TRUMP THE MODERATE GOP CANDIDATE

DECEMBER 27,2015 It's All Relative In The GOP Race.

In the GOP race for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Trump his brash bombast, language difficulty and bluster aside, is the moderate on policy. Mike Grunwald of "Politico" reviews all the past debate transcripts in his piece entitled: "The Wild Ideas You Missed While Donald Trump Was Talking" appearing on Dec 26, 2015. His research indicates that part of the Donald's popularity is that his policy pronouncements are middle of the road. (but his independence from the control of MEGADONORS is more important in this author's mind)

Grunwald notes that we may have overlooked many wild eyed statements of the GOP field, such as that of Carly Fiorina who concluded that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, or that Huckabeee vowed to ignore the Supreme Court rulings he decided were incompatible with the Bible, or that Santorum claimed that Islam was not protected by the First Amendment, and that Christie, the most ferocious on foreign policy, vowed to shoot down Russian planes and start WWIII, while conducting cyberattacks on Chinese leaders. Grunwald also reprises the statement of Rubio in which he vowed to repeal all Wall Street reforms and oppose abortion in its entirety with no exceptions. Or that Kasich trying out the role of "tough guy", vowed to "punch" Russian in the nose.

On the other hand Trump seemed the perfect moderate when he denounced the Iraq War as a waste of thousands of lives (American) and trillions of dollars. He alone observed that those funds unwisely spent in Iraq could have been used to shore up American infrastructure instead. He alone defended progressive taxation. His proposals to clean up the immigration mess by first building a wall along the Mexican border...are rational, practical and within the Constitution. He does speak in hyperbole too frequently, but in relative terms his actual proposals are more in line with moderate Republicans and Independents than the Wild Bunch with whom he is surrounded. That is perhaps the reason why he still leads in the national polls by double digits. He leads in all state polls, except religious-leaning Iowa where he continues in a tight, neck and neck race with bible verse spouting darling Senator Cruz. His popularity in Iowa as elsewhere is noting less than astounding.

Oh yes, and he is decidedly not a "puppet" candidate like Rubio and Cruz...who mouth the script provided by the special interest mega donor class.

EMBRACING TRUMP--STILL THE LEAD VOTE GETTER

EMBRACING THE DONALD

My friend, US Army (ret) Colonel Ray Smith has a horrible, "banana slice" golf swing. Ray makes no bones about his slice. " I embrace my slice," he announces unabashedly, as he steps onto the tee box. He generally comes back to the clubhouse with a pretty good score too.

Approaching the tee box Ray, lines up in a strange way. He does not face down the fairway. On the long 12th, at Rolling Meadows in St Augustine, he he lines up facing away from the fairway, toward a line of tall pine trees along the left side of the fairway. He aims the ball right into the trees, then takes a mighty swing. We all gasp as the ball flies high and long, on a direct course toward the forest and high over the trees. Disaster?

"It's a goner!", someone yells out.

But Ray is not perturbed. He watches as the ball stalls high in the air, then slowly, the departing white orb begins to curve to the right. It continues a slow arching descent. It bounces a few times on the right center of the fairway..then rolls across the short green grass before it comes to rest about 180 yards away, close to the woods on the opposite side of the fairway.

Ray's "banana ball" and how he embraced it (and made good use of it) somehow reminded me of the current political situation in the GOP. Some days back, I opined in this column that the Trump phenomena was the result of the excessive power of the big donor class on the Republican establishment and its elites. The GOP has abandoned the so-called "Reagan Democrats" and Independents who for years back made up the actual voting cadre the party. The fact is that the "one percenters" can supply copious money but not votes. The GOP policy emphasis, nay its obsession, on "slashing taxes and entitlements" and "reducing government" are almost word for word the policy demands made by the big donor class such as the powerful Koch brothers, the Paul Simons and the single issue donor Adelsons as they hand over to candidates of their choice, their envelopes stuffed with cash. But the rank and file Republican voter, understandably, does not share the donor's special concerns. The fact that Donald Trump has remained at the top of the polls consistently since July is simply a measure of how angry and abandoned these voters feel.

A recent Op Ed piece in the NY Times, December 16, 2015, by Thomas Edsall entitled: "Can this really be Donald Trump's Republican party?" Adds some interesting facts to my original thesis.

Edsall gathers a slew of references to bolster his arguments. He notes that there are three current trends in voter resentment-all to do with "jobs": Immigration, job-offshoring and mechanization, as well as employment insecurity due to the 2008 Great Recession. He supports these contentions with studies that show that in fact illegal immigration does impact American workers. Edsall writes: "Illegal Immigration reduces the wages of native workers". This according to a study by Harvard economist George Borjas. This author claims that about $100 billion dollars a year are lost by native workers. But it generates increased profits of a similar amount (@ $120 billion dollars) for businesses and entrepreneurs. That may help explain the wild voter popularity of the Trump proposal to control immigration and build a "big wall".

Edsall also quotes the work of MIT economist, David Autor,whose study on jobs indicates that employment in middle skills jobs, like sales, production work, administration, and office workers have dropped from 60 percent of the total in 1980 to less than 46 percent in 2012.

According to Edsall, economic analysts at the Dallas Federal Reserve calculate as a result of the Great Recession of 2008, every US household has lost about $50 to $120 thousand dollars in income. The authors conclude that beside the financial loss, the Great Recession has had an enormous psychological and emotional impact. That, coupled with the "stark legacy" of the present economy and poor labor market and "reduced job opportunity" all combine to generate voter anger and resentment.

The economic fall-out from the Great Recession and the response of the GOP in its deference to the one-percenters, big donors, specials interest donors, and the party elites have set the stage for Mr. Trump's success. Big money has turned the heads of the party elites and the establishment. The regular guy and gal Republican voter have come to realize that the GOP has abandoned them.

Now the GOP faces a problem of division in its ranks. The elites and establishment will not support Mr. Trump, while the voters are clearly expressing their preference for him and the other "outsiders". Political defeat and disunity are on the near horizon...if party officials do not change course. The result seems to be lack of unity and political defeat and even dissolution for the party without radical change.

So perhaps, like my friend's banana slice, the party big hats should simply "embrace The Donald".

By the way, my golf buddy Ray, hit another rounder from that lie on the right side of the 12th to make a chip shot to the green and a par putt. He did OK. Trump may pull it out too.

GOP SERVE DONOR CLASS--IGNORE REAGAN COALITION=TRUMPISM

GOP abandons working class voters for rich donor class...Trump takes them up.

December 9, 2015

The most recent polls give Donald Trump a huge double digit lead over his closest rivals nationally as well as in the early state races. The GOP establishment is frantic. It looks like this guy can, and probably will, win the early GOP primaries. The latest "Louisville Slugger" the Republican establishment has been swinging at Trump"s head is emblazoned with: "He wants to close the border to Muslims". Though the "talking heads" on TV and the print media are enraged, and seemingly mortified by his pronouncement, I can't find anyone in the real world locally who finds that idea too objectionable. So it is likely that "The Donald" will not suffer in the polls for this latest bid of anti-establishment rhetoric.

But what makes Mr. Trump so appealing?

Since the 2014 Supreme Court Citizens United decision, the GOP establishment has been firmly in the grip of the powerful and politically active "donor class" and their unlimited contributions. That change in the political dynamic has caused a lurch rightward for the party of Lincoln into a new role as specialty "service group" for the wealthy. The consequences of that major shift away from reality politics, has left a big vacancy in the political landscape for the entry of a man who can speak the language, feel the pulse, and nurse the resentment of the mostly white, male, middle class and worker-class voters of a major sector and critical mainstay of the Republican Party. That man is Mr. Trump. The modern GOP has abandoned the coalition of the Reagan 1980 landslide and taken on a new vastly more wealthy, but far fewer in numbers client group. That decision, it seems now, may turn out to be an existential threat.

But how and why is Mr. Trump so popular.

The GOP is in the grip of the big donor class. Focused like a laser on the needs and money of the Adelsons, Singers and Koch brothers, the Republicans have forgotten the lessons of Reagan. They left the door open for Donald Trump. Since the Reagan landslide election of 1980, the Republicans have had a hold (though a weakening one) on the votes of white, male, blue collar, average-guy workers..often by using wedge issues of race, religion, abortion, and economic resentment, as well as slogans like " a rising tide floats all boats", etc. etc. The truth and the actual economic manifestations of GOP policies have been far from successful for working class Republicans. So called "small" government, deregulation, shredding of our modest entitlement programs, and "low" taxes, targeted at mostly the wealthy and superwealthy often mean that government expenditures which serve the average American must be sacrificed. While for the workers, the policies of lax border control, heightened competition for jobs from immigrants, a struggling economy, increased burdens of more regressive taxes and declining opportunities for advancement in income and education for working class children, and massive wealth and income inequality all increased the simmering resentment of a critical class of supporters. Donald Trump has seized on to these voters without representation.

The GOP has made it crystal clear whom they serve...it is not the American workers, the middle class, or the small businessman. The GOP is firmly controlled by the one percenters.

NEWTON'S 3rd, TERRORISM, & SAN BERNARDINO

Isaac Newton's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I suggest here that in the realm of foreign relations and military actions Newton's laws of physics also apply.

Violent and tragic terrorist acts over the last decades in New York, and now most recently in Paris and now in San Bernardino leave our nation puzzling. Why do they hate us so? What motivates them? Why are they willing to die to kill us? Newton (1642-1727) one the the truly great geniuses of the scientific world, who among many other achievements postulated the laws of motion, may have seen our predicament in an entirely different light. Perhaps viewing them, as a scientist might in the form of a simple equation of forces.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, which left our nation as the sole world power, in a unipolar world, we embarked on a (perhaps unintended but sure) journey of imperial world domination. No other nation was strong enough to modulate our actions and keep our sometimes base motives in check. We determined to dominate the world with our powerful economy. When that faltered we used diplomacy. And when foiled there, we sent in the CIA to destabilize and eliminate regimes who did not play ball with us. Finally, and too often, we unsheaathed our weapons designed to protect us from oppression and resorted to military action to alter the world to suit our needs or impulses at the time.

