The corrected data released by the Commerce Department for the second quarter of 2016 is even a little worse than the already bad initial estimate. In Q2 the American economy registered GDP “growth” of a lackluster 1.1 percent. This follows similar data for Q1, indicating that in the first half of 2016 the U.S. economy grew by only a dismal one percent.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending, the U.S. economy remains at stall speed. Without hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending, America’s economy would without a doubt plunge into a technical recession. Thus, less than three-months ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the Obama economy will not be one of the arrows in Hillary Clinton’s quiver. This may also provide Donald Trump with more ammunition, as the perception of a robust economic recovery in the United Sates fades from reality.

TRUMP VERSUS CLINTON: Climactic Struggle For The White House Between Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Kindle Edition    AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.COM: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JADSCSE#nav-subnav                    

The decision by Britain’s electorate to leave the European Union will have monumental consequences for the future world order. Ian Bremmer, the respected geopolitical analyst and head of the Eurasia Group consultancy, tweeted thus, “Brexit is the most significant political risk the world has experienced since the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Stock markets are withering, the British currency is plummeting and  Prime Minster David Cameron has announced his resignation,  as the economic and political aftershocks are only beginning to be comprehended. However, it is the geopolitical tremors that will have the most far-reaching impact globally. That includes the United States, which is in the midst of an increasingly vitriolic and divisive presidential campaign.

What has stunned observers about the outcome of the Brexit campaign is that the referendum’s result ran counter to what the analysts, supposed expert prognosticators and well-compensated pundits had so confidently predicted. The established experts had even convinced supporters of Brexit that they would likely lose the referendum, in the hours before actual voting occurred. That is why bourses across the globe soared, and the British pound reached record highs, until reality radically reversed those trends. The odds-makers clearly were convinced that British voters would choose to remain in the European Union. The actual, unpredicted outcome was an unmitigated defeat for the UK’s political establishment across the political spectrum, and that aspect has the greatest resonance with the battle between Clinton and Trump to succeed Barack Obama as America’s 45th President.

Just as with the Brexit referendum, America’s own class of political consultants and expert commentators for months assessed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to be a megalomaniacal joke, with no chance of prevailing in the Republican Party’s presidential Primary. When Trump  emerged victorious in the GOP presidential selection process before Hillary Clinton had secured the Democratic Party’s nomination, the same experts, rather than being reflective and self-critical, have largely double-downed on failure, and remain steadfast in their prediction that Trump has no realistic possibility of winning November’s presidential election.

Setting aside the occasional diatribes of Trump that tend to obfuscate a cogent analysis of his campaign’s actual strength, it is clear that the political dynamics that led to the stunning vote in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union are also at play in the United States, to the benefit of the real estate mogul. The British electorate revealed itself as being alienated from their nation’s political establishment, with public policy on immigration a crucial driving force in shaping attitudes prior to the Brexit vote. In the U.S. Primary campaign, similar forms of disenchantment underpinned Trump’s ability to vanquish his GOP competitors.

In November 2016 American voters will choose between one candidate being the quintessential representative of the discredited and abhorred political establishment, and the other candidate powerfully branded as the ultimate anti-establishment figure. The legion of America’s political experts who, despite evidence that the domestic  electorate seeks change  in 2016, remain fixed in their view that Trump cannot win, may prove, as with their British counterparts, to have been unduly confident in the validity of their political estimates on the mood of the voters.

DONALD TRUMP  or HILLARY CLINTON — Who Will Be Elected the 45th President of the United States in 2016?

Available on Amazon Kindle – – HILLARY CLINTON VERSUS DONALD TRUMP

The “Summer of Trump” is now the “Autumn of Trump.” Donald Trump continues to maintain his lead over all other challengers for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. The latest Reuters poll has the following data:

Trump  31%

Carson 21%

Bush  8%

Rubio 7%

Fiorina  5%

Paul  4%

Trump has been the frontrunner in the GOP presidential race since July. Despite many predictions  from pundits, Donald Trump not only has help onto his lead–he is very far ahead of his opposition, with only Ben Carson holding a double digit poll number. Jeb Bush, who was early on predicted to be the early frontrunner, has instead faded into the political sunset.

