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

Trump as a presidential candidate and political phenomenon challenges any attempt at a balanced appraisal. The Republican Party’s presidential frontrunner has offered an admixture of divisive diatribe with cogent observation  (as with his excoriating critique of President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq), forming a complex puzzle. This bewildering political persona’s complexity and contradictions prove frustrating to the objective observer seeking to comprehend Trump and his message, while inviting partisan supporters and critics to define Donald Trump to their respective constituencies. In particular, major segments of the mass media have chosen to join with conventional political insiders, especially actors within the Republican Party’s establishment  and old guard, in constructing an oversimplified caricature of Trump, and then using their own mythology to justify prognostications that the Trump presidential campaign was a “joke” and publicity stunt, which would end as soon as the self-indulgent narcissist tired of the enterprise. The one description that would never appear in the lexicon of these pundits and observers was that Donald Trump was very serious about his presidential aspirations, and that his campaign was far from being an exercise in humor.

When Trump quickly ascended to the status of frontrunner in the GOP’s presidential primary, the pundits and political consultants affirmed that this “summer of Trump” was a seasonal anomaly that would soon dissolve when the Republican electorate became more focused on the unfolding presidential campaign. When the “autumn of Trump” soon followed, these same Washington beltway experts and commentators merely adjusted their rationale while their conclusion remained immutably fixed; when the actual primary voting began, the Trump campaign would inevitably implode.

Donald Trump’s decisive win in the New Hampshire Primary may have put the final nail in the coffin of conventional and establishment theories on presidential campaigning in the United States, as a new paradigm has arisen. Its author is Donald J. Trump.

The New Hampshire primary is history, with the South Carolina primary soon to follow, and Trump’s double-digit lead in the polls appears unassailable. This poses the following questions: Why did the media get the Trump campaign so wrong?  What does New Hampshire suggest for the outcome of the GOP presidential primary? Finally, what do these recent campaign developments reveal about the presidential general election in November?

1. The media largely failed to perceive the power and strategic sophistication of the Trump presidential campaign due to its intimate connectivity with the political establishment in Washington. Journalists covering national politics largely depend on inside sources for the formation of their own insights and estimates of the political landscape. In other words, much of America’s political reporting is funneled through the prism of beltway politicians and consultants, who themselves were to  demonstrate a profound alienation from mainstream American public opinion. Trump shrewdly perceived the distrust bordering on universal contempt that a large section of the American electorate harbors towards the political class, and utilized his expertise in branding and messaging to latch on to that deep social malaise. The media largely missed this unfolding phenomenon simply because it took seriously and uncritically the thinking of conventional political insiders, who have proven to be historically flawed in their misjudgment.

2. Trump’s win in the New Hampshire primary only reinforces his already massive  and consistent dominance in the polls in the other upcoming state primaries. Early and decisive wins in South Carolina and Nevada will quickly kill any lingering expectations of a brokered Republican convention or a last stand by a still unidentified GOP establishment savior. It would appear at this point that Donald Trump will win the Republican presidential nomination, with no serious impediment to that outcome.

3. There is a new wave of theoretical conventionality in analyzing presidential politics that holds that even if Trump wins the GOP presidential nomination, he stands no chance of defeating the most likely Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton. The same experts and commentators that assured  their audiences that Trump’s campaign was a flash in the pan – – and later that he stood no chance of winning his party’s nomination – – are now thumping their chests with assurances that Hillary Clinton will defeat the real estate mogul in a landslide. I suspect that this thinking is as flawed as earlier predictions of Trump’s imminent political demise.

A Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton battle for the presidency will be a no-holds barred test of power and wills between two political celebrities.  Separating Trump the business and political strategist from the unfiltered commentary he often unleashes to the distress of many, it is clear, at least to this writer, that far from being impulsive, Donald Trump and his political organization have carefully mapped out a campaign strategy that provides a clear path to victory in November.  We already have early clues from the manner in which Trump has attacked Hillary Clinton on a host of issues, including her email controversies, her perceived failures as Secretary of State and the scandals involving her husband and former president Bill Clinton. A lack of concrete accomplishments in the course of her public life, alongside the present difficulties  she is encountering with a challenge for her party’s nomination from a 74-year old independent socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, points to Hillary Clinton being far from invulnerable as a political campaigner on the national level. Her defeat to Barack Obama in 2008 – – then a newcomer to national politics – – is a reminder that Hillary Clinton is not universally admired even within her own party. In a presidential election that will in part be  a referendum on the Obama administration, and with Trump far more likely to arouse enthusiasm from his supporters than his presumptive Democratic challenger from hers, it is inexplicable as to why the political establishment , including its media complex, still clings to their theory that there exists no credible chance of Donald Trump being elected 45th President of the United States.

DONALD TRUMP 2016: America’s Next President? is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-2016-Americ…/…/B0156PAAVM

The revised data released by the Commerce Department indicates that America’s economy expanded by an anemic 0.7 percent in the final quarter of 2015. This level of GDP “growth” is essentially stall speed, indicative of the world’s largest economy being stuck in stagnation, reminiscent of Japan’s  L-shaped recession.

Despite Labor Departed figures that are spun to suggest a robust economy based on artificially low unemployment rates, the GDP data is more reflective of reality; an American economy that is stuck in the mud. And this, despite a recently increased projected deficit for the U.S. federal government of $544 billion for 2016.

Massive deficits combined with a stalled economy that may face a recession as global economic disarray grows will likely impact the upcoming 2016 presidential election, in which it appear more likely now that Donald Trump will challenge Hillary Clinton.

DONALD TRUMP 2016: America’s Next President? is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-2016-Americ…/…/B0156PAAVM

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