Most people do not like change. The vast majority (Americans at the forefront of these) resent being forced to change or to submit to an invader or occupier at the end of a bayonet or gun barrel. But, having the world's most advanced and massive military, it was easy for us to fall back on its use. Sadly this has been our policy and behavior over the last decades. In our process of attempting to hubristically remaking the world in an image satisfying only to OUR leaders in Washington we have understandably made many enemies. Some of our actions, were, no doubt, necessary or unavoidable. But the vast majority of our foreign adventures since 9-11 were foolhardy and unnecessary.

Historians of the future will undoubtably see our wars in the Middle East over thes last decade and a half as a renewal of the Christian Crusades against the Moslem World--the western world's "Seventh Crusade". Many will be tempted to call it "George Bush's Crusade against the Muslim World" (But now after nearly eight years of Mr. Obama's complicity in these efforts it is probably more accurately termed the "Bush-Obama Crusade").

In the last fifteen years we have invaded and occupied a wide swath of the Middle East. Our leaders repeat over and over again assurances that our policies "are NOT a Crusade against the Muslim world", but actions speak louder than words. In our military efforts, ostensibly to exact revenge for 9-11, but more likely to expand influence, secure markets and control raw materials, we have killed more than half a million Muslims of all stripes-- Sunnis and Shia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and now in Syria. In these nations our forces and those of our allies have literally bombed these countries back into the Stone Age. Our actions displaced and made refugees of many millions. We have left behind smouldering cities, broken and failed communities, devastated infrastructure, and social chaos--- as well angry and resentful populations.

In Newton's terms "actions" have "reactions". Our invasions and bombing campaigns have consequences. The results are, as predictable as the force diagram you may have solved in elementary physics. Just as we can not imagine the thrust of a jet engine NOT driving a rocket upward and airborne, we can NOT expect our political and military actions to have zero consequences. Our military campaigns, drone attacks and extra juridical executions generate terrorist responses. This is not to try to "excuse" the actions of vicious terrorists. It is the "why do they hate us?" Anser. It is oa logical and reasoned explanation of behavior. "Radicalization" of a our or French Muslim citizen need not come from some distant or foreign source. The history of our recent military adventures may be sufficient motivation. Listening to news radio, domestic television programs where constant visuals of destruction seen through aerial bomb sights is all too common may be all that is necessary to provide the impetus for a response. Actions beget reactions.

Our military bombing, death-dealing night raids, rogue acts of military personnel, cruise missile attacks, covert assassinations, drone attacks, torture, extra-juridical killings, etcetera, etcetera, all beget reaction responses. The responses of the Muslim reactors, such as: 9-11, Paris, San Bernardino, are not generated out of thin air.

And in a nation where there are millions of Muslims and more guns than people, what can one expect? The question we must debate is, do we all want to live...and die this way? Is this the America of our future? We must have a political reckoning in which we logically review the costs and benefits of our actions abroad. What are the benefits? To whom do they accrue? Our actions and the reactions of the enemies we have created around the Moslem world have costs. We can plainly see the drastic social and monetary impacts on our citizens, to our communities, to our nation, in the almost hysterical fear and insecurity manifested post-Paris and San Bernadino. That fear and hysterical reactions are more dangerous than the actual terrorist threat.

It does not have to be this way---unending war, reprisal attacks, increasing loss of freedoms, death and destruction and descent into despotism abroad and at home.

We have let the demons of war, fear and religious intolerance and divisiveness out of the bottle. It is now time that we found ways to put these false gods back and firmly plug the opening closed.

PARIS TRAGEDY EXPOSES GOP CANDIDATES..NONE READY FOR PRIME TIME

USA MASS HYSTERIA, YELLOW JOURNALISM, GOP JINGOISM

NO CANDIDATE PASSES "FLINCH TEST"

OBAMA KEEPS CALM AND LOGIC

CALL OFF ELECTION?

Since the tragic massacre of 130 innocents in Paris on November 13, 2015 mass hysteria has broken out in the USA. The terrible tragedy in Paris, has caused unimaginable fear to seep in to the US psyche. Fear is a powerful emotion with an uncanny ability to make idiots of our citizenry, and journalists, and to create actual raving maniacs out of the political class and especially our hyped-up, eager, controlled, venal and ill-informed presidential campaigners.

The US press has used the tragedy to avidly fear monger for market share. Too much of their reporting has been short on facts and long on exaggeration. Even more egregiously they have turned to yellow journalism...attempting to ratchet up emotions based on sensationalism while dredging up so called "military experts" to malign the president and urge the nation into amother senseless unnecessary and unwise war.

Much of the blather and nonsense one hears is just not based on facts and is too silly to recount here. But suffice it to say that all the GOP candidates have rushed to (irrational) judgement about refugees, about inserting US ground troops into a complex and convoluted civil war, initiating a new war, lifting rules against torture, expanding the spy state, closing mosques, internment of Moslems, instituting religious tests for those entering USA as refugees, and so forth. Most of these candidates do not sound at all like actual American politicians and leaders such as Jack Kennedy, Ike Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan. One wonders where and from under what rock some of them have arisen?

But one thing is clear...not one of them...left or right....have passed the "respond to disaster test". It is certain that our nation will be faced with severe problems in the future. Major storms, loss of life, natural disasters, yes, even terror attacks are the stuff of every president's term. We hope that our future leaders will respond to these exigencies with calm and level headedness that would soothe the fears of our citizenry and then calmly and logically turn to address the disaster at hand with maturity and common sense.

Only one man has demonstrated this capacity, our present President, Barack Obama! He alone has passed the "disaster test". He alone seems to be the adult in a room of kindergartners. Among the loud calls for excess...he has not flinched. He has kept his calm and remained true to his and our American values and his logical assessment of the problem.

Perhaps we should just call off this election if we can not come up with any better candidates?

MARCO RUBIO'S TAX PLAN EXPOSED AS "CRAZY"

Marco has a tax plan. According to a piece in the NY Magazine (See: " The Math on Rubionomics Is Way Way Crazier Than You Think"by Jonathan Chait, NYMat, November 8, 2015).

It is a crazy plan. Citizens For Tax Justice (CFTJ) analyzed the Rubio Plan and found the plan to be "hostile to economic reality". Rubio, who is essentially in the "employ" of fat cats like the Adelsons, Koch brothers and most recently billionaire Mr. Paul Singer, so it is understandable that his plan will give the most to the few. The plan slots one-third of the tax breaks to the top ONE PERCENTERS. (This is one of the pay-backs billionaire donors get for supporting the Rubio candidacy.) It follows that the rest of us get only the remaining two-thirds of that tax windfall to share among the 99 percent. That does not seem so fair already.

But according to CFTJ that is not the most crazy part. It is the size of the plan that is troubling. Recall the massive George Bush tax roll back. The one that led into the housing bubble and then the Great Recession of 2007? Yes that one. Rubio's plan is almost four times that big. His plan will cut tax revnue to about $12 trillion over the next decade. That means that over those ten years Rubio plaN will reduce revenue from about $40 trillion down to about $30 trillion. According to the CFTJ analysis that amount is only just enough to pay for defense, social security and medicare and the interest on the debt. Rubio's government would be pared to the bone. With those funds he would have to cut Out all non requisite or mandated expenditures over those noted above....no border security, no emergency funds, no Medicaid, anti-poverty budget, veterans healt care, education, infrastructure projects, etcetera, etcetera. Is is probable? No not likely...that why it is crazy.

Oh and to add insult to injury, Rubio also plans to enlarge the defense budget. Yes that massive mill wheel we have hanging around our necks which keeps us all riding over potholed bridge roads, with lousy health care, and crumbling infrastructure will only expand with Rubio. Also based on his donor class and their published demands, his largess with our tiny and queztionalble ally in the Middle East, Israel, will also grow....whether they need the money or not.

The authors state that the "relationship between Rubio's tax plan and economic reality" is "deeply hostile".

So Rubio's plan will undermine the miserable social safety net we have in this nation, further, to third world standards, eliminate government support for needed investment in domestic infrastructure, and instead, shunt the funds into the pockets of the super wealthy, and enlarge our already massive overstuffed military. If that is where you believe the nation should be heading...

NO $5 BILLION TO NETANYAHU- NOT WITH OUR DESPERATE NEEDS AT HOME

Utrustworthy ally, Bibi Netanyahu is back in Washington, hat in hand, to beg for money...again. He undermined his friendship rating and credibility after the recent acrimonious Iran deal, and should not be welcome again in the White House. We understand he is now reformed and promises that he is now (again) in favor of the "two state solution". Can we believe him? It is whispered he has also given up using the "N" word to refer to our President. But with our government and GOP so eager to cut expenses to the bone for our own citizenry..how can anyone imagine giving big piles of greenbacks to Netanyahu? For what purpose? To build more illegal settlemets in the territories? Or is it to beef up his massive military, already armed to the teeth so it can turn its might again on the outdoor Palestinian prison of Gaza?

Without doubt, that $5 billion should be spent here at home to rebuild our schools, crumbling infrastructure, our failing bridges, our slow or non existent broadband, and to attend to the desperate needs of our poor, high-school educated, white middle-aged citizenry who are dying and committing suicide faster than any other demographic here in the USA or in any other affluent western nation. (See: NYT Nov.2, 2015, "Death Rates Rising For Middle Aged White Americans" by Gina Kolata)

Je ne suis pas Charlie!

THE CHARLIE HEBEO PLANE CRASH CARTOONS Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine just published two cartoons which have us all realize how much we are NO LONGER Charlie. The phrase "I am Charlie" became popular after the terrorist attack on that publication's offices in Paris. But the recent cartoons published by the weekly Paris magazine concerning the tragic Russian plane brought down in the Sinai Peninsula on October 31, 2015 with the loss of 224 innocent travelers, among them 17 children was a step too far. Who can find anything to satirize about such a terrible human tragedy? Charlie Hebdo does not do satire...Its crude ugliness has no purpose or positive effect to increase knowledge or improve humankind. It exposes no human frailty or stupidity, only the coarseness and lack of humanity of the authors. No these cartoons are not Satie. It is a form of literary pornography. Our sympathies, here in my little corner of the USA where most know little of Charlie, are with the families and relatives of the victims of that awful tragedy and with all the Russians.