How Donald Trump shocked the political establishment & media in 2016 election-Amazon Kindle eBook-click: http://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-2016-Americas-President-ebook/dp/B0156PAAVM/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 …

In analyzing the unanticipated success of the Donald J. Trump For President campaign–at least in its early phases–I have found far more insight from a Harvard Business School professor than from any of the legion of established political commentators, consultants and journalists. Clayton Christensen, to the best of my knowledge, has never written specifically on American politics. However, the Harvard professor and management guru conceived of the concept of disruptive innovation. It strikes this writer that disruptive innovation is the most cogent explanation for the early and surprising success Donald Trump has generated in the early months of the 2016 presidential election.

In his description of disruptive innovation, Professor Clayton states that it is “a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market , eventually displacing established competitors.” Transferring this theory from the corporate business world to the realm of presidential politics, one can observe how effectively it is being applied by Trump. While the political and media establishment wrote off the Trump campaign in its nascent period as a public relations stunt not to be taken seriously, the Trump campaign organization laid the groundwork and messaging to capture a constituency that was largely ignored by the establishment contenders for the GOP presidential nomination. The development of a simple theme–“Make America Great Again”–was clearly intended to resonate with potential voters who felt alienated from traditional politics, and were receptive to a messenger, especially with a high-profile celebrity brand, who offered the promise of American restoration.

Perhaps the most disruptive element that Donald Trump introduced into the Republican presidential primary was his laser-beam focus on the alleged incompetence and “stupidity” of the political class. While traditionally Republican contenders for their party’s nomination based their campaign on attacking Washington D.C., suggesting they were somehow distinct from the political culture on Capitol Hill, Trump unleashed a “shock and awe” ( to use a Pentagon term) assault that targeted the entire political class, Republican and Democrat. In the face of the real estate mogul’s schadenfreude, the GOP’s perceived establishment frontrunners, in particular Jeb Bush, have been floundering. Their old standby sloganeering, such as railing against Washington, is proving to be both ineffective and irrelevant in the new presidential campaign dynamic that Trump and his campaign organization have facilitated through their successful adaptation of the techniques of disruptive innovation. It is as though Jeb Bush–and also Hillary Clinton–are offering American voters obsolete mainframe computers, while Trump is aggressively marketing smartphones

The history of the 2016 presidential election cycle is yet to written. There remains more than a year of campaigning, and much can still happen that is currently unanticipated. Yet, whatever transpires in November of 2016, Donald Trump has already had a transformative impact on presidential campaigning that will likely endure far beyond the next presidential election.

Amid the media circus sparked by the official launch of the 2016 presidential campaign of celebrity candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is easy to forget that there exists another challenger for the Democratic nomination–besides Senator Bernie Sanders. His name is Lincoln Chaffee. He is largely unknown out of his home state of Rhode Island.

About the only thing Chaffee has in common  with Hillary Clinton is that he is also the product of a political dynasty of sorts. His father, John Chaffee, served as governor of Rhode Island, U.S. Senator and Secretary of the Navy during the Nixon administration. After a background working in harness racetracks after college, Lincoln Chaffee followed in his father’s footsteps. He served as the mayor of Warwick, Rhode Island. As a part of the dying breed of moderate Republicans, he won election to the U.S. Senate. When he lost his reelection bid, be successfully won election as governor of Rhode Island, running as an independent; this was the first time an independent candidate won the gubernatorial contest in his state since 1790. After serving one term as governor, Chaffee chose not to run for reelection. He is now a registered Democrat. Recently, he officially announced that he is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/lincoln-chafee-expected-to-announce-longshot-presidential-bid/ ).

All of the above might seem indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton, or the virtual army of Republican contenders who have either formally announced their candidacies, or are about to do so. That appears to be the existential problem with American presidential politics; it has been reduced to the geometric convergence of resumes shaped by savvy public relations consultants with massive amounts of money–in the 2016 presidential election, the price of attaining the White House will be measured at record billions of dollars.

If, however, the 2016 presidential election were not based on extravagantly-financed PR spin,  but rather on character, courage and basic common sense, Lincoln Chaffee would be the clear frontrunner. One single act in the Senate career of Lincoln Chaffee not only establishes him as the most qualified candidate to serve as America’s next President and Commander-in-Chief; it marks him as one of the very few contemporary U.S. politicians who has displayed the highest level of moral clarity and political courage.

