A humble suggestion to the Trump Transition Team.......

I had always imagined that when a new President was elected, the staff of the previous Administration would pack up and vacate during the weeks before the inauguration.  Actually, its not that simple.  A great many former staffers do move on before the new President makes himself home in the White House, but invariably some folks are obliged to hang around, in order to ensure a smooth transition with regards to certain sensitive positions.  The goal is, with few exceptions, to eventually have an entirely new team in place within the first few months.  Managing the various government agencies is a completely separate matter.  Although the new Administration is expected to appoint its own folks to run the Central Intelligence Agency, the Justice Department (Attorney General), Homeland Security, and other vital government agencies, its assumed that most management level positions belong to career employees who have been promoted on merit.  Basically, this allows the various agencies to continue functioning as before, but with a new Director who is more in-line with the intentions of the incoming President.  In both instances, outgoing personnel have traditionally been on their best behavior with regards to supporting the new Administration, so as to keep the Executive Branch functioning without too much confusion.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has been forced to deal with illegal behavior on he part of personnel who did not move on prior to the Inauguration, and serious opposition from within the Intelligence Community and Federal Law Enforcement.  This development has no precedent, with the last such behavior in my memory being the removal of all the "W's" from the computer keyboards by Bill Clinton staffers, as a welcome to incoming President George "W" Bush.  What President Trump is facing is much more serious, and hopefully will be investigated by the FBI.

Since President Trump took office, he has been subject to one leak after another.  Confidential information that has come from within the White House has somehow found its way onto the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.  I think its safe to assume that the leaks are being generated by a few "leftovers" from the Obama Administration, unless we are expected to believe that Trump's own folks are already attempting a coup of some sort.  Any confidential information that originates in the White House is on its face classified, therefore whoever has been sharing that information with journalists has broken the law.  I wish I could say that the FBI has jumped at the opportunity to protect the incoming Administration, but I'm not really sure at present what to make of the Department of Justice.  You see, the Trump Administration is dealing with leaks coming from the Justice Department as well, not to mention the Intelligence Community. Since last November, the press has had very disturbing access to details of ongoing investigations into alleged Russian attempts to impact the 2016 campaign.  Forgive me for being "old school", but shouldn't the FBI and the Intelligence Community wait until its investigations are complete before commenting?  What is most troublesome is the politicization of the process.  Up to now, according to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered that indicates Trump personnel were aware of or involved with Russian activities regarding the 2016 campaign.  So why has the media been able to headline this "fake" story for months on end?  Because of leaks from within the investigative authorities.  All that was needed was notification from the Bureau that certain investigations were underway, and confirmation from the Intelligence Community that Russia was trying to fiddle with the campaign, to put the Trump Administration on a "media-trial" for treason within the first month following the inauguration.

The best way for the new Administration to deal with this problem is to remove any and all Obama personnel as the earliest opportunity.  Its just as important for the Administration to clean house in the various government agencies as well.  During the last eight years, a flood of honest, patriotic officers in both Federal Law Enforcement and the Intel Community chose early retirement because of dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration.  Just last year, I recall a number of reports indicating the high-rate of turnover with regards to FBI supervisory personnel.  If I'm correct, then the Trump Administration should reach out to these officers, and ask them to return.  It shouldn't be difficult to determine who in DC is willingly trying to impede the efforts of the new Administration, and if they are using their job in such a manner, then they should be removed immediately.  In eight years, President Obama and the Democrats were successful in seeding every government agency with political appointees who may not have known diddly-squat about their new jobs, but certainly understood their marching orders.  No doubt the rank-and-file of Federal Law Enforcement and the CIA continue to do yeomen's work, sacrificing and defending the nation despite all these distractions.  The problem is limited to a few individuals who feel justified in doing what they can to disrupt the efforts of the new Administration.  Trump needs to root out these folks at IRS, Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Agencies to promote personnel whose priority is to serve the American people, not obfuscate and meddle for political purposes.  Again, there are many former officers who are anxious to return, to further the goals of national security and provide the American people with fair and honest work.  I should know, I happen to be one of those officers.    

Without the media, the Democratic Party might just cease to exist.

Donald Trump has been in office less than two months, and efforts to impede his Administration show no signs of abating.  Late in the 2016 presidential campaign, the press asked candidate Trump if he would be willing to accept a Hillary Clinton victory.  Its becoming more and more apparent every day that the press should have been addressing the question to candidate Clinton and lame duck President Barack Obama, because the left is determined to impede all Trump efforts to establish a working government.  Aside from the anticipated nasty, rude, and politically motivated questions asked of Trump appointees, Congressional Democrats have besmirched the reputations of former friends and colleagues.  Since it became obvious that Donald Trump would win a substantial electoral victory, the left has resorted to one road block after another.  In the beginning, these efforts were little more than sideshows, as recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania actually added to the Trump victory.  While Elizabeth Warren and her flock of progressive activists were getting plenty of media exposure, the Democratic establishment, no doubt to include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, circled the wagons and crafted a strategy to at least cripple the new administration.  This plan includes making use of every political opportunity to stall and embarrass President Trump, and also relies heavily on the military arm of the Democratic Party, the media.

Last week, President Trump made the mistake of sending out an angry message on his Twitter account.  Trump has seriously difficulty refraining of shooting out Tweets when he seems to be the most frustrated, and I'm not the only American who wishes he would hang up his Twitter account for good.  The message to which I refer openly accused former President Obama of wiretapping Trump's office in Trump Tower last year during the 2016 presidential campaign.  When I read the Tweet, I immediately understood that Trump was referring to the Obama Justice Department as being responsible for the alleged wiretap, but the media as literally as possible, and CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times published the story as a direct accusation from President Trump to President Obama.  We will eventually discover that indeed there was a wiretap in Trump's office, and I'm guessing it will be connected to a Justice Department FISA approval signed by a Judge, and justified by concerns of Russian interference in the campaign.  I think we will also discover that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was also the target of a FISA wiretap, hence the leaked information that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador when he was still serving as a U.S. Senator.  Regardless of the investigations and the leaks, not one shred of evidence has been discovered that points to the Trump Campaign's involvement or knowledge of Russian efforts to impact the campaign.  What the media should be most concerned with are the never ending leaks coming out of this new Administration, all of which are obviously intended to damage President Trump.  Before all is said and done, someone is going to ask, "where is the evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by the Trump Campaign as it relates to Russia?"  The media and the Democrats can't produce the evidence so they focus on Trump's unfortunate Tweet(s).  Again, when will the Feds start focusing on the countless illegal leaks that are coming out of both the Administration and the Justice Department?

For eight years, Conservatives such as yours truly, followed established protocol for the political opposition.  I didn't hesitate to express my disagreement with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty, President Obama's precipitous removal of the U.S. military from Iraq in 2010, Obamacare, the appointment of unqualified political activists to the Supreme Court, Federal involvement in the Gay Marriage issue, the Treaty with Iran and subsequent, sneaky one-hundred forty million dollar payoff, and many other actions taken by the Obama Administration.  I wrote blog posts and spoke publicly when the opportunity presented itself, and in 2012, I volunteered on behalf of the Romney campaign.  I did not assault Pinata-effigies of President Obama, nor I did not refer to him as a Nazi or any other derogatory name (does Socialist count?).  Were we idiots for not protesting in the streets and breaking windows?  I hope not.  What I do know is that we played by the rules, waiting patiently until 2016 and the opportunity to put the nation on a different course.  We won the 2016, and had every right to anticipate the opportunity to see our ideas and our leaders put into action.  But somewhere in DC, in mid-November and December 2016, the Democrats were putting together a plan to disrupt the will of the American people by making it impossible for Donald Trump to govern.