PAUL SINGER BUYS GOP CANDIDATE

RUBIO A PUPPET CANDIDATE

Oct 30, 2015. After what appeared to many to be a strong showing in the Oct 28, GOP debate in Colorado, Paul Singer, billionaire, hedge fund CEO ( Elliott Management) investor, Republican activist, and political mega donor came out publicly with a big check for Republican (absentee) Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. He is now the Geppetto controlling the puppet strings to Marco's Pinocchio. Singer has been a long time political activist especilly concerned with the Midle East and Israel and on foreign policy issues. He supported George Bush's campaigns and wars and the Swift Boat Veterans attack against John Kerry.

"When people donate to us, they buy into our agenda" bragged Rubio, in response to queries by reporters concerned about the "influence effect". Slick Rubio twisted his answer around a full 180 degrees. The truth is that Rubio by accepting a huge chunk of cash, in this obvious influence sale, just made a solemn promise to accept Paul Singer's agenda rather than the other way around. Rubio has just been bought, stock, lock and barrel and is now mega donor Paul Singer's property.

Fast talking and smart, Marco, has been tailoring and parsing his messages carefully for a long time to snag this investor. So from now on, if we really want to know what Rubio thinks or will support on some topic or other, or what actions he may take in the Oval Office, if, heaven forbid, he actually gets elected, ..just ask what Paul Singer wants, would like or is thinking.

This is not how the Founding Fathers envisioned we would select leaders in our nascent democracy when they wrote the Constitution.

My opinion is that this influence sale puts Rubio too much in the control of one powerful man. It underscores the fact that millions of American voters and supporters will have significantly less influence on any issues that this candidate supports. As a result, I put Rubio on my "do not vote for list".

POLLS REVEAL VOTERS REJECT DONOR CLASS CONTROL

2016 DONOR CLASS VS PEOPLE

GOP PULLED TOO FAR RIGHT BY DONOR CLASS

RESULT: PARTY FAITHFUL SUPPORT OUTSIDERS

It's a story as old as politics itself. In the late Roman Republic it was the Optimates (elite, wealthy, old families) who battled the Populares (the rest of the Roman people including the tribunate and the people's assemblies) for political power, sometimes to the death. Today, we see that same conflict play out between the elite, super wealthy, donor class and the rest of the nation (small businessman, professionals and working classes and poor) as they vie for political ascendency and control,over government policies. In recent times, it has become all too apparent that the donor class choose the candidates and control the political agenda by application of big wads of cash. This practice is even openly defended by the political establishment of both parties as a form of free speech. Such overwhelming power by the few is rightly resented by those of us who were raised to treasure our vote as meaningful, and our nation as a democracy.

The sad effect of this system of political control by the donor elites is the effect on the Republican Party (and Democrats too). The demands on policy by the donors have pushed the GOP farther and farther to the right. Its agenda is now so close to that off its large donors and so far away from that of its voters and general members that not one of its establishment candidates who mouth the polices they must (to maintain their financial support) are supported by more than single digits in the polls.

After fifteen years of a senseless, unfunded $3 trillion dollar war, continued foreign military imbroglios, a stuttering economy stuck in the doldrums, (an economy which floats the hedge fund magnate yachts into high water, but has kept the work boats and row boats still inundated), a $19 trillion dollar debt, an immigration crisis, healthcare fiasco, collapsing infrastructure, and political dysfunction in Washington---- the people are clearly dissatisfied with government as it is. In addition, due to modern technology and access to instant media we all have a clear recognition of the political might of the oligarchic donor class simply with the click of a mouse or the touch of an iPad screen. That over-weaning power is also manifested in the hand-kissing and kow-towing of prospective candidates before moneybag donors like the Adelsons, Koch brothers and others. The citizenry are now aware that before any human vote is cast a minuscule number of super wealthy, perhaps 100-200 financially powerful individuals, have already decided as to whom the candidates will be and what policies they will support. They know this is not how a democracy should function.

The people have been left behind as the party led by its rich donors and controlers have moved radically rightward. Today, there is a nascent, nay, full blown rebellion against the establishment political parties and the donor network of the few which support it. It is the donor class against the people. Who will have control over the political agenda? The polls show who the people support.

Those who respond to the numerous polls indicate a clear aversion for the "puppet", "controlled", "programmed" candidates who can only run with the support of big donors, take the money and do their bidding. This "puppet"category of candidate includes all of the present Republican field (with the exception of Donald Trump). That group of candidates are all in single digits in the polls. The people are clearly rejecting them. The people are not willing to support the establishment puppet candidate.

The most recent national GOP a poll give Trump 32 % of the GOP voter electorate. Dr. Ben Carson gets 22 % ....all the rest except for Rubio (who just makes double digits), are in the single digit category. ( An even more recent national poll ( October 27, 2015) seems to indicate that Carson has a slight lead. His lead is within the margin of error. ). Right now more than 54% of the Republican voter pool favors Trump or Carson, two men who have no political experience and who are not supported by the elite donor class.

But when you look at a graph of the long term trends of the polling data one sees an even more striking picture. Trump and Carson's campaiang long poll data stand out over the other candidates. They rise steeply to the right, i.e. moving to higher percentages. Only these two are on a clear upswing. All the other candidates , including Rubio, are either in a steady state (level) or on a generalized downward trend, heading toward lower percentages . (See Realclear politics.com/polls, accessed October 25, 2015).

Political,pundits, Republicans Democrats, establishment types, media and others please take notice. The people are rejecting the present system of political finances...and the control of candidates and policies by a few high roll donors. The "optimates" have acquired too much power. The result of this in antiquity was the rise of the dictator Julius Caesar. Time to change.

HILLARY'S GOT ONLY ONE GOAL

What the Benghazi Hearings revealed or reexposed about the Secretary of State is the following: Clinton's hawkishness on Libya led to a military and political disaster in that country. Her war-mongering polices certainly set the stage and contributed to the attack on our embassy in that troubled nation and the loss of life there. As head of the State Department, it was her responsibility to protect her staff, but she failed to secure the Benghazi post in the face of known threats and numerous requests for more security. Finally, she brazenly misled the American citizenry about the cause of the attacks to protect herself and her President from political fallout during an election year. That kind of a record may not harm her nomination prospects....but will be a heavy burden to bear in the general election

After the so called "Democrat Debate", the departure of Joe Biden and the Benghazi Hearings Clinton appears to have clinched the Democrat Party nomination. But perhaps not the election. As for the nomination, she had no real competition. ShE rolled over the Lilliputians in her way. She is supremely practiced. Recall, she has been running and preparing for this for decades. Sadly for her Party and the nation, that is all she is prepared for---- campaigning. When she actually has to perform, evidence seems to indicate she sits back, focuses only on her next personal goal,takes few risks and functions poorly.

Thanks to Joe Biden's wrong-headed departure from the race, and Bernie Sanders' revelation that he is NOT to be considered a REAL candidate (after giving away the debate with his "damned email" remark) the Dems have firmly placed the nomination crown on Hillary Clinton's head. That smakcs too much of oligarchy. Also it will put a bit of a dent in the TV viewership of any future Democrat "debates". The DNC should just cancel them as a waste of time and energy.

But rather than being a tour de force for her, the Bengazi Hearing were, for all her touted preparation, and polish, revealing of the inner Clinton. She still comes off as mendacious, controlled, plotting, haughty, insincere, untrustworthy, unbelievable and unlikeable. When her vaunted "record" is examined closely one must admit that though she is, on a superficial level, "well prepared". But closer examination of her curriculum vitae reveals her preparation is illusory and thin. She has breezed through her appointments only to count them on her list of required posts. Her single-minded focus is to gird herself ONLY FOR HER OWN PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRATIONS. She has labored tirelessly these last decades, but only to check off boxes and punch holes into her belt at each land post of her presidential cursus honorum. (Featehing her own nest via the Clinton Foundation slus fund was also right up there too.) Serving the public weal or making sure her staff have adequate security are not her main concern. The probing questions of the Committee members made that clear.

Yes, she served as First Lady, for a scalywag President who was rightly impeached. As the wife of a President, she was handed the seat of a Senator, carpet-bagging her way into New York State from her native Arkansas and points west. As Senator from New York she did little or nothing during her single term. She infamously voted in favor of the Iraq War (but only to burnish her credentials as a Presidential candidate). As soon as was possible, she abandoned the people of the State of New York to run for President in 2008. She was a poor campaigner and ignominiously lost her Presidential campaign to upstart one-term Senator Barak Obama. Her loss was to a large degree based on that misguided, self-aggrandizing Iraq vote. After the election, she pushed her political weight around to land another unwarranted plum position--- the post of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. During this period she traveled widely keeping voluminous notes on the names of heads of state, but accomplishing little of significance. Again, while doing nothing much, she still found something to screw up. While Head of the State Department she compounded that first war-mongering Iraq vote, by initiating and pressing for the President into a military intervention in Libya. That action helped destabilize another Middle Eastern nation and ended in disaster with the overthrow of the Ghadafi Government. Libya became another failed state where ISIS is today established and already beheading its enemies. As Head of the State Department, she paid little attention to the plight of the very people who she placed into harms way in Libya, ignoring pleas for more security from her own appointment, Ambasssoador Chris Stevens. He lost his life there. She wrote and published a "memoir book" (since the Presidency of eorge Bush--who didnt read) this has become a near-requirement of all presidential candidates. The massive tome she published was very poorly received. The present investigation into her actions during and after the Benghazi attacks in Libya which killed three brave Americans and our Ambassador have revealed a Secretary of State who was in good measure responsible for the parlous state of that impoverished nation, but callously ignored her own Ambassador's multiple pleas for more security while posted there. Her answer to the House Committee inquiry about this matter:"Security was not my job." But as "Secretary of Hillary's Presidential Aspirations Campaign" she had plenty of time to respond to Sid Bluementhal's political lobbying and chatty emails.

Unwilling to reveal the fact that Libya was in the hands of terrorists as a result of her and Obama's ministrations just before the 2012 elections, she lied concerning the motives of the lethal Bengazi attacks. All these revelations underscore this candidates's tendency toward mendacity, and poor judgement and her continued focus on her own political goals and aspirations rather than on actually fulfilling her mandate as an officer of the the government. If the decisions she made regarding her "private email server, her forign policy decisions and her communications are any example of her thought processes and abilities as a leader, her Party and the natiion are now threatened with a pending disaster.

