising funds, Trump can finance his entire campaign with little impact on his net worth. This gives Trump as major advantage over his opponents. Unlike other candidates who will be beholden to big donors, Trump is the ultimate independent candidate, beholden to no one except the voters who will determine whether he wins the presidential election or not.

A candidate that is not tied to special interests is a major threat to the Republican Party establishment, which is the reason GOP bigwigs have tried to thwart his campaign. These Republican Party insiders and power-brokers have selected every Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan, but they have no control over Trump.

It is very refreshing to see the elitists inside the Republican Party have such anxiety over the Trump campaign. Hopefully, he will continue to cause them heartburn and his message of making America great again will continue to find strong support among Republican voters.

Even if he does not win, he has provided a tremendous service to the political system by challenging the corrupt alliance of special interests, party leaders, political consultants and the national news media. Trump has gone around, above and through the forces arrayed against him and connected with the one group often forgotten by these Beltway snobs, the American people.

For all of these reasons and more, we are proud to present the 2015 Ringside Politics Champion of the Year Award to Donald Trump.

 

For the past ten years, we have enjoyed a holiday tradition on the Ringside Politics program, bestowing the “Turkey of the Year” award on the most deserving politician or celebrity.  Previous winners have included former House Speakers John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore and former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. While all of the former winners have been very worthy recipients, this year’s honoree is the most deserving of all time. No one fits the bill of “Turkey of the Year” more than President Barack Obama.

 

Just a few days ago, the President was pardoning the official White House turkeys of the year. Unfortunately, we cannot pardon Barack Obama for his actions as President. He has presided over the dismantling of our country’s economy, our military and our standing in the world.

 

Despite the reports of a low unemployment rate and the media hype of a “recovery,” the United States is facing a crisis of confidence among its people. Just last month, the consumer confidence rating plunged to a 15 month low. Experts noted that Americans have a pessimistic attitude about the job market. Of course, it is easy to understand why that is happening. Today, there are over 94.5 million Americans not in the labor force, the highest total, 37.6%, since 1978. In addition, there are 46 million Americans receiving food stamps and 50 million people mired in poverty. These struggling families are having a hard time just paying for basic expenses.

 

With such a bleak economic situation, it should come as no surprise that spending for Black Friday this year was down 10%. Even with a slight increase in online spending, the overall sales total this year was down $1.2 billion from 2014.

 

The President’s answer is always more government action, growing the public sector at the expense of the private sector. His stimulus program just added to the national debt without the “shovel ready” jobs that were promised. Currently, the federal debt is $18.7 trillion, an increase of over $8 trillion since President Obama took office. His signature program, the Affordable Care Act, will add trillions of dollars more to the national debt, produce higher premiums and deductibles for Americans and in 10 years, 31 million people will still not have health insurance.

 

When he is not increasing the size of government, President Obama is expanding the scope of presidential power. Regarding the serious problem of illegal immigration, the President issued an executive action granting amnesty to 5 million undocumented aliens. Fortunately, this initiative was challenged in court by 26 states and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court injunction against the executive action. The administration will appeal and the issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, illegal aliens will continue to stream into the country across borders that are not secure.

 

While the President is not concerned about the dangers of illegal immigration, he is concerned about “climate change.” His EPA is issuing new regulations to limit the consumption of fossil fuels and force his climate change agenda on American businesses. This philosophy is reflected at the worldwide climate change conference in Paris, where President Obama has repeated his claim that it is the most serious problem facing the planet. It is not famine, disease, slavery, genocide, Islamic terrorism, poverty or a host of other problems, but the hoax of climate change that most worries our President, even though this fear has been refuted by thousands of reputable scientists.

 

Instead of climate change, President Obama should be fearful of Islamic terrorism, but he will not even name the threat we are facing. He uses the meaningless term “extremism” to label the killers who are targeting “infidels” worldwide. Islamic terrorism has increased greatly since President Obama took office. Our biggest enemy, the Islamic State, has not been “confined” as the President stated. Incredibly, he referred to this organization of 30,000 ruthless killers as the “JV.” Yet, the “JV” has accomplished what other Islamic terror groups never achieved; take control of a large region of territory in Iraq and Syria. In fact, the area occupied by the Islamic State today is larger than the country of Great Britain.

 

The President’s ineffective efforts to stop the Islamic State have been laughable. According to Michael Morell, former CIA Director, we refused to bomb their oil wells because of a concern for “environmental damage.” With this kind of ludicrous thinking, the United States would have never dropped two atomic bombs on Japan or won World War II.

 

Obama is a turkey is many respects, but especially in his handling of the military. Today, the United States has 273 ships, the lowest total since 1916. We have the fewest aircraft since 1947 and the smallest army since 1940. Too bad we are decreasing our military at a time of increasing threats to this nation.

