Security in an Insecure World

The image I have here, which I will discuss later, is the Door of Durin in Fellowship of the Ring, by Tolkein.

We all have concerns for personal security.

In this election year, we can see the two political parties having quite different approaches to the nature of external threats as well as how we respond to them. Whenever a terrorist strike hits, we ponder what we would do in the situation. Could we survive, where others did not?

Crime is still a major concern for us. Just this week (August 16, 2016), I was on the road near the police department. All of a sudden, behind me an officer had his lights going. He was on a mission. I was glad his mission was not me. He moved around me and started toward the east side of town. In the next few minutes, two other officers headed the same direction.

Some political movements use violence in order to agitate the political system in such a way as to get their way. Regardless of what they want, the means of violence and property destruction is never the means to get there. When they target the very people that provide needed security for the families and businesses and of the neighborhood, I suspect a sinister motive.

            In the financial situation America faces, we ponder the security of our retirement or other investments. People used to hide their money under the mattress. When the mattress became the first burglars looked, they looked for new places – an old sock, watertight bottle in the tank of the toilet, an envelope taped to the bottom of the litter box, or even in a DVD case. Of course, ways of protecting money were hardly perfect. Suppose your spouse gave away your copy of The Color Money, with Paul Newman and Tom Cruise, the one in which you hid your envelope of money.

            Today, most people put their money in a bank in which they can access the account online with passwords. They come up with a simple string of characters -- somewhere between six and 16 -- and figure that their money will remain safe.

Well, maybe it is. Maybe it is not. It may be no safer than if it were sitting in a plastic bottle in a toilet tank. According to Wired magazine (November 15, 2012), a password is no longer an adequate means of securing precious data. No matter how complex or unique, our passwords can no longer protect us.

What is the worst computer password you could possibly choose? The web page, “The Top 500 Worst Passwords of All Time” devotes itself to answering this question.  Number one, it should come as no surprise, is the numerical sequence "123456," closely followed by the word "password." It also lists the sequence "abc123" as bad, as are the names of various sports -- "football," "baseball," "soccer." The names of popular automobiles and motorcycles also appear in this high-tech hall of shame -- Mustang, Harley, Corvette -- as do superheroes like Batman and Superman. The most familiar obscene words are also pretty high up on the list: so warn your rebellious teenage son that if he chooses one of those, he is not just challenging the conventions of a repressed society, he is also being stupid.

It is astonishing how many first names occupy high positions on the list: Michael, Jennifer, Andrew, Jordan, Jessica. Those are no-brainers for identity thieves seeking to hack into your life.

This disturbing statement prefaces the list of the 500 worst passwords:

 

"Approximately one out of every nine people uses at least one password on the list .... And one out of every 50 people uses one of the top 20 worst passwords."

 

Sadly, for us, hackers are now breaking into computer systems and releasing lists of names and passwords on a regular basis. We are putting so much personal information in the internet "cloud" that it is becoming easy for criminals to trick customer service agents into resetting our passwords.

This is all very depressing. We can only hope that Internet security experts are working hard to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. At some point, we are going to have to move past the password. On the other hand, we could go back to taping an envelope to the bottom of the cat's litter box.

For years, we have trusted government to provide us with political security, law enforcement to provide us with community security, our medical system to provide us with health security, and our financial system -- including online banking -- to provide us with economic security. Nevertheless, we are learning every day that there can be breakdowns in these systems, especially our high-tech, web-based financial network.

This world is an insecure place. We have legitimate reason to have some anxiousness and even fear over the security of such parts of our world to which I have referred.

Yet, beneath the insecure world in which we live, it would seem wise to place our trust in something stronger than our insecure world.

To continue with the image of this little article, it may well be that the “password” to true security is simpler than we imagine.

There is a scene in Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring when the party of adventurers known by that name is desperate to take refuge from their enemies in an ancient fortress. Dwarves built the fortress, known as the Mines of Moria, centuries earlier, with the assistance of elves. The way forward is through an intricately crafted door in the side of a mountain, known as The Door of Durin.

 The door is kept sealed by a magical spell of Elvish origin. An inscription on it reads: "Speak friend and enter."