NETANYAHU BLAMES OTHERS FOR VIOLENCE

Violence has broken out again in Israel. Over the last few weeks ten Israelis have been killed, many in ugly, violent attacks by knife wielding young Arabs. Forty Arabs, many of them attackers have fallen to Israeli bullets. Many of these were attwckers but too many were simply demonstrators or bystanders. The turmoil has affected the whole population. Even a group of recent immigrant French Jews seeking safety in Israel from Moslem attacks are fearful they have made a terrible mistake leaving France. The some streets of Jerusalem are filled with young Arab men slinging stones and chunks of concrete at Israeli soldiers who fire back with rubber coated steel bullets and throw canisters of stink bombs and tear gas. The Palestinian youths ironically look like modern Davids slinging their missiles at the Israeli military Goliath. On American TV, Netanyhau and his operatives have mounted a propaganda campaign trying to blame the ugly violence on the victims of their expansionism.

What set off this most recent intifada? Netanyahu and his Likud government hard-liners have been tweaking the rules concerning entry and prayer at the Moslem world's most holy site. The fear of Israeli intentions to control access at the Dome of the Rock And Al Aqsa Mosque have been the last heavy burden which broke the donkey's spine this time. The incident of the burning deaths of an entire Palestinian family trapped in their home by settler mobs, who are known but against whom the Israeli government has not moved, also weighs heavily on the Plaestinian consciousness. The fact that Netanyahu also heads one of the most right wing, repressive, human-rights-ignoring Israeli governments and is intensely averse to peace negotiations is another cause. After fifty years of wars, wall building, illegal expansion into the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, house demolitions, arrests, killings, repression, check-points and denial of legitimate rights of the hope and patience of the Palestinian people has been exceeded..again. Netanyahus recent ridiculous claim that it was a Palestinian cleric who convinced Adolph Hitler to "burn the Jews" rather than deport them has only added gasoline to an out of control bonfire. With no hope and continued repression what else can one expect from an oppressed and humiliated Palestianian population? UN intervention at the holy sites of three major world religions, and a UN presence along the boundary between these two populations may be the ultimate solution if Netanyahu and his government is unable or unwilling to make the necessary moves to stabilize the region.

Perhaps the specter of the ISIS-sponsored chaos and violence surrounding Israel in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere will bring Israel's leaders to the realization that meaningful negotiation and compromise are a better option than stonewalling American and UN sponsored peace initiatives. Can we hope that Netanyahu and his supporters will finally make an honest effort to seek peace rather than opting for the fragile and violent status quo and creeping expansion that they have favored for years now? I hope so.

Two nations seem to be responsible for inciting much of the violence. American counter-productive drone assassinations and attacks in which nine out of ten "terrorists" killed have been revealed to be innocent almost exclusively Moslem by-standers. And of course, Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza are simplly great advertisements and incentives for young Arab jihadists to join ISIS and continue the cycle of violence.

Adults please stand up and take charge!

TRUMP UNAFRAID OF THE TRUTH

TRUMP STANDS UP TO THE ESTABLISHMENT

TRUMP TELLS US LIKE IT IS. THINKS OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. THEY HATE THAT IN WASHINGTON.

Way back in September, I was impressed by a little comment that Trump made, almost as an aside, during the early days of the campaign. At a speech in Dallas, he remarked about the Capital which as all could see was (and has remained) completely sheathed in scaffolding...obscuring the lovely white dome. The $60 million dollar renovation has been taking a long time. Many think too long. Some have claimed that the construction firm doing the work have a contract which states that are ready to take the scaffolding down during the January inauguration in 2016. Then for an additional fee of a million dollars they will replace it and complete the job. Remarking about this typical example of Washington inefficiency Donald Trump said: "See that dome in Washington?" "If I get elected, I will let the scaffolding stay up. But you know, I would have made a better deal. I would have made them work faster. Made them get it done. If I was in charge, we would not have to take it down then put it up again." The Donald the added, "Can you believe they never thought of that?" It was true. No one had asked that question. The Washington insiders are not spending their own money...so who cares? It was a question that no one else would have asked. Donald Trump did. That impressed me. He is not the "business as usual" candidate.

Yes, knowing the bureaucracy of Washington, we can all believe that story. And of course we also know what to think about the ready reaction and defensive response of those in the establishment. Soon after these remarks were published the architectural firm contracted to complete the renovation reassured any and all questioners that the project "was on schedule" and was to be completed BEFORE the inauguration. We will see.

But now every time I see that iconic dome--a common image featured in our tv news reports from Washington, I think of Mr. Trump and his unorthodox question----- and his practical solution. His answer: Make them work faster, increase the workforce, and get the job completed on time.

Donald Trump is riding high in the polls. The people seem to love it. The establishment types are shaking in their boots and plotting his downfall. Out here in the countryside we all enjoy the sound of the delicate china smashing in the halls of the establishment. We relish the response concerning the King's new clothes, "Sorry, but he ain't wearing no clothes". But mostly, we enjoy hearing someone state out loud what we all know are the facts. Americans love the unvarnished truth. That is what attracts the voters to Trump's band wagon.

Concerning truth-saying the Democrats are as guilty as the the Republicans. They are the Tweedle Dee of the " Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum" establishment. Foolish Obama, decided to play the establsihment white guys game when he was elected. He refused to deal with the "past" when he took office. He didn't dare state the truth about the former administration. The Republicans lie and the Democrats kept mum. Perhaps understandably the GOP hid the facts about the failures and foibles of the George Bush administration. Then, as they did with the "weapons of mass destruction lies", they fostered and polished the Republican myth that " Bush kept us safe". It took Donald Trump, a brash, billionaire, New York businessman and real estate developer to smash the Bush "kept us safe myth". He simply said it out loud on a tv interview. "He didn't keep us safe. The towers came down during the Bush Administration. It was on his ((Bush's) watch. That is not keeping us safe." ( loosely quoted) . That was gratifying to hear for a knowing observer. Finally.

Candidate John E.Bush, (Jeb) Darling of the donor class didn't know enough to let that dog lie. He seems determined to defend (again) his brother George W. on every count. The day following Trump's barb, JEB published a more detailed, ad hominem attack on Trump with a more detailed replay of the Bush family myth. That gave Mr. Trump the opportunity to twist the embedded blade another half turn, widening the bloody wound. Trump simply stated the truth, the documented and verified claim that JEB's bro was not only to be held responsible for the Twin Towers going down but, even more egregiously, he was remiss in his Presidential oversight responsibilities BEFORE the 9/11 attack. Trump reminded us all that before 9-11 there was ample evidence in our intelligence reports that an attack was being planned by Bin Laden. "They knew it was coming," he charged. Recall the unopened and unread Daily Briefing book?

And why is Mr. Trump able to speak so frankly? He is not a bought and paid for candidate...like ex-candidate Walker, Marco Rubio and JEB Bush. He has no control strings and can tell it like it is...He is responsible only to the grassroots voter...not one of the 150 families of the donor elite class which today control too much of our political life. This is supposed to be a democracy where the voters have their say...not an oligarchy for few billionaires.

Keep it up Mr. Trump. You are remodeling the entire Republican Party, and perhaps the nation.....for its own good.

GOP: COALITION OF THE EXTREME

The GOP, perhaps because it was vainly struggling to compete with the Democrats, moved off into the desolate, right-wing " political steppes", riding off into a cloud of red dust with the hordes and ghosts of Ghengis Khan. The Party deserted members of the vast middle class and working class family, friends and neighbors.

The recent spectacles of the 2016 GOP field of candidates for the Presidency has revealed a mind-set in the modern Republicans so radical one wonders how they could be expected to be elected, and if they were, how could they possibly govern a modern nation? According to multiple polls, the likes of the illogical, simplistic, naive, unsophisticated, uninformed and bigoted Dr. Ben Carson, have actually garnered the allegiance of a large chunk of the GOP primary voters. This phenomenon has made me think. What group of citizens could possibly support a candidate who promotes such simplistic, illogical, and yes radical views?

What I have concluded is the following. This is undisputed, the Republican Party is, as presently constituted, established to solely to support and perpetuate the aims and purposes of the affluent and super affluent--the 1%. THE GOP WORKS ONLY FOR THE WEALTHY. That fact is a terrible handicap when it comes to elections. It is clear from their pronouncements that the GOP's main goal is to reduce taxes for the affluent, increase the profits of the wealthy, and radically cut government domestic spending, and any other expenditures that might serve the rest of us. While cutting government spending, the GOP hypocritically FAVORS lavish SPENDING on Wall Street, big banks, big business as well as the energy, military-industrial complex which are owned or operated or supported by the elites and affluent. The result is a shift of tax burden to the hard pressed middle classes and increasing levels of income and wealth disparity. This is not good for our economy. So why would anyone of the working and middle classes support such a candidate? There IS no natural support for their positions.

In a perfect world, where the UNVARNISHED TRUTH must be told, Republicans would have to clearly state: WE WORK ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WEALTHY. In that world who would support them? Their actual client base is so small. Unfortunately for them, if ALL of the super wealthy, disgustingly wealthy, industry CEOs, bank officials, Fortune 500 managers, company presidents and high officials, came out in droves to vote Republican, they would not have enough votes to win a county supervisor's post. The Republican brand would die out. They would not be heard of again.

To survive, the Republicans, have to corral the support of the little guys too. For this reason they have cobbled together, a COALITION OF THE EXTREME out of our political universe. The smartly dressed and coiffed "one percenters" under the GOP tent have coerced others to join them. They have gathereed in the old, the greedy, the bigoted, the ill-informed, ignorant, and easily led. They have welcomed in the know-nothings, the anti-science, anti-global warming, anti-gay, anti-abortion, religious fanatics, plain nut jobs, nativists, gun toters, war mongers and all other far right fringe elements that this great nation harbors in its nooks and crannys.

