The apparent all-out war on the Trump Administration may appear to be focused on the President, but the real target is something much more important.

Within weeks of losing the 2016 Presidential Election, the big shots of the Democratic Party called an all-hands meeting to formulate a strategy in response to Donald Trump's unexpected victory.  It would be both dangerous and wrong to assume that the leaders of the Progressive Movement that has taken over the Democratic Party are incompetent or ignorant.  In fact, I'm sure the plan that was formulated at that gathering has been successful beyond their wildest expectations.  They recognized that the biggest threat to their efforts was not President Donald Trump, but his agenda.  If the Trump Administration was successful in legitimately stimulating the economy, creating a perpetual job-creating machine, and re-establishing the United States as an international Super Power, then the progressive message of bigger government, more regulation, open borders, higher taxes, and international control of our environmental policy, would be tossed in the dustbin of history.  Don't be mistaken; behind the non-stop criticism, hysterical attacks, and never-ending demonstrations, is a real fear that Trump's efforts to invigorate the economy, bring jobs home, and squash ISIS once and for all, will succeed, which would leave the Democratic opposition without a platform on which to run in 2020.  The powerful Democratic movers and shakers who met after the November 2016 surprise, agreed that whatever marching orders they issued must be in pursuit of the same goal: the crippling of the Trump agenda.

I imagine that the Democrats and Progressives who are working tooth-and-nail to disrupt Trump's legislative efforts are thrilled with the non-stop barrage of stories in the press regarding President Trump and alleged Russian efforts to impact the 2016 campaign.  Its nothing but icing on the cake, as far as their concerned.  Like the rest of us, they probably didn't realize the depths to which the mainstream media would sink, in order to carry out their part of the plan.  One scenario that seems the most likely: the Democrats realized that they still had almost three months of the Obama Administration in control of the tools of government.  Since the FBI had already informed the Obama folks that the Russians were being more aggressive than usual with regards to password theft, virus introduction, and hacking in general, every time a Russian met with a Trump adviser, that person was unmasked and the identity leaked to the press.  Therefore, you have the FBI announcing increased Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 campaign, at roughly the same time as information is leaked regarding Trump folks meeting with Russians.  I can assure you, it wasn't coincidental that the announcements by the intelligence services and the FBI regarding Russian hacking, hit the papers at roughly the same time as the press chose to print leaked information regarding Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn meeting with Russian officials.  We know now that Session's interaction with Russian officials occurred when he was still a Senator, and was totally innocuous.  Because of all the legal wrangling, I'm still not sure what the FBI thinks it has on Michael Flynn, but one thing is for certain, we have yet to see even a shred of evidence linking Russian espionage with anyone associated with the Trump campaign.

As for who is responsible for unmasking Sessions and Flynn, only certain officials have the authority to make such a serious decision.  Susan Rice was one of the "unmaskers", but we have yet to discover who else was blatantly abusing regulations that were put in place to protect U.S. citizens against just this type of political warfare.  This issue should have died a deserved death months ago, but the media keeps the narrative fresh, through a regular supply of White House leaks.  These leaks have become so plentiful, that I never hear any concern regarding the validity of the information and the existence of the so-called "leakers".

This issue has become so large, that we now have a Special Counsel investigating the Trump Administration and its contacts with Russians.  The Special Counsel rule has been abused in the past, but to appoint Robert Mueller to the role when the FBI has yet to produce one iota of evidence supporting the allegation, should be very disturbing to every law-abiding American.  Its a boon to the Democrats, whose strategy was to hinder the Trump Agenda in the Courts, in Congress, and by utilizing the media to monopolize the bully-pulpit and control the front-page narrative.  Another avenue of attack was to paint all Trump efforts as racist, starting with the attempt to repeal Obamacare.  The Democrats never tire of abusing the race card, and for the first time in his life, Donald Trump is being labeled a homophobe and a bigot.

At the moment, the left is accomplishing more than was expected or intended.  After watching Donald Trump do the unthinkable and beat Hillary Clinton, the Democrats realized that if his agenda proves successful, a Trump second-term is assured, along with increased Republican majorities in Congress and more than likely another conservative Supreme Court Justice.  The strategy put in place was solely focused on disrupting the Trump agenda, but no one considered how ineffectual the Republican Congress was going to be, and how often President Trump would self-inflict wounds through the use of social media.  The Democrats have been able to cripple the agenda, and cause serious damage to the reputation of President Trump, at a time when the Republicans control Congress, the Executive, and, arguably, the Supreme Court.  I'm not surprised that the left has been able to slow the agenda, but getting a Special Counsel appointed to investigate an allegation that has yet to yield any evidence is something I would never have foreseen.  Not surprisingly, Mueller has already expanded his investigation to include possible obstruction on the part of President Trump.  Its like having a never-ending supply of darts- keep throwing, and eventually you will hit something.  I guess you can't blame Mueller; no doubt he has discovered that the allegation of Trump collusion with Russia is without merit, and an opportunity presents itself to justify an extended, long, political, and expensive investigation.

In the end, it may end any hope we have of getting Trump's agenda back on track.  

Former FBI Director James Comey must be held accountable for his actions.

Since the beginning of the Justice Department's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private internet server, we've been treated to a parade of politicians, journalists, and analysts, all trying to spin the mess into a political weapon.  Occasionally we would get a glimpse of a well-groomed bureaucrat here and there, stuck in the unenviable position of trying to answer questions without sharing classified information.  Most of us were introduced to former FBI Director James Comey sometime in the summer of 2016, which speaks highly of his ability to stay out of the spotlight, considering the number of high-profile investigations in which he was involved.  In my experience, anyone with that level of authority who has been able to avoid becoming a familiar face, is doing something right.

How things have changed for Mr. Comey.

During the Hillary Clinton investigation, Comey was put under a tremendous amount of pressure by Congressional Democrats, who were acutely aware of the damage the controversy was causing her presidential campaign.  Although the left will claim otherwise, fro the most part, the GOP let the investigation evolve and expand on its own, as new revelations provided room to grow.  Many Democrats believe that Comey's decision to publicly announce new developments in the investigation during the presidential campaign eventually cost Clinton the election.  Clinton has echoed that allegation, along with her list of at least thirty-six other "reasons" that Donald Trump unfairly won the election.  At the time, Comey was vilified by Democrats on Capitol Hill, amid the usual calls for investigations you usually get when two or more Democrats are in the same room.  It was obvious to me that Comey took the accusations to heart, and this once stoic, professional bureaucrat allowed himself to become personally involved.