The issue of Russian interference in the 2016 elect has been carried from one goal-line to the next by an aggressively partisan media, which provides us with a perfect example of what the Democrats intend to do.  During Congressional Confirmation Hearings, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked by Minnesota Senator Al Franken (a guaranteed embarrassment for Minnesota year after year) if Sessions had any knowledge regarding Trump officials and contact with the Russian government.  Sessions replied that he did not.  Since that time, it has been determined that Sessions met the Russian Ambassador with a group of other dignitaries at the GOP Convention, and had a one-time personal meeting with the Ambassador at his offices in DC.  Sessions claims that the meeting in DC was in the context of his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator, and not as someone affiliated with the Trump campaign.  Two other U.S. military officers were present at the meeting, during which, according to Sessions, nothing remotely related to the election was discussed.  Thanks to the media, the issue is no longer about Russia trying to impact our election, but about a Trump appointee "committing perjury" (my quotation marks).  More than a handful of Democrats have publicly called for Sessions to resign, and even more are requesting an Independent Counsel!  How easy it is for these career politicians to waste taxpayer money.  The hypocrisy is reaching levels never before seen.  Do you remember when Bill Clinton and Attorney General met on the Tarmac at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, when, coincidentally, the Justice Department was knee-deep into Hillary Clinton's server investigation?  The Independent Counsel Act was written for just such a circumstance.  To the person, the Democrats opposed an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and today, to the person, they are calling for an Independent Counsel for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The daily barrage of leftist propaganda has found a permanent home on the front pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and just about every other newspaper that represents a major metropolitan area, not to mention the countless blogs and internet sites.  When I was younger, I realized that the press tended to side with liberal causes, but over the past decade, the issue has lost all sense of perspective.  The last non-aligned study that I reviewed listed the bias at something near 88% pro-Democrat; and the press wonders why they are no longer trusted.  There was a time when unabashed bias would put a newspaper out of business.  People can discern when someone is trying to sell them a load of horse crap, and what do you know, subscriptions would crash.  Things have changed, folks.  Today, newspapers are rarely exclusively dependent upon their own sales to survive.  Companies like the Hearst Corporation own a number of papers, and success in one location can offset failure in another.  Also, big money has become more involved with the media.  To put it bluntly, newspapers are no longer dependent upon the bottom line.  The NY Times has been in a downward spiral for years, and the Washington Post isn't breaking subscription records either.  The owners of some of the nation's biggest newspapers are much more interested in promoting a particular message than they are in profit margin.  The same can be said for CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, and MSNBC.  Since its arrival roughly two decades ago, Fox News has rewritten the instruction manual for televised news. Actually, Fox News is the one News source that attempts to regularly provide a representative for both political perspectives.  Its true that Fox News does have a conservative orientation, and thank goodness.  The score is still eight or nine to three (Drudge and Rush Limbaugh certainly deserve a mention, but Breitbart is still finding its footing).  The fact the Fox News routinely destroys the opposition when it comes to viewership is a clear indication that conservatives watch the news as well.

While waging war with both the media and the Democrats, the Trump Administration appears more determined than ever to follow through with its campaign promises.  Thank goodness that I have lived long enough to see a candidate keep his word with such sincerity.  I support delaying refugee resettlement for ninety days, until Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Intelligence Community are able to ensure that we aren't welcoming terrorists into our communities.  The media and the Democrats continue to characterize this effort as a "ban on Muslims".  The Times, the Washington Post, Pelosi, and Schumer need a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of the word "ban".  What Trump is attempting to do has been done before, including by President Obama, albeit on a smaller scale.  In fact, the country targeted by Obama was also a Muslim nation, not that it matters to the media or a number of liberal, activist Judges.  The Trump Administration needs to put a moratorium on Twitter and stay solely focused on following through with the promises made during the 2016 campaign.  Those promises put President Trump in the White House, and the American people expect results.               

Separatist (read Russian) offensive about ready to kick off in Ukraine.

Link: Indications point to a Russian-backed offensive in the Ukraine.

We've had so much news coming out of Iraq and Syria, not to mention to deterioration of Constitutional authority in the United States lately, that we haven't had much to say about events in Ukraine.  Fortunately, while we were away, most of the action was taking place in planning rooms and in front of the press.  Both the Ukrainian government and the Russian-backed separatists continue to make a show out of adhering to the cease-fire conditions of the "Minsk 2" agreement.  The Ukrainians probably felt as if they had no choice, but everything that comes from the other side is complete crap.  I have always been amazed at watching diplomats negotiate with people who can't be trusted.  Hillary Clinton is a classic example.  She would sign a treaty with Hitler if it might win her an election.  We can't pretend to be "just discovering" what a snake Putin is; we've known for decades, even before he took the throne.  But we signed a treaty with him, one that eliminates any strategic edge we might have in ballistic missiles.  Believe me, when these Republican egoists go at each other in the upcoming debates, I will be listening to someone talking about REAL issues: drastic reduction in government spending and the abolition of the New Start Treaty.  But I digress.  I believe we were talking about Ukraine . . .

Recently the Pentagon released an annual threat assessment, which highlighted Russia more than any terrorist group.  The brief correctly concluded that Russia has no respect for any international borders, as they prove time and time again.  Pretending that the Donbas Separatist Groups are really behind the insurrection in Ukraine is like trying to hide an amputation with a Band-Aid.  It just doesn't fly, especially in light of intelligence collected by drones that illustrate a continued Russian military build-up.  Kiev claims that there are at least 7,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine, under the authority of five Generals.  That's a bit much.  I think we could handle 7,000 U.S. Army troops with a Lt. Colonel . . . but you know how those Russians like to show off their rank, with the giant medals

Source: russiandefpolicy.wordpress

and hilariously oversized hats.  A friend of mine suspects that the Russian military noticed that our officer's uniform hats were a bit more attractive than theirs. So, in typical Russian fashion (bigger is better), they just increased the circumference of their officer hats, which leave them looking like a combination of a hubcap and a sombrero. But again I digress. I believe we were talking about Ukraine . . .

I understand that the Ukrainian military is still hesitant to fully deploy their armed forces in the Donbas region, for security fears regarding Kiev.  The way I see it, if they don't deploy sometime soon, we will be at the gates of Kiev soon regardless.  The truth is, Poroshenko would have been wiser to have called out a full-mobilization and an offensive by now.  He might have had hope of recovering Crimea, given the difficulty the Russians would have initially had resupplying their forces.  But the entire province has been militarized and Russianized by now, and the defensive positions taken by the separatists are going to be a hard nut to crack.  Poroshenko had to attempt a diplomatic solution first, though, he knows as well as us that Russia and Putin weren't interested in any political solution.  In the beginning of the conflict, Putin would have withdrawn support for the separatists if Kiev and the West had acknowledged the annexation of Crimea.  But our weakness and unwillingness to supply the Ukrainian military with weapons and equipment have far surpassed Putin's wildest hopes.  Now he is in a position to dismember Ukraine for good.