 The wizard Gandalf deploys all his magical arts to try to discern the password and open the door, so he and his friends may be saved. All his efforts are futile. Just when their cause seems lost, the hobbit, Merry Brandybuck, walks up to the door and speaks the Elvish word mellon, which means "friend."

 The door swings open, and the Fellowship is saved.

 Gandalf was overthinking it. Sometimes the true password is the simplest one.

Presidential Election 2016: Have the Major Political Parties Gone Too Far?

A little gallows humor: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are stranded at sea on a life boat. Who survives? America does!

That about sums up the choice the two major political parties have presented America.

At critical moments in American history, the political class has failed this nation. This may be one of those times. Nearly 40 years ago, in a famous speech at Harvard University, the great Alexander Solzhenitsyn said: “There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen.” It may well be that this is an election to ponder "the signs of the times."

Are the two political parties asking Americans to travel with them this year a bridge too far?

If so, and you are on the Left, Jill Stein of the Green Party may be your person. On the other hand, if you still think elections should be about lessening the role of the federal government, you might consider the Libertarian Party and its candidate, Gary Johnson. Johnson was a governor of Utah and his running mate was governor of Massachusetts.

I write this blog primarily to give us all pause and consider whom the two political parties offer to the American electorate as their recommendation to be the most powerful person in the world. At some point, we have the trust the people to sift through all the dust, maybe wait for the dust to settle, and gain some clarity. I hope this blog does not kick up more dust. I hope it helps us gain clarity.

First, reasons to vote Against Hillary

If you have read this far, you know that I will disagree with Hillary on policy matters. I know, she is United Methodist. Still, I cannot travel with her on her political journey at all. Here are some reasons to vote against Hillary.
1. Hillary scares people, for which read Mona Charen for a brief reminder of what she has done to cause this reaction. Wesley Pruden
2. She defended Bill's sexual abuse of women and destroyed women who dared to tell the truth, for which see Rich Lowry for a brief discussion of details, Larry Elder ponders why Hillary has never been asked publicly about her role in the scandals, Joe Scarborough says that times have changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her, Camille Paglia agrees and discusses details, Suzanne Fields, Victor Davis Hanson.  Donald Trump produced a video that pulls no punches.John Kass deals with the NYT hit piece on The Donald and why it is ineffective. Of course, he is referring to Hillary's husband. If I can find a less polemical article, I will replace this one, but for those who need a reminder. Nancy French has offered 11 of the top Bill Clinton sex stories. If she is this wonderful woman Bill described at the convention, maybe he could enlighten us as to why all these affairs. Juanita Broadrick has publicly offered her account of Bill raping her twice. Here is another account.
3. Hillary has no actual accomplishments and is not as qualified as she looks on paper: Jonah Goldberg  Thomas Sowell George Will Cal Thomas Daniel Gallington Fred Barnes
4. Hillary was not an effective Secretary of State:  Herb London
5. She failed in Libya: Jennifer Rubin George Will Michael Barone Pat Smith, mother of one of those murdered by Islamic militants, the movie 13 Hours.
6. She lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi and to the American people regarding a video in America that led to the attack, for the political reason that Obama had a campaign meme that al qada was on the run: Bob Tyrell and Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary.
7. She lied about her email server: Jonah Goldberg  Rosland S. Helderman Jonah Goldberg In essence, Hillary is unreasonable, a non-criminal liar, and extremely careless with national security documents. Kathleen Parker  (video of her lies) Rich Lowry and Chris Cilizza discuss her references to Colin Powell and his response to her.
8. The corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation and their use of it for their personal wealth and only 15% going to charities: Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article, Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article, Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece, John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions, Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena.

9. In terms of this type of lying, read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."
10. Her propensity is toward military involvement while her opponent is less so: Thaddeus Russell.