Amid the continuing catastrophe that is the Iraq war that the United States remains  trapped in, despite President Obama’s forlorn attempt to end U.S. involvement through a precipitous and ill-conceived withdrawal of American troops, it is easy to forget how this madness all began. Let us go back to  October 2002, and recall that President George W. Bush did not launch the invasion of Iraq on his own– he required Congressional authorization. A compliant Congress  provided that authorization in the form of a blank check, empowering Bush to initiate his military adventure in the heart of the Middle East whenever he chose, without further consultation with Congress.  We know who voted for the Iraq war . The list of approving senators included Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of 29 Democratic senators who voted in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 45.

There were 49 Republicans in the Senate when SJR 45 came to a vote, of which 48 voted in favor of the war authorization measure. Only one Republican senator had the strength of character and moral integrity to vote against his own party’s president. Lincoln Chaffee, the sole Republican in the Senate to oppose the invasion of Iraq, earned the undying  contempt of many of his fellow Republicans, a factor that undoubtedly led to his eventually changing party affiliations. However, his vote of conscience and rationality should forever earn the gratitude of the American people.

The political dissent Chaffee displayed in the U.S. Senate was not only courageous; it showed a level of sophistication and understanding of international events that is sadly lacking among the current crop of presidential contenders. All who allowed the genies out of the bottle when America invaded Iraq must be held accountable for the calamitous geopolitical results. The Shiite-Sunni civil war raging in the Middle East is a direct result of this geostrategic blunder, the consequences of which will haunt the U.S. for generations to come. To expect Hillary Clinton, a co-architect of this monumental disaster, to somehow contain its horrific aftershocks is to hope for the impossible. Only a political leader who understood from the beginning that launching a war in Iraq was a terrible mistake can inspire confidence in  his ability at finding solutions to contain the metastasizing after-effects.

Most will conclude that however meritorious Lincoln Chaffee’s case for being elected America’s 45th president is, he doesn’t stand a chance, particularly against the Clinton political machine and its vast base of financial support–and that this is a tragedy for Mr. Chaffee. I look at this equation somewhat differently. It is not a tragedy for Lincoln Chaffee, but for America.

Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States  in 2016. See the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

No better illustration exists of the dysfunctionality of American politics than the phenomenon of Hillary Clinton. Devoid of any measurable accomplishments that have unambiguously advanced the interests of the United States and her people, Mrs. Clinton’s stature as the frontrunner in the upcoming 2016 presidential contest and virtual shoo-in for the Democratic Party’s nomination is predicated entirely on her status as a political celebrity. And those who are utterly objective recognize that this celebrity power that has catapulted Hillary Clinton to within striking distance of the presidency is totally derived from the brand name that comes with being the wife of Bill Clinton. It is simply inconceivable that Hillary Clinton would have embarked on her journey towards the presidency, which began with her election as Senator from New York in November 2000, if her surname had been anything other than Clinton.

 No doubt, millions will discard objectivity, and project their hopes for the future on the public persona of Hillary Clinton, as it will be carefully constructed by professional political strategists and public relations experts, all funded by the billion dollars plus that the Clinton brand will attract through its fundraising apparatus. Those who are more sober and reflective in their political judgments should consider the following three points I raise as reasons to be wary of a second Clinton presidency.

 1. Hillary Clinton plays loose with the truth, and has a record that raises serious ethical questions. The examples I could cite are numerous, but one stands out, because it displays a level of public cynicism that is alarming in any politician. During her unsuccessful 2008 primary contest with then-Senator Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton sought to “prove” her physical courage  by repeatedly claiming in a number of stump speeches that she had braved sniper fire in Tuzla during the war in Bosnia.  As she stated on one occasion (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html), “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

 When news footage emerged clearly showing no sniper fire or even a whiff of threatening activity as Hillary Clinton emerged from her aircraft, it became clear that the aspiring presidential hopeful had flat-out fabricated the story of her heroism under fire out of whole cloth. Caught in a lie, Mrs. Clinton claimed that because she was fatigued from the rigors of a long campaign she had merely “misspoke.” In my view, her oft-repeated epoch of contrived courage was too specific to be a case of misspeaking, but is a clear indication of Hillary Clinton’s capacity for engaging in untruths as a matter of political expediency.

 2. Hillary Clinton was a full partner with her husband in unethical conduct during the presidency of Bill Clinton. A prime example is what happened at the very end of the Clinton presidency, when a series of questionable presidential pardons were granted that were so outrageously incongruent, the whole episode came to be known as “Pardongate.” Among the rogues gallery of pardon recipients courtesy of President Clinton were four convicted swindlers  from the town of New Square in Rockland County, New York. The largely Hassidic community of New Square voted for Hillary Clinton in her 2000 senatorial campaign in overwhelming numbers, at the behest of community leaders. Shortly after her successful senate campaign, Hillary Clinton joined her husband for a private White House meeting with supporters of the convicted New Square swindlers.

