Showing posts with label President Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Lets take the argument over Confederate Monuments to its logical conclusion, shall we?
Last week was not the first time I'd heard someone complain about Confederate War Monuments, but it had never really galvanized the left in this country until the disgusting violence that occurred last week in Charlottesville, Virginia. I'm not really sure why, but some folks believe that the actions of a handful of absurd, lunatic racists, including one now charged with murder, is somehow connected to the existence of Confederate War Monuments that have been standing, many of them, for over a century. All pretense aside, the truth is, the left has taken advantage of this tragedy to push the Confederate Monuments debate to the forefront simply to keep alive the flow of criticism directed at President Donald Trump. Initially, President Trump was attacked in the press for not singling out "white supremacists" in his commentary condemning the violence. Never known for letting an opportunity slip by, the left used this event to bring attention to the existence of numerous Confederate Civil War Monuments across the nation, but mostly in southern cities. Anticipating that President Trump would not throw his southern supporters under the bus, the media's insertion of this topic into our cultural discourse was perfectly timed to keep the criticism of the President at a fever pitch. Democratic leaders could not wait to express outrage at the continued existence of these statues and memorials, even though most, including House Minority Leader Nancy Polosi, have been working around Confederate Monuments for decades and only now are finding reason to complain.
Lets take this discussion in a logical direction, shall we? I'm willing to accept that many Americans are uncomfortable with Monuments to people who were slave owners and were fighting to uphold that inhuman practice. But if we're going to get rid of monuments to men who supported slavery, lets at least be consistent. Instead of singling out Civil War Generals Robert E. Lee and John Bell Hood, and statesmen like Confederate President Jefferson Davis, lets make a clean sweep of things and start at the beginning. Lets go back to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of our nation. We need to remove all statues and public acclaim for our most historic military hero and first president, George Washington; he was a slaveholder who made no effort to include abolition of slavery in the writing of the Constitution. Neither did James Madison, James Monroe or John Adams. Heck, Thomas Jefferson not only owned a plantation full of slaves, he kept a few females as concubines. Has anyone thought about what we might call Washington State and Washington DC, now that we are abolishing all honorifics for persons who supported slavery? Time to rename James Madison and George Mason Universities. What will we do with our currency? Shall we put Ronald Reagan on the dollar bill, and Bill Clinton on the nickle? Who gets the honor of dynamiting half of Mt. Rushmore?
Better yet, lets include avowed segregationists on this list as well. During the 1950's and 1960's, there were a number of high-profile politicians who put up one road block after another in an effort to block integration and the Civil Rights Act. What about William Fulbright, famous for the Fulbright Scholarship? President Bill Clinton dedicated a statue to his mentor Senator Fulbright, in a ceremony at the University of Arkansas in 2002. Fulbright was a dyed-in-the-wool southern segregationist; do you homework so we can add him to the list, which will be a mile-long by the time we're finished. I'm guessing somewhere along the way, someone from the left is going to suggest that we only focus on Civil War racists. I'm okay with that, as long as you explain it to me and the American people. Why is a slaveholder in 1861 more evil than one in the late 1700's?
At the end of the day, this is all about politics, which is disgusting, because I believe that many Americans truly are hurt by the idea of monuments to slave holders, and I sincerely respect their emotions on this issue. But history is history, and we can't erase the past arbitrarily. The Nazis were good at picking and choosing what parts of German history to trash and what events to embrace. But don't hold your breath on this one. As soon as the public gets a bit tired of this headline, the press will have another Trump-related scandal for us to digest. These distractions have one true goal- the destruction of the Trump agenda. Democrats are petrified not of Trump, but of the agenda on which he campaigned. They realize that tighter border security and immigration reform will make our nation safer, that re-negotiated Trade Agreements will boast our exports, and that a stronger military will make us the most respected nation in the world, as opposed to Obama's effort to make us the most popular. More jobs and less obsession with the fringes of our society is Making America Great Again. Why is the Trump agenda so dangerous to Democrats? Because after its implemented, and the economy takes off and real jobs return, we may not see another Democrat in the White House for some time.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
As the Obama Administration winds down, lets review the State of the Union.
As his term in office winds down, President Barack Obama is enjoying a positive approval rating, and taking advantage of every opportunity to remind the American people that his Presidency was a tremendous success. Obama likes to mention a 4.9 percent unemployment rate and 70 plus consecutive months of positive growth. He also pardoned 78 convicted felons and commuted the sentences of 153 others. Pardons and commutations are the prerogative of every outgoing President; Obama focused on drug offenders with his act of legislative forgiveness. Ever since President Bill Clinton chose to pardon political ally Mark Rich and to commute the sentences of sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists, I try not to pay much attention to this odd tradition. Obama seems to be enjoying the last few weeks of his Administration, and his last minute decision to outlaw any new offshore drilling will certainly please the ecological fanatics who constitute a loyal part of the Democratic Party. I am in favor of allowing the departing President to leave office with dignity and promote a needed sense of continuity from one Administration to the next, but I am beginning to get annoyed by the daily revisionist review of Obama's Presidency as disseminated by the mainstream media.
It is beyond disingenuous to publicly claim that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. Our economy is stagnant, and threatening to fall into recession. The 4.9 figure includes only those persons who currently apply for unemployment. Persons who have been unemployment for many months or even years no longer are included in this percentage. I don't live in New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC, so I can't say if the job markets in those cities are healthy. I can tell you that in the parts of the country of which I am familiar, jobs are scarce, and companies are not growing or posting profits. Obama is correct when his states that the economy has grown over the past 70 odd months, but the amount growth has almost always been under 2.0 percent. Economists will tell you that our economy isn't actually growing anymore, and certainly is in no position to provide jobs to the existing number of unemployed, let alone the never-ending number of new college graduates who enter the work force during the year. To attempt to convince the American people that the job market is healthy and that the economy is just chugging along is perpetrating a fraud. If you question my perspective as opposed to Obama's, do the research yourself.
Obama is able to stay popular with the majority of Americans, a fact which is difficult for me to comprehend. But he isn't only popular stateside. He continues to receive rave reviews throughout Europe and Latin America. One of the most fascinating dichotomies of our time is Obama's ability to remain a figure of reverence in Paris, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Rome, Santiago, and London, while the United States remains resented more than ever. Actually, the explanation isn't that complicated. Obama has built a cult of personality for himself, and part of the effort included trashing his own country and its heritage. It all began with the Apology Tour at the beginning of his Presidency, and has continued unabated ever since. As Obama's international popularity increases, the United States as a World Power and instrument of positive change in the world seems less respected now more than ever. From the first day it was all about Obama.
If I had the opportunity to ask the outgoing President one question, I would inquire about the twenty trillion dollar national debt. Its a subject that never comes up in any of his rare Press Conferences or public speaking appearances. If I could sneak in another question, I would want to know why he never addressed the national threat of gang activity in our inner cities. I believe Black Lives Matter, and what occurs everyday in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Washington DC is nothing short of a threat to our national security. The fact that on average ten to fifteen young black men are shot every day in Chicago, and it has never been considered important enough to convene a national conference of community leaders and law enforcement, is a disgrace. The people living in our inner cities aren't able to play golf every week with one famous personality after another, nor are they getting dressed by the nation's most expensive fashion designers. Heck, maybe they don't care about golf or fashion, but they do care about living. They have just as much right as every other citizen to a threat-free living environment, and President-Elect Donald Trump will earn my respect if he addresses this issue early on in his Administration.
It is beyond disingenuous to publicly claim that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. Our economy is stagnant, and threatening to fall into recession. The 4.9 figure includes only those persons who currently apply for unemployment. Persons who have been unemployment for many months or even years no longer are included in this percentage. I don't live in New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC, so I can't say if the job markets in those cities are healthy. I can tell you that in the parts of the country of which I am familiar, jobs are scarce, and companies are not growing or posting profits. Obama is correct when his states that the economy has grown over the past 70 odd months, but the amount growth has almost always been under 2.0 percent. Economists will tell you that our economy isn't actually growing anymore, and certainly is in no position to provide jobs to the existing number of unemployed, let alone the never-ending number of new college graduates who enter the work force during the year. To attempt to convince the American people that the job market is healthy and that the economy is just chugging along is perpetrating a fraud. If you question my perspective as opposed to Obama's, do the research yourself.
Obama is able to stay popular with the majority of Americans, a fact which is difficult for me to comprehend. But he isn't only popular stateside. He continues to receive rave reviews throughout Europe and Latin America. One of the most fascinating dichotomies of our time is Obama's ability to remain a figure of reverence in Paris, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Rome, Santiago, and London, while the United States remains resented more than ever. Actually, the explanation isn't that complicated. Obama has built a cult of personality for himself, and part of the effort included trashing his own country and its heritage. It all began with the Apology Tour at the beginning of his Presidency, and has continued unabated ever since. As Obama's international popularity increases, the United States as a World Power and instrument of positive change in the world seems less respected now more than ever. From the first day it was all about Obama.
If I had the opportunity to ask the outgoing President one question, I would inquire about the twenty trillion dollar national debt. Its a subject that never comes up in any of his rare Press Conferences or public speaking appearances. If I could sneak in another question, I would want to know why he never addressed the national threat of gang activity in our inner cities. I believe Black Lives Matter, and what occurs everyday in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and Washington DC is nothing short of a threat to our national security. The fact that on average ten to fifteen young black men are shot every day in Chicago, and it has never been considered important enough to convene a national conference of community leaders and law enforcement, is a disgrace. The people living in our inner cities aren't able to play golf every week with one famous personality after another, nor are they getting dressed by the nation's most expensive fashion designers. Heck, maybe they don't care about golf or fashion, but they do care about living. They have just as much right as every other citizen to a threat-free living environment, and President-Elect Donald Trump will earn my respect if he addresses this issue early on in his Administration.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
A few observations on polling.