The upcoming offensive that is being discussed in the halls of the Pentagon, in Kiev, and in the living rooms of Mariupol, no doubt, are intended to widen the territory over which the separatist political arm can claim authority.  The more territory you occupy, the better your bargaining position.  President Obama, who should be leading on this issue, has only introduced sanctions to ward off Russian aggression.  We knew how far that would go.  We need to arm the Ukrainians to the hilt, and start deploying (or at least pretend to) some sort of missile shield system in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.  What I would give to see someone call Putin's bluff.  The missile defense is key. . . he will abandon Ukraine if it's used as a threat.  But we don't do those sorts of things.  This administration went to the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy: give everything away, and then bend over.  Yes, I know Europe has been just as prostrate, but most of the NATO countries committed self-emasculation some time ago.  Outside of the UK and France, who won't hesitate to throw troops into Africa on a moment's notice, no European country has been engaged militarily since the first Gulf War (I don't count Kosovo or U.N. peacekeeping duty, OK?).  But I believe that the Europeans are scared, and are willing to follow our lead.  Now to find a leader . . .

Should Iraq be partitioned?

Links: A. Considerations on partitioning Iraq.
           B. The U.S. contemplates partitioning Iraq.


In 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden suggested that consideration be given to the partition of Iraq.  I believe at the time, that the idea was to allow the Kurds a homeland in the north, the Sunni would stay put in the central belt region, and the Shi'a would have an independent state in the south.  For some reason, I couldn't buy into this argument, although for the life of me I can't recall why.  I know that Turkey would have had a proverbial herd of cows if the Kurds had been given a homeland, and the Sunni, who as a minority have always ruled Iraq, would've been forced to accept a smaller and less-wealthy nation, but something else kept me from joining the "pro-partition" partisans.  I think it was probably just an example of the traditionalist in me not wanted to change the maps again.  But we've reached that point again, when folks in position of authority are whispering about partitioning Iraq.  It does piss me off a bit, because this discussion wasn't really necessary.  We could have avoided this position if we hadn't been in such a hurry to get out of Iraq.

Our rapid departure from Iraq was not necessary.  The Iraqis were not requesting it, and our military leaders were strongly advising otherwise.  Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the Iraqi military needed to be responsible for Iraq's external security, but only after sufficient training had taken place.  Its my understanding that the training program that had been approved by the administration hadn't even started before Obama changed his mind and pulled the rug out from under everyone.  So we left Iraq in the hands of an untrained, unprofessional army, with a huge invitation to ISIS to "come on in, folks!"  And they didn't need to be asked twice.  The real tragedy is that Iraq was beginning to settle into existence as a unitary state, with an economy that connected all the various regions and ethnicities.  As its traditional boundaries are drawn, Iraq is fortunate to have natural resources distributed in all parts of the nation.  This fact contributed to the successful re-establishment of an internationally-focused economy.  The presence of the U.S. military allowed for consecutive years of peace, something foreign to many Iraqis.  Markets were open and full of produce, schools were full, traffic lights worked, the electoral process was improving with each election, Iraq's airports were using the designation "international" again, the national soccer team was winning (occasionally), and an Olympic team existed to represent all Iraqis.  Compare those few facts with the situation in Iraq today.  You can lay all of this at the feet of Barrack Obama.  He felt the political pressure from his base to follow through on his irresponsible pledge to rid Iraq of U.S. military forces at the earliest possible opportunity.  And lets face it: the ultimate sacrifice of all those American young men and women....does it mean nothing to Obama?  Peace was achieved and prosperity was at hand, and for politics' sake, he turned success into failure.  His actions did everything possible to encourage sectarian movement amongst the various ethnicities of Iraq. Without the U.S. Army, the only security is with your own kind.  That is the perspective of the various groups trying to survive in Iraq today.

Back to the idea of partitioning Iraq.  First and foremost, its really absurd of the United States to be considering the limits of the national boundaries of a sovereign nation which is diplomatically accredited in the United States and a member in good standing of the United Nations (what the hell is that, anyway?).  Be that as it may, I have always supported the Kurdish independence movement.  The Kurds have played the game so long, and been such good team players, that they deserve the opportunity to govern themselves.  The truth is, Kurdistan would probably exist today as a separate and legitimate nation-state if it weren't for issues regarding oil.  How much oil are the Kurds sitting on, and should it belong to all the people of Iraq, and not just the Kurds?  A specious argument, considering that the Kurds have never benefitted from any of the other oil deposits in Iraq.  Most Iraqis don't consider the Kurds to be Iraqi, even though most Kurds are Muslim.  If Iraq were at peace, it might not be a bad idea to consider three separate nations, one for each ethnicity.  But given the current conflict raging against the Islamic State, its really a moot point.  The good guys are hoping to find a way to keep Iraq from becoming one united nation under the Islamic State, and don't have much time to sit around discussing the viability of a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia separation.

A quick review of the excellent links that I've provided will remind everyone that efforts to create multiple nations based on ethnicity, from the remains of a failed, much larger state (Yugoslavia, for example), have usually not been successful.  I don't know if those examples are applicable in this instance, though.  If Iraq were divided into three nations, the two voices that would be screeching the loudest would be Turkey and the Iraqi Sunnis.  The Turks are paranoid that the establishment of a Kurdish state will eventually lead to an attempt to annex parts of eastern Asia Minor (Turkey), where the Turks constitute a majority of the population.  As long as Erdogan is in office, I'm all for anything that will piss off the Turks, so no problem there.  The Iraqi Sunnis will also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out, because they've always been the chosen ones.  The Kurds, the Assyrians, the Shi'a, the Jews, have always had to sit way in the back of the Iraqi bus, so to speak.  Even though Saddam rarely spent money on infrastructure or social projects, when he did, it was for the benefit of a Sunni community.  That explains the abject poverty that exists in the Iraqi Shi'a communities located in the south-central and southern parts of Iraq.  The Kurds, God love 'em, didn't wait around for a handout from Saddam's Baghdad; they created their own economy, and also benefitted greatly from the Kurdish diaspora.  For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has been a self-sufficient nation-state for some time now.  Its just not recognized outside of Sulimaniyah.  The Kurds even have their own military, and as I've commented before, you don't want to pick a fit with the Pesh Merga.  As for the Iraqi Sunni, I don't think they will have much luck finding a sympathetic ear anytime soon.

Under ideal circumstances, It might just be time for serious consideration to be given to the partition of Iraq.  But given the current state of affairs, it just doesn't make sense.  We might be re-writing the boundaries of a nation that won't exist in 2016.  Lets focus on winning this war first.

Boycotting "The Daily Show?" Count me in.

Links: A. New "Daily Show" Host Mocks The United States.
           B. South African Chosen to replace Jon Stewart.

So who is Trevor Noah, anyway?  He is a young, good-looking, congenial South African who has been hired to replace Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.  My hope is that the majority of Americans will remain just as clueless regarding Mr. Noah as they are today.  Interestingly enough, I'm unfamiliar with Noah, and I certainly consider myself clued-in on South Africa.  True, I haven't lived in SA in a decade, and the cultural scene is constantly changing.  What is odd, though, is that many of the South Africans I have spoken with seem to be in the dark about Noah as well.  Maybe he's famous in Europe, or California, or maybe he's a radio personality.  Whatever the case, he landed a sweet job here in the States.  Personally, I never really appreciated The Daily Show.  I thought it was a bit of a knock-off of Bill Maher.  And Bill Maher never really had a difficult job to begin with.  He showed up on time, greeted his pre-selected audience of college-age lefties, and made fun of religious folks and conservatives for thirty minutes.  Once, as he was preparing to rip into George W. Bush, he said Bush's name, but got a bit tongue-tied on the comment.  It made no difference.  All he needed was the name, and everyone laughed.  The reason for the comment never even mattered.  What a great crowd!

