A profession that at one time prided itself on the pursuit of evenhanded truth took a turn some time ago. Eventually, the media's mask of objectivity and balance began to slip. Now it's completely off, revealing one ugly mug of bias.
Let's start with the New York Times, that Gray Lady with a heart black with dishonesty. Emails released by WikiLeaks show that Times reporter Mark Leibovich allowed the Clinton campaign to decide which quotations from Clinton that he could and couldn't use in his Times-published work.
Clinton's communications director Jennifer Palmieri closed one email with Leibovich by telling him it was a "pleasure doing business."
Then there's John Harwood, the Times contributor and CNBC correspondent who moderated the Republican presidential debate one year ago. He provided the Clinton camp with tips and bragged about how good it felt to provoke Donald Trump during the debate.
He told John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, to "watch out" for Dr. Ben Carson because he "could give you real trouble in a general" election.
Donna Brazile, a known Democratic operative, has also been implicated. While a contributor at CNN, she forwarded the Clinton campaign a question she knew was coming in a town hall setting. How did she get that question? From inside CNN. Where else?
"From time to time I get the questions in advance," she told Palmieri earlier this year.
When pressed, Brazile naturally denied that she had shared the question.
On the job for the Democrats as well is Univision Chairman Haim Saban. He urged the Clinton campaign to hit Trump harder for the comments he made about Mexicans when he announced his candidacy. Palmieri took the advice as any cooperative colleague would.
"Haim is right," she wrote, "we should be jamming this all the time."
Clinton got top-notch service from the Boston Globe, too, when Op-Ed page editor Marjorie Pritchard emailed Podesta, suggesting the best timing for placement of a piece from the Clinton campaign.
"It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story," Pritchard told Podesta.
Of course in a presidential campaign, it helps to have sycophantic accessories in the media, and Hillary certainly has those.
Consider the role played by MSNBC producer Sheara Braun. She gushed to the Clinton campaign that the candidate was an "amazing, intelligent woman" while pitching a feature about "Hillary Clinton for Millennials."
The media would never do any of this for a Republican. Well, there is an exception. They would pump a particular GOP candidate during the primaries if they knew that candidate would be more vulnerable than others in the general election campaign.
Once achieved, they could then tear down the Republican while maintaining their supportive work for the opposition.
As good Democrats, they would see it as their duty. As good Democrats, this is actually what they've done.
2) Economists Believe a Recession Is Likely Within Next Four Years

In WSJ survey, GDP forecasts are little changed at 2.2% in 2017, 2% in 2018

A worker moves cranberries in a bog during harvest at Starvation Alley Farms in Long Beach, Washington, on Oct. 7. Economists see a 20% chance of a U.S. recession within the next year, and see those odds rising as the window gets longer.ENLARGE
A worker moves cranberries in a bog during harvest at Starvation Alley Farms in Long Beach, Washington, on Oct. 7. Economists see a 20% chance of a U.S. recession within the next year, and see those odds rising as the window gets longer. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG NEWS
The U.S. must face one of two scenarios: Either the next president will face a recession in office, or the U.S. will have the longest economic expansion in its history.
Odds are that the recession is more likely. Economists in The Wall Street Journal’s latest monthly survey of economists put the odds of the next downturn happening within the next four years at nearly 60%.
That is not an assessment that the next U.S. president will cause a downturn. Rather, it is a recognition that throughout its history the American economy has never grown for more than a decade without a recession. Over the course of the next four years, something—whether exhaustion of the economy’s cyclical momentum, a policy mistake from the Federal Reserve or some outside shock—could knock the economy off course.