When Donald Trump arrived in DC, he made the decision to keep James Comey on as Director of the FBI.  The Justice Department and the Bureau had become highly politicized during the Obama Administration, and Trump thought it was important to keep some level of continuity, especially as ongoing investigations were concerned.  For anyone who might need a reminder, when I recall the last eight years of the Department of Justice, I think of the "Fast and Furious" debacle, the decision not to investigate the IRS audit targeting controversy, the choice by Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, and the "coincidental" meeting on the Phoenix Airport tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, whose wife at the time was the subject of an ongoing Justice Department investigation.  During the eight years of the Obama Administration, which include three years with James Comey as the Director of the FBI, the Bureau had a crisis of personnel, as highly-respected, experienced Special Agents and Supervisory Special Agents were choosing early retirement or just flat-out quitting.  Off the record, the decision to leave usually involved the politicization of the Justice Department.  Just how would this "politicization" reveal itself?  Possibly with the request for FISA authority to conduct surveillance and listen-in on phone conversations being conducted by Russian authorities.  The never-ending leaks are another example of what can happen when a sensitive government agency has been seeded with political appointees and activists.  When President Trump and his advisers realized the level of politicization in the FBI, and the probability that one investigation after another sans justification would be focused on his Administration, he used his authority to make a change in Bureau management.  No doubt President Trump was also considering the possibility that the investigation of his campaign staff and Russian contacts would continue as long as the distraction negatively impacted the Trump Agenda.  Keep in mind that no evidence has yet been discovered which implicates anyone in the Trump campaign with Russian espionage activities, but for some reason the investigation goes on and on and on.

The one surprise Comey saved just for me was his admission to leaking classified information.  Comey claims that once he realized he was getting the ax, he decided to pass notes from his private conversations with President Trump to a college professor, with instructions that she share the notes with the press.  His justification?  Comey asserts that he was concerned Trump might squash the Russia investigation, therefore the public release of the notes might force the naming of a Special Counsel.  What a load of horseshit.  Everyone with even a modicum of political common sense knows that Comey released his notes in order to "get back" at President Trump.  Who would have envisioned that the top Law Enforcement Officer in the country, the person who is tasked with locating and prosecuting persons who leak classified information, would openly admit to Congress that he had knowingly shared classified information with an acquaintance for the express purpose of delivering that information to a journalist?

During his opening remarks to the Congressional Committee, Comey claimed he was angry with President Trump, because of Trump's alleged criticism of the FBI's rank-and-file officers.  Sorry, but I have to call horseshit once again.  A review of the statement Trump released to announce Comey's termination, makes it clear that all and any criticism was reserved for Comey.  President Trump rightly expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of the FBI with Comey in charge, and in no way maligned the hard work being done by Bureau personnel.  At the end of the day, Comey's appearance before members of Congress only reiterated what the Trump Administration has been saying from the beginning.  No persons involved with the Trump Campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.  The mainstream media, which continues to prove that "anything goes" in the war against the Trump Administration, was unable to spin Comey's appearance into the Russian espionage narrative, so they've moved on to Plan B, which is to introduce the world to "Trump the Obstructionist".  The talking points must have been prepared quickly, because I noticed the term "obstructionist" on the websites of the NY Times and the Washington Post, and heard it on MSNBC and CNN.  The media is a formidable opponent, folks, as they answer to no one, and can print whatever allegation comes to mind, as long as it comes from an "unnamed source".  To demonstrate that respect for the rule of law is paramount in today's FBI, the Department of Justice needs to make an example of James Comey, and prosecute the former Director for providing the media with classified information.  Since he's admitted his guilt, this case should be open-and-close, which would go a long way to discouraging potential leakers in the future.      

Congressional Republicans selfishly refuse to defend President Trump from a never-ending, orchestrated campaign to destroy his agenda.

Link: List of Major Obama Administration Scandals.


The Obama Administration struggled through one Congressional investigation after another, with the Departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and Agriculture all getting their turn on the hot seat.  Interestingly, the public never really connected these scandals to Obama, instead associating Lois Lerner, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and other career bureaucrats with the various investigations.  When President Obama first took office, his administration focused on placing political appointees in various government positions of influence.  Performance may have suffered when someone unqualified individual took over a powerful agency, but concern for the average citizen was not on the list of priorities.  In some instances, persons were appointed to certain positions for specific purposes.  Leon Panetta, whose intelligence experience was limited to two years as an Intelligence Officer in the Army from 1964 to 1966, was appointed Director of the CIA in 2009.  Panetta spent two years as CIA Director, which was more than enough time to conduct an internal investigation into the interrogation practices of the agency under the Bush Administration.  Lerner, Napolitano, Holder, and Clinton closely followed the script, as none of the scandals involving these agencies were ever connected to Obama.

President Obama was particularly adept at manipulating public perception.  Without exception, during every political crisis the GOP took the hit.  The Republicans were responsible for the shutting down of government over budget disagreements, and because the Republicans were so obstructionist, the President was forced to address prolific legislation through the use of Executive Orders.  At times, it appeared as if Obama would not find a way to avoid criticism.  The U.S. role in crafting the nuclear Treaty with Iran, and the subsequent night-time delivery of  four-hundred million dollars to the Iranians, not to mention the gift of one-hundred thirty tons of Uranium, didn't seem to sit well with the American people.  But the Democratic Party, Congressional Democrats in particular, in-step with the main stream media, put out the fire in shockingly quick fashion.  The weak-kneed Republican Congressional leadership probably was too tired of fighting the fight, and focused instead on upcoming elections, which brings us to a big part of the problem.