Once political season rolls around, their is no way to avoid the non-stop polling. We are currently less than a month away from the most important election in our political cycle, one month from knowing if we will have a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump. We also have other elections taking place simultaneously, which will decide the makeup of the next Congress. One group of organizations that have grown fat in recent years because of politicking are the polling companies. Not long ago, most Americans would be lucky to recognize three separate pollsters, but lately, the media has decided that the American people just can't get enough of polls. I can count at least twenty companies right off the top of my head. Granted, pollsters collect and analyze data about far more than just political opinion; but in today's hotly contested electoral environment, the money is in the current campaigns that are coming to a close in early November.
Campaigns utilize polling information to determine candidate weaknesses and strengths. They are also useful to help campaigns decide where and when to spend advertising resources. Why would a candidate continue to buy airtime in a state in which he/she trails by twenty percentage points, when other states are much more competitive. For instance, Donald Trump isn't spending money in California and Hillary Clinton has no ads running in Kansas. But polls are also used to manipulate perceptions. You see, polling organizations are inexorably tied to the big media corporations. Many broadcasting companies, including Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN all have their own polling capabilities. Sometimes they work in tandem with newspapers, for example Fox News/Wall Street Journal Poll, and the CBS/NY Times Poll. It should come as no surpirse that polls have become a major weapon in national politics. Lets take a look at how it works:
Its possible to manipulate people with the framing of the polling questions, but in this instance, lets keep it simple. The question is, if the Presidential Election were held today, and you had to choose between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote? As the poll is constructed, the sample must be created. Polls are scientific, so people can't just be called randomly. you must first create a sample. How many Republicans are you going to include, and how many Democrats? How many Independents? What percentage of males and females? If you chose to structure your poll by picking a specific percetnage of African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, you can certainly impact the end result. How you structure your polling sample is called the methodology.
When it comes to polls, it always benefits to read the small words at the end of the survey results. This is where they usually hide their methodology. For example, you may discover that the sample included 39% Democrat, 30% Republican, 5% Independent, and the rest "no affiliation". Common sense tells you that the Democratic candidate has a big advantage because more Democrats participated. Believe it or not, I took this particular sampling example from a major poll published this week and broadcast on every news channel. Surprise, surprise, Hillary Clinton has a big lead. The pollsters will justify their methods by arguing that their sampling is in line with the "latest" information regarding what percentage of the electorate is Republican or Democrat. If the country is 39% Democrat and 30% Republican, then it only makes sense that hou would use the same percentages in your sampling. The problem is, the percentage fluctuates dramatically, not only nationally, but locally. And if you are polling for the state of Ohio, wouldn't make sense to try and determine the percentages of Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, instead of defaulting to the perceived national figures?
To sum it up, don't think too much about poll numbers. Back in 2012, we were told that Romney was going to win a close election. Romney lost, and it wasn't really close. Not only are polls subject to manipulation, they can be innaccurate for a host of other reasons. Sometimes people get annoyed when their dinner is interruptd by a phone call, and they lie. Other times, people don't understand the process. Our recent political history, going back to the famous "Dewey vs. Truman" election in 1948, is replete with examples of polls that produced results different from the actual election. This particular Presidential election is a hard one to handicap. Although everything appears to be falling Clinton's way (including the polls), there continues to be that feeling in the back of my mind, that we are in for a big surprise. Trump voters are angry and motivated- they will flock to the voting booths. The Clinton voter continues to be less-than inspired. Also, I think its safe to assume that we haven't heard the last about Wikileaks emails, imvestigations, and the extra-curricular activity of former President Bill Clinton. So don't take the daily deluge of polling information too seriously. Unless, of course, the figures point to a Trump victory. 😉
Campaigns utilize polling information to determine candidate weaknesses and strengths. They are also useful to help campaigns decide where and when to spend advertising resources. Why would a candidate continue to buy airtime in a state in which he/she trails by twenty percentage points, when other states are much more competitive. For instance, Donald Trump isn't spending money in California and Hillary Clinton has no ads running in Kansas. But polls are also used to manipulate perceptions. You see, polling organizations are inexorably tied to the big media corporations. Many broadcasting companies, including Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN all have their own polling capabilities. Sometimes they work in tandem with newspapers, for example Fox News/Wall Street Journal Poll, and the CBS/NY Times Poll. It should come as no surpirse that polls have become a major weapon in national politics. Lets take a look at how it works:
Its possible to manipulate people with the framing of the polling questions, but in this instance, lets keep it simple. The question is, if the Presidential Election were held today, and you had to choose between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote? As the poll is constructed, the sample must be created. Polls are scientific, so people can't just be called randomly. you must first create a sample. How many Republicans are you going to include, and how many Democrats? How many Independents? What percentage of males and females? If you chose to structure your poll by picking a specific percetnage of African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, you can certainly impact the end result. How you structure your polling sample is called the methodology.
When it comes to polls, it always benefits to read the small words at the end of the survey results. This is where they usually hide their methodology. For example, you may discover that the sample included 39% Democrat, 30% Republican, 5% Independent, and the rest "no affiliation". Common sense tells you that the Democratic candidate has a big advantage because more Democrats participated. Believe it or not, I took this particular sampling example from a major poll published this week and broadcast on every news channel. Surprise, surprise, Hillary Clinton has a big lead. The pollsters will justify their methods by arguing that their sampling is in line with the "latest" information regarding what percentage of the electorate is Republican or Democrat. If the country is 39% Democrat and 30% Republican, then it only makes sense that hou would use the same percentages in your sampling. The problem is, the percentage fluctuates dramatically, not only nationally, but locally. And if you are polling for the state of Ohio, wouldn't make sense to try and determine the percentages of Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, instead of defaulting to the perceived national figures?
To sum it up, don't think too much about poll numbers. Back in 2012, we were told that Romney was going to win a close election. Romney lost, and it wasn't really close. Not only are polls subject to manipulation, they can be innaccurate for a host of other reasons. Sometimes people get annoyed when their dinner is interruptd by a phone call, and they lie. Other times, people don't understand the process. Our recent political history, going back to the famous "Dewey vs. Truman" election in 1948, is replete with examples of polls that produced results different from the actual election. This particular Presidential election is a hard one to handicap. Although everything appears to be falling Clinton's way (including the polls), there continues to be that feeling in the back of my mind, that we are in for a big surprise. Trump voters are angry and motivated- they will flock to the voting booths. The Clinton voter continues to be less-than inspired. Also, I think its safe to assume that we haven't heard the last about Wikileaks emails, imvestigations, and the extra-curricular activity of former President Bill Clinton. So don't take the daily deluge of polling information too seriously. Unless, of course, the figures point to a Trump victory. 😉
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Why do our most important elections always turn out so nasty?
Not surprisingly, this year's presidential election between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump has had its share of personal attacks and name-calling. I knew it would happen, and so did you. In fact, I can't remember the last major election in our country this didn't eventually end up in the gutter, and my memory of political involvement at one level or another stretches bsck to 1984 and President Ronald Reagan up against Democratic challenger, former Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota. Why deos this happen? Every election, both candidates begin their campaigns by publicly pledging to focus on the issues, and to run a clean, respectful and positive race. Sometimes certain candidates are able to keep their pledge, as lomg as there is a Political Action Committee (PAC) on their side to sling the mud instead. In fact, politicans are using PACS more and more to trash their opppnents, so they can have what is called, "plausible deniability". Regardless, at the end of the day we seem cursed to suffer through hateful, cruel, invasive personal attacks as part of every important election. If the citizens, the press, and the candidates all disavow this type of campaigning, then why deos it just seem to get worse all the time?
It doesn't take a microscope to uncover certain incriminating facts regarding this year's Presidential election. Roughly three weeks ago, befroe the first Presidential Debate, polls showed Trump ahead in the battleground states of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. National polls showed the race a statistical tie, with the trend moving in Trump's favor. Then we had our first debate. Trimp began by focusing on job creation and the need to renegotiate certain trade agreements. Sometime during the debate the moderator (not Hillary Clinton) introduced the issue of Trump's taxes. Trump explained, as he has repeatedly to the same journalists, that he is in the middle of being audited, therefore he can't reelase his income taxes until the process is complete. Trump's response probably made no difference. The moderator had successfully imjected an issue in the debate which had nothing to do with jobs, the economy, terrorism, the Supreme Court, or the National Debt. Later on, Trump was asked about comments he made twenty years prior regarding a contestant in one of his Miss Universe Pageants. Since a video clip appeared to show Mr. Trump referring to this particular contestant and her weight, the inferrence that Trump is a Bigot was introduced into the debate. Again, nothing to do with foreign affairs, ISIS, or the minimum wage, put the perfect set-up for new personal attacks on Trump.