11. The mess in Middle East, the rise of Islamic Militancy, and the rise of ISIS occur on her watch as Secretary of State: Josef Joffe, Catherine Herridge Jonah Goldberg Wesley Pruden
12. She was part of an administration that will not identify Islamic militancy as an enemy of America and the values of a democratic society: Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando (Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru ), Nice,  The Religion of Peace is a reliable site as is The Counter-Jihad Report. Huma Abedin's connections to Islamic militancy bothers you, Paul Sperry.
13. She is part of political party that seems to hate conservatives more than terrorists: Mona Charen ponders whose side he is on; The Hill Michael Barone
14. Willing to distract from focus on legitimate enemies, like Islamic militancy by focusing on political opponents with the use of homophobia (Orlando), Gun Control, or how bad America has been in the world.
15. Florida has become a Jihad playground: Michelle Malkin
16. Islamic militants are engaging in genocide in the Middle East, but the instinct in America is for some to blame Christians and America.
17. Hillary voted for the military action against Iraq: David Harsanyi
18. Under her watch, Iraq went from strength to weakness: Robert Gates
19. Her desire to bring more refugees to America rather than provide a safe place closer to their home in Syria: Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowry Mona Charen
20. Iran remains an issue with you:  Rachel Marsden Stephen Moore (class division) James Shirk
21. Economic growth of 2% is simply not sufficient: Stephen Moore Ben Shapiro Ken Blackwell David Horovitz Peter Morici Charles Krauthammer Donald Lambro, Fred Barnes and Cal Thomas(analysis of her economic speech) Robert J. Samuelson
22. You do not like her soak the rich tax policy: Robert J. Samuelson Walter Williams
23. You do not think the Koch Brothers are evil: Jonah Goldberg
23. Her flip-flop on the TPP (free trade) means she will lie to win the support of some and then continue the deal when in office: Jonah Goldberg
24. The Supreme Court is already too activist for the progressive agenda and Hillary would make it even more so.
25. You do not think it right to say that GOP opposition to Planned Parenthood, due to partial-birth abortion, is akin to terrorism: Carly Fiorina Mark Halperin Joy Overbeck (about founder of this organization and the praise Hillary gave her)
26. You think that if she is against the "war on women" by the GOP, she should at least pay women as much as men on her own staff: Newt Gingrich  Mark Halperin
27. You think women have been disadvantaged during the Obama years: Stephen Moore
28. She flip-flopped on immigration: Matt Vespa and Video on YouTube

Reasons to vote for Hillary:
1. She is a woman.
2. You hate Trump.

Some general articles that I still find interesting:
The top 1 percent accounted for 14.6 percent of pretax income in 2011 and paid 24 percent of federal taxes. Clinton would raise total taxes 1.1 trillion over the decade, with 3/4 coming from the upper one percent. Sanders tax package would raise a staggering $15.3 trillion over a decade. Most taxpayers would be hit. It would make more sense if Hillary would calmly re-state the traditional Democrat Party line and let Bernie promote his socialism.

Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes. 

In July, Rush Limbaugh gave a surprisingly good analysis of the view that Republicans are the extremist party in America.  I say surprising because he presents that view quite well. Of course, his view is that the Democrat Party is the extremist party. If you read this article fully, you will get exposure to both.
In May,  Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing the Democrat Party. 

Second, reasons to vote against Donald Trump

To paraphrase the former British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, what all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass (Michael Barone reference, but appropriate here). I am among those who, at the beginning of the Republican nomination process, said "please no" regarding Donald and Ted. Of course, that did not happen.  David Limbaugh offers why conservatives who respect the constitution ought to have some concerns about Trump, and why Trump supporters should be understanding and sympathetic of these concerns.
Christine Flowers reverses her previous "never Trump" articles and offers the Supreme Court as her reason. Oliver Darcy has written an excellent reflection on the role of talk radio in this election from a conservative perspective. He hopes for a decline in their ratings after Trump goes down to a resounding defeat.

Here is the Republican Party Platform. It is 66 pages. In skimming it, I did not find much that surprised me. The "fair trade" element is new, and one that I am willing to re-consider. I remained concerned about trade wars.