A friend who works on the staff of a GOP Congressman frequently complains about how much time is allotted to campaigning.  He remarked that the next campaign always begins the morning after winning an election.  For a number of reasons, members of Congress are never prepared to move on to a live outside of Capitol Hill.  No doubt the most common reason for wanting to get re-elected in perpetuity is the sense of power public office can provide.  In addition, the great majority of Congressmen and women have enriched themselves while serving, which is why I am always pleasantly surprised when I learn of a Senator or a Representative from any political background who has not become a millionaire while in office.  These politicians take the access they are afforded through their position very seriously, which explains why so many Republican Congressmen refuse to support President Trump.  The Democrats have demonstrated how successful a president can be regarding his/her agenda, with the support of a united party, but the message just hasn't caught on with the right.  Republicans on Capitol Hill are constantly worried about Trump's "numbers", because they don't want to lose votes in the next election by supporting a damaged president.

President Trump has had precious little time to introduce his agenda, as the media has totally signed-on to the anti-Trump campaign.  Not long after Trump was elected, the power-brokers in the Democratic Party met to discuss what steps to take regarding the new president and an agenda which threatened to guarantee Trump's re-election in 2020.  Because of the total politicization of the Justice Department, they were aware of concerns regarding Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.  Fortunately, they also had almost three months to continue collecting intelligence and disseminating it as ammunition to a frenzied and angry media.  The decision was made to declare war on the Trump agenda, and the plan included using political activist Judges to slow-down Trump's efforts in the courts.  In addition, a willing mass of unemployed young protesters would be bused from one location to the next, to give the impression of spontaneous opposition to this administration's policies.  The media promised to do their part, by taking full advantage of any mistakes made by the administration to keep unflattering stories alive.  The most important effort would be the cooperation between the media and persons leftover from the Obama Administration to edit, politicize, and disseminate information from ongoing Justice Department investigations.  The leaks, which also include salacious stories of internal fights within the administration, have not only proven to be hard to stop, they are illegal.  Most recently, the Washington Post alleged that President Trump shared classified information with Russia regarding ISIS operational activities in Syria.  While accusing Trump of wrongly sharing classified intelligence, the Post included the details of the information in their story.  Should the Post be criticized for disseminating classified information?  Not in our lifetime.

If the Republican members of the Senate and the House of Representatives make the decision to defend President Trump with half the vigor that the Democrats demonstrated during the Obama Administration, the American people would regain the Bully Pulpit. I'm convinced that the majority of Americans are much more in line with the politics of the right, as opposed to what they see coming from the left.  The average American is not comfortable with protesters destroying property and denying people the right to speak.  The Republicans need to tie these demonstrations around the neck of the Democratic Party like a scarf, because I have yet to hear Democratic opposition to the behavior of these hooligans.  But more important is the need for the Congressional Republican leadership to support the Trump Administration.  Individual members look to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to unite the Congressional GOP behind this president, because come election time, regardless of the polls, a Trump endorsement for a Republican Primary opponent will be tough to overcome.
Although the left continues to absolutely dominate the dissemination of information to the public at large, conservative media has become more relevant in the last decade.  Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Matt Drudge and Breitbart give us a voice, but so many Americans still rely on CNN and the three fossils of news programming, ABC, CBS, and NBC, for their daily smidgeon of news. 

The effort to cripple the Trump agenda, which is about controlling our borders, fighting terrorism abroad and at home, creating jobs, and standing up for the Constitution, will not stop.  In their own way, the Democrats want to make this country ungovernable, expecting that the blame will fall on President Trump.  The Democrats flirt with the idea of Impeachment, but aside from having no basis to bring proceedings, the left is petrified of a Pence Administration.  They are much happier with the status quo, which from their perspective leaves a sitting president bereft of party support.  This must end.  The Republicans in Congress must stand with President Trump, instead of cowering before accusations and allegations which all of Congress realizes are politically motivated lies.  Sure the Russians made an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, just as they have with every election since 1944, alongside the Chinese and Iran.  The Special Prosecutor will eventually confirm that there was absolutely no collusion on the part of the Trump Campaign, a fact which is known to the Democrats.  I only wish we could hand Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein the bill for the millions of dollars that this unnecessary investigation will cost the nation.
    

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.    

The Chelsea Manning issue needs to be kept in perspective.

Today President Obama issued a pardon to former US Army Private Bradley Manning, who identifies as a female named Chelsea and will be undergoing sexual reassignment surgery sometime in the future.  Last year Manning was convicted by a Military Tribunal of violating the Espionage Act by passing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks.  For reasons which are still a mystery to me, then-Private Manning was given access to countless Top Secret documents and US government communications while serving in Iraq in 2009/10.  Manning claims that his decision to share classified information was greatly influenced by his discovery of war crimes committed by the US military.  Manning also claims to be suffering from a gender identity disorder, which has caused long bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts.  From the beginning, the liberal and leftist elements in our society have been openly supportive of Manning.  The left strongly opposed the Iraq war, and by extension, see Manning as a hero for exposing part of the corrupt system which created false justification for going to war.  A substantial number of political groups and well-known activists opposed Manning's Court Martial and subsequent trial, and after the verdict, put pressure on the Obama Administration to issue a pardon.

Manning has been on the winning side of a number of decisions since his conviction.  Last April, the military announced that the US government would pay for Manning to undergo sexual reassignment surgery.  So what exactly has happened since Private Bradley Manning chose to commit treason in 2009?  Manning was Court-Martialed and given a 35-year sentence.  Then the military announced that Manning would be undergoing a sex change procedure, paid for by the US taxpayer.  Fast-forward a few months to January 2017, and today Manning is pardoned by President Obama.  I assume that Manning will be released almost immediately, and the offers for a book deal will start piling up.  So the lesson here is, if you are in the military and you want the government to pay for your sex-change operation, just commit treason and become a hero to the liberal media and left-wing political movement.  At the end of the day, a multi-million dollar book deal will be waiting.  I wish I had an opportunity to ask President Obama if he has spent much time thinking about the persons whose lives were ruined by Manning.  The CIA cadre of reporting contacts includes many foreign nationals who are "assets of conscience".  They decide to clandestinely provide the US government with valuable information because they believe in the American system and the freedoms we enjoy, and hope to encourage change in their own countries.  We could be referring to citizens of nations like Iran, Russia, and China, for example.  These brave people take the chance that their secret relationship with the US is not revealed to their own government.  That being said, I can't fathom the number of foreign assets who may have been exposed within the seven-hundred thousand pages of documents that Manning passed to Wikileaks.  No doubt the imtellignce community conducted numerous damage assessments, imformation which hopefully will never been known to us.  I don't need to know the names and nationalities of persons who may have paid a heavy price for Manning's actions.  I understand the environment enough to realize how much more difficult it will be for our Intelligence Officers to find willing reporters on the issues that keep Americans safe day-in and day-out.