 

The President wants to add 100,000 Syrian refugees to our country in each of the next two years. Most Americans want this program to halt, especially after the Paris attacks. Yet, the President claims that critics are worried about widows and children. In reality, all Americans should be worried that terrorists used the refugee crisis to enter Paris and kill innocent civilians and they could do the same thing in this country.

 

President Obama is an ideal “turkey” and justified winner of this year’s award. Sadly, he has spent a lifetime gobbling down socialist theories, so his ideas amount to nothing more than pure gobbledygook.

It seems that Missouri is the state for mob rule. Last year, America witnessed a breakdown of order in Ferguson following the death of African American teenager Michael Brown. Even though the Justice Department exonerated Darren Wilson, the white police officer involved in the shooting of Brown, protesters still maintained the fiction that Brown was ruthlessly killed in a racist manner. They repeated the false mantra, “hands up, don’t shoot,” even though witnesses say that Brown never uttered those words. Instead, he attacked Wilson shortly after the officer asked Brown to move out of the middle of the street. Protesters also conveniently overlooked the video evidence showing Brown robbing a store minutes before his encounter with Wilson.

 

The Ferguson shooting created the “Black Lives Matter” movement which has been issuing demands to politicians across the country. The incident also created an untenable situation for Wilson at the Ferguson Police Department, where he was relieved of his duties. Today, he is unemployed and in hiding, even though he did nothing wrong.

 

A few miles down the road from Ferguson another supposed white racist is unemployed and may have to go into hiding even though he did nothing wrong. Yesterday, Timothy Wolfe resigned his position as President of the University of Missouri system. His crime is that he is white and did not do enough to respond to the outrageous demands of black protesters, who claim that the university has become a racially hostile environment.

 

The activists point to an incident where racial slurs were uttered from a passing vehicle. They also note that a swastika made of feces was drawn in a dormitory room. Finally, they say that the Wolfe did not meet with protesters who were blocking his vehicle during the Homecoming parade.

 

It is preposterous to tie Wolfe to any racist activity. He did not yell the slurs or draw the offensive symbol. While those incidents may involve true racism, they could also be hoaxes, as we have seen in many other cases. Also, he was criticized because he asked police officers to remove the protesters during the parade because they were blocking his vehicle. Since he did not act according to the wishes of protesters, Wolfe represents “white privilege,” and, therefore, was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

 

Initially, the protests created some controversy but they reached a new level of agitation when 30 black football players on the University of Missouri team decided to join forces with the activists. They vowed not to play in this weekend’s game against Brigham Young University unless Wolfe resigned or was fired. After Gary Pinkel, the highly paid white football coach, sided with the players, it was all over for the President. He resigned the next day, surely under pressure from university leaders nervous about the football team forfeiting a game. Supposedly, it would have cost the university $1 million to forfeit the upcoming game.

 

So, now we know who is really valued at the University of Missouri. It is not the scholar, it is the football player. In fact, since the football team forced the President from his position, maybe they should take over all of the functions of running the school. Why does the university need a president when they have activists and football players who are making the major decisions?

 

These activists prepared an eight part manifesto with a variety of demands, including the right to approve whoever is hired to replace Wolfe. They are also demanding that more minorities be hired at the university and that more funds be dedicated to counseling services.

 

By succumbing to the demands, Wolfe has created a very dangerous precedent. Other football teams may realize their financial power in universities and start making similar demands. This could have repercussions all over the country.

 

While Wolfe was not guilty of racism, he was guilty of displaying weakness. He should have said he was not resigning because he did nothing wrong. Then he should have withdrawn the scholarships of all of those who boycotted the game and fired the hapless coach. The season would have ended, but a great message would have been delivered to these protesters. Instead, the protesters have won again and they show no signs of stopping anytime soon.

It must be nice being Barack Obama. He gets to travel the world on the taxpayer’s dime and never worry about the cost. Thanks to Judicial Watch, the American people now know how much it costs to travel like a rock star. Due to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, the U.S. Department of the Air Force reluctantly released records that show the travel costs for President Obama in February and March of this year exceeded $4.4 million.

 

During these months, the President enjoyed golf trips and participated in Democratic Party fundraisers. For every hour it is in use, Air Force One costs taxpayers $206,337. Thus, it cost over $1 million for the President to attend a golf outing in Palm Springs, California. He enjoyed an extended stay at the Sunny lands resort, owned by the Annenberg family.

 

In February and March, the President also traveled to Chicago, Los Angeles and Palm City for political campaigning and fundraisers. The travel costs of all of these trips were covered by the taxpayers.

 

In Chicago, the President made a campaign appearance for his former Chief of State Rahm Emanuel, who was running for re-election as Mayor. In Los Angeles, he attended Democratic Party fundraisers and appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel comedy show. In Palm City, the President enjoyed golf at the Floridian National Golf Club, a “spectacular” resort on the St. Lucie River.