The current expansion began in June 2009, and has now continued for 88 months, making it the fourth-longest period of growth in records stretching to 1854.
“We do not think expansions die of ‘old age’ but there’s more probability that a shock will hit the U.S. economy further out in the horizon,” said Lewis Alexander, chief U.S. economist at investment bank Nomura.
Economists see a 20% chance of a recession within the next year, and see those odds rising as the window gets longer. Asked to name the specific risks, a plurality cited the possibility of a global economic slowdown, which could be largely beyond the next president’s control.
To be clear, the length of an expansion bears little relation to its strength. The U.S. economy has grown at a 2.1% annual pace since 2009. That is the slowest growth of any expansion after World War II. Many economists were once optimistic that growth would accelerate, but now most forecast the economy will continue to grow at this pace in coming years.
The economic policies of the next president, however, are extraordinarily uncertain. By an 85% to 15% margin, respondents rate the current election as more uncertain than typical, in part due to the growing gap between voters in the two parties.The survey underscores what is likely to be a key challenge for the next president: Presidents are often granted leeway to enact policies in response to recession. For example, President George W. Bush passed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, to stimulate the economy in response to the recession during his first term in office. Shortly after taking office amid a recession, President Barack Obama pushed through legislation that was about one-third tax cuts and two-thirds spending.
“Even after the election there will still remain a tremendous amount of uncertainty,” said Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist of Oxford Economics. “Policy-making may actually be more difficult in a few month’s time.”
Hillary Clinton’s economic policies generally resemble those of previous Democratic candidates. But Mrs. Clinton would likely to face a divided and discordant Congress that has been largely unable or unwilling to move legislation in recent years.
Donald Trump has jettisoned the Republican Party’s traditional approach to economics. In a reflection of the size of this departure from the past, not one member of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Ronald Reagan, or either President Bush, has endorsed his campaign.
 Mr. Trump has pledged to reverse immigration, renegotiate trade deals, and apply tariffs. On these issues, he differs from the long-held views of many congressional Republicans, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
And observers are also left more uncertain than usual as the public discussion has rarely revolved around fleshing out policies. “The personal nature of the election has left little room for serious policy discussion,” said Douglas Duncan, chief economist of Fannie Mae.
But over the next four years, few think a recession is absolutely guaranteed. A quarter of economists place the odds below 50%.
It is precisely because the economy has grown slowly that some think the recovery could last a long time. “Slow and steady leaves plenty of fuel to keep going,” said Russell Price,senior economist for Ameriprise Financial.
The survey of 59 academic, business and financial economists was conducted from Oct. 7 to Oct. 11.
3) Vote Trump: Hillary, her 'whoppers' more suited for job at Burger King

Like so many voters, I believe our choices are lamentable and discouraging.

Many citizens are angry, divided and frightened with the current direction in which our country is heading. Therefore, one cannot divorce the past 8 years from either  choices and/or what is motivating so many to embrace a novice, non-politician versus someone who has been running for over thirty years, claims to have superb experience but has an abysmal lack of success in virtually everything she has undertaken , ie. her previous health care assignment, promise to bring jobs to New York, Benghazi, Russia's Reset Button, lying  to the families of the Benghazi victims, Libya, The Iran Deal and her many misstatements and obfuscations and do not forget her inability to remember where she placed those 'destroyed' e mails.

When I vote for A, I may be doing so because I believe A is preferable to B but a distaste for B also often creeps into my equation. In the case of my preference of Trump over Hillary it is a 50-50 divide.

Hillary is an unmitigated pathological liar, she is disingenuous, she is stiff and contrived, she placed her personal interests above the nation's and her list of negatives is not only exhaustively extensive but also of early vintage from Whitewater, Rose Law Firm Documents disappearance then re-appearance, Travel Gate, the cattle deal etc. to continuing clouds hovering over her to this day.

So what is the '"attraction" of Trump?  What is the 50% that is positive about him I can embrace, albeit with some serious and uncomfortable reservations.

a) Trump is a businessman, a capitalist, not an established politician. I believe those qualities are refreshing and long overdue. 

b) Hopefully, Trump will surround himself with trustworthy, competent advisers who are fully aware of the mess our nation finds itself in after 8 years of divisive leadership

c) Will Trump take advice and listen? Being headstrong concerns me.

d) I believe Trump will rebuild our military preparedness and does not perceive the military as some social experiment and will do so at a reduced cost.

d) A nation that refuses to protect its borders will ultimately fail and/or change radically. I believe Trump will make secure borders a priority. Will he accomplish all he professes?  Remains to be seen.