At times I have found myself feeling very sympathetic to Chelsea Manning.  Obviously she has struggled for years trying to find a place in the world.  I cannot imagine any sane person knowingly choosing the path that Manning has followed.  At the time, I doubt that Manning comprehended the ramifications of his actions, but every adult in our society has to be held responsible for their decisions.  I would not have opposed a commuted sentence of some sort, maybe a five-year sentence, with an agreement that Manning be prohibited from writing a book or benefiting financially from his actions.  Instead, Manning has been pardoned, and is about to hit the jackpot as far as money is concerned.  Seven years after breaking the oath that he took to serve his country, seven years after committing treason and very likely putting a number of very brave people and their unknowing families in harm's way, Chelsea Manning will be a free and very rich young woman.  The revisionist media in our country are jumping through hopes to create a legacy for Barack Obama that deos not include twenty trillion in debt, race relations at their lowest since the Civil Right's era, a flag that is disrespected at home almost as much as it is by the international community, an economy that is bleeding jobs because of over-regulation, and a precedence-setting willingness to abuse Executive Action to avoid working with Congress.  Will the Manning pardon be mentioned by the press as part of Obama's legacy?  Don't hold your breath.

The effort to subvert the will of the American people continues.

This morning I had the misfortune of stumbling across an television interview with an actor named Kerry Washington.  I have no clue who Washington is, although she claims to have worked in the Obama White House.  Normally when I determine that an entertainer is lecturing on politics, I switch the station or shut off the television altogether, but in this instance, probably because of her claim to direct access to the White House, I listened in for a minute or two.  Washington regurgitated the usual crap that we get from the millionaire elite Hollywood community, including the claim that the American voter did not chose Donald Trump, and that President-Elect Trump only captured twenty-five percent of the vote.  These are just two of the bullets from a long list of talking points which is regularly disseminated amongst the Left, who have no interest whatsoever about the damage that this repudiation of our electoral system is causing.  You would think that Washington would take a few minutes away from polishing her Oscars to educate herself on the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, during which Barack Obama won less than thirty percent of eligible voters.  No doubt she considers those two election results to be legitimate and a reflection of the will of the American people.

A month or so before the November election, I stumbled across an offensive and absurd accusation leveled against then-candidate Donald Trump.  While perusing some radical left-wing, seldom-read website, I discovered a story involving Trump which was quite similar to the "Russian prostitutes" story released by Buzzfeed earlier this week.  This accusation, that Donald Trump paid two Russian prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed because the bed had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, had been shared with numerous journalists and media organizations previous to Buzzfeed's mainstream dissemination.  Why did the mainstream media ignore the story for so long?  Because it arrived with absolutely no proof, and contained numerous outright errors and bits of incorrect information.  In short, the mainstream media determined that the piece was just another example of "Fake News", which arrived during a presidential election cycle which had become overwhelmed with unverifiable accusations against both candidates.

Roughly one week before the inauguration, the story has resurfaced, and this time around, no one seems to care about validity, source identification, or verification.  In fact, it appears that since the Trump victory, both the FBI and the CIA have provided Bona Fides to this unsubstantiated, disgusting story by treating it as some threat to national security.  Of course, if a President-Elect had actually engaged in such behavior, that individual would be a prime candidate for extortion, and the FBI and CIA would be obligated to investigate.  The problem is, everyone knows that the story is garbage.  The U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities must require the existence of some verification or validity in order to conduct full investigations and feel the need to brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump.  Now that the issue has hit the headlines and could end up causing the incoming Administration no small amount of headaches, we need to know what about this story reached the threshold that would justify this kind of attention from the FBI and the CIA?  Actually, this is second time we find ourselves in this predicament.  The Obama Administration showed no hesitation in announcing that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin in particular, ordered its clandestine cyber operatives to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election in a manner that would benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump.  I assume that both the Russians and the Chinese were busy attempting to mess around with our electoral process (its called espionage, folks), but to make this announcement weeks before the inauguration supports the false idea that Donald Trump won the election because of Russian interference.  Last week the CIA was front and center with the Russian interference accusation, and now the Agency finds itself back in the headlines, by apparently treated an obviously fake story as a legitimate threat of some sort.  Thanks, CIA and FBI- you've given this absurd, false story the validity that had been lacking.

As I sit here at my computer, safe in my Texas Hill Country home, more than a handful of CIA officers are working in denied environments, putting their lives in danger to collect the intelligence needed to win the war on terror.  When I think of the CIA, these men and women come to mind, not Russian prostitutes.  I can assure you that everyday, FBI Special Agents are out on the streets, putting their lives at risk in support of national security.  I can only imagine what the rank-and-file of these two patriotic, indispensable organizations must feel, when they realize just how politicized our government has become. 

If you believe that President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because of hacking on the part of Russia, then I've got some cheap ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.

My intention was to take a bit of a break this past December, clear my head from the nastiness of the 2016 election, and let the Christmas spirit re-energize my batteries.  I've slowed the blog to a crawl, with the intention of refocusing in 2017 on the international spread of terrorism.  Unfortunately, I've been obliged to occasionally deviate from that plan in order to shed some much-needed light on the actions and intentions of the lame-duck Barack Obama Administration.  Proceeding on the idea that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact, the Democrats continue to use different avenues in an attempt to "delegitimize" the incoming Trump Administration.  The Democratic Party continues to utilize the mainstream media as its military arm by deluging the public with stories about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the Trump Administration's alleged ties to Russia.  Obama, never one to shy away from politicizing the tools of government, used sanctions against Russia and weak investigations by the intelligence community to validate the absurd notion that the Russian government, through the use of computer hacking, impacted the 2016 Presidential Election.  Juggling apples and oranges with great nerve, Obama managed to bring together three disparate elements: the WikiLeaks organization, Russia's history of hacking into US computer systems, and Donald Trump's 2016 decisive electoral victory.  Explaining the alleged plot takes a bit of effort, but I'm going to give it a try.

