THE TRUMP TERREMOTO (EARTHQUAKE)
UNDERSTANDING THE TRUMP REVOLUTION
The airwaves, Internet and print media are alive with discontent over the Trump Revolution or what we may call the Trump TERREMOTO. Yes Mr. Trump's win has been like a massive political earthquake literally shaking the ground upon which the entire corrupt Washington establishment has been built upon for the last several decades. The Washington insiders, politicians, office holders, lobbyists, contractors, political hacks, and those holding powerful positions in the government are all disoriented and destabilized as the political landscape swirls about them as it responds to massive political change. The web of incestuous, corrupt, relations these insiders have built up over the last decades have or will soon be shaken to the breaking point. But the DC insiders and their facilitators and allies will do just about anything to hold on to the political power and access to money they have established for themselves, their spouses and their children. They won't leave quietly. They will stoop to any act to keep the cozy deals they have....all at the expense of the taxpayer on whose dime they depend and whom they think of and/or refer to as "deplorables"
As observers of the political scene we must understand that we are witnessing an earth shattering political revolution. The political insiders of Washington, the members of both parties, and the establishment have been turned out of office by the actions of A FREE PEOPLE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ACCESS TO THE SECRET BALLOT.
Let's review who the People have decided were winners and losers:
WINNERS: The People. The average working-class American is the winner. Those who live and work in the vast "fly over" area of USA, the silent majority of the wide plains with waving wheat who just could not take the corruption, senseless wars, declining income, loss of security, and loss of hope for themselves and their children any longer---- they are the winners.
Also a winner is that oft misused and misconceived concept of American Exceptionalism. We are not exceptional in every way....far from it. But in this 2016 election we have proved our uniqueness. Our system IS exceptional in its peaceful response to the wishes of the PEOPLE which it claims to serve. This election was a peaceful overturn of the existing corrupt duopoly establishment 'which had lost touch with the people to whom it was pledged to serve. Only in America could the people have the actual voting POWER to turn out two deeply intertwined and ensconced political parties. Defeat an the opposition...represented by a well known and wily candidate with a billion dollar war chest, supported by a powerful political machine, a mortared-in-place establishment--a powerful media, connected and monied interests, the academy, a powerful entertainment industry, and even the sitting President and his powerful office.
LOSERS:
The Establishment of both parties. Especially the Clintons and their allies and the Bush Family and their allies. Establishment figures like: Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Senators John McCain and his Sancho Panza side-kick Senator Lindsey Graham; all the Washington elites, the inside-the-Beltway Crowd, the Big Donor Class, the Neocons, the powerful monied and politically active class like the Koch's, and the Adelsons; the entire corrupt, nepotistic, self-interested and incestuous ESTABLISHMENT, the Democrats and Republicans, the Washington political machinery---including the top cadre of the CIA, FBI.
The Main Stream Media, especially the New York Times and the Washington Post and the TV talking heads on MSNBC and CNN.
Academia; The pointy headed, politically-correct, impractical, business-hating, and self- absorbed professors of academe are losers.
Hollywood is a loser. The Hollywood "celebrities" who have the chutzpah to actually believe that their status as ridiculously overpaid manikins, mouthing words in front of a camera or on a stage, words others have written, have some special insight or a more valid understanding of the policies or workings of our government than the people who till our land, heal our people, teach our kids, build our cars or clean our streets. They don't.
Thus when we find it hard to understand the resistance of the both political parties, the media, our entertainers, our President, and the donor class of both parties to change, and the politicization of our institutions such as the CIA and the FBi...we must see these events in the light of the TRUMP TERREMOTO. The Trump Earthquake. Trump has ushered in a total collapse of the web of interactions within an established system. Be aware that the resistance of the institutional classes to such change is enormous. The cozy, self serving relationships these types created over decades is threatened. The lucrative deals at they had may not exist in the new order--and they are transfixed by fear.