For at least a week, the media feasted on the story of Trump and the overweight Beauty Pageant contestant. Once the second debate rolled around, another video clip starring Donald Trump somehow ended up on the desk of the Washington Post (actually, the tape was provided to the Post by NBC). In this video clip, Trump and TV host Billy Bush can be heard having a conversation about women that was lewd and vulgar. Neither men knew that they were being filmed/recorded at the time, so this video is a huge invasion of privacy, but who cares, right? Trump quickly apologized, and tried to explain his language as an unfortunate and regrettable example of "locker room talk". Of course, moderator Anderson Cooper had to bring it up in the second debate, and again, the controversy had nothing to do with those issues that the media identifed as being important to the electorate. The media continues to push the narrative that the candidates want to avoid the important issues and would just as soon engage in personal attacks on each other. The reality is, the media is driving this bus, folks, and no one else is allowed behind the wheel.
Every expose or new controversy, whether it be an interview with one of the women who has accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety, or some absurd story claiming that Donald Trump never pays income tax, has been released and promoted by the media. If the media wants to keep the candidates focused on the issues, then they should refuse to accept advertising money for political ads that don't focus on the issues. They should only broadcast debates and policy speeches that exclusively focus on jobs, terrorism, education, and the twenty trillion dollar debt. Its just another example of the hypocrisy from the entity that jnfluences our electoral process in a very disturbing way. On more than one occasion, Donald Trump has been criticized for spending time defending himself from a personal accusation. The press publicly scold Trump for not addressing the issues that "the American people care about". So the media releases the personal attack, advertises related follow-up stories, disseminates the story on every news source, and then slams the candidate for not sticking to the issues!
I know, its emough to bring on a nasty headache. But we must be aware of all the equities involved in our political process. The media will always differ to a sexy, colorful, or embarrassing personal story about public figures, as opposed to some segment about foreign trade or the price of tea in China. They are convinced that the American public would prefer to hear about both candidate's dirty laundry, even if we are in the midst of a Presidential election. The press is basically omnipotent in our society, because the oversight for the media is the media. Folks have been wasting their breath for years, screaming about the obvious leftist bias in the American media (how about those even-handed questions from the debate moderators), and the problem just seems to get worse. People talk about getting religion out of schools and out of government; how about getting activist journalists and editors out of the media? Journalists in 2016 are comvinced that they are the only ones smart enought to make important decisions, thats why editotials and political endorsements have become such an important part of today's fading print media.
Advice to the media/press: just report the details, and trust the American people to have the common sense, intelligence, and consideration to figure things out on their own. We don't care who the editorial staff of the Houston Chronicle supports for President in 2016. As for the debates, why not have an equal number of representatives from both parties agree on the questions the day of the debate. I'm not alone when I say that I feel as if my party's nominee for the past two elections has been selected by the opposing team.
It doesn't take a microscope to uncover certain incriminating facts regarding this year's Presidential election. Roughly three weeks ago, befroe the first Presidential Debate, polls showed Trump ahead in the battleground states of North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. National polls showed the race a statistical tie, with the trend moving in Trump's favor. Then we had our first debate. Trimp began by focusing on job creation and the need to renegotiate certain trade agreements. Sometime during the debate the moderator (not Hillary Clinton) introduced the issue of Trump's taxes. Trump explained, as he has repeatedly to the same journalists, that he is in the middle of being audited, therefore he can't reelase his income taxes until the process is complete. Trump's response probably made no difference. The moderator had successfully imjected an issue in the debate which had nothing to do with jobs, the economy, terrorism, the Supreme Court, or the National Debt. Later on, Trump was asked about comments he made twenty years prior regarding a contestant in one of his Miss Universe Pageants. Since a video clip appeared to show Mr. Trump referring to this particular contestant and her weight, the inferrence that Trump is a Bigot was introduced into the debate. Again, nothing to do with foreign affairs, ISIS, or the minimum wage, put the perfect set-up for new personal attacks on Trump.
For at least a week, the media feasted on the story of Trump and the overweight Beauty Pageant contestant. Once the second debate rolled around, another video clip starring Donald Trump somehow ended up on the desk of the Washington Post (actually, the tape was provided to the Post by NBC). In this video clip, Trump and TV host Billy Bush can be heard having a conversation about women that was lewd and vulgar. Neither men knew that they were being filmed/recorded at the time, so this video is a huge invasion of privacy, but who cares, right? Trump quickly apologized, and tried to explain his language as an unfortunate and regrettable example of "locker room talk". Of course, moderator Anderson Cooper had to bring it up in the second debate, and again, the controversy had nothing to do with those issues that the media identifed as being important to the electorate. The media continues to push the narrative that the candidates want to avoid the important issues and would just as soon engage in personal attacks on each other. The reality is, the media is driving this bus, folks, and no one else is allowed behind the wheel.
Every expose or new controversy, whether it be an interview with one of the women who has accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety, or some absurd story claiming that Donald Trump never pays income tax, has been released and promoted by the media. If the media wants to keep the candidates focused on the issues, then they should refuse to accept advertising money for political ads that don't focus on the issues. They should only broadcast debates and policy speeches that exclusively focus on jobs, terrorism, education, and the twenty trillion dollar debt. Its just another example of the hypocrisy from the entity that jnfluences our electoral process in a very disturbing way. On more than one occasion, Donald Trump has been criticized for spending time defending himself from a personal accusation. The press publicly scold Trump for not addressing the issues that "the American people care about". So the media releases the personal attack, advertises related follow-up stories, disseminates the story on every news source, and then slams the candidate for not sticking to the issues!
I know, its emough to bring on a nasty headache. But we must be aware of all the equities involved in our political process. The media will always differ to a sexy, colorful, or embarrassing personal story about public figures, as opposed to some segment about foreign trade or the price of tea in China. They are convinced that the American public would prefer to hear about both candidate's dirty laundry, even if we are in the midst of a Presidential election. The press is basically omnipotent in our society, because the oversight for the media is the media. Folks have been wasting their breath for years, screaming about the obvious leftist bias in the American media (how about those even-handed questions from the debate moderators), and the problem just seems to get worse. People talk about getting religion out of schools and out of government; how about getting activist journalists and editors out of the media? Journalists in 2016 are comvinced that they are the only ones smart enought to make important decisions, thats why editotials and political endorsements have become such an important part of today's fading print media.
Advice to the media/press: just report the details, and trust the American people to have the common sense, intelligence, and consideration to figure things out on their own. We don't care who the editorial staff of the Houston Chronicle supports for President in 2016. As for the debates, why not have an equal number of representatives from both parties agree on the questions the day of the debate. I'm not alone when I say that I feel as if my party's nominee for the past two elections has been selected by the opposing team.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Media bias- just how bad is it?
All of my adult life, at least the years during which I have been politically aware, I have noticed a definite bias in the media. I am amazed when I hear folks denying this reality, or worse, criticizing Fox News for providing a Conservative perspective to current events. Not a day goes by that I don't acknowledge my appreciation for both Fox News and the Drudge Report. The playing field is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, but at least someone of my political persuasion is willing to put up a fight. Frequently, though, I am reminded of just how powerful the liberal media has become. The first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump provided just such a reminder. Not surprisingly, the moderator feigned complete neutrality, and then proceeded to ambush Trump with questions about a former Ms. Universe Pageant contestant. I expected the moderator to discuss Trump's income taxes and also his comments regarding the Obama birth certificate comtroversy. It would only make sense, considering the Clinton email server issue and the controversy regarding influence peddling and the Clinton Foundation would surely be mentioed. I was mistaken. I can only assume that the first debate was meant to focus on sensitive Trump developments, and that the second debate would introduce Hillary's trouble issues; time will tell.
Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush. Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time. His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced. Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere. Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all. Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations. First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election. I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries. Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use? I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well. After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee. Its not as far-fetched as you might think. I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.
What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept. What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular. For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition. And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties. Where is the hypocrisy, you ask? When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations). The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon. Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now? Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip. They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal. I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion. The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip. I don't need to read the transcript. It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business. Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee. I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation. I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush. Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time. His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced. Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere. Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all. Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations. First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election. I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries. Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use? I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well. After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee. Its not as far-fetched as you might think. I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.
What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept. What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular. For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition. And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties. Where is the hypocrisy, you ask? When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations). The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon. Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now? Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip. They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal. I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion. The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip. I don't need to read the transcript. It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business. Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee. I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation. I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Keeping it short and simple- a post-debate reminder why I'm voting for Donald Trump.
I spent a good part of tonight's Presidntial Debate trying to understand why someone with Donald Trump's public exposure and profile seems to have the communication skills of a High School sophomore. He has real difficulty staying on topic and finishing points. My friend Jennifer refers to it as talking in "verbal circles", and I think that she has found a great description. That being said, I am able to clearly identitfy what Trump supports and what issues will be a priority should he win this election. This debate only served to solidify my support for Trump and my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Hillary Clinton avoids accountability for violating State Department security policy; where do we go from here?
For some time I have been dreading the obligation to address what should be the final chapter in Hillary Clinton's State Department email server/security violations. For weeks I have been writing about the unlikelihood of an indictment; yesterday's announcement by FBI Director James Comey was expected. What was unexpected was my personal, emotional reaction. I feel more sad and disenchanted than angry. If Comey had simply made the announcement, I probably would have put together an angry, three paragraph blog post, reviewing for the umpteenth time Hillary Clinton's ability to escape any and all retribution. Instead, before announcing that no charges were to be brought against HRC, Comey carefully and patiently detailed the reasons why Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted. As if this weren't painful enough, Comey ended his comments by warning anyone who might be tempted to repeat Clinton's security violations, that the Justice Department would pursue criminal charges. For the level-headed people that I know who watched the announcement, these few sentences in Comey's presentation were the most bizarre. How can the Director of the FBI publicly announce that Clinton "had no criminal intent" and that "no prosecutor would take on this case", then clearly threaten anyone who takes the same actions with criminal prosecution?