As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on.  Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials.  As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time).  The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp.  The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation.  Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta.  The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign.  The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails.  Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher.  By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts?  Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election?  I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.

Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation.  First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart.  So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran.  Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another.  The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government.  Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second.  Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment.  Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese.  In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions.  It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered. 

At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question.  In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.  Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition.  Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible.  This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst.  Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason.  Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay.  Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency.  I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!).  Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa.  I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target.  From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.

Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

Is Russia making preparations for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine?

The Russia of Vladimir Putin has a habit of telegraphing its intentions ahead of time.  Putin's foreign policy and its imclusion of Russia's military in one way or another, is all about aggression against his neighbors, intimidation, and force projection.  Although most analysts are closely monitoring Russian  military activity in Syria and on its borders with Ukraine, the truth is, every move Putin makes is primarily directed against the United States.  Sadly, everything Putin wants, he gets.  The United States has such week, reactive policies regarding Russia, that Putin must be very tempted to push the envelope one more time before the Obama Administration leaves office.  In fact, the recent Russian military buildup on its borders with Ukraine has all the indications of a full-scale imvasion.  It not only fits the Putin mold, but it makes sense geo-politically, at least in the way Putin has played the game lately.  One of the few cards we have left to play against Russia is our membership (and stewardship) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  This military force presents Putin with a potential enemy which would be very difficult to defeat with a conventional force.  There was a time when NATO was discussing a possible membership invitation to Ukraine, which would have really pissed off the folks in the Kremlin.  No doubt Ukraine, for defensive reasons alone, would have quickly accepted any such formal invitation, but no one in Kiev is waiting for the mail these days.  All Putin had to do was diplomatically complain and threaten a bit to put to flight the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO.  Since then, Putin has demonstrated that Russia now calls the shots.  At one time, the Baltic Republics showed an interest in NATO, bit that issue has been run off the table as well.  The worst casualty of the willingness to let Russia dictate policy has to do with defensive strategy in Eastern Europe.  There was a time when NATO intended to deploy a missile shield in Poland and other Eastern European nations.  This device, if it operated as intended, ideally would destroy any missiles fired from Russia into Eastern Europe.  The Russians had no answer to the missile shield, so they threatened and blustered until that option also appears to now be off the table.  Why is Putin allowed to maneuver with such impunity?

On August 7, Russia issued formal complaints against Ukraine, accusing Kiev of attempting to either invade Crimea (!) or of trying to destabilize upcoming elections.  As proof, Russian television broadcast video of a handful of ragged so-called Ukrainian guerillas and a small cache of explosives and ammunition.  Staying true to their M.O., the Russian military was simultaneously building up its forces on its borders with Ukraine.  From August 7 -12, the Russian military deployed additional air and naval units, ground forces and military hardware on the border with Ukraine.  We believe this new military posture from Moscow is an indication that Russia intends to invade Ukraine before the Obama Administration leaves office, and a potentially less pliant government takes the reigns of power in DC.  Putin has everything to gain and nothing to lose.  The Ukrainian Army is in dire need of new equipment, parts, ammunition and training.  The Air Force appears to be in even worse shape.  The Obama Administration has continually refused repeated requests from Kiev for assistance, although some U.S. personnel have been detached to assist in training the Army.  Russia will steamroll the Ukrainian military, and the leaders of Europe, who follow behind Obama like a line of baby ducklings, will convene to discuss what sanctions to impose on Moscow.  Putin will permenantly eliminate the troublesome Ukrainians and their flirtation with NATO, the Baltic States will be cowered into acquiescence.

During the last 8 years, no matter what the issue or location, Russia has dictated the end game.  In Turkey, President Erdogan used the recent coup attempt that he very likely supported himself, to quash any pro-west sentiment, and then made nice with Putin.  Turkey's membership in NATO hangs in the balance, as do the missiles NATO has positioned in Turkey which are, we assume, aimed at Russia.  With Turkey and the Kremlin now best-of-friends, how safe are the U.S. military personnel still based in Turkey?  What about the U.S. military installations and aircraft?  All the while, U.S. foreign policy remains exactly how it was left by former Secretary of State Clinton: as a reactive, useless waste of taxpayer's money.  The only time we see Secretary Kerry is when he is stuck behind a bunch of media microphones, trying to explain how the ransom used to free U.S. hostages in Iran wasn't actually ransom, but part of a larger effort to repay Iran for a broken arms deal in the 1970s.  Sorry for straying a bit off-topic, but why are we repaying Iran for ANYTHING?  They remain the world's largest supporter of terrorism, so you can imagine where that money will end up.  This arms deal was in the 1970s; has Iran offered to compensate the family of U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer, who was killed by Iranian agents in 1985?  Has Iran paid any compensation for destroying our Embassy in 1979 and taking over one hundred Americans hostage?  Why is U.S. foreign policy always about placating the bad guys, Russia included?

I have no idea how either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will deal with Vladimir Putin.  As Secretary of State, in 2010 Hillary Clinton negotiated and signed the disasterous New Start Treaty with Putin, and Trump has praised Putin, seeming to not recognize the danger the Kremlin presents today.  Hillary has had her shot; I would rather take a chance on a new approach than continue the crippling foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  

At the end of the day, it was just another Hillary Clinton speech, folks.

Last Thursday night, as I listened to Hillary Clinton's well-crafted and beautifully delivered acceptance speech, I couldn't help but consider the number of inspiring speeches that are born every four years during national convention week.  Honestly, this year I didn't listen with much conviction to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's speech.  Unlike so many these days, I don't look to political speeches to influence or entertain.  From the number of Hollywood celebrities that were paraded across the stage, one can assume that the Democrats believe that voters can be influenced by entertainers.  You can add that to the list of differences I have with Democrats; I don't give a rats ass how my favorite performers are going to vote.

During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base.  We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor.  You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues.  No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer.  Not much new ground here.  But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security.  She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia.  If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty.  Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier.  In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective.  Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted.  The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy.  Don't fall for this line.  The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating.  Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty.  Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security.  Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return?  The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement.  The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.

During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.  At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay.  There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces.  The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).  Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return.  The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force.  During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.

What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise.  The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth.  You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period.  We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility.  I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime.  She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).

During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse.  We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.