Truthfully, I despise Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  All three left the realm of comedy some time after their first seven-figure paycheck.  They see themselves as political savants, and as the only true measure of political thought in the United States of 2015.  They all use the same shtick, which betrays the mostly-empty bag of talent they brought with them when they got the gig (except Colbert, who is talented).  If you make a serious political point, and it gets flung back in your face by whatever fool who has chosen to appear on your show, then you say something to make the guy look stupid, and the audience jumps right on board, like a trained lap-dog.  Forget the point that was being made.  The politics are serious only when the host is making a point.  Any opposing viewpoint is worthy of derision and nothing else.  And if the host is about to have his opinion shoved down his throat, then make fun of the guest, his or her attire, accent, weight, whatever it takes.  And with the morons who fill that audience, it doesn't take much.

I am forced to accept the Bill Mahers and Jon Stewarts of the world, because they have the right to express themselves in the United States, even as they appeal to the lowest common denominator of intelligence in our society.  But Hollywood or wherever decided (again), that we need someone with an accent to tell us how horrible we are.  I guess the experience of the British guy who bombed out on CNN and whose name thankfully escapes me, wasn't proof enough; Americans don't like to be criticized by someone who has left some shithole to come to the Land of Opportunity, only to tell us how shitty we are.  So now we have a pretty-faced South African named Trevor Noah driving The Daily Show.  Have a look at the first link I have selected, and be comforted by the fact that these aren't the only kind things he had to say about the United States.  Someone want to tell me to "get a sense of humor"?  Sorry, but that doesn't float.  This guy isn't working stand-up at the Comedy Store, he is playing to millions of American households every show.  Its true that we seem to have entered a bizarre "hate America first" age, which has been embraced by the Obama Administration.  In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, President Obama set the table quite quickly in 2009 and 2010, with his "Apology Tours" of Europe and the Middle East.  But I don't think making fun of our heritage and our patriotism is funny anymore.

I keep waiting for some backlash of "U.S.A. Pride" to come rolling up Main Street but it hasn't happened yet.  Yesterday, the Governor of Indiana was defending a new state law that seemed quite reasonable to me.  Today, he is starting to stumble back, as the media begins to really attack the law.  The crooked Governor of Virginia, Terry Rodham Clinton McAuliffe, even went so far as to invite Indiana businesses to relocate to Virginia!  Not if you want to make a profit!  Terry, if you want businesses to move to Virginia, you need to address your tax code.  People of the United States, regardless of what late-night talk shows and the media tell you, there is nothing shameful about being Conservative.  There is also nothing wrong with being Liberal.  We start to have problems when one group begins to believe that they have they moral authority to intimidate the other into silence.  The worst offenders, unfortunately, are young people, with little or no life experience.  Heck, we have a President who has never had a real job.  Have you ever met someone trying to balance a checkbook who has never had a job?  They just don't get it.  And that explains our twenty-trillion dollar national debt.  Back to the younger generation, which always means well, but usually ends up screwing the pooch.  The Democrats have formed this group of young people into one helluva battering ram, especially when it comes to elections.  But there is a reason why most Conservatives are older folks, and most liberals.....aren't.  Its all about "life experience".  Living life, losing jobs, falling in love, losing loved ones, having your heart broken, holding your newborn child, all of these experiences are necessary to provide the right perspective on life.  Young people seem to think that the answers are easy, and they never are.  I know.  I was there once.  We all were. 

Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009

Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
          B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?

Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009.  In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target.  What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense?  I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors.  Ouch?  Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden.  The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls.  I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan.  Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden?  Can anyone help me out here?  In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda?  It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention.  I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.

The truth is, there wasn't a plan.  What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq.  I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well.  But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq.  The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity.  Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there.  Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.  You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office.  But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or

Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009
Source: The Official White
House Photostream-Flickr

plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night.  Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen.  And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House.  I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists.  The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo.  Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign?  I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people.  Did I say grovel?  Remember, this is only my opinion.  I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.

Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office.  Let's do this by continent, shall we?

• North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low.  The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
• South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived.  Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina.  And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
• Africa:  Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa.  The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships.  In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations.  They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi.  The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations.  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
• Europe:  Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks.  No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
• Australia:  Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
• Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post.  Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.

It's safe to say that Islamic Extremism has advanced on all continents with barely a whisper from the world's most powerful nations.  No doubt, the Europeans were waiting for leadership from the United States.  Since 2009, the message has been one of confusion at best.  We went after, and got, Bin-Laden— but his organization has been allowed to aggressively influence policy in two nations (Pakistan and Yemen), and to expand its operations internationally.  Our policy in Syria seems to be a bit confused as well.  Where is the Free Syrian Army?  We are pursuing an important treaty with Iran, but are we at all interested in their military activity in Iraq?  I'm hoping that one day we will look back at February 2015 as the high-water mark for Islamic Extremism.

Is This A Glimpse Of Obama's True Sympathies?

Link: A. Islamic State Executes Jordanian Pilot
          B. Obama Compares Islamic State Terrorists To Crusaders

As I gave my internet news sources a quick scan before sitting down to write this post, a few articles caught my attention.  It seems that the video clip of the unfortunate Jordanian pilot being burned to death may be a fake, or a hoax.  I studied a couple of the claims, which both seemed legitimate.  I have to say, though, that at the end of the video, the young man is dead.  Whether he was burned, or executed first and then burned doesn't matter to me anymore.  The actions of the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant (ISIL) have reached a level a barbarism not seen since the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen in the Second World War.  The treatment of women, children and the elderly in the hills of northern Iraq was as beastly and inhumane as anything I can recall.  Not to mention the routine-like execution of rows and rows of Iraqi young men, whose only crime was to join the army in order to bring home a little money to help feed the family.  The group ISIL is as bad as it gets.  I am convinced that both ISIL and Al-Qaeda are working towards the same goals as part of the strategy of Islamic Extremism.  We keep coming up with different names: Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Khorasan, and ISIL, just to name a few.  Boko Haram used to kidnap girls and force them to adopt their extreme conservative Islamic beliefs.  Now they have started kidnapping all children that they come across, and the real fear is that Boko Haram is building an army of child soldiers, similar to what has been seen in Africa in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, and with the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.  Since President Obama took office and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism have flourished.  Its a dangerous word to use, but unfortunately its appropriate.  During the Bush Administration, security officials frequently spoke of the fear that Al-Qaeda would spread into Africa.  Al-Qaeda is not only present in Africa, it is expanding.  Operatives in Mali are conducting raids in Niger and Boko Haram has carried out attacks from Nigeria into Cameroon.  The West has not been spared, as we have witnessed attacks in Boston, London, Paris and Australia.  And we have the Middle East; I can't remember a time that the Levant, the Holy Land and Mesopotamia were in such trouble.