Expect the worst from these corrupt officials who will be turned out into the cold. They will do anything--imagine the worst---to keep the old order.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
PUTIN HACKING DNC PAYBACK FOR OBAMA-BROKERED COUP IN UKRAINE
RUSSIAN HACKING IS PAY BACK FOR TOPPLING UKRAINE PRESIDENT
OUR ACTIONS INCUR REACTIONS
In the last few weeks since the "Trump Terremoto" of 2016, the mainstream media have been obsessed with the Russian "hacking" of the DNC and the effects on the election of Mr. Trump. Did the Russian acts of cybersleuthing actually alter the outcome of the election? The Democrats seem to prefer to blame the Russians and are hanging their excuses for their shocking and (to them) depressing loss on that cause rather than the weaknesses of their candidate. All our US spy agencies appear to agree it was the Russians...though they have not released any actual evidence. Perhaps the evidence is too unsavory for the American public to swallow? Perhaps the idea that Russian hacking and impact on our elections was payback for the 2014 US involvement in the toppling of the Ukrainian president?
As in any detective story...the typical "gum shoe" detective looks for a suspect among those who had a motive--- and the means to perpetrate the act. No one --even the Russians--should ever get convicted on this type of weak circumstantial evidence, but it is often the means to a the trail of evidence to the culprit. Our FBI and CIA are surely aware that the Russians had the means to hack into the DNC and Mrs. Clinton's private server secreted in her basement. But what was the motive?
The Obama Administration attacked the Russian Bear on its sensitive nose when they conspired to topple the legitimately elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in 2014...in the Ukraine. This Obama Administration, CIA and State Department action was seen by Mr. Putin as an existential threat to the Russian nation. (See releases of recorded conversations between Victoria Nuland of the US State Department and G. Pratt then US Ambassador to Ukraine. Mr Obama also admitted subsequently in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of "brokering" the coup in Ukraine in February 2014). The US "brokered" coup led to the unrest in the Ukraine, the loss of thousands of lives in the so-called "Orange" Revolution which is still simmering in the eastern oblasts of that nation, and the occupation of the Crimea by Russia.
The "motive" as a factor in the FBI AND CIA calculations had to have weighed heavily in the spy agencie's "conclusions"...for there is little hard evidence in cybersphere cases. Our nation's sleuthing agencies have all been very closemouthed regarding "evidence". Perhaps these agencies don't want to underscore the fact that our actions and misdeeds have consequences. Our brokered coup of a legally elected government in the Ukraine had consequences. Newton's Third Law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) is always is in effect, both in the physical and political world. The sleuthing agencies would, however, rather not speak of these "reactions" to our intervention in another nation's elections in public. They would rather that we ignore the errors of our leaders which lead to unfavorable and undesirable effects. Too bad.
Our press and our leaders too often portray world events in stark black and white..."good guy vs bad guy" scenarios acceptable to what they perceive is their elementary school level audience. In these scenarios the US is always the good guy and the others...are one of a Rolladex of national and constantly changing players---are the bad guys. But for a plain thinking unencumbered guy from the snowy Green Mountains, it seems pretty simple. If the Russians did it, (still a big if). they may have had a good reason---a powerful motive. Perhaps we might have avoided this entire disaster by a different and better thought our foreign policy.
This author believes that if the Russians did it...the hacking and release of damaging emails to Wikileaks---it was Putin's pay back to Obama for the Ukraine fiasco. The Ukraine brokered coup of the Ukraine was a major foreign policy blunder by the USA and its allies in which in retrospect the USA lost heavily. But now with the Putin's response: "You mess with me"---says Putin---"and there are consequences". I suspect the Russian comeback was very damaging to Obama, the Democrat Party, and the USA political system. The Obama Administration and its neocon State Department pro-NATO-expansion activists started it....the Russian hacking and release of Podesta emails and Clinton speech texts...was only pay back in kind. It may have helped to eliminate the Clinton presidency and what Obama hoped would be an administration that preserved his legacy...what ever that was. Was the intervention in Ukraine worth it? I think not.
