Theresa May is now Britain’s second female prime minister.

Janet Yellen is the chairwoman of The Federal Reserve

Mary Barra is chairman and chief executive office of General Motors

Christine Lagarde is the French lawyer who is the first female deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund

Carly Fiorina was appointed CEO of Hewlett-Packard

In each case, a woman was appointed to captain organizations that were failing and in crisis.

Theresa May was suddenly ushered in to be Britain’s top minister in the wake of the public’s rejection of the EU.

Janet Yellen was appointed chairwoman of the Federal Reserve in the wake of growing criticism of the central bank’s role in a failing economy.

Mary Barra was pushed to the top of GM in the aftermath of an ignition switch problem that resulted in her making an admission “people died in our cars.”

Christine Lagarde was appointed IMF director when it appeared that organization had outlived its usefulness and had made reckless loans.

When Carly Fiorina took charge at Hewlett-Packard it was a troubled company that relied on its over-priced ink cartridges to produce 80% of its business.  It was a glorified ink cartridge company.

So what does this say about the good old U.S. of A when it is a few months from the possibility of electing its first female President?

Current Prices on popular forms of Silver Bullion

What this says is women suddenly rise to the top to give a softer, warmer, more human front to an in-crisis organization.

Will an election win in November for Hillary do anything more than tell young women they too can aspire to be President, just like boys do?

Carly Fiorina hung a portrait of herself next to HP founders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard.  Her picture was taken down by her successor, Mark Hurd.  Hillary Clinton’s picture may soon be hung in every post office.

Does America really have the luxury at this critical time in America’s history to make a point for feminism, that women can hold title to these jobs?  Women are being used by organizations to cast a more caring image, but maybe do not offer much substantive change for good.

Hillary is as bought and paid for as the most mercenary politician.  She is just a front man for a collapsing institution.  Just what ideas or skills has she exhibited to warrant the Presidency?  The economy is atrocious.  And Hillary Clinton’s plan to fix that is?

Hillary Clinton receives $225,000 per speech.  She gave a glowing speech about Goldman Sachs and the prominent role women play at that investment bank.  No criticism was offered of Goldman Sachs failures during the 2008 financial crisis.  Just how as Chief Executive would she govern over the banking system when she has been paid handsomely to extol it?

She won’t release transcripts of her speeches because?  Her campaign staff demands Donald Trump release his tax returns, but if you would like to take a gander at the list of Hillary Clinton’s speeches and the fees she got for each presentation, $21.7 million total, you can look at the nauseating list here.  Which special interests does Donald Trump represent?

To make it look like they are not bought and paid for by special interests, Presidents are usually paid lucrative fees for speeches AFTER they have left office.  For example, Ronald Reagan accepted $1 million for a speech in Japan.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t care to even put on pretenses.

The first lady who was going to reform health care when her husband was President is just a few short weeks away from being the leader of the western world.

Hillary Clinton knows she is Teflon Don (the name given to Italian gangster John Gotti who was charged with various crimes but never convicted.)  She has confidence because she knows big forces are backing her.  Why, if she has the backing of the American people, did socialist Bernie Sanders capture States ahead of Hillary in the primary elections?  Answer: because she is bought and paid for.

She has already made a mockery out of the rule of law.  “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” (FBI chief’s words), or any case against Hillary Clinton.  She is now part of the mob.

Tell me, whether you like Donald Trump’s abrasive, impulsive approach or not, shouldn’t some politician be dealing with the issue of the nation’s open southern border at a time when millions of American jobs have been transferred to Asia and robots are ready to replace millions more?

Flooding the labor pool with relatively young immigrants from South America, which has been allowed in an attempt to get younger workers to pay for the Medicare and Social Security of our older retirees, is maybe not a policy America can continue.

At least Mr. Trump is addressing jobs as a campaign issue.  With unemployment at 23%  (Shadowstats.com) and the remaining workers paying the taxes for that 23%, reigning politicians appear to be ignoring the problem.

Maybe import taxes on Chinese goods (Trump’s idea) are not the best answer to bringing jobs back home, but somebody needs to be speaking for the unemployed.  And ironically it isn’t the nurturing female running for office, it’s the brash billionaire entrepreneur who would be expected to support cheap labor and uncontrolled immigration.  Have Latinos in America even given a thought to the dilution of their value of their jobs by such a loose immigration policy?

A shooter in Orlando allegedly took hostages at a nightclub and then shot and killed some of them and pledged allegiance to ISIS. (I say allegedly because this appears to be another false flag event.) And the conclusion from that event is à The U.S. needs to take guns away from the rest of its citizens (??).

The shooter acquired his guns legally after background checks were done. Hillary Clinton is quoted to say: “I’ll taken on the gun lobby and fight for common-sense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists… including comprehensive background checks.”  Those background checks are already in place.  Just how are laws limiting guns going to make any difference to lawbreakers?

These are substantive reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be elected.  But that isn’t how voters think.  Voters vote against the candidate they fear the most, not for the best-qualified candidate.

The male vote for Trump is 22 points higher than female registered voters.   What is the typical American woman’s yardstick for a Presidential candidate?  Obviously, not whether a particular candidate is competent but rather whether he/she is caring.  Women have that hormone, oxytocin, the “hug hormone,” the “cuddle chemical,” the hormone that makes them the nurturers they are, God bless them.  They want somebody who shows empathy for the underdog, the disadvantaged.  All women can recall of Trump saying is “You’re fired!”

That’s why, when Ronald Reagan ran for President and ABC TV news was airing a blistering verbal attack against him while showing Reagan standing on the back of a caboose at a train station holding a baby, those demonizing words were lost in the visual image.

It’s reported that Reagan’s election team called ABC News while the piece was still on the air to offer their thanks for helping elect Reagan.  The ABC news team suddenly realized, the more they pilloried Reagan, the more the affable Reagan looked like he was being picked on.

Only in this instance, we don’t have an affable Trump, we have an angry looking Trump.   For women voters, Trump is like having the husband who is always right, but who has to soften his approach.  However, the news media can’t find a way to get rid of him and still hold on to audiences.

Now if only Trump’s election team would show him hugging a fluffy dog.  Yep, that’s what we’re down to in America if we don’t want the mob’s Hillary Clinton in the oval office.