Here is a little reflection on the nominating convention. Jonah Goldberg notes the failure of the GOP convention to unite the party. In other conventions, enough commonality existed among the candidates. The convention provided a time to unite. With the non-appearance of Bush, McCain, Romney, Cheney, Jeb, Kasich, and I am sure others, this convention failed. I am listing speeches by some family and people who knew him because of the willingness so many have had to go toward ad hominem attacks. I think these persons show that trump does not have horns, a tail, and pitchfork. I was particularly struck by accounts of him as an encourager and cheerleader. I saw some of that in his speech. Melania Trump gave a fine speech in favor her husband. However, about 50 words were lifted out of Michele Obama's speech. After that, much false outrage ensued on the internet. I say false because many of these same persons will be all in for Hillary. I can think of few people who have lowered political discourse more than she has done, including her recent lying to the American people about emails and lying to the family of those who died in Libya. Meredeth McIver said that as a staffer, she took down some notes over the phone that Melania gave to her. Melania said she liked some of the things that Michelle said in her speech. However, she took responsibility for not checking the speech and citing it. Rudolf Giuliani prosecuted the case against Hillary. Gov. Christie also prosecuted the case against Hillary. He gave a speech that had some controversy as the crowd shouted "Jail her." For those who have a concern about this language, Jonah also has a brief defense. Scott Walker delivered a powerful message. Donald Trump Jr gave what most think was a good speech for his father. The same with Eric. Mike Pence gave a solid speech, much more traditional than most of the speeches. It contained a solid conservative message. Ted Cruz was his normal, isolated, arrogant self. He did urge people to vote their conscience. He admitted the next day that he did not endorse because of what he said about Heidi and his dad during the election. If he had wisdom as well as intelligence, he would have done what Jeb, Kasich, Carly, Rand Paul, and others had done, and stayed home. At the same time, most of us have had the experience, in dealing with an opponent, to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I wonder if that is what happened here. In any case, the obvious glorying in the spotlight by Ted might have led Republicans to unite. No one likes a sore loser. Red State is a NeverTrump conservative organization. It was behind Ted Cruz, including what he did on Wednesday night. One article stresses why they persist. As the article puts it:

he wasn't willing to sell his family out for a political party. He wasn't willing compromise his beliefs by joining hands with a man who is an enemy of everything conservatism stands for. He wasn't willing to stand and be counted with the army of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, and other such filth that run with Trump's cabal. He wasn't willing to make a mockery of his faith in order to push a political cause nor blaspheme his Savior by paying homage to an amoral charlatan.

Since I have not been a Trump supporters, and these things have bothered me as well, I feel no need to defend. I remain concerned. As noted above, though, I have similar types of concerns about Hillary. Am I naïve? I know I can be. However, listening to the accounts from his family and friends, I have to make a choice of whom I trust more. Here is a good example of what happens when you have conflicting witnesses to the character of a person. It becomes especially troubling when you have people on both sides that you respect. Is it sour grapes on the part of Red State, Jonah Goldberg, and Erick Erickson, since their Cruz did not win? Do they have an insight into the soul of Trump that his friends clearly do not have? I stress that the things to which the article points trouble me. The idea that David Duke, for example, would like anything I said would make me go through some self-examination that I do not see Trump doing. Donald Trump gave what I thought was a powerful presentation of his position. It was nationalist and populist. I doubt that I have ever heard a relatively full presentation of his position. Contrary to some I do not think that concern for who is coming into the country is xenophobia, whether from Mexico or from Arab countries. I appreciated his comments on the gay community. In fact, the convention has made clear respect for the diversity of this nation. Trump has made a special appeal to the inner cities. He is concerned that our government seems to have little concern for who comes into the country, even if they are dangerous people. He gives full-throated support to those on the front lines of the security of the people. He is concerned with foreign entanglements such as treaties and military involvements, that do not bring an advantage back to the United States. I remained concerned about his vision of trade with foreign countries. Depressions, including the Great Depression, begin with trade wars. However, it fits with his nationalism. I am willing to re-examine by views on this. In particular, I find it at least puzzling that you need hundreds of pages to say that nations have free trade. If it really is free, should it not take a line or two? It begins to look suspiciously like favoring some businesses in the respective countries over others.