Its too bad that this kind of information never appears in the press or on TV. The American citizen and voter would have a better understanding of the world, their leaders, and the effects of the actions the USA takes. Also if our leaders had only taken an elementary physics course they would know about Newton's Third: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
OUR ACTIONS INCUR REACTIONS
In the last few weeks since the "Trump Terremoto" of 2016, the mainstream media have been obsessed with the Russian "hacking" of the DNC and the effects on the election of Mr. Trump. Did the Russian acts of cybersleuthing actually alter the outcome of the election? The Democrats seem to prefer to blame the Russians and are hanging their excuses for their shocking and (to them) depressing loss on that cause rather than the weaknesses of their candidate. All our US spy agencies appear to agree it was the Russians...though they have not released any actual evidence. Perhaps the evidence is too unsavory for the American public to swallow? Perhaps the idea that Russian hacking and impact on our elections was payback for the 2014 US involvement in the toppling of the Ukrainian president?
As in any detective story...the typical "gum shoe" detective looks for a suspect among those who had a motive--- and the means to perpetrate the act. No one --even the Russians--should ever get convicted on this type of weak circumstantial evidence, but it is often the means to a the trail of evidence to the culprit. Our FBI and CIA are surely aware that the Russians had the means to hack into the DNC and Mrs. Clinton's private server secreted in her basement. But what was the motive?
The Obama Administration attacked the Russian Bear on its sensitive nose when they conspired to topple the legitimately elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in 2014...in the Ukraine. This Obama Administration, CIA and State Department action was seen by Mr. Putin as an existential threat to the Russian nation. (See releases of recorded conversations between Victoria Nuland of the US State Department and G. Pratt then US Ambassador to Ukraine. Mr Obama also admitted subsequently in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of "brokering" the coup in Ukraine in February 2014). The US "brokered" coup led to the unrest in the Ukraine, the loss of thousands of lives in the so-called "Orange" Revolution which is still simmering in the eastern oblasts of that nation, and the occupation of the Crimea by Russia.
The "motive" as a factor in the FBI AND CIA calculations had to have weighed heavily in the spy agencie's "conclusions"...for there is little hard evidence in cybersphere cases. Our nation's sleuthing agencies have all been very closemouthed regarding "evidence". Perhaps these agencies don't want to underscore the fact that our actions and misdeeds have consequences. Our brokered coup of a legally elected government in the Ukraine had consequences. Newton's Third Law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) is always is in effect, both in the physical and political world. The sleuthing agencies would, however, rather not speak of these "reactions" to our intervention in another nation's elections in public. They would rather that we ignore the errors of our leaders which lead to unfavorable and undesirable effects. Too bad.
Our press and our leaders too often portray world events in stark black and white..."good guy vs bad guy" scenarios acceptable to what they perceive is their elementary school level audience. In these scenarios the US is always the good guy and the others...are one of a Rolladex of national and constantly changing players---are the bad guys. But for a plain thinking unencumbered guy from the snowy Green Mountains, it seems pretty simple. If the Russians did it, (still a big if). they may have had a good reason---a powerful motive. Perhaps we might have avoided this entire disaster by a different and better thought our foreign policy.
This author believes that if the Russians did it...the hacking and release of damaging emails to Wikileaks---it was Putin's pay back to Obama for the Ukraine fiasco. The Ukraine brokered coup of the Ukraine was a major foreign policy blunder by the USA and its allies in which in retrospect the USA lost heavily. But now with the Putin's response: "You mess with me"---says Putin---"and there are consequences". I suspect the Russian comeback was very damaging to Obama, the Democrat Party, and the USA political system. The Obama Administration and its neocon State Department pro-NATO-expansion activists started it....the Russian hacking and release of Podesta emails and Clinton speech texts...was only pay back in kind. It may have helped to eliminate the Clinton presidency and what Obama hoped would be an administration that preserved his legacy...what ever that was. Was the intervention in Ukraine worth it? I think not.