That said, we must return to enforcing laws. We are a nation built upon respect for the rule of law. Trump will not tolerate sanctuary cities which are against Federal Law.

e) Trump is willing to identify radical Islam as a scourge and with whom we are at war.  You cannot defeat an enemy you refuse to identify. That is so logical and basic it should not beg repeating.

f) Trump's economic and tax plan is preferable to Hillary's because tax and regulatory relief is overdue and repatriating overseas profits is a no brainer. Those without capital cannot build so yes, the wealthy, the entrepreneurial must be challenged by financial incentives if re-employment has a hope.

When government builds it generally exceeds cost projections and comes in beyond schedule. Trump is a builder and has employed people.  Yes, he made mistakes and had some bankruptcies. Babe Ruth struck out a lot but hit a ton of home runs. Name me a Hillary Home Run?

g) Trump is not a racist. That is a ploy Democrats/Hillary trot out and the mass media love to perpetuate because it creates angst and doubt.  Until he ran for The Presidency, few accused Trump of such.

h) Another reason I am voting for Trump, is a protest against the liberal and biased mass media which no longer serves the nation with objective reporting. The fourth estate has gone off the deep end and no longer informs. That is a tragic shift in their role and responsibility.  Citizens must rely upon objective news reporting..

i) I reject Obama's attempt to divide our nation through wedge issue governance and believe Trump will do better at restoring trust in police enforcement and will support the critical role they play in protecting our society from anarchists.

I do not own a gun but believe citizens have a Constitutional right to own weapons for protection against those who cause harm and threaten their families and a Republic which could morph into a dictatorship under a monarchical president. Current trends are obvious and thus, worrisome.

j) Trump sought the black vote and did his best to convince them  Democrats have taken their vote for granted.

Moynihan was right about liberals and foggy do gooders whose misguided policies have harmed the black family structure and how welfare has made them dependent upon a government whose message thwarts self-respect and pride. Moynihan was vilified within his own ranks and Hillary has engaged in the same undeserved smears against Trump

k) Trump and I agree - PC'ism is destroying our nation. Hillary is the personification of PC. She constantly keeps her finger in the air so she can be on the popular side of issues because she has few core beliefs. Hillary is a political chameleon and would certainly need a swivel chair behind that famous Oval Desk.  

l) Trump had the guts to articulate what was on the minds of Americans regarding the misdirection of our nation. Yes, he does so in a manner that is, at times, boorish, even churlish, but he proved to be in tune with the undercurrent and our dark, frustrated mood and did not tip toe around the peripheral.

No wonder Hillary had pneumonia, She constantly walks on ice.

m) Trump may not be a conservative in the mold of the GOP establishment but he is fiscally concerned, militarily a hawk and has a social component to his character that is refreshing and proven.

n)  Before Hillary attacks Trump regarding his tax returns and, in my opinion, he muffed his responses, she needs to explain the State Department's unaccounted $6 billion misplaced during her tenure as Sec.of State and how she used her office to enrich their foundation.

When you live in a glass house be careful about throwing stones.

o) Our economy is recovering at a pitiful pace.When The Fed raises rates, interest on our crippling debt will consume more and more of our GDP. Our standing and respect in the world has sunk to ankle depths, Consequently, whomever becomes president, I fear, could be overwhelmed and unable to address our many serious and unattended needs and demands.  I believe Trump's business experience makes him better suited to confront the potential headwinds.

p) I believe the next president will also be challenged by an increasingly powerful China, a psychopath in N Korea, radicals who govern Iran and who have been strengthened and encouraged by The Iran Deal and a Russia that has made enormous strategic inroads. Trump has surrounded himself with advisers better prepared to meet these challenges as opposed to the "old blood" Hillary is most likely to rely upon. .

q) Trump's proposed Supreme Court nominee list is more suitable than any likely choice by Hillary which would tilt The Supreme Court further left. 

r) When it comes to educating our nation's youth, the current school system both under serves their needs and is strangled by unions. I favor Charter Schools as does Trump.