As with Hillary, so with Trump, people react to him to him at a personal level.
1. You just do not like Trump. Before Trump announced, his appearances on Fox & Friends repulsed me. His conduct of the campaign, although he won in the end, seemed bullying and abusive.
2. You think he is racist, hates women, and is fascist. You may think, like Leon Wolff of Red State, that the Republican party now stands for shallow, empty xenophobia, trade policy ignorance, an unserious and uninformed foreign policy, massive hikes to the minimum wage, and the pathological avoidance of personal responsibility. Of course, one must realize that Red State at least acts like a front for Ted Cruz, and Leon Wolff in particular does. Conservatives make the accusation as well as liberals. The danger here is the little boy who cried wolf. If you are liberal/progressive, I hope you can be honest about this. Every conservative in your mind is all these things. I am old enough to remember, George Wallace, Sen Fulbright from Arkansas and mentor of Bill Clinton, and Bull Connor. I now have the witness of his family, friends like Guiliani and Christie, and NBC for hiring him to lead a popular TV show. As a conservative in my view of the role of government, I find it typical for the media to join the Democrat Party in calling Trump a racist. He was not a racist, apparently, until he announced as a candidate in the Republican Party. My point is that regardless of who the nominee was, the media would join with the Democrat Party in this attack. Adam Gopnick of the New Yorker offers a re-definition of fascism as nationalism. "the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners." My problem with his argument is that he uses the same style of argument as does Trump/Nationalist/Fascist. He uses the term "fascist" to refer to one whom he admits is a "nationalist." Why not just call him nationalist? Obviously, "fascist" magnifies the danger of Trump, raising the image of Hitler and Mussolini. Why do that? Because you want to magnify the danger of Trump and make it easier for the many Americans who do not like Hillary to vote for her. For me, evidence of such charges would be in words and deeds. One can lift anything out of context and make it sound like what you want it to say, especially strung together. I am trying to make a distinction between disagreeing with a policy, such as deporting anyone here illegally or banning all Muslims from coming to the USA, which we can read as a concern for national security and the safety of citizens, and saying the motivation is racism. My hesitation on such charges is that I do not know his heart. My hesitation is that I know people who support Trump and I know they are not racist, etc. Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of someone who knows Trump personally and can give  full-throated endorsement at the GOP convention. My hesitation is that I do not think a reality star like Trump would have been hired by NBC if he were a hated any race or gender, and they would certainly not a fascist. My discomfort, again, is that there are many reasons I have for not liking Trump. Having said all of this, if I come across reasonable articles that are able to point to words, which in the Donald's case will be plenty, and to the actions, I will post them. For example, Leon H. Wolff of Red State, a conservative site, says that Donald will be worse than the 1964 Republicans, in part because Donald is racist. His evidence is the comments about the judge of Mexican descent and his retweeting of white supremacist and openly courting white supremacist votes. Now, the difficulty I always have with Donald is that does such words and actions fall under the stupid things Donald does and says, or does it betray a darker motivation. In any case, Republicans have many Hispanic representatives, two of them ran for President, and will usually get 25-40% of their vote nationally and 40% in Texas. The point is that Donald could be like Goldwater in losing that vote to the Democrat Party. This author has identified why I have not favored Donald and the danger I think he is to GOP and to a conservative view of governance.

3. He is too simple, ignorant, and narcissistic. Daniel W. Dresner writes about the trouble with Trump Charles Krauthammer says the attack on a gold star family may reveal to many how narcissistic he is.
4. Following up one emperor, Obama, with another, Trump, is not a good thing: Angelo Codevilla Thomas Sowell
5. We need maturity:  ThomasSowell Thomas Sowell
6. He is a demagogue: Mona Charen
7. You are a Christian and have a problem with Trump: Mark Tooley  Max Lucado Robert P. George and George Weigel (Roman Catholic)
8. You remain a NeverTrump person due to your personal political conservativism: National Review came out with an edition labeled "Against Trump." People like Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Dana Loesch, and Brent Bozell III are hardly the hated "establishment." Some are for Cruz.
9. Trump will damage the GOP brand and give conservativism a bad name for generations.
 George Will has spoken on this matter. He has updated his concerns. Jeb Bush (July 2016) Thomas Sowell Kathleen Parker Mona Charen (RIP GOP)
10. While Trump is a businessman, he has business practices are not exemplary and his policies are not good economics: Brett Arends Jonathan Hoenig
11. You are for free trade and Trump is not: Rich Lowry Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore
12. You are not with Trump on illegal immigration: Linda Chavez Mona Charen Thomas Sowell  George Will George Will   Helen Raleigh
13. His tax plan will not provide growth: Robert J. Samuelson
14. You do not like the idea of expanding eminent domain: Jeff Jacoby
15. You do not like the "morality-free" zone Trump has created: Mona Charen