Its too bad that this kind of information never appears in the press or on TV. The American citizen and voter would have a better understanding of the world, their leaders, and the effects of the actions the USA takes. Also if our leaders had only taken an elementary physics course they would know about Newton's Third: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
OBAMA GUILT IN ALEPPO--ATTEMPT AT REGIME CHANGE GONE WRONG
ALEPPO FALLS TO SYRIAN GOVERNMENT FORCES
AMERICAN PRESS AND MEDIA WRING HANDS OVER FALL OF ALEPPO
OBAMA CAN NOT BE FAULTED FOR "DOING NOTHING"
7 OBAMA'S "STUPID STUFF" IN SYRIA---ATTEMPTING "REGIME CHANGE"
OBAMA HELPED EXTEND AND EXPAND THE CIVIL WAR
Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC on December 14, 2016, began a session on the fall of Aleppo with photos of war devastated neighborhoods in eastern Aleppo, which is in the last stages of being retaken by government forces. The visuals depicted streams of depressed, ragged Syrian refugees, WW II level devastation, gaping windows and shattered buildings. Over these images the Morning Joe staff replayed the comments of UN Ambassador Powers, who gave a speech to the UN on the situation in Aleppo on Tuesday. Powers attacked Iran, Russia and Syria, blaming these states for the carnage and accusing them of atrocities committed in retaking that city in eastern Syria. Joe attacked the Ambassador claiming that as a representative of the Obama Administration which was up until this UN speech "mute" about Aleppo she was an hypocrite making a speech at the fall of the city. He claimed President Obama "did nothing" all along, or worse he "backed down" when the US had a chance to do something. Presumably. "perennial war hawk Joe" was referring to "something" like a no fly zone or committing troops to fight along side of the Syrian thugs, al Qaida affiliates, and islamic terrorists who were aligned against the legitimate Syrian government and have held out in Aleppo since taking it from government control in 2012,
But Joe is wrong. The Obama Administration did not "do nothing". They were actively involved from the very beginning of the tragedy in Syria, Sadly they were always doing the wrong thing....making circumstances worse...extending and intensifying the unrest and the tragedy and the killing of innocents...all in an attempt to unseat dictator Mr. Assad.
Obama and his Secretary of State Ms Clinton were involved in Syria in another failed attempt at regime change in the Middle East---another one gone wrong, Apparently having learned nothing from the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan and most their most recent disaster-- Libya where US intervention and regime change led to chaos, tragedy and death and generated another failed state with streams of desperate refugees.
As soon as President Obama learned of the civil unrest in Syria he and his neocon affiliated aids rubbed their hands in glee. With the cities and countryside of Iraq and Libya still smoldering, this leader actually moved to repeat the "regime change" agenda even again to add another failed state, with hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths to the history books. For the neocons holdovers and Clinton allies in the administration this was an "opportunity" again to change the face of the Middle East and create a more compliant Syrian regime amenable to US control.
To implement this ill conceived policy Mr. Obama immediately sent CIA operatives with bundles of cash to foment further unrest. With the active participation of US operatives stirring up demonstrations, providing promises of help, logistics and bags of US money the uprising expanded into a civil war. When the war broke out the Obama Administration continued its aim of destabilizing the Syrian state by sending arms, ammunition and covert "trainers" to aid the thugs, al Qaida affiliates, ISIS gangs and other terrorists who made up much of the resistance. The US indiscriminately armed and supported a mixture of Syrian political resistance fighters, Islamic terrorists, various elements of al Qaida, and other Sunni fighters from Turkey, Kurdish areas, and Saudi Arabia who were foes of Assad for religious and political reasons.
We continued our ill advised support even in the light of the emerging facts as the war progressed which indicted that Mr. Assad was weakened and in control of only the western regions of Syria, but still had the support of more than 63% of the population, and the infrastructure of the nation, and was alone in being able to prevent Syria from falling into a Libya-like chaotic state---and who alone had the chance to prevent the entire state and its infrastructure becoming another center of ISIS power.