With this in mind, it becomes crystal clear why the Ben Carsons, Carly Fiorinas, and Donald Trumps are doing so well in polls of Republican primary voters. The GOP is simply gathering in any and all who will mindlessly go along with the one percenters, so as to make it possible for them to eke out a possible win in a national election. They need these little malleable folks to make it possible for them to continue working for the welfare of the super wealthy of this nation.

But it is a dangerous game they play.

FRACTURED NATION:CONFLICTING FORIEGN POLICIES

Our nation seems to be coming apart at the seams. Our hidebound political system, so in need of evolutionary change, is straight jacketed in our excellent (though dated) US Constitution. Our great national document ranks up there with other great watershed political documents of the past, such as the Code of Hammurabbi 1754 BC, Charlemagne's Capitulary laws (802) the Magna Carta (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (1776). Its weakness is that it is near impossible to alter or modify. We are (almost) just stuck with it. Our nation is a militarily and economically powerful, dynamic modern nation of the 21 Century. But we are saddled with a political system codified in our Constitution designed for a small, weak, agricultural nation of the late 18th Century. Our exemplary Founding Fathers could never have imagined what their newly freed thirteen colonies would eventually become. They could not have foreseen the problems or difficulties we face in the 21 st century. Our modern nation's errors, problems and disgraces are out there for all to see. We are a nation with crazy gun laws, the highest incarceration rate in the world, an antiquated, and inhumane death penalty, Gerrymandered election districts, elections awash with cash, and rampant income inequality. The affluent and powerful regularly buy and sell offices, and political favors. Our Supreme Court's Citizen's United Decision released a tidal wave of corporate money into the election system which has only exacerbated an already fraught and dire "money in politics" situation. These and other political "multiple stressors" have acted synergysitcally to degrade our once great "city on a hill" into what many foreign observers (See: The Economist October 2015) hace called a "dysfunctional and fractious" nation.

Besides these problems enumerated above, we are an arrogant and belligerant people, living in a nation armed to the teeth both in our homes and our air, naval and military forces. At home, we shoot to kill more than 30,000 of our own citizens each year with the more than 300 million guns (AK47s, Kalasnikoffs, Glocks) we have stashed in our closests and under our beds. Nationally, our massive military establishment with more than 900 bases spread all around the globe, suupported by a government which spends more than $600-700 billion dollars on it annually. That massive amount of cash is more than the cumilative outlay of almost all the other nations in the world combined. China and Russia, our chief military competitors, have a combined outlay for military assets of only one-fifth (20%) of ours. Like the carpenter who has just acquired a big, new hammer and tends to treat everything before him as if it were a nail (Maslow 1966), our nation seems determined to solve all of our foreign problems by going first for its big powerful military. Our penchant for applying the muzzle of a gun to every and all foreign matters has resulted in the devastation of wide swaths of the Middle East, the expenditure of trillions of USA dollars and the loss of countless lives...both American and foreign civilians.

That gets us to our Syria policy which is just another example of our fractured and conflicting political and policy impulses. These first few days in October since Mr. Putin of Russia began his overt and more robust military support of the Assad regime in Syria we have heard much in the way of complaints, envy, warnings etcetera from Washington. The Prsident is being attacked for doing nothing in Syria, or doing too much in Syria, or letting the Russians outflank and embarrass him.

Our Syria policy is just another example of a governemnt on the verge of political spastic cerebral palsy. President Obama was forced by the neocon holdovers in his government from the Bush years and his political detractors on the far right into "doing something" about Syria. He did so reluctantly. He is smart enough to know well that there is no military solution to the Syria tragedy. But a politically divided Congress dominated by the Republicans, a right leaning presss corps forced him into making a foolish decision. The result? He now finds himself with a conflicted Syria policy in which one hand is covertly working to attack, degrade and undermine the legitimate government of Syria, while the other supports military forces which are armed ostensibly to fight ISIS irregulars but in fact turn their guns on both the ISIS forces and the Assad regime. Wisely reluctant to put American "boots on the ground" Obama has instead taken up an ineffective air and drone campaign agaist the terrorists of ISIS. With no informants in the region to identify targets or ground troops to occupy territory, this aerial campaign to "slowly degrade" the ISIS forces has been a failure.

Our fractious, conflicted, and dysfunctional government prevents Obama from actually explaining to the American public that our bombing campaign is a failure and our covert attacks on the Assad regime only serve to weaken the only forces that have some chance of reuniting Syria and hopefully helping to end the chaos and bloodshed. We all know that there is no military solution. Let's state that plainly and work toward a better solution.

Why not put our efforts into cooperating with Russia and after ISIS and the other insurgents are disarmed and pacified work to bring the disparate forces to the conference table where a peace settlemnt may be hammered out. Can we not be part of the solution rather than part of the problem?

PUTIN TO SYRIA: TO END CHAOS

AAn alternate view of Mr. Putin's actions in Syria.

President G. H. W. Bush's, Gulf War, his son, "junior" George Bush's illegal Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the seemingly endless on-going (14 year) conflict in Afghanistan have all had their negative effects on neighboring Syria. In March of 2011, a severe drought possibly the effect of climate change, coinciding with an economic downturn, these as well as food shortages, and the "spill over" from the Iraq war may have been some of the many triggers that sparked an uprising in Syria...a nation riven by ethnic and religious differences. The despotic Assad government reacted to this event...or over reacted. It certainly mis-handled the demonstrations helping to careen the fragile nation from civil unrest into widespread protest marches and pubic disruptions. But it was the calculated covert actions of the USA"s CIA, as well as the overt monetary and direct military support given by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Quatar to a group of violent insurgents (we would call them "terrorists" here) which tipped the conflict into a generalized sectarian civlil war. In this war nations dominated by the Sunni branch of the Moslem faith (Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates) are ranged against Shiite Moslems: the Shia Alawites under Assad in Syria, and Shiite Iran and Hesbollah in Lebanon. The USA has thus unwisely inserted itself AGAIN into the middle of what has become a violent religious conflict which it knows little of, and from which it has nothing to gain. Its meddling can only exacerbate the problem.

In March of 2011, our government seems to have reflexively engaged in the conflict simply to topple Mr. Assad. That goal, in a more historically and politically astute administration (perhaps such as that of the GHW Bush administration) would have paused as it questioned the effects of such a destabilizing act on the entire Middle East region. But Mr. Obama, ( and his coterie of female foreign policy advisors who seem to always choose to show their ability to "man-up" to any situation even when it is not advisable) and his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't get that far in their thinking. Only a short time earlier, they made the now demonstrably unwise decision to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya. As a result of their ministrations that poor nation has devolved into chaos, where armed camps and warring tribal enclaves, death and destruction continue unabated. It is from Lybia that refugees pour out into frail boats plying the Mediterranean seeking succor in the west. The President's goal for Syria is on track to repeat the Lybia disaster. The Obmama Administrqtion's goal to remove Assad was probably unwise and unattainable even very early in the insurgency. But as more and more money, weapons and radicalized foreign troops surged into Syria, the idea of toppling the existing government, its police forces, and the infrastructure which served millions of Syrians and kept the peace, became less and less realistic and more and more foolish. At present, the anti-Assad movement is highly radicalized, fragmented and infiltrated with al Qaida, hyper-radical ISIS elements and jihadist fighters and terrorists drawn into the conflict with the money from the Gulf oil sheikdoms and that provided covertly by the USA.

President Obama, in the face of harsh criticism (much of which was deserved) did restrain the knee jerk Israeli supporters and neocon elements in his government ro limit the USA involvement to air strikes against ISIS targets in the eastern part of Syria. However, his mis-guided early covert (CIA) policy to destabilize the only existing and legitimate (Assad) Syrian government with arms, money and military support continues to this day. These USA policies secretly funded and hidden from Congressional purview may have had thr support of weak arguments very early in the conflict, but as the civil war has worn on and the players and situations have changed radically, now these USA policies are simply DUMB.

In early October, Russia's Mr. Putin began to transport to western Syria significant advanced military materiel, men, planes and other equipment to take a strong role in support of Mr. Assad's government which has been weakened by losses over the last four years. Mr. Assad is not a democratic savior, but he can be useful as a means to an end in Syria. It is wise to support him. He is a despot and strong man who has ruled in a ham-fisted manner to control a diverse and fractious nation. But he does head an actual functioning government. He is a legitimately elected leader with whom the world body of concerned nations can negotiate with and work with. On the other side, there is a diverse group of rabble-rousers, jihadist fighters, religious fanatics, terrorists......and chaos. Continued support of the insurgents to weaken and replace the Assad regime is foolish and will only lead to more refugees, more bloodshed. It will surely end in another nation bombed and degraded back into the "Stone Age" as Mr. George Bush so correctly described his intentions during his military adventures in Iraq---an adventure that has much to do with the present state of affairs in Syria.

Mr. Obama, should welcome the arrival of Mr. Putin's forces.... If domestic political reality makes it impossible to actually support his efforts, Mr. Obama should just stay out of his way. Mr. Putin seems to be the only leader who is actually taking some positive action in Syria that will ultimately benefit the Syrian people, alleviate the refugee disaster facing Europe, help to move the entire region...Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Iran to a more peaceful solution. It is too bad that Putin can not speak English more effectively. He gets a (an unnecessary) bad press here in the USA.

OBAMA AT UN: USES IRONY AGAINST RUSSIA

President Obama addressed the UN today (September 28, 2015) using irony against Russia, for its actions in the Crimea and in Syria. During his speech he castigated "certain major powers (that) want to ignore international rules and impose order through force of military action". The New York Times (today) always selective regarding any embarrassing revelations or major USA blunders apparently failed to report the cacophony of tongue clicks and snickering which must certainly have come from the UN representatives and the observation gallery when they heard this remark. Well perhaps it wasn't irony. Did Obama really mean it? How could his speech writers put such drivel in his mouth? Was it not the USA which invaded Iraq under false pretenses! with no provocation? Our President, to his credit, did claim some USA responsibility for the chaos in Iraq and Syria, later in his speech.