The point is, Islamic Extremism is on the move, and it is a real danger to the United States.  I'm relieved to note that the current administration has excepted this reality.  The murder of the Jordanian pilot was a horrific act, but no more horrific than any of the other beheadings and executions.  The reaction of the Jordanian people was very encouraging.  The population of Jordan consists of a majority of Palestinians; since the various wars with Israel, the native Hashemites have become a minority.  There has been some concern that ISIL might find sympathizers within the Palestinian-Jordanian community, and within the more conservative Islamic circles.  But I was pleased to see the entire nation of Jordan rise up in support of its brave and well-spoken King, Abdullah.  For a time, Jordanian officials were negotiating with ISIL regarding the possibility of a prisoner swap.  Once the tape was released, it became apparent that ISIL was not negotiating in good faith, and that the Jordanian pilot had probably been dead for days, if not longer. King Abdullah ordered the immediate execution of the two terrorists that had been of interest to ISIL, and unleashed twenty F16s from the Royal Jordanian Air Force to blast those ISIL assholes to bits.  In a final salute, the same F16s flew over the home of the murdered pilot, and then flew over the capital Amman, to the joy of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered to express their opposition to ISIL.  Abdullah has vowed to continue using the Jordanian military to harass ISIL at every opportunity.  King Abdullah, like is father King Hussein, is good man, widely respected and admired for his leadership and wisdom. He understands the mentality of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIL.  The only language they speak is the language of strength.  You can't defeat ISIL from a position of weakness, assuming your goal is to defeat them.

On Thursday, February 5, at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barrack Obama discussed the murder of the young Jordanian pilot in the context of the continuing conflict in Syria and Iraq.  As he has done previously, President Obama introduced the subject of the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the last of which occurred in the year 1291.  Just to make sure that no one missed the point, Obama added that,  “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."  I can't remember the last time I was so offended by something said by an elected official, let alone the President of the United States.  "And lest we get on our high horse".....have you seen anyone getting on a high horse?  Are we not allowed to express indignation and anger towards Islamic Extremists?  What did I do to deserve a scolding?  Hell, lets get right to the truth of the matter: why does the United States have to share the blame for all heinous acts, because of our history?  No doubt we have some dark periods, but we face up to our legacy, good and bad, and with all the of the strength given us by God, we try and learn from it, and become better human beings.  President Obama, I'm not ashamed of my country, and I see not connection whatsoever between the last crusade 724 years ago, and the actions of the Islamic State.  A little advice, Mr. President.  Read up a bit on the enemy.  Al-Qaeda and ISIL are not trying to punish the United States (and the West, by proxy) for our past bad behaviors; you are the only one on that kick.  Al-Qaeda and ISIL are interested in creating a world controlled by the word of the Quran.  So please stop bringing slavery, and the Crusades, and Jim Crow into the discussion.  Most importantly, Mr. President, stop apologizing for me.  Over and out.          

Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part II)

Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
          B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
          C. Turkey Purges The Military
          D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?


I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest.  I see too many similarities not to comment.  And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition.  Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL).  As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other.  The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces.  An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved.  In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria.  This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation.  For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL.  The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida.  Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does.  The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.

On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris.  The first and second links contain the necessary details.  I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it.  But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician.  He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries.  I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes.  I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated.  Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope.  Erdogan is playing the same game.  What can he get away with?  Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria.  Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be  team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now.  But Erdogan has his sights set higher.  I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make.  Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU.  What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.  Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate.  The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it.  I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office.  As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment.  He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist.  I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time.  Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture.  The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak.  I also don't think he is as patient as he once was.  I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned.  With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times.  Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.

Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part I)

Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
          B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
          C. Turkey Purges The Military
          D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?

Turkish Flag

The more President Recep Erdogan aligns Turkey with the cause of Radical Islam, the more I feel my heart breaking.  You see, I am a Turkophile.  I studied Ottoman history when I was younger, and have enjoyed a number of visits to Turkey.  One of the most startling impressions I recall during my initial trip to Turkey, was that the Turkish people appeared to be much more European than "Middle Eastern" (forgive the use of that term).  I had spent time in Jordan and the Gulf States, and also in Lebanon.  I expected Turks to be similar in appearance and culture to Jordanians and Egyptians, but I was mistaken.  I had no trouble imagining the Turkish people living in Greece, or the Balkans.  In fact, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks do live in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  A substantial number of Turks also live in the Thrace region of Greece, although no where near the numbers who inhabited Thessaloniki at the turn of the century 1900.  Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its subsequent disposal in the bonfire of history (1922), Turkey's new leader was determined to steer a modern, secular path for new Turkish state.  Kemal Ataturk was successful at just about every turn, as the people were more than ready for his message of peace, accountability and reform.  Turkey managed to stay neutral during the Second World War (not declaring war on Germany until February 23, 1945).  The Turkish people were in no position (or mood) for another World War, and they used peacetime to expand and diversify the Turkish economy, reform the educational system, and rewrite the tax codes.  When first taking power, Ataturk decided to end the Turkish habit of wearing the Fez.  He was successful, and it became acceptable for women to dress in the European style.  Ataturk was so successful because basically the Turkish people were of one mind.  They wanted to put the rigid, excessively conservative traditions of the Ottomans back into the seventeenth century, where they belonged.  The economy of Turkey slowly began to resemble its European neighbors, as hard-work, determination and dedication became the keys to personal success.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Turkey took a hit in the international press because of the amount of hashish that was being grown and exported out of Turkey.  As an Example, the Turkish Courts locked up a few European (and one very vocal American) smugglers and threw away the key.  The Turks thought that they were responding appropriately, but instead, the curse of "The Midnight Express" continued to damage Turkey's international reputation and tourism for at least a decade.

Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and

Flag of NATO

lows.  Fortunately, the highs outnumber the lows. At times, the Turkish economy has been a juggernaut.  Even after the end of the Cold War, when the newly free economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were expected to stand out, Turkey continued to double other European nations in percentage of GDP growth.  The Turkish people do not shy away from hard work, and Turkey seems to be permanently poised on the precipice of developing a full-scale European style economy.  The EU is waiting for just such an indication to move the Turks closer to EU membership.  Roughly fifteen years ago, the Turkish government made a huge statement by normalizing relations with Israel and beginning a series of joint military exercises.  The west and NATO were thrilled with this development, because it confirmed in their minds what they had hoped: that Turkey, regardless of its democratically-elected government, was still controlled by the pro-west, secular Military High Command.  The Turkish Army had already exhibited its willingness to remove a democratically-elected government or two, if they weren't pleased with the direction of the country.  For the most part, the Turkish people seemed content with the "backstop" provided by the Generals.  The United States/NATO, with bases in Turkey and missiles on Turkish territory pointed at the USSR, were only too happy to train and equip what had become an outstanding armed forces.