No doubt I'm not the only United States citizen who feels as if with this ruling, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated to the cashier at a donut shop in Fresno, and to the Jiffy Lube grease monkey in St. Paul, Minnesota, that she lives under a different set of rules than ninety-nine percent of us. To the teacher in Harlan, Kentucky, and the Police Officer in Miami, its time to accept the reality that Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of some very special, elite group of Americans who understand the importance of laws only as they apply to others. This morning, while channel-surfing the various left-wing talk shows on my satellite radio, The Clinton talking points were clearer than ever. The goal is to play up Comey's comment that Clinton had no criminal intent when instructing her staff to install a separate, personal email server. I heard it this morning ad-nauseam. Sandra Bernhard (yes, she lives) went so far as to describe Hillary's e-mails, the emails the FBI has been collecting, as being innocuous communications about the color of dresses. Talking points or no, lets make this absolutely clear: Hillary Clinton transmitted classified emails on an uncleared, private server, not just six or seven times, but repeatedly. She was warned on at least two occasions that her email server was operating in violation of State Department security protocols. The real victims in this mess are the soldiers, airmen and sailors who were found guilty of very similar (or less-egregious) security violations and were kicked out of the military and in some cases, given a jail sentence. In fact, Fox News has been repeating a story involving a young serviceman who obviously didn't intend to commit a security violation, who is currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department. I will be watching Fox News Thursday morning to see just how serious the GOP Congress is on this issue when they interview FBI Director Comey.
For those in the Clinton Camp, getting past this headache without charges being levelled, was the last of the major obstacles Clinton had to overcome. Today, President Obama put down his Golf Clubs long enough to attend a Clinton Rally. The Clinton crowd was worked up into quite a frenzy, as they must also believe that any and all trap-doors have been removed from Clinton's path to the Presidency. What do you think? Interestingly enough, a handful of independent voters I know who were bound-and-determined to not vote for Donald Trump, have apparently changed their minds. They realize that this election is more about getting this nation back on the right track than it is trying to decide which candidate is the lesser "evil". Each and every voter should take a fair, serious look at the state of the nation; are we on the right track internationally? Are we doing what is necessary to keep our families safe from terrorism? Which candidate is more likely to increase the twenty-trillion dollar national debt? I've answered these questions to my satisfaction; have you?
No doubt I'm not the only United States citizen who feels as if with this ruling, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated to the cashier at a donut shop in Fresno, and to the Jiffy Lube grease monkey in St. Paul, Minnesota, that she lives under a different set of rules than ninety-nine percent of us. To the teacher in Harlan, Kentucky, and the Police Officer in Miami, its time to accept the reality that Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of some very special, elite group of Americans who understand the importance of laws only as they apply to others. This morning, while channel-surfing the various left-wing talk shows on my satellite radio, The Clinton talking points were clearer than ever. The goal is to play up Comey's comment that Clinton had no criminal intent when instructing her staff to install a separate, personal email server. I heard it this morning ad-nauseam. Sandra Bernhard (yes, she lives) went so far as to describe Hillary's e-mails, the emails the FBI has been collecting, as being innocuous communications about the color of dresses. Talking points or no, lets make this absolutely clear: Hillary Clinton transmitted classified emails on an uncleared, private server, not just six or seven times, but repeatedly. She was warned on at least two occasions that her email server was operating in violation of State Department security protocols. The real victims in this mess are the soldiers, airmen and sailors who were found guilty of very similar (or less-egregious) security violations and were kicked out of the military and in some cases, given a jail sentence. In fact, Fox News has been repeating a story involving a young serviceman who obviously didn't intend to commit a security violation, who is currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department. I will be watching Fox News Thursday morning to see just how serious the GOP Congress is on this issue when they interview FBI Director Comey.
For those in the Clinton Camp, getting past this headache without charges being levelled, was the last of the major obstacles Clinton had to overcome. Today, President Obama put down his Golf Clubs long enough to attend a Clinton Rally. The Clinton crowd was worked up into quite a frenzy, as they must also believe that any and all trap-doors have been removed from Clinton's path to the Presidency. What do you think? Interestingly enough, a handful of independent voters I know who were bound-and-determined to not vote for Donald Trump, have apparently changed their minds. They realize that this election is more about getting this nation back on the right track than it is trying to decide which candidate is the lesser "evil". Each and every voter should take a fair, serious look at the state of the nation; are we on the right track internationally? Are we doing what is necessary to keep our families safe from terrorism? Which candidate is more likely to increase the twenty-trillion dollar national debt? I've answered these questions to my satisfaction; have you?
Monday, July 4, 2016
Democrats on Sunday talk shows all seem to be aware of the Justice Dept. decision regarding Hillary Clinton's email server.
This morning watched as one Democrat after another, from California Representative Xavier Becerra to New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, took their turns on the various Sunday talk shows. Just about every member of Hillary Clinton's Vice Presidential short list was doing their duty, spouting-off Democratic talking points (the only VP candidate missing was Elizabeth Warren) on NBC's "Meet the Press", CNN's "State of the Union", and ABC 's "This Week". At the top of the list of Talking Points was an announcement that Hillary Clinton would not be censured in any way for the personal email server that she used during her time as the Obama Administration's Secretary of State. Don't misunderstand; Booker and Becerra did not provide any substantiating evidence to their declarations, but both made it apparent that the Justice Department "review" was coming to a close very soon (this week?) and every reasonable person "knew" that Clinton would not face any punishment for what was obviously just another example of dirty politics on behalf of the GOP.
I don't know how many of you were able to see the parade of Democratic political hacks this morning, but I can assure you, each one of those men had been informed beforehand that candidate Clinton was in the clear. This explains the ease in which they announced that for all "reasonable persons" (quotations mine), there was no question that Clinton would avoid accountability once again. As I commented in yesterday's blog post, the issue of an actual indictment was decided long ago, probably in November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term in office. Obama and his team arrived in DC with a plan to politicize the federal government in a way that would guarantee his Administration would never have to face accountability. Let's face it; Bill Clinton, who is beginning to resemble a rodeo clown, needn't have bothered Attorney General Lynch last week. Lynch's Justice Department never gave serious consideration to indicting Hillary Clinton. For anyone interested, make no mistake. Prior to this corrupt Administration, any government employee who flaunted computer security protocol in this manner would have been terminated and possibly prosecuted, depending on the existence of evidence proving that actions taken resulted in a foreign power to hack into a government server.
I'd resigned myself to the fact that Hillary will once again not be held accountable for her actions some time ago. What caused so much aggravation Sunday morning was the smug, elitist manner in which the Democrat talking-heads referred to the apparent unlikelihood of an indictment. This Administration has become so drunk on its own image, that it doesn't feel the need for discretion. The chutzpah of any average citizens out there to think that Hillary Clinton was judged by the same rules that govern our lives!
I saw something on television today; a replay of the outstanding and heartbreaking Fox News special on the 2012 Benghazi tragedy. This program reminded me of the many young men and women who serve our nation in the Armed Forces, putting their lives in jeopardy every day. I often think about the four men that died that night, about their families, and what amazing young men they were. Then I find myself thinking about Hillary Clinton. This woman has been running for President since the year 2000, when her husband reluctantly surrendered the Oval Office to President-Elect Bush. I think about the one characteristic that makes Hillary so disagreeable to me. She is convinced that the United States can't succeed without her in the White House. The fact that her ego has no limits allows her to justify so much bullshit with a straight face, because she believes her own spin. If Hillary Clinton had defeated Barrack Obama in 2008 and gone on to beat Senator John McCain, she would have made a better President than Obama. I don't believe that Hillary, with her background in law and experience with the Nixon impeachment, would have been so quick to abuse Executive Action, and I also believe she would have made an effort to reign in the national debt. But make no mistake, Hillary intend on being President in 2016, and 2008 no longer registers. Hillary recognizes the changes that Obama has delivered, and as a Democrat, she will toss out her natural inclination to be a moderate and embrace every entitlement program she can find. I see the polls, and I hear CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, and CNBC bashing Donald Trump from morning until night. I realize that Trump is the candidate that they wanted, and that everything is proceeding according to their plan. But I will continue to support Donald Trump, and I encourage every Patriot to wipe the slate clean with Donald, and give him another shot. The thought of President Hillary Clinton in my lifetime, four years after the ultimate sacrifice made by the four heroes of Benghazi, brings tears to my eyes.
I don't know how many of you were able to see the parade of Democratic political hacks this morning, but I can assure you, each one of those men had been informed beforehand that candidate Clinton was in the clear. This explains the ease in which they announced that for all "reasonable persons" (quotations mine), there was no question that Clinton would avoid accountability once again. As I commented in yesterday's blog post, the issue of an actual indictment was decided long ago, probably in November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term in office. Obama and his team arrived in DC with a plan to politicize the federal government in a way that would guarantee his Administration would never have to face accountability. Let's face it; Bill Clinton, who is beginning to resemble a rodeo clown, needn't have bothered Attorney General Lynch last week. Lynch's Justice Department never gave serious consideration to indicting Hillary Clinton. For anyone interested, make no mistake. Prior to this corrupt Administration, any government employee who flaunted computer security protocol in this manner would have been terminated and possibly prosecuted, depending on the existence of evidence proving that actions taken resulted in a foreign power to hack into a government server.