However, he is still being outflanked by Mr. Putin in Syria. Mr. Putin has offered a sensible and logical approach to the Syria tragedy. The Russian PM (who wisely enlisted Iraq, and Iran into his plan) has suggested that the US join with Russia to aid the Assad government (the only legitiamate governmental entity) and its military to defeat ISIS. The Obama plan of ad hoc air attacks alone..is not working. Nor is his $500 million dollar plan to train carefully vetted Syrian fighters. That plan has been revealed to have cost $100 million dollars per soldier! This is probably the highest military training costs ever recorded in human history.

The Putin plan is certainly the first logical step in solving the political problems of a fraying, chaotic Syria-and a fragmenting Iraq. Both nations are spewing desperate, pathetic refugees onto the west trending byways and roads of Europe causing economic and social,unrest in those places too. Putin's strategy would alleviate that problem as well. Mr. Obama is a logical man, who probably knows Putin's approach has the greatest possibility of ultimate success. But our President seems unable or unwilling to make that jump into a political abyss. He would be literally crucified by our dysfunctional ideologically hide-bound Congress. Mr. Obama's hands are tied by our non- functioning system. So he makes speeches and Mr. Putin moves his pieces over the chessboard.

WALKER WALKS: GOOD RIDDANCE AND TO MR. POTTER $$

SCOTT WALKER WALKS

Good riddance to a candidate bought and paid for by the "Mr.Potters" of our time. Walker's passing may have one good result..exposing the misuse of sinister "Potter-money" in our campaigns.

The media response to Governor Walker's exit from the Presidential race on September 21, 2015 (such as that posted in the NY Times) attribute his poor showing and rapid demise to the rise of anti-establishment candidates, such as Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. The truth is that Walker was simply a weak and malleable candidate artificially supported from behind by affluent, powerful elites. Walker was plagued with gaffes. At his resignation speech, Walker, seemingly determined not to change course from a string of silly ideas, blunders, and faux pas--like building a 5000 mile Canadian boundary fence---ended his campaign on the unbelievable claim that he was quitting the race to "to help the party unite" against Donald Trump.

Mr. Walker's performance as a national candidate,from the time of Fox News debate on August 6, to his "I will 'suspend' my campaign" speech of yesterday, proved he was not ready for national office. His rise and ignoble fall also revealed how damaging the post-Citizen United, system of funding political elections is to both our state government and national elections. Mr. Walker as a young, ambitious rising politician plotted and schemed to attract the attention and financial largess of powerful out of state funders, whose political agenda and script he slavishly followed. He sacrificed the well-being of his state's citizenry to the rigid ideology of his reactionary masters and to his own political ambitions as he led his state into years of political turmoi, tumultuous recall-elections and economic uncertainty. Thankfully, he was exposed as a "tool" of the Koch Brothers machinery in the crucible of the first few months of the national campaign. That revelation and his own weaknesses were what actually caused his rapid decline in the polls, not his competition.

Walker was such a lackluster, ineffective candidate it is painful to contemplate his return to his old office in Wisconsin. However, one idea does buoy my spirit. As a result of Mr. Walker's poor showing on the national stage he is now useless to his former pay masters. Walker can no longer serve as the "poster boy" for radical experiments in voodoo economics of the far-right oligarchs. The affluent political funders will have little incentive to answer a call for financial support from the Governor's office in Madison. Walker is certainly cut off from that lucrative money source in his next election. The out-of-state right wing ideologues who provided the 7-1 monetary advantage in his three Wisconsin elections have abandoned him. Now he will have to face the voters, citizens, union members, teachers, librarians, police, firemen, and others of Wisconsin, whose incomes and economic well-being he sacrificed on the alter of his political ambitions on his own. I am confident these groups will evaluate Mr. Walker again, and without the benefit of his secret supporters. Perhaps the elder statesmen and women of the State of Wisconsin may even wish to reconsider a new recall election. Walker is now a very vulnerable GOP governor.

I suspect the ashen face and sad demeanor (the NY Times reported) that Governor Walker exhibited at his parting speech, was due more to anxiety concerning his future--rather than disappointment. Who will support his candidacy in his next state election? As a result, I think we will not hear much more from Mr. Walker, and that is good for Wisconsin and the nation too. As for the attempts at controlling elections and candidates by the sinister "Mr Potters"(recall the Lionel Barrymore's character in "It's Wonderful Life")of our post-Citizen's United political world, perhaps, Mr. Walker's one claim to some positive act for our struggling nation may be that his failed candidacy will underscore the chilling impact the "Mr.Potters" of our day have on our democracy. And the hope that such exposure to the cleansing light will engender a reaction by an enraged public from both the left and right to limit the ability of the Potters of our day to undermine our democracy.

JEB, GEORGE DID NOT KEEP US SAFE!

I was watching the September 16, 2015 Second Republican (CNN) debate while visiting my son, who lives frugally in a small Brooklyn, NY apartment. There was no air conditioning and the windows were wide open to encourage a faint breeze through the small windows opening onto the tiny central courtyard. Sometime during the long debate Donald Trump remarked that "JEB" Bush's brother, George ( # 43) was a "disaster as President", and was the underlying cause for the loss of the Republican majority and the election of Obama. "You know what?" Said Mr. Bush, "As relates to my brother, There is one thing I know for sure: he kept us safe". I rolled my eyes. I heard laughter and hoops and hollers drifting in on the breeze through the open window. Other families in the building were apparently listening to the debate too. Being physically close to ground zero, and only a few days after the 14th anniversary of the 9-11 tragedy, the folks in Brooklyn might have found this statement so far from reality they laughed, thinking it was a joke.

How could JEB make such a dumb response so close to the anniversary of the most tragic attack on US soil which took place on GW's watch? How could he forget the thousands who died so horribly in the flames of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in the plane crash in that Pennsylvania farm field? The Americans who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists during the Bush Administration's disastrous eight years died because JEB's brother, GW, failed in his obligation to keep the nation safe. George Bush--enjoying a widely criticized over-long vacation in August of that year---ignored or simply did not bother to read intelligence warnings in his daily briefing book dating back to May of that year which warned of Bin Laden and Al Qaida threats. On August 6, just about four weeks before the attack, his (unread) day book title page screamed out: "Bin Laden determined to attack in US". Bush did nothing in those four weeks. He was on vacation. Then after this tragic attack, -a blotch--on the Bush family reputation. George junior went right back and compounded his first mistake of not reading intelligence reports, by staking the nation to war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine watching those towers burn and crumble, with men and women falling and throwing themselves to their deaths that there could be an even worse outcome of a President's errant decision making---but there was. After the tragic attack and horrible loss of life on 9-11, George Bush failed again to "keep the people safe" when he deceitfully chose to go to war in Iraq, using trumped up "Weapons of Mass Destruction" charges. He foolishly risked death and injury to his troops fighting an unnecessary war and against a nation which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack.

The war in Iraq did not keep us safe...it was a horribly failed exercise in regime change and nation building which rather than making our nation safe---threatened the lives and security of Americans and untold innocents all around the world. What was the real purpose of the Iraq war? President Bush, rather than changing course, to focusing seriously on keeping our nation safe, rather he chose another course. The tragic 9-11 attack on US soil, and the loss of innocent life was to be used duplicitously as a political bludgeon by the novice Republican President. He and his advisors secretly theorized that the tragic death of over two thousand Americans would be the perfect justification to arouse the ire of a nation reluctant to go to war. Bush and his neo-con allies plotted to turn the World Tirade Center terrorist attack into a"casus belli" to initiate a transformative war in Iraq which had a domestic political aspect, an economic element and a long range foreign policy goal which would all benefit the Republican Party. Domestically it would serve to help to keep Republicans in office and secure GW's second term. Economically it was would enrich elite Republican, leaders, donors and supporters (who like VP Dick Cheney were heavy investors in the military-energy-industrial triad. These folks were planning to make huge war profits and economic gains from the conflict.). Finally, the long range policy goals were to control the Middle East oil resources and transform that region into a US economic satellite, a haven for a 19th century style capitalist democracy. In effect, to recast the whole region into a political laboratory employing the cherished unfettered capitalism of far right Republicanism. Others saw an opportunity to help to pacify the Arab-Israeli conflict not by state to state diplomacy, compromise and realignment of boundaries, but by the "back door"....by regime change in the Arab states in the ME so they would more compliant to the demands, needs and policies of the Israeli state rather than the other way around. Iraq was only the first national "victim" of their plans. Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Syria were soon to follow. None of these policies were to make us safe.

Although the nation of Iraq was not involved in 9-11, it was targeted because it was a weakened State which could be toppled easily.

[Iraq had been defeated throughly in theGulf War (1990-1991) prosecuted by JEB's father GHW Bush. Much of the Iraqi military infrastructure had been destroyed in that war in which 30,000 troops we killed, 75,000 wounded and 300,000 captured. The cost of the war to the US taxpayer was estimated to be $60 billion dollars. But almost all of that amount was paid by other Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf monarchies. After the six month long conflict ended in 1991, Iraq remained under heavy sanctions. A US A enforced no-fly zone continued, as well as a sporadic bombing campaign designed to slowly degrade the Iraqi military potential. And most importantly the nation had been throughly vilified by the press for its "sneak attack" on Kuwait. Regime change in Iraq was viewed inside the Bush Administration as a "walk in the park". The cost to further defeat this tattered nation was viewed as negligible based on the American experience in the previous Gulf War.]

To support his proposed war Bush asserted falsely that Saddam Hussein government had "weapons of mass destruction". This as well as the oft-repeated phony claim of a US desire to "bring democracy to the Iraqi people" were the ostensible rationals for going to war. These weak and transparent reasons were seen as false and were subsequently subjected to heavy criticism both nationally and internationally. At the conclusion of the conflict, no weapons of this nature (WMD) were discovered and the "democracy" Bush brought was a cruel joke denied to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed as a result of the war, and unavailable to the millions of refugees he created. Bush did not keep these innocent civilian Iraqis safe.

Please not another Mr.Bush!