Fast-forward to 2015.  Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics.  When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the

Putin, Erdogan, and Berlusconi 2005; source: Kremlin.ru

religious right.  But Erdogan played his cards like a master.  He was patient, and used the time to flirt with the west and the EU, all the while insulating the Turkish bureaucracy and military with his sycophants.  Erdogan had a plan, and it required that he stay in office until 2014, at which time he would run for president (successfully).  He didn't miss a beat; all the way, Erdogan loyalists started showing up in the police and intelligence agencies, on the bench, in the different branches of the military, and as political strong-men around Turkey proper.  By 2010, Erdogan felt safe enough to speak ill of the west and the EU.  The United States was next on his list, and the end of the good relations with Israel was only a matter of time.  What a far cry from Erdogan at his initial inauguration in 2003, when he spoke so respectfully of the EU and Turkey's rightful place in the Union.  Erdogan began to create a new foreign policy for Turkey: one that appears headed for the end of Turkish membership in NATO.  It's safe to say that unless something happens very soon that changes the direction of Turkish politics, the idea of Turkey being a member of the EU is nothing more than a joke.  What I find fascinating, is that Erdogan appears to be replicating what Hitler achieved in 1933-39.  Erdogan is determined to create a strong Turkey, so strong that alliances can be made at the moment and discarded when no longer needed.  He wants a rebirth of the nationalism that coincided with the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith, and he is to be the new Suleiman the Magnificent.  Just as Hitler discreetly promoted anti-Jewish and anti-minority movements, Erdogan quietly (but obviously) encourages right-wing groups to attack U.S. sailors and march against foreign influence in Turkey.  His lasting campaign has been internal, as he begins a determined assault on the traditionally non-aligned, vocal Turkish press.  Last year, a scandal involving corruption and persons close to Erdogan, almost brought down the government.  As I write this, the bill has come due.  Journalists have been arrested, dailies shut down, and untold numbers of persons threatened.  This pattern seems so familiar.  In the past, the west and the Turkish people could have relied upon the military to return the balance by staging a coup and replacing now-President Erdogan.  But that part of his plan has already gone into affect.  Erdogan purged the military hierarchy in 2013, and today one in five Turkish Generals sit in prison (see Link C for details).  The details concerning the prosecutor's case against hundreds of military officers is much too complicated for this blog.  But I've read just about every document I can find, and this is without doubt a well-planned and flawlessly executed operation to neuter the Turkish military.  The only Generals and Admirals left on the General Staff are cowed yes-men and Erdogan Sycophants.  Again, just like Hitler.  (End of Part I)

My Book Is Just About Ready

Those of you who have been with us from the beginning (God bless you), will recall that the reason I created this blog was to introduce my book to potential readers.  The aptly titled book, "Mukhabarat, Baby", took five years to complete.  The Agency review process is not included in that time period, as their eight months of manuscript possession and the four months required to stitch things back together added a year to the total.  It has taken six years to reach this point.  Last summer, when I started this blog, I envisioned the opportunity to comment on current events from an intelligence collection perspective, while also sharing excerpts and anecdotes from MB.  I have enjoyed the blog so much, and in ways I never anticipated.  My close friend Tina provided me with a couple priceless "Twitter lessons", and explained the value of staying current and conversant in the Twittersphere.  I found myself commenting on current events in an evening post and then discussing my comments on Twitter the next afternoon.  I love just about everything about blogging, and I have no intentions of slowing down after the publishing of the book.

One thing that I learned during this process is the importance of each and every viewer.  The same must be said for readers of a particular book.  Impacting one person can make all the difference between success and failure, so every pair of eyes is equally important.  When writing MB, I made every effort to stay non-political, and I approached the blog with the same intention.  That effort last all of three weeks.  When capturing images of the past and transferring those images into written word, the emotions of the characters and the signature event dominate the narrative.  There is no room for something as petty as politics unless you intentionally create room.  When commenting on current events, politics are difficult to avoid.  Real-time includes a "tomorrow", full of countless unknown variables.  We are tasked to suppose those variables.  Knowing a character's politics is invaluable in creating a hypothesis for the future.  It took some time for me to come up with that bullshit excuse; the truth is, I began to include a bit of political commentary in my posts because certain powerful leaders were pissing me off.

No doubt I've come down hard on Russian President Vladimir Putin, and also looney tunes President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina.  The majority of my criticism, though, has been closer to home.  I have not always been so frustrated with Barrack Obama.  I voted for the other guy in '08 and '12, but I wanted Obama to succeed.  Actually, because I'm fundamentally opposed to Socialism, I knew his policies would fail.  What I sincerely hoped for, was that our first African American President would prioritize the issue of race in our country in a way that would highlight our commonalities.  I wanted President Obama to create an "Urban blight" czar, someone whose job would be focused exclusively on combating violence in urban black communities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit.  I hoped that money usually wasted on entitlements would be spent on education, training and job creation in our most at-risk neighborhoods.  Was I setting myself up for disappointment or what?  The only time Obama addresses the issue of race in the United States is either to score political points by exacerbating an existing problem, or to point out our failures to a room full of tin-horn dictators and Socialists at the United Nations.  In six years I have heard not a word about a legitimate state-by-state effort to address the number of teenage, unwed mothers in the black community.  Has President Obama created a panel of famous successful African-Americans to help create better role models for young black men other than the gangsters and hip-hop artists who dominate their lives?  Its as if we elected a black President, but what we got in reality was another middle-aged, crusty, political, disingenuous white guy.  All that seems to matter is the entrenchment of his economic and social philosophy at all costs.

I continue to avoid politics with the blog as much as I'm able.  My favorite saying is that "opinions are like assholes; everybody has one and everybody's stinks".  My opinions belong to me, but at the end of the day, they come and go and are probably the least thing of value that I have.  I have no problem with folks who disagree with me, and I can count a number of Democrats as long-time close friends.  As for my book....... I would be lying if I said it wasn't a difficult experience.  Having another person read and critique one's writing can be a painful process.  At the end of the day, what is important is the integrity of your message.  After all is said and done, my book is still my own.  I read myself in every line, on every page, and in every chapter.  I'm fortunate because I have those stories locked away in my own personal grey matter archives.  I think the stories are special and I want to share them with you.  Think of this blog as the first step in a trip we are taking together.  I truly hope all of you will be on board for the next ride.

Is Obama Secretly Reaching Out To Russia?

Links: A. Obama and Russia
           B. Obama Claims Victory In Stand-Off With Russia
           C. Latin American Perspective on Obama


Please be sure and read all three links before diving in to my commentary today.  After the wreckage of Ferguson and the debris left over after the unilateral Executive Branch fiat to normalize relations with Cuba, President Obama is talking about Russia.  On one hand, he appears to be discreetly inviting Russia to a round of formal discussions, and on the other hand, he is informing the free world that Sanctions on Russia have crippled the Russian economy.  True to form, I like to start with the truth.  The Sanctions enacted by President Obama and the European Union have not crippled the Russian economy.  Have a look at what the Sanctions were actually targeting.  Yes, the Russian economy is in the tank and the Ruble should change its name to the "Cossack Lira", but it has very little to do with the Sanctions regime as it currently exists.  It has everything to do with the price of oil.  President Obama admits this fact himself when, in the second link, he points out that Russia's economy is too dependent on the fluctuations of the oil market, while the U.S. economy is much more diversified.

Earlier this week, two prominent opponents of Putin were arrested and thrown in jail.  Reviewing the rap sheet has become a way to kill time and nothing more.  They were arrested for opposing Putin and for becoming a bit more vocal and effective than the government will allow.  Did the Russian people storm the prison?  Has the international press taken up a story of Russian political reformers in jail on a hunger strike?  Does Putin have an Aeroflot jet, warming up at the airport, to whisk him and his family to safety when the revolution takes hold?  Of course not. Obama pretends that pressure on Putin exists when in fact, it doesn't.  The Russians will put up with much more before they take to the streets.  Putin knows this, and he also understands international economics a bit more than President Obama.  Oil will rebound, as will the Ruble, regardless of the Sanctions regime.  Crimea is an integral part of Russia, and Putin continues to call the shots in eastern Ukraine.  The point being: Vladimir Putin is in no danger and sleeps well at night.  He can ride out this economic crisis because he understands the long-term value of oil.