I'd resigned myself to the fact that Hillary will once again not be held accountable for her actions some time ago. What caused so much aggravation Sunday morning was the smug, elitist manner in which the Democrat talking-heads referred to the apparent unlikelihood of an indictment. This Administration has become so drunk on its own image, that it doesn't feel the need for discretion. The chutzpah of any average citizens out there to think that Hillary Clinton was judged by the same rules that govern our lives!
I saw something on television today; a replay of the outstanding and heartbreaking Fox News special on the 2012 Benghazi tragedy. This program reminded me of the many young men and women who serve our nation in the Armed Forces, putting their lives in jeopardy every day. I often think about the four men that died that night, about their families, and what amazing young men they were. Then I find myself thinking about Hillary Clinton. This woman has been running for President since the year 2000, when her husband reluctantly surrendered the Oval Office to President-Elect Bush. I think about the one characteristic that makes Hillary so disagreeable to me. She is convinced that the United States can't succeed without her in the White House. The fact that her ego has no limits allows her to justify so much bullshit with a straight face, because she believes her own spin. If Hillary Clinton had defeated Barrack Obama in 2008 and gone on to beat Senator John McCain, she would have made a better President than Obama. I don't believe that Hillary, with her background in law and experience with the Nixon impeachment, would have been so quick to abuse Executive Action, and I also believe she would have made an effort to reign in the national debt. But make no mistake, Hillary intend on being President in 2016, and 2008 no longer registers. Hillary recognizes the changes that Obama has delivered, and as a Democrat, she will toss out her natural inclination to be a moderate and embrace every entitlement program she can find. I see the polls, and I hear CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, and CNBC bashing Donald Trump from morning until night. I realize that Trump is the candidate that they wanted, and that everything is proceeding according to their plan. But I will continue to support Donald Trump, and I encourage every Patriot to wipe the slate clean with Donald, and give him another shot. The thought of President Hillary Clinton in my lifetime, four years after the ultimate sacrifice made by the four heroes of Benghazi, brings tears to my eyes.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
There is absolutely no chance that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton.
For the past few days, ever since Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators, I've observed one political analyst after another discuss the implications of Clinton being indicted. For the entirity of the 2016 presidential primary season, the controversy regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server has never been far from the headlines. There can be no doubt that Clinton violated Department of State security policy, but some politicians always seem to swim in a different pond than the rest of us. I have no hesitation in identifying both Bill and Hillary Clinton as two exceptional "fish", who in forty plus years of political service have yet to be held accountable for any mess that they have caused or law that they have broken. As for the analysts who keep reminding us ad nauseam that Barack Obama is the most popular president since George Washington, I do understand the obligation to at least "pretend" that the email server investigative process is not a complete waste of time. As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sets their sights on separate conventions, the drama and suspense created by the possibility of a major presidential candidate facing an indictment will only increase viewer interest in the 2016 election. In all seriousness, though, I'm compelled to ask a rhetorical question: does anyone in the United States with the ability to reason at least as well as a housefly, actually believe that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton?
Since Bill Clinton burst onto the scene as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, he and his wife have had their share of controversies. When she was an attorney at the Little Rock Rose Law Firm, Hillary attracted attention with her involvement in the Whitewater real estate deal, and her behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the White House travel office fired and replaced with personal friends just after Clinton took office in 1992 caused a bit of a stir. As for Bill, we all remember the Lewinsky affair, but what about Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey? Does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell? During Bill Clinton's second term, his association with known money launderers for the Chinese Red Army caused a few raised eyebrows. Over the years, both Bill and Hillary have associated with campaign donors who end up either in jail or deported. Forgive me for not getting into the trenches of more recent controversies, including concerns over the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's vote in support of the Iraq War, and the apparently never-ending issues regarding campaign donations, but I have faith that most of these events will already be familiar.
I have listed but a handful of issues that come to mind. No doubt the list could be expanded with little effort, but I think I have included a sufficient number of incidents to make my point. At no time have the Clintons ever been held to account. Hillary Clinton seriously damaged the lives and reputations of the White House travel office employees in 1993.....no accountability. She claimed that as Secretary of State, she accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy. Really? How? Bill and Hillary's involvement with persons who are known to be donors who purchase influence for the Chinese Red Army.......no accountability. Bill Clinton maneuvers himself into a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when the Attorney General at that time happens to be in charge of investigations not only into Hillary's personal server and email, but also Bill and Hillary's "Clinton Foundation". We have yet to discover if Bill's decision to "hop on over" to the AG's plane will have any lasting negative ramifications, but I doubt it.
At the end of the day, this is a reality we must accept. Bill and Hillary Clinton live by a different set of rules. If you have some faith left in our system, that Hillary Clinton will be held responsible for KNOWINGLY violating State Department security protocols, please think again. Remember who sits in the White House, and just how accountable his Administration has been since 2008. He will not allow Hillary Clinton to be indicted, regardless of the opinions of the lawyers and experts, and there can be no doubt that Lynch will ensure compliance from the Justice Department. There is hope, though, that enough people will be enraged to keep the Clintons from another eight-year romp in the White House. So you don't like Trump? Take a good, long look at the alternative.
Since Bill Clinton burst onto the scene as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, he and his wife have had their share of controversies. When she was an attorney at the Little Rock Rose Law Firm, Hillary attracted attention with her involvement in the Whitewater real estate deal, and her behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the White House travel office fired and replaced with personal friends just after Clinton took office in 1992 caused a bit of a stir. As for Bill, we all remember the Lewinsky affair, but what about Paula Jones? Kathleen Willey? Does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell? During Bill Clinton's second term, his association with known money launderers for the Chinese Red Army caused a few raised eyebrows. Over the years, both Bill and Hillary have associated with campaign donors who end up either in jail or deported. Forgive me for not getting into the trenches of more recent controversies, including concerns over the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's vote in support of the Iraq War, and the apparently never-ending issues regarding campaign donations, but I have faith that most of these events will already be familiar.
I have listed but a handful of issues that come to mind. No doubt the list could be expanded with little effort, but I think I have included a sufficient number of incidents to make my point. At no time have the Clintons ever been held to account. Hillary Clinton seriously damaged the lives and reputations of the White House travel office employees in 1993.....no accountability. She claimed that as Secretary of State, she accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy. Really? How? Bill and Hillary's involvement with persons who are known to be donors who purchase influence for the Chinese Red Army.......no accountability. Bill Clinton maneuvers himself into a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when the Attorney General at that time happens to be in charge of investigations not only into Hillary's personal server and email, but also Bill and Hillary's "Clinton Foundation". We have yet to discover if Bill's decision to "hop on over" to the AG's plane will have any lasting negative ramifications, but I doubt it.
At the end of the day, this is a reality we must accept. Bill and Hillary Clinton live by a different set of rules. If you have some faith left in our system, that Hillary Clinton will be held responsible for KNOWINGLY violating State Department security protocols, please think again. Remember who sits in the White House, and just how accountable his Administration has been since 2008. He will not allow Hillary Clinton to be indicted, regardless of the opinions of the lawyers and experts, and there can be no doubt that Lynch will ensure compliance from the Justice Department. There is hope, though, that enough people will be enraged to keep the Clintons from another eight-year romp in the White House. So you don't like Trump? Take a good, long look at the alternative.
Friday, July 1, 2016
Bill Clinton coincidentally "bumps into" Attorney General Lynch.
My intention today was to continue my series on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration, but candidate Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has caused an interruption in my carefully planned schedule. If the news hasn't reached your neck of the woods just yet, Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch had an impromptu meeting aboard Lynch's plane at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. It's apparent that AG Lynch was not expecting the meeting, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not so quick to believe that Bill Clinton's appearance was "impromptu". For whatever reason, Clinton intended the meeting to be under the radar, and the few journalists who were in the vicinity were ordered not to take any photographs. Bill Clinton is a former President, and Loretta Lynch is the current Attorney General; why would a discreet, unscheduled meeting between the two raise any eyebrows?
Here are the reasons why this meeting should never have taken place. Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife and the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 (in all probability), is being investigated by Lynch's Department of Justice and the FBI. when Hillary was Secretary of State for the Obama Administration back in 2010, she ordered that a separate email server should be located in her home, so that she could ensure better control over personal conversations and information. Unfortunately, this server was not limited to transmitting personal information about the color of underwear the Secretary wanted to wear on any given day. A review of the thousands of emails that were sent on this server include classified information. Simply put, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton purposely mishandled sensitive information. The docking of her server to the State Department system also opened up Foggy Bottom to hacking. Once this story began to develop, Congress smelled a political opportunity, so at least two investigations were scheduled. The investigations have resulted in a few cases of "pleading the fifth" and what would appear to be serious obfuscation. I can't remember the last time that a Congressional Investigation achieved anything more than putting most of the eastern seaboard to sleep; but the politicians muddle through, and after wiping away all the political distractions, it does appear as if Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to subvert State Department security procedures. If the FBI recommends that Hillary Clinton be indicted, Loretta Lynch will make the final decision. When questioned, both Clinton and Lynch claim that their conversation was strictly related to personal matters. At this point, I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar, but I don't think it really makes a difference. Regardless of the topic of conversation, the meeting was inappropriate in the extreme, and not just because of the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal server.