Aside from the hyperbole, let's review the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

*Disclaimer: during today's blog post, I will attempt to compare some of the political views of candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  If, from your perspective, I incorrectly identify a policy position of either nominee, feel free to send me a note, yell at me, or wish me ill-fortune.  Any and all errors are undoubtedly not mine, but the fault of the two candidates.

If the American voter makes the effort to examine the issues and the opinions of the two nominees, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, then we should have a good idea just how conservative/liberal the United States has become.  The reason the political landscape should become crystal clear is because we have two candidates who couldn't be further apart on the issues.  Donald Trump openly espouses conservative beliefs and intentions, while Hillary is sounding more liberal than ever before.  Interestingly enough, both candidates have a prior history of being somewhat moderate, but 2016 finds the American populace deeply divided, and both candidates have left moderation behind.  The Obama Administration in itself was a tremendous mobilizer for the right.  Conservatives have been waiting for the opportunity to voice their disapproval to everything from Obamacare to Gay Marriage.  Donald Trump embraced the primary season with an agenda that included insulting every person who had the temerity to disagree (with Mr. Trump).  Many unhappy Americans chose to live vicariously through Trump, especially when he addressed either Obama or Clinton directly (through Twitter).  To the average conservative, Republicans in Congress appeared unwilling to stand up to the Democrats in any fashion.  Sure, Congress convened one investigation after another, but all that was achieved was to aggravate an already open wound.  During the primaries, Trump was successful uniting conservative voters at the ballot box, while Hillary had all sorts of trouble shaking her only real opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  The self-identified Democrat-Socialist gave Clinton headaches, and his ability to appeal to young voters made it clear to the Clinton Camp that the S.S. Hillary needed to take a sharp turn to the left.  Trump knows his only hope of winning is to ratchet up the same game plan that has worked so well.  He must remain confrontational, introducing a different Clinton scandal day after day; Hillary needs to remind voters of Trump's bruises as well.  When all is said and done, this election may go down as the most negative in history.

From the beginning, it was assumed that Hillary Clinton would appear more able to handle foreign policy issues that Donald Trump.  Not only was Hillary Clinton First Lady for eight years, but she was also a one-term Senator from New York and Barack Obama's Secretary of State during Obama's first term. Clinton has been all over the world and met with hundreds of foreign leaders and dignitaries.  Oddly enough, in all that time, Hillary never thought it prudent to learn a foreign language.  Regardless, Hillary is recognized as being deeply involved in the negotiations that resulted in 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Don't expect to hear Hillary bring up this Treaty very often in the campaign.  Basically, it calls for the United States to voluntarily eliminate our remaining ballistic missile deterrent vis-à-vis Russia.  Now that Vladimir Putin is recognized for the snake that he is, and Russia's signature isn't worth a bucket of shit, you can expect Hillary to avoid the subject altogether.  Unfortunately, Hillary was also strongly supportive of Barack Obama's legacy Nuclear Treaty with Iran, which has proven over and over again to be completely untrustworthy.  Also, Hillary must explain to the voter how it was that we were caught so unaware during the Arab Spring.  Why was the Clinton State Department always so reactive, as opposed to proactive?  Trump, on the other hand, must rely on his skills of persuasion and the popularity of his policies to convince voters that his foreign policy ideas are more in-line with the average American.

Trump has made the issue of immigration one of the cornerstones of his campaign.  In the beginning, many political pundits considered this decision to be a mistake, but the anticipated backlash has yet to materialize.  The truth is, once you dig a little deeper, you discover that most Americans are very concerned about immigration and support increasing security and enforcement on the border.  This very well could be the issue which sinks one of these candidates.  Our immigration system is broken, and regardless of what you hear from the Obama Administration, deportations have ground to a halt in this country, including deportations of felons. After hearing about another murder committed by a foreign national felon, aren't you getting tired of asking the same question, "why wasn't this guy deported before he committed another crime?"  Many Americans are offended to the core to see school children waving and showing reverence to the Mexican flag, while stepping on Old Glory, and we saw it time and time again last summer.  Regardless of the cause, this type of imagery, which is repeated ad nauseam during any event related to immigration, is a boon for Mr. Trump.  In order to placate Sanders and his crowd of unwashed twenty-first century hippies, Hillary will have to support the most liberal immigration platform that was ever crafted at a Party Convention.  No doubt it will include support for the Obama Administration's Amnesty.  Support for this policy will make it difficult for Hillary to ever fully step out of Obama's shadow, at least during the election.

Trump and Clinton may actually agree on some foreign trade issues.  Both candidates have expressed support for the American laborer, as existing trade agreements with Europe, Asia and North America always seem to be more concerned with the foreign worker.  In reality, neither candidate has yet to put forth a detailed plan regarding the restructuring of America's trade agreements. There can be no doubt that the playing field is uneven, with countries like China able to protect their workers and product through trade agreement and tariffs, while the United States appears to always be the one sacrificing.  I look forward to the day when we no longer have to hear some loud-mouth politician lecturing about China's economy being so huge that we must ignore human rights violations, aggressive, dangerous espionage, especially in our universities, theft of department of defense property, and daily, deliberate hacking that is costing the United States billions of dollars.  I'm a bit worried about Hillary Clinton and the Chinese, only because they always seem to be involved in her political campaigns (google "Hillary Clinton" and "Chinese Campaign Contributions").

Today we have taken a look at a few of the issues that the two candidates will be debating during the next two months.  Later this week, we will examine a few additional policy differences.  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have a lot to say regarding Taxes, and who should pay what.  At least they agree on the need for a more simple tax form.  We look forward to seeing you hear throughout the tumultuous next ten weeks.      

What this election needs is an honest assessment of candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy record.

Since Donald Trump trounced his GOP primary opposition and became the apparent Republican nominee for President, the media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Trump has no foreign policy record or experience to gauge.  No doubt Trump's grasp on foreign policy will be challenged often on the campaign trail by both his opponent and the press, and this is as it should be; the voter deserves to see both candidates undergo a thorough vetting process not just in foreign policy, but in a handful of tremendously important subjects.  With very little journalistic effort and probably no homework, the media has already decided that the issue of foreign policy and international diplomatic experience is a huge winner for Hillary Clinton, who served for twelve years as a United States Senator and four years as Secretary of State.  Let's take a look at candidate Clinton's foreign policy record during her years as a Civil Servant and see if we agree.