The first link implies that the Obama Administration is looking for ways to discreetly reach out to Russia.  Even after six years, this administration still doesn't understand the basics of diplomacy and negotiation.  WE HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER PUTIN.  So why would he want to "mend fences"?  He has Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which I don't believe he really wants (but will keep for the time being as a bargaining chip).  Putin understands his adversary.  He has seen six years of Obama's international diplomacy, which, when boiled down, is basically about giving away the store.  Would you like an example?  Take a look at the recent Cuban rapprochement.  The United States is prepared to remove trade restrictions, work around the Congressionally mandated sanctions to re-establish banking ties, remove restrictions on travel, etc.  And what about Cuba?  Alan Gross was released, but no mention of any other steps to be taken.  The United States announced that Cuba would be releasing 53 political prisoners.  But it hasn't happened, and the Cuban press has not mentioned any agreed upon release of political prisoners.  To cut to the chase, we will give all, and Cuba will give nothing.

I'm actually a bit angry because writing this post has reminded me of some of the comments made over the last week or so.  Lets talk about Alan Gross.  Most Americans don't realize that this new agenda with Cuba included the release of three Cuban spies that were incarcerated in the United States.  Cuba has treated the release of Alan Gross as a trade-off.  The U.S. releases three Cuban spies, and Cuba releases one American spy.  Only Alan Gross was not a spy.  The implication in Europe and Latin America will always be that he was engaged in espionage, because the Cubans were allowed to spin this as they pleased.  During his announcement, Obama continued his habit of blaming the United States and the American people for the suffering of others.  This is the one reason why I personally despise the man.  Obama announced that our policy of fifty years of isolating Cuba was misguided, and responsible for the collapse of the Cuban economy (ergo, the suffering of the Cuban people).  I have grown weary of being the guilty party, Mr. President.  I am a 48 year-old white male and an American citizen.  According you to, I am responsible for racism in America (which flourishes, according to the speech you gave at the United Nations), I am responsible for the sad state of relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world, I am responsible for the poverty in Mexico, I am responsible for illegal immigration (I hire them to work in my factories and to water my lawn), I am responsible for people not having health insurance, I am responsible for Global Warming, I am responsible for all the failures of your administration (we've been out to get you since you took office), and now I'm responsible for the suffering of the Cuban people.  Its quite a burden to carry, but I have no choice in the matter.  I'm just trying to lay low until we get a new perspective in the White House.  One that doesn't believe that there is something inherently unfair and wrong with the American Dream.  A perspective that announces loud and clear that the United States and its economy can choose with whom, when and where it wants to do business.  Interestingly enough, Sanctions on Russia work fine for President Obama, but caused misery and suffering for the Cuban people.  Sometimes I wonder if one mouth knows what the other mouth is saying.

Since Obama Took Office, Foreign National Criminals Rarely Face Deportation

Links: A. Foreign Criminals Allowed To Stay In The U.S.
           B. Almost 31,000 Foreign Criminals Released In U.S.


Forgive me; the two links I have chosen tonight deliver almost the same exact message.  I chose to include the second link because the source of the first, The Daily Caller, makes no bones about its decidedly anti-Obama perspective. Occasionally another less-political source can provide a bit of seriousness to an issue.  The debate regarding President Obama's determination to utilize an "Executive Order" to reform Immigration Policy is in full swing.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the results of the most recent midterm elections were a referendum on President Obama's intentions, more than an indictment of his record.  I'm sure some folks who are directly impacted voted in support of the Keystone Pipeline, and persons in parts of Kentucky voted for Mitch McConnell because of fear that a Democratic Senator would support Obama's anti-coal agenda.  But one issue resonated in every precinct from San Diego County to Bangor, Maine.  The majority of Americans do not support an Amnesty for persons living in the United States illegally.  Here is a news flash for the Beltway Politicians from both parties. The average American does not get caught up in the weeds of an issue.  How long has the person been here illegally?  Have they spent any time in jail?  What were the living conditions like in their home country?  Why didn't they pursue resident alien status during their time living here sin documentos?  Who cares?  At the end of the day, it is the simple case of an adult making the decision to predicate his first visit to this country with the breaking of one of our laws. 

The average American, God Bless Him 'Em, likes to keep things simple.  If someone purposely and illegally crossed the U.S. border from Mexico as an adult, and lived in this country for any particular amount of time, then they are subject to deportation according to the laws of the United States of America.  This basic, concise declaration should be the platform for any conversation regarding illegal immigration.  We should not allow persons with different viewpoints to confuse the issue by removing words such as "illegal".  I have spent a good part of my life living in the third world.  I am well-aware of the hardships most people face everyday just to feed themselves. Mexico is a paradise in comparison to most African countries.  While special interest groups go before Congressional Committees and groan and sob about the lack of jobs in Mexico, the average man or woman on the street in Burundi would do anything to have the opportunities available in Mexico.  The truth is, its all relative.  The world is full of suffering people, and I am convinced that the United States has a role to play in alleviating some of that suffering, particularly over the long-term.  But we cannot solve the problem by allowing every foreigner to become a U.S. citizen.  If you show me a 36-year old citizen of Honduras who has been living in Chicago for 15 years, working construction jobs off-the-book, I will introduce you to a 36-year old Bangladeshi who digs through garbage dumps everyday to try and find enough food to feed his pregnant wife and their two children.  Now you tell me who is more deserving, or in need of, U.S. citizenship?  Does the fact that the construction worker has been able to avoid the authorities for 15 years somehow make him more legitimate?

This issue to be a very sensitive subject to MB.  For a year of my life, I processed foreign national felons for deportation out of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Holiday Unit in Huntsville, Texas.  If someone committed a crime in Texas that required incarceration, I worked with the deportation officers to prepare the paperwork to deport the individual after time served. Everyone needs a passport, and the gang banger originally from El Salvador isn't going to volunteer his passport to the authorities.  So someone has to contact the Embassy or consulate of El Salvador to inform them that so-and-so is being returned to his native land after completing jail time, and is in need of travel documentation.  At one time this job was the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS died an unfortunate death after 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Deporting criminal aliens who had completed their time was now the job of DHS.  To most folks, it just seemed like a change in uniform and title, and for the first decade, the United States continued to aggressively remove dangerous criminal aliens (yes, I consider someone on their third and fourth DUI/DWI to be a dangerous criminal alien).  But the Obama Administration started slowing everything down.  An order from above required that all deportation orders be reviewed.  This was followed up by moratoriums on deportations in certain sectors.  Entire deportation offices were no longer functioning as designed.  This process continued, with fewer and fewer criminal aliens being deported after time served.  Its almost too crazy to believe.  Not only does this Administration want to end deportations of illegal aliens, it has now embarked on a mission to end deportations of CRIMINAL illegal aliens.  The actual statistics provided in the links is not political in the slightest.  It is clear and clean data collected from the Department of Homeland Security.  If a Mexican national kills another person during a robbery attempt, and is found guilt by a jury and sentenced to 25 years in prison, that Mexican national MUST be deported after serving his time.  But its just not happening, at least not in most instances.