In fact, from my optic, the server is actually a small fry compared to the other issue being "examined". The huge, influential international beast we all know as "The Clinton Foundation" has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. Do you recall roughly ten years ago when Hillary Clinton claimed poverty on behalf of her family? If my memory serves me correctly, the Clintons had no money because they had to pay legal fees for countless politically motivated court cases and also put Chelsea through college. A quick glance at the bottom line tells me that Bill and Hillary no longer have any financial concerns. Hillary can get as much as $225,000 per speech, and no doubt Bill gets more. The Clinton Foundation really has no connection to the Clinton bank account, at least none that we can find. As self-defined, the Foundation simply assists in connecting donors to appropriate charity and aid programs. Who decides how the money is spent? Is there a black list of governments and persons who are not allowed to donate to the Foundation? One of the reasons that the Foundation has started to draw so much attention seems to be its willingness to take money from questionable donors. Just about every Arab sheikdom has donated money to the Foundation, and why not? Bill Clinton continues to cultivate contacts he made as President, especially in China and the Persian Gulf. The problem is, the Clintons are strong supporters of the LGBT community. The above-mentioned nations are not. In fact, in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality carries the death penalty. Similar discrepancies, along with a number of questionable tax issues, have put the spotlight on the Foundation. In fact, the Justice Department has been looking into some of these concerns. And here comes friendly ol' Bill Clinton knockin' on your door.
With both the Clinton Foundation and his wife under the scrutiny of the Justice Department, Bill Clinton should have stayed as far away as possible from the Attorney General. In fact, he did just the opposite. Was Bill Clinton hoping to have a chummy little chat with a fellow Democrat that would help calm any fears in the Clinton for President camp regarding the possibility of an indictment? This was a terrible mistake by Bill Clinton, even though Attorney General Lynch has publicly announced that she will accept whatever recommendation is made regarding Hillary Clinton and her server. If the FBI does not recommend an indictment, conservatives across the board will point to the Phoenix meeting, arguing reasonably that just because Lynch doesn't overly make the decision herself, it would have been simple for her to reach out to her "team" at the FBI and influence its decision. Let's face it, when has a Democrat ever said no to Bill Clinton? As for the Foundation, everything about this entity bothers me, so I need to do a bit of homework before I comment further.
Here are the reasons why this meeting should never have taken place. Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife and the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 (in all probability), is being investigated by Lynch's Department of Justice and the FBI. when Hillary was Secretary of State for the Obama Administration back in 2010, she ordered that a separate email server should be located in her home, so that she could ensure better control over personal conversations and information. Unfortunately, this server was not limited to transmitting personal information about the color of underwear the Secretary wanted to wear on any given day. A review of the thousands of emails that were sent on this server include classified information. Simply put, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton purposely mishandled sensitive information. The docking of her server to the State Department system also opened up Foggy Bottom to hacking. Once this story began to develop, Congress smelled a political opportunity, so at least two investigations were scheduled. The investigations have resulted in a few cases of "pleading the fifth" and what would appear to be serious obfuscation. I can't remember the last time that a Congressional Investigation achieved anything more than putting most of the eastern seaboard to sleep; but the politicians muddle through, and after wiping away all the political distractions, it does appear as if Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to subvert State Department security procedures. If the FBI recommends that Hillary Clinton be indicted, Loretta Lynch will make the final decision. When questioned, both Clinton and Lynch claim that their conversation was strictly related to personal matters. At this point, I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar, but I don't think it really makes a difference. Regardless of the topic of conversation, the meeting was inappropriate in the extreme, and not just because of the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal server.
In fact, from my optic, the server is actually a small fry compared to the other issue being "examined". The huge, influential international beast we all know as "The Clinton Foundation" has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. Do you recall roughly ten years ago when Hillary Clinton claimed poverty on behalf of her family? If my memory serves me correctly, the Clintons had no money because they had to pay legal fees for countless politically motivated court cases and also put Chelsea through college. A quick glance at the bottom line tells me that Bill and Hillary no longer have any financial concerns. Hillary can get as much as $225,000 per speech, and no doubt Bill gets more. The Clinton Foundation really has no connection to the Clinton bank account, at least none that we can find. As self-defined, the Foundation simply assists in connecting donors to appropriate charity and aid programs. Who decides how the money is spent? Is there a black list of governments and persons who are not allowed to donate to the Foundation? One of the reasons that the Foundation has started to draw so much attention seems to be its willingness to take money from questionable donors. Just about every Arab sheikdom has donated money to the Foundation, and why not? Bill Clinton continues to cultivate contacts he made as President, especially in China and the Persian Gulf. The problem is, the Clintons are strong supporters of the LGBT community. The above-mentioned nations are not. In fact, in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality carries the death penalty. Similar discrepancies, along with a number of questionable tax issues, have put the spotlight on the Foundation. In fact, the Justice Department has been looking into some of these concerns. And here comes friendly ol' Bill Clinton knockin' on your door.
With both the Clinton Foundation and his wife under the scrutiny of the Justice Department, Bill Clinton should have stayed as far away as possible from the Attorney General. In fact, he did just the opposite. Was Bill Clinton hoping to have a chummy little chat with a fellow Democrat that would help calm any fears in the Clinton for President camp regarding the possibility of an indictment? This was a terrible mistake by Bill Clinton, even though Attorney General Lynch has publicly announced that she will accept whatever recommendation is made regarding Hillary Clinton and her server. If the FBI does not recommend an indictment, conservatives across the board will point to the Phoenix meeting, arguing reasonably that just because Lynch doesn't overly make the decision herself, it would have been simple for her to reach out to her "team" at the FBI and influence its decision. Let's face it, when has a Democrat ever said no to Bill Clinton? As for the Foundation, everything about this entity bothers me, so I need to do a bit of homework before I comment further.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.
Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Something to consider....President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Link: A. Hillary Clinton is running for President.
B. Flaws of New Start Treaty
Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States in 2016. These things occur in steps: first the candidate must make a public announcement, usually accompanied by a Hollywood-produced video of babies, puppies and lots of Old Glory. Then the candidate must run for their political party's nomination, in a series of primary elections that take place across the country. Once the primaries are complete, the party meets in a pre-selected city for the nominating convention, where the votes are tallied (candidates earn delegates according to their percentage of the vote in each respective primary) and a nominee is announced. The count takes place on the third night of the four-night spectacle, which allows the party to put together a fourth night, jump-start "pep rally" for all of the delegates and volunteers and party faithful. Then the candidate runs for president against whoever was chosen by the opposing party. Ideally, our system is designed to allow for multiple parties to participate, which could result in four or five candidates running in the general election. But the system has allowed itself to be molded, shaped, prodded, and morphed in a manner that really only makes it reasonable for the participation of two political parties, and in the end, two presidential candidates. In the United States, we have the Democratic and the Republican
Party. We also have the never-say-die Libertarian Party, which can never get traction because of their lack of financial support for ad campaigns, and the wink-and-a-nod agreement between the GOP and the Democrats to keep the libertarians out of any debates. This guarantees no press exposure, no major newspaper editorials, and no chance whatsoever of being competitive.
For everyone already familiar with our political system, I appreciate your patience slogging through the above paragraph on our electoral process. The majority of my readers are not American, and I never assume that they understand the way we run our business. As for the primary process, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in 2016. This is not Hillary's first attempt to win the nomination. In 2008, she started the primary season as the candidate to beat, only to be upstaged by Barack Obama. I can only imagine how frustrating this loss must have been, as Clinton really appreciates everything happening according to plan. Clinton was supposed to be president in 2008, not 2016; but these are cards she must play. What I found to be the most amusing was that some political analysts (and personal friends) actually considered the possibility that she wouldn't run. Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a long, long time. Anything short of her own Administration will be considered a lifetime disappointment, at least in her own eyes. You see, Hillary comes from the generation of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was either fighting in Vietnam, or protesting the war while in college. Actually, Hillary Rodham was such a bright student and potential future leader, that in 1974 she was a chosen as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernie Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and it's historical grounds and standards. During that same time, Hillary was dating Bill Clinton. Once they were married, though, it quickly became apparent that his political ambitions would come first. But Hillary made it obvious as First Lady that she was interested in policy, not White House Tours. Her run for the Senate surprised no one, although her choice of locations was up in the air for some time. Then, after losing the Presidential nomination to Obama in 2008, Hillary made the strategic decision to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. I think that this was a mistake, but how big a mistake is yet to be seen.