Hillary Clinton served in the United States Senate from January 2, 2001 until January 21, 2009.  During this time period, Senator Clinton took a number of international trips as part of her job, but no legislation was introduced or supported by Senator Clinton that has left a profound "foreign policy" impact.  Being a well-known personality and a leader in her party, Senator Clinton did not hesitate to comment on foreign policy issues, saving her most critical comments for the George W. Bush Administration.  You may recall that when the Bush Administration requested Congressional Approval for military action against Iraq, Democrat Senators and Representatives were put on the spot.  September 11 was still fresh on the mind of Americans, and politicians did everything possible to avoid the reputation of being "soft on terrorism".  This political reality explains why so many Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent, voted in support of the Bush Administration's efforts vis-à-vis Iraq.  Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama in 2008 were wrong to criticize Senator Clinton regarding her vote.  Hillary made it very clear that although she wanted to support the right of the president to take certain actions when necessary, she did not support the Bush Administration's intention to go to war with Iraq.  Clinton did not "flip-flop" on this issue.  Like many Democrats, she did what she thought was best in order to support the office of the presidency and at the same time prosecute the war on terror.

An examination of Hillary Clinton's record during her time as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration will serve as a much more useful tool in measuring Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State, and understanding how her political philosophy influenced her actions.  In campaign commercials that Clinton is already running, she takes credit for her efforts to help write and promote 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Mark my words- The Clinton Campaign will misrepresent the facts involving this Treaty, because the reality has the potential to damage the image being portrayed by Democrats and the Media of a shrewd, tough negotiator who faced down Russian President Vladimir Putin.  This false scenario is so off the mark that it is disturbing, although existing treaties with Russia were due to expire and there was an expectation for the Obama Administration to address the issue.  The New Start Treaty was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev on 8 April 2010, with the intention of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

The first real problem with the New Start Treaty is that it was signed by Russian Federation President and Vladimir Putin figurehead Dmitry Medvedev.  This particular Russian government has no intention of following through with its obligations, regardless of all the hand-shaking and smiles.  This sad fact was known to the Obama Administration, but it didn't matter; what was important was the treaty's political benefits, not the feasibility of its verification protocols.  Now I have the unenviable task of explaining the flaws of the New Start Treaty without putting you to sleep.  The reality is, this treaty will result in broad reductions of U.S. Ballistic Missiles because we follow through on our negotiated obligations.  The Russians will not.  It makes no sense to go through each and every flaw (the Heritage Foundation identifies twelve major flaws) because we can assume from the beginning that Russia will cheat at every opportunity.  If you need a dose of clear and brutal evidence, just review the diplomatic history of the current Ukrainian conflict.

The Clinton Campaign has identified the New Start Treaty as a diplomatic achievement important enough to make the voter brush aside all the failures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's  Department of State.  We will be discussing some of these failures in the next blog posting, including the Clinton State Department's crippling habit of being reactive as opposed to proactive.  Diplomacy is a multi-faceted tool which has the fruits of espionage as one of its resources.  In addition, our cadre of well-trained diplomats are expected to create new relationships and build upon existing partnerships.  These are but a few of the resources that the State Department has at its disposal, to allow for a consistent pattern of proactivity on the international stage.  When the Arab Spring arrived with the force of a mid-summer Saharan sandstorm, our embassies in Tunis, Cairo, and other Arab capitals appeared to be taken by surprise, as was our Secretary of State.  From the genesis of this fascinating political and cultural event, the United States was always one or two steps behind.  I credit our career diplomatic corps at Foggy Bottom (State Department) for keeping many of our assets out of harm's way, but the entire mess leaves one to ponder, where was Secretary of State Clinton when the Arab Spring broke?

Who do you believe is responsible for the bloodshed in Orlando?

(Before I begin a new Blog Post, I want to say how grateful I am to the Comal County (TX) Republican Women's Club and Joyce Yanuzzi.  I was afforded the opportunity to speak with this group on Monday night and made many new friends.  I also was fortunate to run into a few old friends, including Comal County Commissioner Jen Crownover.  I had such a wonderful evening with this intelligent, engaging group of Comal County citizens, and was reminded that folks are paying very close attention to politics in 2016,  Personally, I feel much better with that little bit of knowledge.)



Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield.  I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome.  I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary.  Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article.  Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th.  So what did happen?  How would you answer that simple question?  From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people.  As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando.  According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on).  In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism.  I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.

If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer.  The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!).  The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job.  Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event.  And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt).  Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing.  Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon.  Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room.  We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed.  We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders.  The narrative for the Left doesn't change.  We are always the guilty party, and must apologize.  And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.

As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch.  How bad is it?  Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks.  Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS.  When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee.  These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another.  To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk).  They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration.  So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly.  Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists."  But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line.  We all have bills to pay and families to care for.

So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism?  The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years.  President Obama is not a Muslim.  Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks).  I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya.  Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests.  Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true.  For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security.  We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran.  We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once.  Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay).  Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.

Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam.  He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt.  I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.     

Dont be surprised if Russia's current strategy in Syria looks familiar.....

Of all the things I can say about Vladimir Putin, you'll never hear me accuse him of abandoning a winning strategy.  Russia has no hesitation whatsoever in repeating tactics in Syria that have proven effective elsewhere, as on this occasion, Ukraine.  Putin understands his opponent well, and can predict his next move.  Unfortunately for us (the good guys/gals), Putin's opponent at present is Barack Obama and his State Department, under Secretary of State John Kerry.  During the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin has used the tool of diplomacy to win engagement after engagement, without ever firing a shot.  The entire situation in Ukraine would be a farce, if it weren't so tragic.  Let's be frank, shall we?  Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a province of the Republic of Ukraine.  To confuse the issue and distract, Putin created a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine.  Even Putin was caught by suprise by how quickly the European powers and the United States (which calls the shots for NATO), immediately backed down to Russian aggression and begged for Russia and the separatists to  negotiate.  Why did Europe and the West fold so quickly?  The answer lies with the Oval Office of the United States of America.  After winning the 2008 presidential election, the European leaders fought over who was going to fete the first African-American President of the United States.  It was a huge occasion in Paris, Berlin and London.  Not only could Obama do no wrong socially, but he was given carte blanche with foreign policy as well.  Since his inauguration, Obama has controled the foreign policy decisions of just about every European nation.  Under normal circumstances, I would consider this development to be prudent, but not under President Obama, who will negotiate himself out of his own underwear, if he gets a chance.  Obama seems to believe that showing any strength and momentum in foreign policy is somehow an embarrassment, or an innapropriate expression of aggression.  Today is April 30, 2016- after almost eight years of Obama's foreign policy (including a first-term with the worst Secretary of State in memory, Hillary Clinton), terrorism is present on almost every continent, the number of nations either researching nuclear weapons or actually building them has doubled, and right-wing political movements are threatening to take over European governments in the next elections.  The Obama Administration has had no proactive policy regarding ANY foreign policy issue.  The war in Syria has been raging for over five years; why wasn't the U.S. State Department advising our allies in Europe (especially Turkey and Greece) about the likelihood of refugees?  Not to mention the Arab Spring...why were our diplomats so woefully unprepared for the explosion of this political movement, Madame Secretary of State Clinton?