 

With a budget deficit of $438 billion and a national debt that exceeds $18.4 trillion, such expensive travel costs are outrageous. Obviously, the President is not concerned about appearances for he has been a world class traveler ever since he took office in 2009.

 

If these two months are typical of his tenure in office, it would mean that the President’s travel costs alone will exceed $200 million after his eight years in office.

 

These expenses are just the tip of the iceberg for they do not include the security and lodging costs of his entourage, including the secret service detail. At this time, Judicial Watch is still waiting for the Secret Service to provide this information, as required by the FOIA request.

 

Obviously, every President should be able to take vacations, but Barack Obama is different. Whereas Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent most of their vacation time at family ranches or homes, this President prefers to spend his time at expensive resort destinations such as Martha’s Vineyard. The resulting cost to taxpayers is quite significant.

 

In addition, the Obama family often travels separately, increasing the costs that taxpayers will have to cover.  Over the past seven years, Michelle Obama has also traveled the world and in a solo trip to China, the travel costs for taxpayers exceeded $360.000.

 

According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Taxpayers should be outraged that Barack Obama’s wastes $4.4 million of their precious tax dollars on golf vacations and political fundraising…and to make matters worse, the Secret Service has simply refused to respond to our requests for documents about the security costs of these controversial trips.  The Obama travel scandal is about abuse of office, abuse of the taxpayer, and contempt for the rule of law.”

 

Thank goodness that Judicial Watch is doing the job that the media refuses to do. Taxpayers have a right to know how much of their money is being spent to send the First Family to golf resorts, Democratic Party fundraisers and exotic vacations. The only benefit is that at least the American people can live vicariously through Barack and Michelle Obama as they enjoy champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

In a new web advertisement, Hillary Clinton expresses solidarity with victims of sexual assault. She implores those who have been abused not to “let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard. You have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”

 

So, Hillary Clinton, the architect of the Clinton campaign’s plan to handle “bimbo eruptions,” is supposedly concerned with victims of sexual assault. She is so skilled at lying that she does not realize the hypocrisy so evident in her new campaign message.

 

In defending her husband from the “vast right wing conspiracy,” Hillary helped to demonize the women who claimed to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton. To protect her husband’s political career and her future in politics, Hillary helped trash the reputations of the women who made accusations against Bill Clinton.

 

The most serious charge was made by Juanita Broaddrick, who maintains that she was raped by Bill Clinton in a Little Rock hotel in 1978. She claims that several weeks after the rape, Hillary Clinton threatened her at a political event. According to Broaddrick, she became “physically ill” after Hillary tightly held her hand and said she appreciated “everything you do for Bill.” Broaddrick was convinced Hillary knew of the assault and wanted to pressure Broaddrick to remain quiet.

 

Kathleen Willey said that in 1993, during a visit to the White House, she was sexually groped by then President Clinton in a hallway adjacent to the Oval Office. At the time, she was a strong Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer; however, on this occasion, Willey claims that the President fondled her breast and placed her hand on his genitals.

 

Willey was visiting Clinton to request a paid position since her husband was being investigated for embezzlement from one of his legal clients. While she was not offered a job by the President, she was subjected to his unwanted touching and his crude acts of sexual harassment. Sadly, on the day of her White House visit, Willey’s husband committed suicide.

 

In an interview with the American Mirror, Willey states that Hillary was well aware of what Bill Clinton did to her and many other victims. In Willey’s view, Hillary “just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.” Needless to say, Willey is quite angry with Hillary Clinton and believes “she’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money.” Willey continues, “She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”

 

Congratulations to the courageous Kathleen Willey who refuses to go away quietly and keep quiet about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hopefully, her words of warning will make a major impact in the upcoming presidential race. The last thing this country needs is for Hillary Clinton and her husband, the serial adulterer, to be back in the White House. It would be a clear case of giving way too much power to the wrong people with potentially devastating results.

The latest polls tell a horrible story for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the most persistent presidential candidate of them all. According to the Loras College Iowa poll, released today, Jindal is languishing at 1% support in Iowa, tied for 12th place. Thus, Jindal has received no political benefit from his countless trips, speeches and campaign appearances in the Hawkeye state.

 

It is even worse news for the Governor in the latest national poll released by Public Policy Polling. In this survey, Jindal is at the very bottom, tied for 14th place with less than 1% support. Nationally, Jindal is going nowhere fast despite innumerable appearances on national cable networks over the past few years.

 

At this point, it is quite clear that Bobby Jindal is not presidential material. While he has political experience, he has very little real world experience. Today, Republican primary voters are looking for a non-politician to lead the party back to power. Voters are tired of politicians like Bobby Jindal who promise hope and change, but deliver broken promises.