On the 20th of March 2003, an inexperienced, untutored, novice-President George Bush took to the air waves to claim that he was sending American troops into battle to "defend the world from a grave danger". Bush took the nation to war in Iraq, simplemindedly believing his VP and neo-con advisors. He may have envisioned it would last six months, as did his father's first Gulf War and cost next to nothing. But this was a much different war--lasting almost nine years (2003-2011), and ultimately costing our nation two to three trillion dollars.. In Iraq, George Bush, DID NOT KEEP US SAFE, under direction and tutelage of his powerful VP, Dick Cheney, he squandered the lives of more than 4,500 American young men and women. In the aftermath, there were 25,000 dead with 117,000 wounded of coalition forces Bush inveigled into his war. The invasion led to the fall of the Iraqi Bathist government and the unwise disbanding of the Iraqi Army. The Bush Administration grossly mismanaged the resulting US occupation, which led to a violent sectarian war and a long, bloody and violent insurgency which engulfed the American occupiers and cost thousands of American lives. This is keeping us safe?

The nation's longest war cost trillions of dollars and ended in abject failure. Rather than "defending the world and his nation from a grave danger", George Bush's actions in invading Iraq CAUSED "grave danger" to the world, extending from the carnage in Iraq, and the creation of a more militarily safe, politically assured, technically adept and powerful Iran, to the tragic present day chaos in neighboring Syria where another civil war rages The world refugee problem of today has its direct roots in the destabilizing effects of the Bush Iraq War. George Bush once stated that "history would decide" if his decisions were wrong on Iraq. Just look at the chaos in the region today....history has decided.

Today, we see a Middle East in chaos, war ravaged, it's infrastructure, businesses, agriculture and society devastated. Millions of people are displaced in refugee camps in neighboring countries, while hundreds of thousands of refugees escaping from overcrowded camps in Jordan, Turkey and elsewhere, join those fleeing violence in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq to clog roadways in Eastern Europe, and to strand the pitiful broken bodies of their dead children on the shores of Italy and Greece. Millions of Syrian, Iraqi, Afghanistani displaced, surge onward toward western Europe where they are corralled astride state borders with coils of barbed wire and cyclone fencing. In some places they escape the brutal police cordons as in Bosnia and Hungary, hoping to press on to find succor in the safe and affluent west. Bush, Cheney and his neocon fantasists are the underlying cause of this massive world tragedy.

So this is how George Bush "kept us safe". JEB may have been simply stating what he believed to be true or may have simply acted as the loyal, ill-informed younger brother of a failed President. But his repeated attempts to recast history for his brother, as well as his published list of advisors and supporters--a list which encompasses most of the personnel of the Bush failed foreign policy team are evidence of a return to past errors and mistake, and indicate a penchant and direction that is dangerous for our nation. We would be foolish indeed to go over that same trail. Bush's inability to divorce himself from the past, and his brother's culpability in the economic, blood-soaked disaster of the Iraq War and the blowback from those foreign policy errors which the world finds itself suffering from now, may be understandable inside the privileged Bush family circle, but is inexcusable in a candidate for public office and should exclude him as a potential leader of this nation.

One must also keep in mind JEB's personal culpability in this matter as well. Recall that were it not for his manipulation of the 2000 Florida election tally, under pressure from his bother's attorneys and campaign....there may not have been a President George Bush, or an Iraq War, or a refugee crisis in Europe. If JEB can not come to terms with the reality of his brother's geostrqtegic, military and governing failures he is part of the problem and not the solution.

JEB, YOUR BROTHER DID NOT KEEP US SAFE! Far from it !

BEN CARSON APPEAL: DESTRUCTIVE

Dr. Ben Carson, up from a youth of poverty in working class Detroit, a Yale University graduate, pediatric neurosurgeon, Head of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, married to one woman for forty years, author, public speaker on conservative causes, and a recent political neophyte who has risen meteorically in the polls into the top tier of a distinguished group of 2016 hopeful presidential candidates which include the wealthy scion of the most powerful GOP political family, sitting governors, former governors, illustrious U.S. Senators, a woman CEO, and one brash billionaire. Oh, yeah, did I mention? Dr. Ben is an Afro-American.

The most recent polls in Iowa and New Hampshire (September 14, 2015) put Carson in second place just a few percentage points below the wildly popular businessman, billionaire Donald Trump. Carson and Trump, both of whom have no previous political experience, have hoovered up the mass of popular votes in these two states, jointly amassing more than fifty percent of the total. The interest in their candidacies have sucked money and votes from perhaps more politically viable candidates.

What is Carson's appeal that permits him to poll five to six times above established politicians like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Gov. Scott Walker? Carson, like all the other candidates, hews closely to conservative orthodoxy. He peppers his speeches with references to the Bible and to God. He supports lower taxes. ( He does favor a form of regressive Biblical tithing). He supports Israel with a patellar reflex. He opposes a woman's right to an abortion. He would keep Gitmo open. He abhors Obama care. He supports a robust military stance and sees Russia as our greatest foreign policy threat. And he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms with no restrictions. His positions do not differ from the other candidates in any significant way.

So what is his appeal? Could it be related to the fact that Carson is a BLACK conservative with an appealing rags to riches, Alger Hiss biography?

I submit to you that THE CARSON PHENOMENA is a response to the ugly reality of RACISM IN AMERICA. Racism is the reality that Americans on the far right....isolated from the racial heterogeneity in big cities, living in affluent and stark white communities of the hinterlands would like to obliterate. The ugly reality of American race relations is too unpalatable for these voters to swallow. Ugly race relations confront and tend to upend most cherished myths.

Dr. Ben Carson, is a successful black surgeon, who pulled himself up from poverty. The white GOP voter think: he embodies the American Dream, just as our conservative politicians predict. He also spouts conservative dogma. They interpret it thus: "he sounds just like one of us". His demeanor is calm, non- aggressive, non-threatening. His "nice man" character overrides ugly racial stereotypes and supports the fading myth of America's racial blamelessness. In short, Dr. Carson is the embodiment of the mythological American black man, generated by the white, affluent, conservative majority. And now he stands before them in person as a candidate and asks them for his vote.

With all the recent evidence in the press and media of racism, white-on-black police brutality, institutionalized police harassment of poor black communities, so obvious in this last summer's events in Fergerson, Missouri, and elsewhere around the nation, Carson makes it possible for these GOP voters to maintain the myth that such conditions and problems are all self-inflicted by the black community. He permits them to make a transfer of blame and guilt from "me to them". It is not my fault....it's theirs. Those press and TV stories are NOT is not a part of the REAL America. Our nation is EXCEPTIONAL, we are NOT RACIST. There is no racial barrier to success.

CARSON permits them to continue to believe that the poverty, crime, family dysfunction, etc., etc. of the Afro-American community are a result of black weakness and lack of industry. He permits them to maintain and promote inequality. White, affluent GOP voters are led to feel they have no responsibility for these blotches and blemishes on our nation's reputation. And finally there is no need to ameliorate these wrongs and social problems by concerted governmental action.

Carson's dual appeal is that he assuages guilt on one hand and reinforces a cherished myth on the other. He permits a certain element of our society the satisfaction of putting the ugliness of racial discord out of their mind and reinforces their tightly held and cherished myth of American purity.

For that reason Carson's appeal and his rise in the polls is a destructive one. Besides the support and money he denies other candidates, Carson's candidacy helps to perpetuate and posit a dangerous unreality. He encourages the continuation of a destructive myth. "There is no racial discord." All is OK in America." "We are great, good, kind and exceptional." "No changes needed!" No new government programs required, and of course...NO NEED TO TAKE OUR TAX MONEY.

Dr. Ben Carson, up from a youth of poverty in working class Detroit, a Yale University graduate, pediatric neurosurgeon, Head of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, married to one woman for forty years, author, public speaker on conservative causes, and a recent political neophyte who has risen meteorically in the polls into the top tier of a distinguished group of 2016 hopeful presidential candidates which include the wealthy scion of the most powerful GOP political family, sitting governors, former governors, illustrious U.S. Senators, a woman CEO, and one brash billionaire. Oh, yeah, did I mention? Dr. Ben is an Afro-American.

The most recent polls in Iowa and New Hampshire (September 14, 2015) put Carson in second place just a few percentage points below the wildly popular businessman, billionaire Donald Trump. Carson and Trump, both of whom have no previous political experience, have hoovered up the mass of popular votes in these two states, jointly amassing more than fifty percent of the total. The interest in their candidacies have sucked money and votes from perhaps more politically viable candidates.

What is Carson's appeal that permits him to poll five to six times above established politicians like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Gov. Scott Walker? Carson, like all the other candidates, hews closely to conservative orthodoxy. He peppers his speeches with references to the Bible and to God. He supports lower taxes. ( He does favor a form of regressive Biblical tithing). He supports Israel with a patellar reflex. He opposes a woman's right to an abortion. He would keep Gitmo open. He abhors Obama care. He supports a robust military stance and sees Russia as our greatest foreign policy threat. And he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms with no restrictions. His positions do not differ from the other candidates in any significant way.

So what is his appeal? Could it be related to the fact that Carson is a BLACK conservative with an appealing rags to riches, Alger Hiss biography?

I submit to you that THE CARSON PHENOMENA is a response to the ugly reality of RACISM IN AMERICA. Racism is the reality that Americans on the far right....isolated from the racial heterogeneity in big cities, living in affluent and stark white communities of the hinterlands would like to obliterate. The ugly reality of American race relations is too unpalatable for these voters to swallow. Ugly race relations confront and tend to upend most cherished myths.

Dr. Ben Carson, is a successful black surgeon, who pulled himself up from poverty. The white GOP voter think: he embodies the American Dream, just as our conservative politicians predict. He also spouts conservative dogma. They interpret it thus: "he sounds just like one of us". His demeanor is calm, non- aggressive, non-threatening. His "nice man" character overrides ugly racial stereotypes and supports the fading myth of America's racial blamelessness. In short, Dr. Carson is the embodiment of the mythological American black man, generated by the white, affluent, conservative majority. And now he stands before them in person as a candidate and asks them for his vote.

With all the recent evidence in the press and media of racism, white-on-black police brutality, institutionalized police harassment of poor black communities, so obvious in this last summer's events in Fergerson, Missouri, and elsewhere around the nation, Carson makes it possible for these GOP voters to maintain the myth that such conditions and problems are all self-inflicted by the black community. He permits them to make a transfer of blame and guilt from "me to them". It is not my fault....it's theirs. Those press and TV stories are NOT is not a part of the REAL America. Our nation is EXCEPTIONAL, we are NOT RACIST. There is no racial barrier to success.