So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion.  Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons.  Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality.  Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad.  In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles.  The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS.  Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States.  Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria.  Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon.  Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad.  Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons.  Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations.  And our enemies have taken full advantage.

Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself.  If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind.  As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.

Current political situation in Iraq may result in the fall of Prime Minister al-Albadi

The current Iraqi political mess appears to be more focused and organized than in the past.  A rump parallel paliament, determined to increase Iranian influence in Baghdad, continues to challenge the authority of the Council of Representatives.  The Iraqi Constitution is written to provide a checks and balances system that is similar to the U.S. Constitution, but Iraqi politics really is about who has the most supporters and authority with the militias.  Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has managed to fight off a number of efforts to remove him from office.  When the war against ISIS goes badly, the various political groups lay-off the anti-Abadi campaign, for fear that if Abadi falls and ISIS takes comtrol of Baghdad, then the Iranians may not be so willing to interfere in Iraqi politics.  But when the military situation is positive, as appears to be the case currently, the effort to remove Abadi and install an Iranian puppet regime.  As long as ISIS constitues a real threat to Iraq, the Iranians will not commit themselves militarily.  Currently the Iranians are content to have operatives on the ground in every province, and to to keep advisors in place with the various Shia militias.  The recent successes on the battlefield have emboldened the pro-Iranian elements to attempt a coup and install a pro-Iranian government while the military situation is positive.  Teheran is a bit more pragmatic than its Shia supporters in Iraq, and will no doubt wait for what it considers to be an ideal environment before commiting regular forces to the conflict in Iraq.

Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq?  Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces.  No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria.  Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.  The situation could change dramatically within the next month.  If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq.  As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen.  Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues.  Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold.  Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season.  The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq.  The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region.  The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq.  So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.

Putin continues to keep the West unbalanced with the announcement that Russia would be pulling out of Syria.agenda.

I have no problem admitting my suprise at Russia's announcement earlier this week that it's military goals had been met and the time had come to leave Syria.  At first blush, I took Putin literally, and gave great consideration to a full-scale military withdrawal from the Syrian theater, even while Jabhat al-Nusra and other anti-Assad elements were still in a position to strike at Russian targets.  In reality, Putin has announced the withdrawal of some units, including certain air elements that had to to actually play a part in the conflict.  Frankly, it is inconceivable that Russia would enact a full withdrawal at this stage.  A review of the current battlefield will bring the entire development into perspective.

Russia has been very aggressive in pursuing its military strategy in Syria.  I have concluded that this strategy, in typical Russian fashion, is to pursue one goal while inundating the media with reports of military successes in an entirely different direction.  Its a bit of the ol' "bait amd switch game".  When the Russians began their campaign, the was cloaked in the description of a war "to destroy ISIS".  At the time of the Russian entry into the conflict, the media were reporting disturbing daily military advances on behalf of extremist groups, in particular in northeast Syria, in the homeland of the Druze and the Assad family.  With the absolute vassilation of the Obama Administration, and Europe's unwillingness to fart without a U.S. lead, many concerned leaders welcomed Russia's entry as part of the bulwark to stem the ISIS advance. Almost immediately, though, Putin betrayed his real motivation.  Russia intervened in Syria not to destroy ISIS, but to prop-up Russia's long-time puppet in Damascus, de facto President Bashar al-Assad.  Russian jets targeted anti-Assad forces from the beginning with a nasty vengeance, showing a complete disregard to the potential for civilian casualties.  Only after the Western media began to point out the peculiar singular direction of Russia's military targeting did the Russians begin to conduct the odd strike against ISIS locations.  As for the overall results of the Russian campaign to date, efforts to restore regime authority in an around Aleppo have been tremendously successful.  Also, Russian targeting has caused important strategic reverses to both al-Nusra and ISIS.  The most important question of the hour, is whether the rejuvenated and resupplied regime forces loyal to Assad can consolidate and hold these gains, especially as the negotiating season appears to be upon us.  Can we conclude for certain that this Russian intervention in Syria was primarly intended to solidify Assad's bargaining position?  It's very possible.  But Putin is flexible when it suits his agenda.  Its also possible that Putin had another goal in mind, something more long-term, but developments and the nature of the campaign convinced him that it was best to slow things down a bit and allow Assad the opportunity to negotiate from a position of increased strength.  Keeping all of these factors in mind, do not expect the Russians to really evacuate Syria.  No doubt Putin will leave enough airpower in place to continue his reactive support of Assad's forces, especially in the Aleppo theater.

Another issue that should be of concern to the American people, is the fate of the Obama Adminstration's policy in Syria, given last year's announced effort to set-up a "free Syria" military force, to be heavily trained (in Jordan, one can surmise) and supplied by the United States, to confront ISIS on the battlefield and provide the west with a certain "Boots on the Ground" representation.  Obama's unwillingness to pay the political pricetag of involving U.S. troops on-the-ground and incuring casualties, is the. motivation for the decision hire others to do our fighting for us.  A good question is, how much money has been spent by the United States vis-a-vis its policy in Iraq and Syria.  I am curious what we accomplished, dollar versus rouble, in comparison to the Russians, in their very short time on the battlefield.  I suspect the picture would not be pretty.