 

Jindal is the Republican version of President Obama, a politician delivering strong rhetoric, but poor results. Today, Louisiana is in the midst of another budget crisis and Jindal is nowhere to be found. In the last legislative session, he appeared on the opening day and then did not reappear until the closing day. In between, Jindal campaign aggressively for President, but offered almost no legislative agenda and allowed legislators to pass a budget based on smoke and mirrors.

 

In the last legislative session, legislators used an oil price of $62 per barrel for budget planning purposes. This highly inflated figure was based on wishful thinking, not reality, for the price of oil today is hovering around $40 per barrel. With oil and gas revenue comprising a major portion of our state budget, such a faulty prediction created a major hole in our financial projections.

 

Barely a few months into our current operating budget and the state is already facing a $19 million shortfall in the TOPS college scholarship program and a whopping $336 million hole in the Medicaid budget. According to Louisiana political and legislative watchdog C.B. Forgotston, “Failing to address these daily budget fissures will result in the exponentially increasing the size of the additional taxes, tuition, fees increases and mid-years cuts.”

 

In the last legislative session, taxes, fees and tuition were increased by the largest amount in state history, using unconstitutional measures that are being challenged in court. According to Forgotston, all of the legislative decisions were “counter-productive” to growing the state’s economy and did not address the real problem facing Louisiana, the “size” of our state government.

 

For one important area in the state budget, higher education, spending has already been slashed. According to State Treasurer John Kennedy, Louisiana colleges and universities have already been “cut to the bone.”

 

Today, none of the budget options for Louisiana are very palatable, so very difficult decisions need to be made. The problem is that Louisiana is suffering from absentee leadership, as our Governor is busy campaigning for President.

 

With poll results showing his presidential campaign in shatters and a state budget nightmare getting worse, it is time for Governor Jindal to come home and finish his term with a semblance of dignity. He needs to try to solve these difficult problems that he helped create, so the next Governor is not dealing with a total financial catastrophe.

From the very beginning of the first GOP presidential debate, Donald Trump was in the spotlight and under fire from Fox News commentators. The first question asked for a show of hands of all candidates who would not pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee. Only Donald Trump raised his hand, which led to the first of many confrontations during the debate. He was challenged by moderator Brett Baier and lambasted by Senator Rand Paul for “buying and selling politicians.” While Trump declared that he wants to “run as the Republican nominee,” he is wise to keep his options open.

 

The Republican establishment is terrified of Trump, who can finance a third party campaign and is independent of special interests. They will continue to mercilessly attack him, hence Trump is smart to maintain “leverage” and keep open the third party alternative.

 

It may also provide a needed choice for the American people. If the presidential nominees are Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush, or another RINO, Trump should enter the race to give voters a real alternative. The last thing the country needs is another Bush or Clinton in the White House.

 

In fact, in a three way race between Clinton, Bush and Trump, there is a possibility that Trump may win. There is great dissatisfaction with political dynasties and millions of Americans would refuse to vote for either Clinton or Bush, giving a well-funded third party candidate like Trump a chance.

 

There is certainly precedent for a strong third party candidacy. In 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot was leading the presidential race before he exited amid claims that he did not want to throw the election into the House of Representatives. He later said he left the race because he was concerned that Republicans were planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. When he returned to the campaign months later, his prospects were severely diminished. Nevertheless, he finished with almost 19% of the vote, the highest third party total since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.

 

Unlike Perot, who destroyed his chances when he abandoned the race, Trump would be a more formidable third party contender. He has universal name recognition, billions of dollars to spend, and no need to placate special interests or big donors. Clearly, the GOP establishment, and their media lapdogs, will try to destroy his chances. This is exactly what happened during the Fox News debate. After being immediately confronted on the third party question, Trump spent the rest of the debate fending off queries about his bankruptcies, his stand on abortion and Obamacare, his treatment of women, and his previous support of Democrat candidates. Throughout it all, Trump stayed on the offensive and refused to apologize.

 

This stance was extremely popular with the vast conservative audience of the Drudge Report website. After 531,000 votes were tabulated, Trump was declared the winner by over 45% of the voters, far outpacing second place finisher Senator Ted Cruz who received just 14% of the vote. While the public loved Trump’s performance, so-called experts such as analyst Charles Krauthammer and pollster Frank Luntz panned The Donald’s showing. In true Trump fashion, he blasted Luntz as a “low class slob.”

 

Clearly, Trump’s best chance for victory would be as the GOP nominee. Obviously, he would prefer to win the Republican nomination; however, he may be subjected to impossible hurdles as the race progresses.

 

While a third party candidacy is not the ideal scenario for Trump, he definitely needs to keep it as an option as the race progresses. It is too early to determine what will happen, but we do know that since Donald Trump is involved, practically everyone will be watching.