You might vote for Trump.
1. Mark Cunningham has written of how Trump has a new way to win.
2. You react to the last 8 years in such a way that Obama explains the appeal of Trump. His policies regarding illegal immigration and terrorism seem weak. Political correctness is becoming oppressive. You view this as bullying opponents into submission and feel the need for a strong and forceful leader to oppose it. You want someone unapologetic in their patriotism and thus obviously loves their country. Elites, defined as Washington DC, Wall Street, Academia, much of the media, and Hollywood, need to stop their bullying of the common person, the person in the street, the middle class. Joe Scarborough Conor Friedersdorf (!) Glenn Reynolds You define the battle more in populist terms of the people vs elites, and Rush Limbaugh actually had a good dialogue on this as nationalism vs globalism.
3. You distrust the government: David Brady and Douglas Rivers
4. You are a conservative, but it seems as if "free trade" deals are short on results: Jim Tankersley
5. You are generally conservative, meaning you know you are not liberal, but some of the traditional stances of the GOP are no longer your positions: Philip Rucker and Dan Balz Alicia Colon
6. You want the GOP to loosen its ties to a strictly conservative politics, especially as embodied in the Bush family and "neo-con" foreign policy: Jonah Goldberg Fred Barnes
7. You are willing to follow talk radio on the "conservative" side who have at least been generous with Trump: Rush, Sean, and Mark
8. Therefore, you have grown to distrust or even hate the GOP establishment, even though conservatives in those districts have elected them and even thought the GOP establishment has many victories in the Senate, House, Governor, and state legislatures since the election of Obama. Michael Gerson
9. Jim Tankersley and Max Ehrenfreund discuss the policies of Trump.
10. Karen DeJong and Jose A. DelReal write about the Trump foreign policy speech.
11. You have a high concern for illegal immigration. You are with Trump on immigration: Rick Noack discusses the New Year's Eve sexual assaults by Muslim men of German women. Terry Jeffrey. Family Security Matters Charles Krauthammer discusses the immigration speech of Trump in September.
12. His tax policies are broadly conservative: Larry Kudlow
13. You are an evangelical Christian, you have doubts, but you have decided, along with Jesus in Luke 9:49-50, that one is not against you is for you. This amounts to having more concern for what Hillary will do against the church with the power of government and relying on the promise of Trump to defend evangelicals. Last Chance America Jim Garlow offers his reasons as well.

Here are a few articles I could not classify, but remain of some interest.
 Victor Davis Hanson offers his view of Trumpsters.
Sadly, just because I usually like him, David Brooks offered a ridiculous piece opposing Trump in which his attack was upon those who vote for him as desiring authoritarianism, defined as parents who desire their children to be respectful. This attempt to discover the authoritarian-leaning voter is highly suspect and biased.May 2016 -  Red State had an article that states clearly that Hillary is not better than Trump. Charles Krauthammer says the supposed anger at the Republican Establishment resulted in the nomination of the most liberal of the 17 candidates. Jonah Goldberg, a NeverTrump and NeverHillary person, says Trump could win and explains how. argues that like the legend of Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump, if he won, would have long-term negative impact upon the Republican Party if he won. George Will wonders who will follow Trump over the cliff.  thinks "farewell" to the GOP and commends Paul Ryan. Robert Costa and Philip Rucker say that conservatives are stepping back from the GOP. Victor Davis Hanson has little good to say about Trump, but less about Hillary. Solid article on how conservatives are in a tough place. He also wrote of the myth of progress that is part of the Obama and progressive way of thinking. Denis Prager says the scariest reason that Trump won is that Republicans are not conservatives. "The four most-often cited reasons are the frustrations of white working-class Americans, a widespread revulsion against political correctness, disenchantment with the Republican establishment, and the unprecedented and unrivaled amount of time the media afforded Trump."  Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing both political parties.

April 2016 – Bernie Goldberg makes the point that both Hillary and Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates in polling history. George Will, with a twist of irony, says that the Trump campaign may, if it leads to reform of the primary process in the states, turn out for the public good. Ron Danker, a Cruz supporter, explains what Trump saw that Cruz did not regarding conservativism in this election.