Furthermore, I believe Hillary's free college tuition proposal is pandering and would prove another costly boondoggle Social Program to pacify Bernie worshipers.

s) The suspension of free speech and disruption of speakers on our college and university campuses is the direct consequence of the leftward spread, acceptance and defense of anarchists.  This trend towards authoritarianism and anti-democracy must be stopped.  Trump is far more likely to speak out against these trends than Hillary. Most college and university administrators have been cowed into submission and the trend toward curbing free speech and catering to those offended by views inconsistent with their own smacks of how Hitler and his Brown Shirts began their purge.

This pernicious trend comes right out of Alinsky’s play book. Alinsky radically influenced Hillary during her youthful days and she still patterns her thinking after her disciple.

t) And what about Obamacare which is falling apart as I write and its exploding costs?  Hillary must support it because Obama’s legacy is at stake. Trump offers a totally different, market driven approach.

u) Trump attended Wharton as I did. Neither of us graduated embracing the ideals of Socialism and the philosophy and precepts of Saul Alinsky, as have Hillary and Obama..We are proud capitalists and reject the siren song of Socialism, anarchism and other distasteful 'isms. We both believe in free markets. America/Capitalism has produced  more wealth, more benefits for more people than any other government and/or economic system in history. We believe Americans are generous and believe the world is better off because of America and reject the double speak of yesterday's politicians of which Hillary is so much a part. Nor are we apologists!

v) Like Trump, I believe we should develop our energy resources, become less dependent upon foreign oil and place ourselves in a position to supply Europe, thereby, lessening their dependence upon Russia.. Triple win and think of the high paying jobs this would create. Hillary is under the sway of The Greens and does not understand economics.  She hates coal miners and considers them basket case deplorables.

w) The Clinton Foundation has been used by The Clinton's to finance their personal activities and apparently Hillarious used her time as Sec. of State to make trades.  We know she allowed a Russian entity to acquire over 20% of our nation's uranium production for which a substantial amount of money "enriched" their Foundation.  Money from The Middle East flowed like the Nile River into the family foundation's coffers and "Ole" Bill continued his speaking engagements for hefty sums.

When "Ole Bill" was president we know The LIncoln Bedroom became a revolving door.

y) Finally, let's not forget how FBI Director Comey allowed himself to be manipulated into allowing Hillary to escape prosecution, how "Ole" Bill met with the attorney General aboard her plane simply to talk about grandchildren and how the stench of manipulating  so-called, non-partisan agencies and their leadership rises right to the top. (See 3a below.)

z) I end by stating Trump has serious blemishes and even character flaws but has demonstrated an ability to impact the election process in ways no one would have contemplated and did it in non-traditional ways. His instincts have proven more correct than those of his detractors.

Hillary has been around for over 30 years, lost to Obama when she should have won and,until recently, was  neck and neck with Donald  a 'Johnny come from nowhere Lately'. That speaks legions to me. She is tainted goods mostly due to her own actions and missteps..America has been tainted enough. It is time for some new paint.

Therefore, I would expect a Trump presidency, should he win, will be a series of roller coaster rides but, in the end, as with Truman and Reagan, Donald will leave his mark and prove a far better president than naysayers would have you believe.

Hillary, on the other hand, will simply offer more stale Obama Toast and I believe we have been burned enough.

Ari Fleisher made a cogent observation recently when he said that,’ in view of the recent revelations regarding Hillary and her server problems, Obama would have had to dismiss her as Sec of State and now she is seeking a promotion to the Oval Office.’

The White House should not be inhabited by someone with a history of telling whoppers!  Hillary would be better suited to seek employment at Burger King!