When Russia entered the war to aid Assad regime in October 2015 they implored the US to end its aid to the ISIS affiliates and Islamic terrorists in the eastern portions of the state and in Aleppo. They offered to work hand in hand with the US forces to defeat ISIS. But the Obama administration was unable to alter its "regime change" policy and its history of opposition to the Assad regime. Obama could not make this leap toward a sane and logical policy. The US continued their policy of support of the rag-tag terrorist infiltrated resistance, the ISIS affiliates and Islamic terror groups. T
The end came on December 15, 2016 when Aleppo finally fell to Syrian government forces as was expected for so long. So no Joe, Obama should not be blamed for "doing nothing". He is guilty of doing "stupid stuff" from the very beginning. It was covert stupid stuff. This is "stupid stuff" he wants us to forget about. Obama is smart enough to realize that it was dumb to continue his stupid policies. So he did not add to his stupidity with more "stupid stuff" like "no fly zones", or boots on the ground that likes of war hawk Joe Scarborough, crotchety Don Quixote Senator Mc Cain and his Sancho Panza-like Lindsey Graham. But the tens of thousands of innocent Syrians who died as a consequence of Mr. Obama's failed polices of regime change for Syria will always be a blotch on the polished brass Nobel Peace Prize escutcheon that Mr.Obama will at long last tuck under his arm as he finally leaves the White House.
AMERICAN PRESS AND MEDIA WRING HANDS OVER FALL OF ALEPPO
OBAMA CAN NOT BE FAULTED FOR "DOING NOTHING"
7 OBAMA'S "STUPID STUFF" IN SYRIA---ATTEMPTING "REGIME CHANGE"
OBAMA HELPED EXTEND AND EXPAND THE CIVIL WAR
Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC on December 14, 2016, began a session on the fall of Aleppo with photos of war devastated neighborhoods in eastern Aleppo, which is in the last stages of being retaken by government forces. The visuals depicted streams of depressed, ragged Syrian refugees, WW II level devastation, gaping windows and shattered buildings. Over these images the Morning Joe staff replayed the comments of UN Ambassador Powers, who gave a speech to the UN on the situation in Aleppo on Tuesday. Powers attacked Iran, Russia and Syria, blaming these states for the carnage and accusing them of atrocities committed in retaking that city in eastern Syria. Joe attacked the Ambassador claiming that as a representative of the Obama Administration which was up until this UN speech "mute" about Aleppo she was an hypocrite making a speech at the fall of the city. He claimed President Obama "did nothing" all along, or worse he "backed down" when the US had a chance to do something. Presumably. "perennial war hawk Joe" was referring to "something" like a no fly zone or committing troops to fight along side of the Syrian thugs, al Qaida affiliates, and islamic terrorists who were aligned against the legitimate Syrian government and have held out in Aleppo since taking it from government control in 2012,
But Joe is wrong. The Obama Administration did not "do nothing". They were actively involved from the very beginning of the tragedy in Syria, Sadly they were always doing the wrong thing....making circumstances worse...extending and intensifying the unrest and the tragedy and the killing of innocents...all in an attempt to unseat dictator Mr. Assad.
Obama and his Secretary of State Ms Clinton were involved in Syria in another failed attempt at regime change in the Middle East---another one gone wrong, Apparently having learned nothing from the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan and most their most recent disaster-- Libya where US intervention and regime change led to chaos, tragedy and death and generated another failed state with streams of desperate refugees.
As soon as President Obama learned of the civil unrest in Syria he and his neocon affiliated aids rubbed their hands in glee. With the cities and countryside of Iraq and Libya still smoldering, this leader actually moved to repeat the "regime change" agenda even again to add another failed state, with hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths to the history books. For the neocons holdovers and Clinton allies in the administration this was an "opportunity" again to change the face of the Middle East and create a more compliant Syrian regime amenable to US control.