The GOP will go through a much more contested primary season, and at this point, its anyone's guess if the nominee will be Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, or someone else. The Democratic nomination, though is Hillary's. Forget the "draft Elizabeth Warren" campaign, or the conversation about Martin O'Malley; it's just a bit of distraction to make the Democrats appear as if they really are holding a competitive primary. What is the first thing any sincere voter should do when considering a candidate? Why, look at their experience. Hillary served almost nine years as a Senator, representing New York State, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's first term. She chose not to continue as Secretary of State during Obama's second term. Evaluating Hillary's performance as a Senator is not difficult. She voted as any liberal Democrat would, which is what was expected by her New York constituents. She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and then explained that she, like so many of her fellow Democratic Senators, had been lied to and tricked into believing that Iraq posed a threat, when it didn't. If you really want a look at Hillary's record, her time as Secretary of State is a treasure trove of information. First and foremost, Hillary stayed behind the scenes during the Obama apology tours, that were such a highlight of his first term, which is a bit odd, considering that she was Secretary of State. When it came to the
New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin and Russia, though, she was highly visible. Clinton was highly supportive of this treaty, which was intended to get the United States and Russia back on track to diminishing the nuclear stockpiles that had been accumulated during the Cold War. Unfortunately, this treaty, like any treaty that would be approved by Putin, required almost all of the sacrifice to be on the part of the United States. Plainly said, the New Start Treaty virtually eliminated any remaining advantage we had over the Russians, and severely limited our ability to protect our allies in Europe (especially eastern Europe). No matter how you look at this treaty, it is a victory for Russia. The treaty is a loser for the United States, and I have yet to hear anyone bring this fact to the attention of its number one supporter, Secretary Hillary Clinton. Also during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the Arab Spring bloomed right under the noses of our State Department, without so much as a fart coming out of Foggy Bottom. We were unprepared in Tunisia, unprepared in Egypt, and boy, were we out of our league in Libya. The events of the Arab Spring are an indication of a State Department that had become solely reactive in its actions. Why? Because its focus was elsewhere.
Another very sensitive issue deals with Secretary Clinton's creation of a private server, from her home, not just for her use, but for the use of certain members of her staff. Law requires that all of those emails must be saved, but many weren't. In fact, it appears as if two members of Secretary Clinton's staff reviewed the emails from the personal server to separate the ones that were personal and not related to government business, and to destroy them. Wow. Actually, no emails should have been destroyed, period. Anyone want to bet that at least a few of those emails had "Benghazi" written in them somewhere? It shows terrible judgment for someone who, at the beginning of her career in politics, was involved in the Watergate Investigation, during which a president destroyed tapes so they wouldn't be politically or criminally incriminating. And now she orders two of her staff to destroy emails? I don't think we've seen the last of this scandal.
In general, I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a president. I believe she is an egomaniac, but what politician isn't? It might actually be a useful trait for the job. She is very intelligent, and appears to have boundless energy. In no way have I seen any justification for questioning her patriotism. Economically, I believe her policies would be much more to the center than the Obama Administration. I'm convinced that one of the first things she would do would be to put together a panel to fix whatever is broken about Obamacare (or dump it altogether). I don't see her being taken to the cleaners again by Putin, and she has gained substantial experience on the international stage. My strongest disagreements with Hillary Clinton would be in the realm of foreign policy. I believe that her international perspective is very left-of-center, and the world has become too dangerous for anything less than a strong, pro-military, "America-first" policy. We are no longer in a position to trust first and verify later, and we must never waiver in our commitment to Israel. For these reasons, and to a lesser extent, some of the issues mentioned earlier in this post, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.
B. Flaws of New Start Treaty
For everyone already familiar with our political system, I appreciate your patience slogging through the above paragraph on our electoral process. The majority of my readers are not American, and I never assume that they understand the way we run our business. As for the primary process, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in 2016. This is not Hillary's first attempt to win the nomination. In 2008, she started the primary season as the candidate to beat, only to be upstaged by Barack Obama. I can only imagine how frustrating this loss must have been, as Clinton really appreciates everything happening according to plan. Clinton was supposed to be president in 2008, not 2016; but these are cards she must play. What I found to be the most amusing was that some political analysts (and personal friends) actually considered the possibility that she wouldn't run. Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a long, long time. Anything short of her own Administration will be considered a lifetime disappointment, at least in her own eyes. You see, Hillary comes from the generation of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was either fighting in Vietnam, or protesting the war while in college. Actually, Hillary Rodham was such a bright student and potential future leader, that in 1974 she was a chosen as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernie Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and it's historical grounds and standards. During that same time, Hillary was dating Bill Clinton. Once they were married, though, it quickly became apparent that his political ambitions would come first. But Hillary made it obvious as First Lady that she was interested in policy, not White House Tours. Her run for the Senate surprised no one, although her choice of locations was up in the air for some time. Then, after losing the Presidential nomination to Obama in 2008, Hillary made the strategic decision to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. I think that this was a mistake, but how big a mistake is yet to be seen.
The GOP will go through a much more contested primary season, and at this point, its anyone's guess if the nominee will be Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, or someone else. The Democratic nomination, though is Hillary's. Forget the "draft Elizabeth Warren" campaign, or the conversation about Martin O'Malley; it's just a bit of distraction to make the Democrats appear as if they really are holding a competitive primary. What is the first thing any sincere voter should do when considering a candidate? Why, look at their experience. Hillary served almost nine years as a Senator, representing New York State, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's first term. She chose not to continue as Secretary of State during Obama's second term. Evaluating Hillary's performance as a Senator is not difficult. She voted as any liberal Democrat would, which is what was expected by her New York constituents. She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and then explained that she, like so many of her fellow Democratic Senators, had been lied to and tricked into believing that Iraq posed a threat, when it didn't. If you really want a look at Hillary's record, her time as Secretary of State is a treasure trove of information. First and foremost, Hillary stayed behind the scenes during the Obama apology tours, that were such a highlight of his first term, which is a bit odd, considering that she was Secretary of State. When it came to the
 |
Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
sign documents for Entry into Force of the New START Treaty.
|
Another very sensitive issue deals with Secretary Clinton's creation of a private server, from her home, not just for her use, but for the use of certain members of her staff. Law requires that all of those emails must be saved, but many weren't. In fact, it appears as if two members of Secretary Clinton's staff reviewed the emails from the personal server to separate the ones that were personal and not related to government business, and to destroy them. Wow. Actually, no emails should have been destroyed, period. Anyone want to bet that at least a few of those emails had "Benghazi" written in them somewhere? It shows terrible judgment for someone who, at the beginning of her career in politics, was involved in the Watergate Investigation, during which a president destroyed tapes so they wouldn't be politically or criminally incriminating. And now she orders two of her staff to destroy emails? I don't think we've seen the last of this scandal.
In general, I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a president. I believe she is an egomaniac, but what politician isn't? It might actually be a useful trait for the job. She is very intelligent, and appears to have boundless energy. In no way have I seen any justification for questioning her patriotism. Economically, I believe her policies would be much more to the center than the Obama Administration. I'm convinced that one of the first things she would do would be to put together a panel to fix whatever is broken about Obamacare (or dump it altogether). I don't see her being taken to the cleaners again by Putin, and she has gained substantial experience on the international stage. My strongest disagreements with Hillary Clinton would be in the realm of foreign policy. I believe that her international perspective is very left-of-center, and the world has become too dangerous for anything less than a strong, pro-military, "America-first" policy. We are no longer in a position to trust first and verify later, and we must never waiver in our commitment to Israel. For these reasons, and to a lesser extent, some of the issues mentioned earlier in this post, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Its About Time We discussed North Korea
Links: A. Wikipedia on North Korea
B. Official Website Of The DPRK
C. Who Really Hacked Sony?
In almost four months, I've managed to avoid a post dedicated to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea). However, thanks to all the noise regarding the Sony film "The Interview," I can't avoid Kim Jong-un any longer. The plot of the film is interesting if absurd: the CIA hires two people to assassinate Kim Jong-un with a ricin-transmitted handshake. A week before the movie was scheduled for nation-wide release, Sony Pictures, the company who owns the film, was ingeniously hacked, and mildly embarrassing information became public knowledge. In a knee-jerk reaction if there ever was one, Sony, suspecting that North Korea was responsible for the hack, and fearing additional retaliation, pulled the movie from theaters. After a week of PRICELESS publicity, it appears that Sony has changed its mind, and the movie is back in theaters. I can't help but wonder if Sony didn't engineer this entire hacking story in order to build-up a film that wasn't tracking very well, pre-premiere (see link C). I've heard that the movie is hysterical, and I like Seth Rogen to an extent (although I am easily annoyed by people who brag about being weed addicts), but James Franco's voice really grates on me. I find it fascinating that the American people have had North Korea dropped into their laps by the entertainment industry twice in the last decade: 2004 and now 2014. First, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, delivered the live-action puppet masterpiece "Team America" to theaters across the U.S. Have you ever seen puppets have sex? Don't want to? Don't knock it 'til you've seen it! Seriously, I loved Team America, and its portrayal of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-un's father, should have earned someone an Academy Award nomination. And now we have The Interview. If it weren't for Hollywood, most Americans would have no clue that North Korea even exists.
If you hop on your computer (or tablet, or phone, or IPad, or TV) and pull up Google Earth, it wouldn't take you long to pick out a country with a dictator, complete lack of freedom, and starving people. Actually, studying and sometimes visiting these places is a favorite pastime of mine. Africa probably has more than any other continent, but the biggest boils on the international scene are to be found in Asia (you missed the cut, Castro, because you've become irrelevant). Russia tops my list because of my personal issues with Vlad Putin, and China comes in second because they get to be treated like a Democracy when in fact they are frozen in Socialist hell, at least internally. North Korea lands at the three-spot on my list; it probably deserves to be higher, but more people are living (and suffering) in Russia and China than in the DPRK. Maybe I should revisit the "suffering" comment; North Korea has been mired in an unimaginable famine for over a
decade. But before I start to badmouth the DPRK, lets have a touch of history (see link A for more punishment): Korea, even though it was occupied by the Manchu Chinese, actually had its own royal family. In the late 1890's, the Japanese invented an excuse to invade and annex Korea (sayonara royal family!), which is how things stayed until the end of the second world war. Korea was due to join the world of free nations, but the Chinese and Russian Communists wanted Korea to be Red. A compromise was reached, and two Korean nations were created: Socialist North Korea, allied with Mao Tse Tung and Communist China; and Democratic South Korea, the darling of the United States and a rebuilding Japan. No one was truly satisfied with this arrangement, and in June 1950, heavily supported by Chinese military resources (artillery, armor, and air), North Korean troops came pouring across the border. After a bit of back-and -forth that almost resulted in U.S. troops being pushed into the sea, the border was re-established at roughly the same location (forgive me, all of you M*A*S*H junkies, but I don't have the space for anymore Korean war details). The war ended in July 1953, and in the subsequent sixty-one years, there have been moments of great tension, but also signs of hope for the future.
