Yeah, that'll excite the media, what role will Bill [Clinton] have, versus the [Donald] Trump story. But in all of this, the key to remember is that we're not talking about media.

There have been candidates who've been right on trade but wrong on the other two, right on war but wrong on the other two, right on immigration but not interested in the other two. It is this writer's belief that [Donald] Trump is the first one to come along, despite what a big buffoon everybody says he is. He is the only guy that's put his finger on the problems and the comprises and the areas that need to be addressed in order to owe direct the route which our country is traveling.

Jeff Sessions is the lone voice in the Senate.

You're safer not believing what you read in the New York Times. I don't care what it's about, but certainly that you're safer not believing anywhere in the mainstream media the general thrust of this story, that the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win and hacked the Democrats and embarrassed John Podesta and Hillary Clinton and succeeded.

The special council is Robert Mueller, and he's worked for both parties. He's held positions in both party administrations. He's former FBI director. He's been at this level for a long time, done it all. He has a reputation for being a straight shooter, nonpartisan, independent, can't be led by the nose down one path or another.

Regarding Ronald Reagan: In point of fact, the image of Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for shaping that decade (the 1980s), should be carved into Mount Rushmore, minted into coins, and emblazoned in a place of honor in every school child's history text as a constant reminder of this great man's contributions to world freedom, national pride, and individual prosperity. With the truth, the term 'Reaganomics' will be used only as a term of endearment and respect.

I'm not trying to say that we're facing or looking at a likely repeat of history. It would be great if we were.