3a)Mr. James Comey, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation 
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Sir, I am writing regarding your public statement in July, 2016 informing the American people that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was being closed without referring it to a Federal Grand Jury or the Attorney General of the U. S. for a decision whether or not to indict her.
Strangely, you eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was abundant evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in Federal Court. However, you personally re-worded and soft-pedaled the actions she took as Secretary of State describing her actions as "extremely careless” in using a personal email and un-secured server for her communications while Secretary of State. You rewrote the statute, which is not your job.

As a retired Special Agent of the FBI, I have standing to write this letter. My thirty years in law enforcement, including 22 years as a Special Agent with the FBI have given me the knowledge, expertise and experience to question and confront you for your perplexing actions, which (as you well know) were outside the normal standard operating procedure of the FBI and Federal judicial procedures. Some of the finest people in the world proudly carry the credentials of FBI Agent and you have soiled them and not allowed them to speak. But I will not be silent.

Sorry, but NO SIR, MS Clinton was not merely careless or extremely careless. She was not even negligent or grossly negligent (as the statute requires). Hillary Clinton was knowingly purposeful in her decisions and actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control what information was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State. Furthermore, she took those government owned communications into her personal possession after leaving her position and knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them so her nefarious actions could never be known or used as evidence of her corrupt moral character against her.
Sir, what possessed you? Did you cave in to political pressure to unilaterally come to this decision? I fear that is the case, and Rule of Law be damned. I am embarrassed for and ashamed of you. You have set a precedent that can never be rectified and certainly not justified. Shame on you, Sir. You ought to resign right now in disgrace for what you have done to tarnish the reputation of the finest Law Enforcement Agency in the world, for entirely political reasons.

Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent, or team of agents with one being the Case agent, or the lead investigator. When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Federal District involved. It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation. NOT the FBI agent. But in the Clinton investigation, YOU (unilaterally) decided not to forward the investigation to the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the U.S. but, instead, personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a Federal Grand Jury. You were wrong to take this upon yourself. Sir, in order to indict a subject, only a preponderance of evidence , or 51% is needed for probable cause to exist. You did not think even that level of probability existed?  Who do you think you are fooling?  What judicial proceeding did you think you were following?

Throughout my years with the FBI, I (along with my fellow agents) took great pride in conducting each investigation in an unbiased manner regardless of the subject’s position or standing in the community. All were treated equally under the law. But you, Sir, decided to allow this corrupt, evil and nasty human being to go free and unchallenged for her treasonous actions (yes, treasonous, in my opinion) which threatened the security of this nation.
Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization. This is a RICO case if there ever was one. Even an untrained person can tell from the communications which were recovered that Hillary Clinton spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on State Business. It may be argued that Hillary did not do any State business UNLESS the Clinton Foundation benefitted. You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.

I will conclude with this: Following my retirement from the FBI, I volunteered for a 12 month tour of duty in Afghanistan as a Law Enforcement Professional, embedded with U.S. forces as a subject matter expert in counter-terrorism investigations. For most of that year I operated outside the wire patrolling with the troops, interviewing witnesses to IED incidents and gathering evidence on the bad guys. The results of my work would then be reported through secure channels to the Commanding Officer. All reports and communications were required to be transmitted via secure and encrypted devices. Occasionally my remote location in the mountains of Afghanistan made transmission impossible and I would have to fly back to Bagram Air Base in order to securely report to the Commander of the battle space. It would have been convenient if I could have just called the Commander on my personal cell phone or written him an email on my personal laptop. But, had I done so I would have been reporting classified information via an unsecured device and it could have been compromised. These were, relative to Secretary of State communications, low level classifications of Secret. Had I ever sent even one in such a manner I would have been prosecuted and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years or so. That is how serious this violation is considered.

Now, because of you, Hillary Clinton is allowed to continue her RICO activities and is running for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world. You have trampled on the Rule of Law and destroyed the trust of the American people in the FBI and in unbiased enforcement of the law. How do you sleep at night? It is time for you to go and work for the Clinton Foundation.


Hugh W. Galyean
(FBI Agent, Retired)