I don't like this issue.  There is no enjoyment in expressing my shock and frustration at what has been allowed to happen over the past 6 years.  When I was a child, national borders denoted a sea change, from one society, culture and sometimes language, to another.  The border separated currencies, histories, and in some cases political ideologies.  A passport, and in many cases, a Visa was required to enter another country.  American history in Grade School taught me that corruption and taxation without representation convinced the founders of our great nation to take up arms and put their lives in jeopardy to make a better future for their children.  In 2014, the young men and women in Mexico are aware that the system in their country is corrupt and that a small percentage of families control most of the wealth.  Are they encouraged to march in the streets, and take up arms if necessary, to create a better life for their children? NO.  They are advised to enter the United States illegally, find a job as a landscaper, construction worker or in fast food, and send whatever money they can afford back home to their parents.  I remember that this particular reality truly mystified my late father.  He could not understand why the young men of Mexico, who obviously love their heritage and traditions, would not rise up and take the country back from the thieves who currently run the show.  It is no great secret that Mexico is blessed with natural resources.  Besides the oil (the easily accessed stuff is about used up), Mexico is a nation of tremendous livestock and agricultural potential.  Every week, Mexican fishermen catch enough fish to feed Latin America for a year.  As for industry, Mexico produces and produces and produces....cars, microwave ovens, tile, cell phones, clothes, etc.  And yet, for some reason, Mexican workers have to sneak into the United States to find employment that will pay a decent wage.  If the wealthy class in Mexico would steal just a little bit less every year, then Mexico might avoid another revolution indefinitely.

Again, I am in agreement with the average American on this subject.  I like it kept simple: if you are in my country illegally and you are an adult, then you need to be removed and returned to your own land.  If you decide to return as a tourist or even on an Immigrant Visa, then you should be required to reimburse the U.S. government the money that was spent on your deportation.  We cannot have an open border policy, nor should we accept that federal law enforcement releases foreign national felons on our streets after they have completed their sentence for their crime.  Hey, I'm glad so-and-so turned himself in and completed his 3-year sentence for domestic abuse, but what about the sentence for his original crime?  You know, the "entering the United States without documentation or alternate authority" crime?  I can only imagine what the next couple of years will be like.

Biden Humiliated By Turkey

Link: A. Biden Looking Foolish In Turkey
          B. Taliban On The Move

Please read the links before going any further.  I don't want to repeat the details which are included, and they are essential to the discussion today.  These two links bring the cold hard truth home to our doorstep.  Our foreign policy is a complete failure; and utter disaster.  I can't recall a foreign policy this opaque, weak, and self-defeating in the 238-year history of our Republic.  Vice President Joe Biden, unable to sit still for five minutes because in his mind he should be president, continues to expand the traditional role of the office.  Maybe I shouldn't blame Crazy Uncle Joe.  Instead of making the trip to Turkey himself, President Obama continued his weekly diet of executive actions, golf, and fund-raising.  After Biden insulted Turkish President Erdogan last month (and screwed up the less-than publicized apology which was only reported on Foxnews), he was the last person who should have making a trip to Turkey.  It provided all the U.S.-hating groups, including the one who abused our sailors last month, with an opportunity to take to the streets and protest this Great Satan.  The Turkish press had a field day.  And as usual, Crazy Uncle Joe had no clue what was going on, returning back to the United States to report that the trip had been a "tremendous success".  While Biden was describing his diplomatic coup to anyone who would listen (CNN, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, and CBS, who combined don't equal the audience of Foxnews), Erdogan was openly and pointedly spewing egregious insults to the United States.  Erdogan stated that Turkey was "against impertinence, recklessness, and endless demands".  "Why is someone coming to this region from 12,000 kilometers away?", Erdogan asked rhetorically to a meeting of Turkish businessmen in Ankara.  The U.S. Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey has been denied permission to fly sorties against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq.  This makes the operation that much more expensive and complicated.  The Turks refused to allow the use of Incirlik during Operation Enduring Freedom as well, and President Bush was the first leader to bend over and touch toes for Erdogan.  What I would give for a leader in the White House! Ronald Reagan would have told the Turks that if you won't let us use our Air Base, then we will shut it.  No more rent, no more financial support to the local economy, no more U.S. military families supporting the Turkish tourist industry, and most important, no more sales of F16s or spare parts to the Turkish Air Force.  Instead, we allow tin-horn dictators like Putin, Erdogan and Assad to determine our foreign policy.  Erdogan had plenty of opportunities to intervene militarily in Syria and remove Assad before the beginning of the current anti-Islamic State air campaign.  Instead of facing the music for his lack of nerve, he just kicks more sand I our face. 

The Taliban is alive and well and establishing a military presence in Kabul.  Historically, this is the first step towards turning the capital city into a urban war zone, which will allow the Taliban, who are much more comfortable with guerilla-type tactics, to occupy the city one house, one street, one neighborhood at a time.  Before the Soviets departed in 1980, they installed a puppet government in Kabul which was supported by a reasonably sized and well-equipped army.  The fear was that this Soviet-back government was going to keep control of some of the larger cities while the Mujahideen took over the rest of the country.  Events didn't play out as expected, as the Mujahideen (we call them "The Taliban" nowadays) moved into the cities and began a campaign of destabilization of authority.  It happened so quickly that the Russians had no opportunity to evacuate the majority of their remaining resources in Kabul.  Deja vu, folks, deja vu.  The U.S. troops left in Afghanistan are under instructions to complete training assignments with the Afghan Army and also to protect remaining U.S. Bases as resources are evacuated back to Europe and the United States.  Is there any question that a year or so after the last U.S. soldier departs, the Taliban will be back in power?  Not to me there isn't.  President Obama will then have the honor of proudly declaring both Afghanistan and Iraq "free of the U.S. military".  Just how much does this guy hate the military? 

As for December 2014, Iraq is embroiled in a conflict against Islamic extremists, and the only real military support is coming from Iran.  The Iranians never met a vacuum that they didn't fill.  All the positive developments from Operation Enduring Freedom are either gone or in jeopardy.  Afghanistan is producing poppies for drug production again like nobodies business.  It is estimated that the Islamic State is benefitting financially from the opium trade.  While Iraq and the Kurds fight for survival against the Islamic State, and Syria continues to be ground zero for Islamic State strategic successes, the United States continues to lead an air campaign (with the support of the Saudis, the UAE, and Qatar) that is beginning to appear ineffectual.  As highlighted by a recent post, the Islamic State is so fat in resources that it has started the process of expansion into north Africa.  By the way, are we still training the New Syrian Army?  Has anyone heard an update recently?  I've been waiting patiently for some clarification on the alleged "defensive posture only" intentions of this army which is being trained and equipped by the U.S. taxpayer.

What is our foreign policy and military strategy in Syria?  Iraq?  What about Afghanistan?  When the Taliban retakes the country and all the teachers are shot, the little schoolgirls beaten and the schools burned to the ground, will we establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban?  What are we trying to achieve with the air campaign in Syria?  if we destroy the Islamic State, Bashir al-Assad and his recently refurbished army and air force will retake the country.  Putin will be thrilled, but is that in our best interest?  With regards to Turkey, will the administration have any response to the public insults, the physical assault of our sailors, and anti-U.S. speeches and demonstrations?

I invite any defender of this administration to address these questions here on my blog.  You will have the same amount of space that I use, and you will see no rebuttal for the entire day.  Please come and explain what we can expect in the next two years in the way of diplomacy.  And help us understand what exactly is going on with the New Syrian Army and the billions being spent to stand it up.  Have we written off Iraq and Afghanistan?  If not, what are our diplomatic options and initiatives to protect the freedoms and rights that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to enjoy for the past few years?  Those rights and freedoms were obtained with the blood and sweat of U.S. soldiers.  Doesn't that give us some equity in the evolving situation?