CARSON permits them to continue to believe that the poverty, crime, family dysfunction, etc., etc. of the Afro-American community are a result of black weakness and lack of industry. He permits them to maintain and promote inequality. White, affluent GOP voters are led to feel they have no responsibility for these blotches and blemishes on our nation's reputation. And finally there is no need to ameliorate these wrongs and social problems by concerted governmental action.

Carson's dual appeal is that he assuages guilt on one hand and reinforces a cherished myth on the other. He permits a certain element of our society the satisfaction of putting the ugliness of racial discord out of their mind and reinforces their tightly held and cherished myth of American purity.

For that reason Carson's appeal and his rise in the polls is a destructive one. Besides the support and money he denies other candidates, Carson's candidacy helps to perpetuate and posit a dangerous unreality. He encourages the continuation of a destructive myth. "There is no racial discord." All is OK in America." "We are great, good, kind and exceptional." "No changes needed!" No new government programs required, and of course...NO NEED TO TAKE OUR TAX MONEY.

CLINTON POLLS AND HER SCANDAL TRENDLINE

CLINTON EMAILGATE

Why Has Clinton Collapsed In The Polls?

Honesty, trust, questionable judgment and a scandal regression line which suggest strongly a potential for eight more years of divisive, wasteful scandals that will interfere with effective governing.

Was it all related to her use of a private email server? Not really. What did she actually do?

She purposely circumvented State Department rules and regulations regarding her electronic communications to avoid scrutiny and potential embarrassment at some later date by setting up a private server in her own home. Although not a declared candidate...she was even at this early date making firm plans to protect her reputation for her 2016 presidential run in 2009. She used this secret system for both her private family emails, her correspondence with her husband, and her official State Department official electronic documents. As a result, both her private correspondence and her official correspondences were commingled. In doing so, she probably compromised a certain number of "secret" government communications that would not have been exposed to potential scrutiny had she used a secure government server. Furthermore she ignored the "transparency law" that requires US officials to safeguard the historicity of their formal correspondence while in office. These documents, hard copy as well as electronic, are the people's property. Clinton ignored their right to know. As her time as Secretary of State came to en end, she broke the law again by continuing to store these commingled private and official documents in unsecured locations. First on her own private server in her home, and then she moved the server to another unsecured private company for storage. In addition, she illegally passed on some of them on to her attorney (who did not have security clearance). He stored these thumb drive copies illegally in his personal safe. At some point after she left the State Department she was required to turn over all of the official correspondence. She assigned her staff to review these "60,000 pages" of commingled private and government documents, some of which we now know were classed as "top secret" and "secret" to the view of individuals with unknown security clearances . It is also likely these unknown assistant were given the critical authority to make the final decision of which was "personal" and which was "official government" materials. Here again she compromised the security of her correspondences. Then in a final act of irresponsibility and misjudgment she had her private server wiped clean.

Finally, when her entire system became public knowledge as a result of an unrelated Congressional investigation which required her to submit her formal correspondence for a given period....her Nixon-like secret system to protect her privacy was exposed.

Then, the cover up phase began with lies and deceptions. "I did it for convenience." "It was permitted." "Others did it," etc., etc., etc. ad inclintonia.

Thus, we can see from that presented above what the big fuss is about are a series of foolish decisions, poor judgement, leading to relatively minor infractions of laws and regulations committed by a secretive, plotting, public servant, who has been repeatedly investigated in the past. And who when caught red-handed, lied about it. But why has this relatively "minor bump in the road" turned into a such major "scandal". One that has changed the political landscape in a matter of a few months? Does it rise to the level of Governor Perry's: "Oops I can't remember that one."? A seemingly minor fumble that ultimately led to the collapse of his presidential aspirations. It seems that it may.

For three reasons. One, because the email controversy first and foremost calls into question the candidate's judgment. Her ability to recognize a potential problem ahead, and her decision-making processes used to solve that problem can be questioned. How would a person with this mind set respond to the famous 2AM phone call? It also gives one pause regarding her relationship to her staff and advisors. Is her style of governing such that she completely surrounds herself by "yes men and women" among whom no one had the temerity to say: "Madam Secretary you are making a grave mistake"?

Secondly, the email debacle underscores in red ink the perception that she does not tell the truth. A dormant perception that this event brings again to life. A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated that almost two thirds of the electorate think that Mrs. Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. She has a long history which reinforces and confirms these perceptions. We need not go back into the past to make the point. The mysterious appearance of Rose Law Firm documents? Travelgate? Lincoln Bedroom rentals?

Finally, Mrs Clinton has a long history with the American public. We feel we already know a good portion of the trajectory of this person's life. This last data point (email gate) fits right on line with other plotted points on her graph. It is the EXTENSION of that average line, the regression or trendline, fitted to the plotted points which is the most troublesome and off putting for the electorate.

The American voters are now more aware of the trendline for a Clinton presidency. The extension of that line for eight more years reveals the likelihood of more scandals, more sleazy revelations, more lies and deceptions, more Clintons coming up to the bounds of legality and sidling over that boundary ever so slightly to award them some unwarranted personal financial or political advantage.

The polls indicate that many in the American public do not want Mrs. Clinton in the Oval Office. This nation has too many real and pressing problems to solve and does not have the resources to waste on political and emotional effort on a tumultuous, scandal plagued and divisive Clinton Presidency.

Mrs. Clinton may be well meaning and well prepared, but unfortunately in this case the candidate's own persona is a major distraction which has a high probability of upending the efficacy of her ability to govern.

HAYDEN WRONG ON IRAN AND ARMING ISRAEL

HAYDEN WRONG ON IRAN DEAL, TORTURE, 4th, ISRAEL

"We kill people based on metadata." Michael Hayden, Johns Hopkins Symposium, 1/4/14

Michael Hayden the "credibility challenged" former CIA chief was treated to a cushy seat in front of the American TV public on the popular MSNBC "Morning Joe" show this morning, on the eventful date of September 11, 2015. Joe and Mika took on the role of unnecessarily deferential hosts, asking no serious questions or referencing this guests past foibles and controversies, but quietly listened as Hayden spouted his opposition to the President's hard-won Iran Nuclear agreement. Hayden, a torture promoter, denier of Fourth Amendment Rights, and charged with lying to Congress, did as was expected, and took the opportunity to undermine the agreement, then painted what he hoped would be a fearful picture of conflict in the coming fifteen year life-span of the agreement. But what was most terrifying and egregious was his far out and dangerous proposal to provide Israel with MOP (massive ordinance penetrator) bombs which are capable of bunker busting into underground Iranian sites. These are the very sites Obama and the P5 fought so hard to place under inspection and which are planned to be emptied of nuclear enrichment equipment. Nothing would be more likely to abrogate the agreement, end Iranian cooperation, and encourage that nation to pursue a nuclear deterrent ( a la North Korea) than adding a new dimension to increase the Israeli threat to the region ( Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons both on land and in submarines). Such a proposal would be a sure way to light the fuse for a new, wider and more disastrous war in the Middle East. After delivery, the USA would have a proverbial loaded sawed-off shotgun tied to its neck with Netanyahu's finger on the trigger. We might as well hand over the President's control keys to the nuclear red box and the decision as to when to turn they key, for a foreign leader like Netanyahu would then be able to decide when or where the U.S. would go to war. Hayden has carelessly stepped into another mantrap with this statement. The iron jaws have snapped tight about his legs. If his appearance on Morning Joe to try to burnish his post Iraq War tarnished image he has just failed miserably. His foolish statement supports the most radical elements in our nation and the dangerous and unpredictable Netanyahu cabal in charge in Tel Aviv. The Israeli hardliners would certainly use such weaponry as blackmail to achieve their real goal of relegating Iran to the economic Stone Age and dragging the USA into another ME war. How dumb can one get? Perhaps you have forgotten this man's past. Since Joe and Mika were so reticent to supply his past...see below.

Michael Hayden is the former director of the CIA and National Security Agency. You would think with those credentials his pronouncements on anything dealing with US security should be listened to with respect and confidence. You would be DEAD WRONG....and perhaps using the "death analogy" is correct in this case. Hayden whose chubby, almost cherubic looks, belie his professional and military life history, is the classic chicken hawk.

Hayden, is a retired Air Force General with four stars. He rose up in through ranks beginning his career as an ROTC Reserve Air Force officer in 1969. He served almost exclusively in the "intelligence arm" of the service as "arm chair" Air Force general all of his long 41 year career. All through those years he helped support efforts to send other young men, and the children of others, into the crucible of battle while never experiencing that life and limb threatening possibility himself.

Hayden was responsible for the massive expansion of illegal domestic spying after 9-11, the expansion of extra judicial assassinations by unmanned aerial drones. Under his leadership the NSA established the now infamous massive domestic spying network ( termed the "domestic telephone call database") illegally overriding statues forbidding warrentless surveillance...the FISA statues. He lied to Congress regarding these issues. He proposed and supported another enlarged electronics domestic spy network called the "Trailblazer Project" that was so intrusive his own staff resigned rather than comply. It was shut down after investigations by the DOD inspector general and deemed unconstitutional by Congress. As any school kid knows, the Nation's Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires PROBABLE CAUSE and a judges's warrant to proceed with the investigation. However, like the word TORTURE, which are not found in Hayden's vocabulary neither are the words PROBABLE CAUSE. Hayden has been video taped stating to reporters in a press conference that "probable cause" IS NOT in the FourthAmendment of the Bill of Rights. He was not truthful.

Hayden is a dedicated supporter of torture. He continues to deny the methods used by the CIA and described as "brutal and excessive" by Senate investigators should be described as "torture". Senator John McCain who experienced similar methods first hand disagreed with him. Hayden continues to claim, over the abundance of information and data to the contrary, that the use of torture gleaned from CIA detainees led to "actionable information". Senate investigators charged Hayden with" misrepresenting" the value of torture-derived information from CIA detainees. His veracity on that issue and others has been challenged over and over again.

Hayden's statements on the Iran Agreement and his proposal to arm Israel with MOP bombs will certainly not help him in his crusade to rewrite the negative view that history has recorded for this misguided man.