Politically and internationally speaking, North Korea is a rogue state. They have a fully functional nuclear weapons research facility, with a couple of warheads already in the pipeline. The governing element is rotted and corrupt inside and out. The Kim family (Kim
Il-Sung, the creator of the "Juche" philosophy that guides the lives of North Koreans, deceased; his son Kim Jong-il, deceased; and his son Kim Jong-un), administer North Korea as if it were a personal ant farm. The Kim men have all been addicted to the fruits of western imperialism, including Cognac, McDonald's, and big-breasted women, but no one else gets to sample Yankee treats except the boss. Outside of the immediate inner circle, an ugly game of "tattle-tale" is constantly being played, so that junior officers can get their bosses executed and move up the chain of command. Sadly, it is also necessary for decorated officers to barter for food to feed their families. North Korea has been stuck in a horrendous famine caused by the cumulative effects of a fractured economic infrastructure and inadequate food production. Over 22 million people must rely on food produced from the barely 20 per cent of arable land available. The remainder of the land, much of it unused, is reserved as private property for the Kim family, or has been set-aside for the building of prisons or some unnamed military project. The North Korean people should not be hungry; the country itself is naturally resourced to feed its people. The "Tattle-Tale" system is so ingrained that children learn it in grade school. Instead of having secret meetings to discuss overthrowing the government, everyone tries to catch their neighbor plotting against the regime, so they can turn them in and get an extra piece of a shoe to chew on. The Korean economy functions to support three things: the DPRK military, which, given that the soldiers are starving as well, is probably a paper tiger; the Kim family (it includes certain uncles, aunts, and cousins who were smart enough to never criticize or move towards the throne); and the frequently whispered-about nuclear research. Interestingly enough, the North Koreans have had more success with weapons-grade uranium than they have building a missile that can get from Coney Island to The Bronx! Why does Mookie find this interesting? Because the Chinese, who for some really insulting reason continue to protect the DPRK, have also had some problems putting together a successful missile program (unfortunately, lately OUR technology has helped the Chinese immeasurably. . .thanks, Bill Clinton).
North Korea is on everyone's hot-button list because they have nuclear weapons and a lunatic egg-head with small-man's syndrome running the country. Although North Korea professes to have the world's second-largest Army (after Rhode Island), the South Koreans have nothing to fear from the barely-standing bags of bones. Besides, the South Korean military is about as good as it gets, with U.S. troops and resources positioned alongside. As always, the issue is the nuclear warheads/bombs. We have no leverage with the North Koreans to coax them into giving up their nuclear weapons program, but China does. Wouldn't you think, that somewhere along the line, during one of those ceremonies celebrating some other "most favored nation" status given to China, someone could have asked for something in return? No, not us. And we saw the habit replicated recently. The Russians gave up NOTHING in Hillary's 2009 New Start arms reduction treaty, and ditto for the agreement to open up the economic floodgates to Cuba (c'mon, Barrack...couldn't you have at least ASKED Fidel to release his political prisoners?). Those of us stateside really don't have anything to worry about when it comes to the North Koreans finding an accurate and effective delivery system. But if you are living in Taiwan or Japan, don't hold your breath. A good fart from a Taco Bell Burrito could put Kim Jong-un into the wrong kind of mood, and missiles might start flying everywhere. . .take cover!!!
B. Official Website Of The DPRK
C. Who Really Hacked Sony?
In almost four months, I've managed to avoid a post dedicated to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea). However, thanks to all the noise regarding the Sony film "The Interview," I can't avoid Kim Jong-un any longer. The plot of the film is interesting if absurd: the CIA hires two people to assassinate Kim Jong-un with a ricin-transmitted handshake. A week before the movie was scheduled for nation-wide release, Sony Pictures, the company who owns the film, was ingeniously hacked, and mildly embarrassing information became public knowledge. In a knee-jerk reaction if there ever was one, Sony, suspecting that North Korea was responsible for the hack, and fearing additional retaliation, pulled the movie from theaters. After a week of PRICELESS publicity, it appears that Sony has changed its mind, and the movie is back in theaters. I can't help but wonder if Sony didn't engineer this entire hacking story in order to build-up a film that wasn't tracking very well, pre-premiere (see link C). I've heard that the movie is hysterical, and I like Seth Rogen to an extent (although I am easily annoyed by people who brag about being weed addicts), but James Franco's voice really grates on me. I find it fascinating that the American people have had North Korea dropped into their laps by the entertainment industry twice in the last decade: 2004 and now 2014. First, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, delivered the live-action puppet masterpiece "Team America" to theaters across the U.S. Have you ever seen puppets have sex? Don't want to? Don't knock it 'til you've seen it! Seriously, I loved Team America, and its portrayal of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-un's father, should have earned someone an Academy Award nomination. And now we have The Interview. If it weren't for Hollywood, most Americans would have no clue that North Korea even exists.
If you hop on your computer (or tablet, or phone, or IPad, or TV) and pull up Google Earth, it wouldn't take you long to pick out a country with a dictator, complete lack of freedom, and starving people. Actually, studying and sometimes visiting these places is a favorite pastime of mine. Africa probably has more than any other continent, but the biggest boils on the international scene are to be found in Asia (you missed the cut, Castro, because you've become irrelevant). Russia tops my list because of my personal issues with Vlad Putin, and China comes in second because they get to be treated like a Democracy when in fact they are frozen in Socialist hell, at least internally. North Korea lands at the three-spot on my list; it probably deserves to be higher, but more people are living (and suffering) in Russia and China than in the DPRK. Maybe I should revisit the "suffering" comment; North Korea has been mired in an unimaginable famine for over a
Politically and internationally speaking, North Korea is a rogue state. They have a fully functional nuclear weapons research facility, with a couple of warheads already in the pipeline. The governing element is rotted and corrupt inside and out. The Kim family (Kim
 |
| Tower of the Juche Idea, in Pyongyang, the DPRK |
North Korea is on everyone's hot-button list because they have nuclear weapons and a lunatic egg-head with small-man's syndrome running the country. Although North Korea professes to have the world's second-largest Army (after Rhode Island), the South Koreans have nothing to fear from the barely-standing bags of bones. Besides, the South Korean military is about as good as it gets, with U.S. troops and resources positioned alongside. As always, the issue is the nuclear warheads/bombs. We have no leverage with the North Koreans to coax them into giving up their nuclear weapons program, but China does. Wouldn't you think, that somewhere along the line, during one of those ceremonies celebrating some other "most favored nation" status given to China, someone could have asked for something in return? No, not us. And we saw the habit replicated recently. The Russians gave up NOTHING in Hillary's 2009 New Start arms reduction treaty, and ditto for the agreement to open up the economic floodgates to Cuba (c'mon, Barrack...couldn't you have at least ASKED Fidel to release his political prisoners?). Those of us stateside really don't have anything to worry about when it comes to the North Koreans finding an accurate and effective delivery system. But if you are living in Taiwan or Japan, don't hold your breath. A good fart from a Taco Bell Burrito could put Kim Jong-un into the wrong kind of mood, and missiles might start flying everywhere. . .take cover!!!
Friday, December 12, 2014
Can't Help Myself - My Comments On This Torture Business
Link: Senator Kirk Telling It Like It Is
Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016. I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama. Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority. This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation. Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows. If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you. But you have to change the process (and law) first. The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public. I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding". Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed. Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place. The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees. I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries. I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances. A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation. I know Waterboarding has saved lives. It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use. But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.
I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph. JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously. I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh. I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others. Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer. Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome). I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others. I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis. I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description. But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy. I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule. I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction. I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined. As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques. I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful. Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target. The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack. I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service. Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.
The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media. I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back. How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off? Where was the CIA? Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand? The process has become so predictable. The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable. Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate. Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered. You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought. But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.
I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post. Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC. But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential". Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything? They are so out of their league in this business. And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts. Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual. She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings. If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings. Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.
Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there. The big money is in entitlement reform. A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform. Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past. All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real). Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research. Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending. And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.
Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016. I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama. Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority. This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation. Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows. If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you. But you have to change the process (and law) first. The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public. I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding". Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed. Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place. The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees. I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries. I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances. A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation. I know Waterboarding has saved lives. It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use. But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.
I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph. JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously. I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh. I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others. Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer. Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome). I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others. I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis. I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description. But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy. I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule. I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction. I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined. As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques. I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful. Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target. The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack. I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service. Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.
The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media. I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back. How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off? Where was the CIA? Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand? The process has become so predictable. The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable. Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate. Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered. You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought. But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.
I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post. Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC. But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential". Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything? They are so out of their league in this business. And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts. Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual. She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings. If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings. Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.
Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there. The big money is in entitlement reform. A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform. Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past. All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real). Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research. Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending. And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)