CCCP is Cyrillic for USSR.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Сoюз Совиетскиы Социалистических Республик), like the People's Republic of China or Vermont, remain ideal governmental solutions for a lot of people who think that Capitalism is "rigged", unfair and leads to miserable outcomes.  For some reason the idolators of Lenin and Marx ignore the actual outcomes of capitalism and socialism, perhaps because their intellectual picture of utopia is brought low by reality.

            The masses in the United States of America have individual wealth and prosperity that are the envy of the centrally controlled world.  Our poor live lives of quiet despair, but if we brought the poor of Guatemala, Cuba, Ecuador, China, Russia, India and Iran to walk two moons with their brethren here, would there not be amazement at the riches available to the disadvantaged in a free mercantile society?  By no means should we ignore the plight of those who struggle; if the lives of our challenged people can be improved then we will have a rising tide that lifts all boats (there he is again, John Kennedy, that rich Democrat who replaced that middle class Republican, Dwight David Eisenhower).

            Clinton, Clay, Clinton, Pelosi.  The return of the CCCP.  Stifling individual freedom and liberty, deciding which industries survive (e.g. good bye coal, petroleum, automobiles) and which thrive (e.g., clean power) means that a few thousands everywhere (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, North Dakota, Missouri, Alaska, Texas, Illinois, just to name a few states with substantial revenues from disfavored forms of energy), and making all life a regulatory burden are the standard sing songs of the Democratic campfire and passing of the pipe.  No more do we have the fractious party that could not muster the votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights legislation but had to rely on the opposition, the Republicans, to move the nation forward.  We have a single voice grown from a smoky back room where the game is "Oh, Hell" and the strategy is to vilify decent fellow citizens by describing them as haters of women and minorities regardless of their efforts to liberate one and all while attempting not to favor one interest group over another.

            Lest I forget, let me here digress for a moment on whether Donald Trump hates all Mexicans, Latinos, Chicanos and persons of mixed Spanish origin.  A more scripted speaker would not have accused Mexico of sending us its villains as immigrants like Russia emptied its criminal prisons when the door opened here.  His primary message is that people who came to our nation in violation of our laws on immigration should not be permitted to remain.  There can be no doubt that the criminals of yesterday make fine citizens tomorrow (as witness, our initial penal colonies and indentured servants whose debt grew from misbehavior).  Yet the criminality of their conduct in coming here is not removed by labeling the enforcer of law a racist any more than Secretary Clinton's email revelation of state secrets is excused by her lax administration of the Department of State during her tenure.  I asked a lady who called my house when the Secretary was going to be indicted, and the lady confidently told me that Hillary had been "cleared of all that."  Perhaps it was the same people who called Trump a racist who cleared the scofflaw Secretary of State of her crimes against the nation.  Trump is not a racist, nor has the Secretary been cleared of her misdeeds while in office.

            In Russia, there are several sets of "laws."  First, there is no Common Law, there is no historical precedent except that those in power have the power to use the power to make the law whatever is most expedient for the needs of those in power.  China, for all its great historical antecedents of law and comely behavior, has a legal system akin to that of modern and ancient Russia.  The law is what the elites then in power say the law is, and nothing more need be worried about.  "Nothing to see here."  We have it under control.  Just ask your Super Delegate what is best for you and yours.          Four dead in Libya, lies to the families of the deceased, a nation with which we had begun rapprochement left to smolder and descend into a medieval religious hegemony, and a top government official shouting an excuse that would be relished by every criminal caught red-handed were it sufficient to excuse their perfidy.

            Our modern CCCP, Clinton, Clay, Clinton, Pelosi, wants us in lockstep adherence to their view of the solutions to our problems, which, by the way, they did nothing to create!  Our universities, those centers of free thought, seem now to be controlled by the progressive voices which brook no dissent and would not let anyone "See, Speak or Hear" any contrary evil when students and faculty actively deny alternative speakers the chance to opine.  Anyone who dares to question the reasoning of climate alarmists is shouted down, silenced, or criminally investigated.  In my life, I have been called a racist because I openly disputed the wisdom of the sitting Executive, as if his major ideas grew from the color of his skin and not the content of his character.

            Has Congressman Clay questioned the moral center of the Clinton cabal?  No, he rushed to endorse her.  Has he led an investigation of her haphazard handling of state secrets?  No, that would be bad for the Party if the people saw that the Washington elites expect and enforce a rule of law more forgiving of their misdeeds than that endured by the rest of us when we unwittingly or unknowingly run afoul of the mass of laws the ruling class has created.  Imagine if you had a private email server system on which you stored state secrets, and that this system had been routinely monitored and hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians.  Can you say "Man/Woman Behind the Iron Mask?"  And the leader of the lock step Party gets a free pass from the faithful national media as well as all of the Party faithful.  This reminds me of the blind passage of that inglorious miasma the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — stop snickering at the irony, aka, Obamacare) where not one member of the Republican Party voted for its passage and not one member of the Democratic Party voted against it.  Try to find a Democrat who wants to repeal any part of it, but you can find Republicans that support parts of it, just not as a whole.

            Sound debaters will seize upon this as proof that the Republican party is also lock step in its approach to governance, but one would have to ignore all the Tea Partiers who have been obstreperous in attempts to compromise by the moderates and the liberals.  At least in thought the Republican party is more diverse than its old namesake, the Democratic party (the Republicans of Jefferson's day, the old state's righters, became the Democrats of the autocrat, Andrew Jackson).  But what of Bernie Sanders and the insurrection against the Clinton machine?   Is this the same fount of independence that brought Barack to the White House?  Sanders has more focused ideas, whereas Hope and Change can be crafted to outcomes or ideology by each individual as needed without the candidate truly revealing a position, platform or program.   The Democratic Party that existed in my youth has ushered out fiscal conservatives and persons championing self-determination in favor of the trumpeters of fairness and equality, while those trumpeters feed greedily from the corporate trough that contains book publication and speaking fees that would make a corporate CEO jealous of the recompense for a few hours' labor.   And we, the people, are left to conclude that the leaders of the party concur in the conduct of the chosen ones even when this conduct includes a shadowy charitable foundation with murky goals that just happens to pay large salaries to government employees who just happen to be the close confidantes of a former President and First Lady cum Secretary of State.  Amazingly, these same employees of the foundation take no reduction in pay for their public service.  The memory of Jack Kennedy is fading fast: the first question of the current leaders of the Democratic party seems to be "What can my position in my country do for me?" 

            For those who do not know, Secretary Clinton received a 12 Million Dollar advance on her book published shortly before she announced her Presidential candidacy, super delegates already in hand!  William Jefferson Clinton commands speaking fees well beyond $300,000 per hour.  Goldman Sachs paid $650,000 for him to give two speeches lasting forty-five minutes each.  I realize that they were "broke" even though a party friend paid off their mortgage for their little cottage (think Newport cottages) in Chappaqua, but most of us labor all our lives to make what these two can take out of the economy in a couple of hours.  But they feel your pain.