 Though she has never revealed what was discussed–or promised–during the closed door meeting, Hillary Clinton maintained that she had no prior knowledge of her husband’s intentions on granting presidential pardons to the four swindlers from New Square. However, the feeling of disgust that arose in the wake of Pardongate became pervasive and non-partisan.  Then a liberal columnist for The New York Times, Bob Herbert wrote in a column published on February 26, 2001 (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html):

 “You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they’ve betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.”

 3. As a U.S. senator, Hillary Clinton became complicit in America’s disastrous war in Iraq. The most important vote Hillary Clinton cast during her two terms as United States senator from New York was undoubtedly Senate Joint Resolution 45, which authorized President George W. Bush to unleash military force against Iraq at any time, without further consultation with Congress, let alone a declaration of war.  The disastrous impact of that hideous example of strategic miscalculation is still with us, witnessed by the tectonic convulsions ripping the Arab world, and the rise of the Islamic State, which emerged out of the caldron created by the U.S. invasion of  Iraq in 2003.

 At the time of her vote in favor of instigating America’s war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton boasted that her decision was based on “careful consideration.” If this calamitous decision is the best that Hillary Clinton is capable of, that alone should raise serious questions about her suitability to serve as America’s Commander-in-Chief.

 During the 2002 vote on authorizing military force in Iraq, only one Republican senator had the courage and insight to vote against President Bush’s rush to war. He was Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. Chaffee is now a Democrat, and is seriously considering challenging Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination. This is what Lincoln Chaffee had to say to MSNBC’s  Lawrence O’Donnell about Hillary Clinton and why her vote in support of the Iraq war should preclude her from becoming the next U.S. President(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/10/republican_turned_democrat_lincoln_chafee_hillary_disqualified_from_running_for_president_by_supporting_iraq_war.html):

 ” It’s relevant to what we read about every day in the papers in the Middle East and other areas of the world. ISIS and what’s happening in Nigeria and how we confront some of these extremist insurgencies… Even though it’s a long time ago, back in 2002, the ramifications are still felt today.”

 In 2008, support of the Iraq war was the key ingredient that led to Hillary Clinton’s defeat at the hands of Barack Obama. However, as 2016 approaches, collective amnesia clouds much of America’s political landscape. Hillary Clinton’s vote in support of a calamitous military adventure, along with past ethical indiscretions by both she and Bill Clinton, are largely discounted by large sections of the voting public, who now view the Clintons with benign nostalgia. If this force of celebrity star-power and selective memory proves impervious to objective scrutiny and enlightened skepticism, than Hillary Clinton may very well win the next presidential election. In that case, the loser will be America, condemned to repeat the antics and machinations from a political pair that Bob Herbert rightly characterized as a “terminally unethical and vulgar couple.”

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

Time magazine has just run a cover story about Hillary Clinton with the ominous title, “Can Anyone Stop Hillary?”  The cover has a peculiar graphic; rather than Hillary Clinton’s face, only a leg clad in navy blue pants, foot shod in black leather kitten  heels revealing a clinging tiny man, representative of the increasingly feeble field of Republican men seeking to challenge the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Hillary Clinton has come a long way since her defeat at the hands of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primaries. Though a final, official decision is likely a year away, the smart money in Washington D.C. is betting on the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State to campaign for the presidency and to handily win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, with no serious contenders standing in her way. That leaves the GOP as the only barrier to her returning to the White House, this time as America’s commander-in-chief.

The recent and ongoing Bridgegate political scandal appears to be the kiss of death to the once promising presidential aspirations of New Jersey Republican governor Chris Christie. Pundits have, until recently, proclaimed Governor Christie as the only serious GOP challenger who could defeat Hillary Clinton. His now almost certain political extinction prompted the Time magazine cover story, no doubt.

Americans and the whole world better start getting acclimated to the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton. What would the implications of a second Clinton presidency be for America and the world? Read my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” and you will have a better grasp on why  a President Hillary Clinton is NOT the solution to the political malaise now gripping the USA.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

Hillary Clinton Nude

Hillary Clinton Nude

HILLARY CLINTON NUDE