"...and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, [The President] shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..." - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, U.S.

Though Donald Trump has raised and spent considerably less than many of his Republican rivals in the 2016 election season, Trump has never shied away from injecting money into the political process. Over the last several decades, Trump has spent mill

Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign office in New Hampshire was broken into sometime in the past 24 hours, robbed of computers with databases and campaign files, according to social media posts from one of the candidate’s top advisers.

I wrote before that Google’s search algorithm didn’t play politics — facts spoke for themselves, and searcher/voter intent determined the results they found.

That, unfortunately, is no longer the case.

OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, located in the White House Office of Management and Budget, is the nation’s gatekeeper over federal regulatory activity. All executive branch agencies are prohibited from releasing economically significant regulations without first submitting their regulations to OIRA for review.

In the performance of this duty, OIRA is often maligned by one or more parties affected by it decisions. Unfortunately the nation as whole, which is the beneficiary of OIRA decisions, seldom speaks in its defense.

It's incredibly sad that in a country that is supposed to be the "city upon a hill" example to the world, we rank 120th out of 169 countries in voter participation.

In 2012, just under 55 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote, in a presidential race that was decided by 5 million votes.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie turned his focus to poverty earlier this month after a GOP summit on the matter, telling CBS the issue "can be a difficult thing to talk about."

He also criticized federal efforts to combat poverty as ineffective -- a move experts say fits with his efforts to appeal to more conservative voters as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination.

If an individual chooses, of his own volition, to refrain from the use of certain words, phrases, or characterizations that have in the past been part of his or her political discourse, on whom should the responsibility for that constraint — essentially an act of self-censorship — rest?

Should the individual himself accept responsibility for actions he takes of his own free will, or should he — in what essentially is an act of self-victimization — seek to blame someone or something else?

In 2015, the Kansas legislature gave Kris Kobach (R), the secretary of state, the authority to prosecute instances of voter fraud.

Before this measure, it was up to local district attorneys to investigate and prosecute.

During the debate on the measure, Kobach assured the state legislature that he had uncovered 100 (and then later 200) cases of double voting. Yet, seven months into this executive power grab, only 6 people have been prosecuted under the new law.

There has been an inordinate amount of press coverage dedicated to the term “anti-establishment” during this election cycle. But have we stopped to think about what exactly this word means?

The term itself denotes a bifurcated world where wealthy, powerful elites (the “establishment”) are actively fighting any individuals who are striving to mitigate their financial and political hegemony (the “anti-establishment”).