To implement this ill conceived policy Mr. Obama immediately sent CIA operatives with bundles of cash to foment further unrest. With the active participation of US operatives stirring up demonstrations, providing promises of help, logistics and bags of US money the uprising expanded into a civil war. When the war broke out the Obama Administration continued its aim of destabilizing the Syrian state by sending arms, ammunition and covert "trainers" to aid the thugs, al Qaida affiliates, ISIS gangs and other terrorists who made up much of the resistance. The US indiscriminately armed and supported a mixture of Syrian political resistance fighters, Islamic terrorists, various elements of al Qaida, and other Sunni fighters from Turkey, Kurdish areas, and Saudi Arabia who were foes of Assad for religious and political reasons.
We continued our ill advised support even in the light of the emerging facts as the war progressed which indicted that Mr. Assad was weakened and in control of only the western regions of Syria, but still had the support of more than 63% of the population, and the infrastructure of the nation, and was alone in being able to prevent Syria from falling into a Libya-like chaotic state---and who alone had the chance to prevent the entire state and its infrastructure becoming another center of ISIS power.
When Russia entered the war to aid Assad regime in October 2015 they implored the US to end its aid to the ISIS affiliates and Islamic terrorists in the eastern portions of the state and in Aleppo. They offered to work hand in hand with the US forces to defeat ISIS. But the Obama administration was unable to alter its "regime change" policy and its history of opposition to the Assad regime. Obama could not make this leap toward a sane and logical policy. The US continued their policy of support of the rag-tag terrorist infiltrated resistance, the ISIS affiliates and Islamic terror groups. T
The end came on December 15, 2016 when Aleppo finally fell to Syrian government forces as was expected for so long. So no Joe, Obama should not be blamed for "doing nothing". He is guilty of doing "stupid stuff" from the very beginning. It was covert stupid stuff. This is "stupid stuff" he wants us to forget about. Obama is smart enough to realize that it was dumb to continue his stupid policies. So he did not add to his stupidity with more "stupid stuff" like "no fly zones", or boots on the ground that likes of war hawk Joe Scarborough, crotchety Don Quixote Senator Mc Cain and his Sancho Panza-like Lindsey Graham. But the tens of thousands of innocent Syrians who died as a consequence of Mr. Obama's failed polices of regime change for Syria will always be a blotch on the polished brass Nobel Peace Prize escutcheon that Mr.Obama will at long last tuck under his arm as he finally leaves the White House.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
DEMOCRAT'S FAKE NEWS: RUSSIANS IMPACT ELECTION
DEMOCRATS LOSS; CLINTON DID IT--NOT THE RUSSIANS
This weekend (December 10-11, 2016) the MS media, TV talking heads, and the jabbering self- absorbed pundits are focused on so-called "fake news stories" and the supposed "Russian cyber hacking" which these Clinton supporters claim altered the election results. The truth is that the Democrats seem incapable of accepting the fact that they decisively lost this last election. What makes it so difficult to admit is that they lost to a political novice..who had no "donor class" support, who won while spending only half of the $1.2 billion dollars Clinton spent. They lost against a candidate who the mainstream media despised, who had to weather a storm of mud slinging, who had no newspaper editorial endorsements, no Hollywood supporters, and the active antagonism of a sitting President, two former Presidents, the powerful Bush family, the Clinton Political Machine and the entire establishment wings of both political parties. What the Democrats can not swallow is the fact that they fielded a horribly flawed, inept and unlikeable candidate, who ran a campaign without a message, who focused on coastal big donors and elites and divisive identity politics, and who was so overconfident of her win that she squandered valuable time and resources in the final weeks to make "show appearances" in states she could not win, and ignored a vast swath of potential Democrat voters in the Rust Belt where she might have changed the outcome. Sadly. the Democrats do not want to face up to their failures. They would rather blame their embarrassing defeat on the Russians and an aberrant news incident that was not news at all.
With the apparent prodding of the President, some elements within the CIA have come up recently with a "more palatable" story of the "Russian effect"for the Obama Administration to peddle to the press and meet its misguided need to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration. Sadly, this partisan misinformation effort of the Administration was met with a chorus from a few of the disgruntled old guard GOP who have been sidelined by the People's choice. These two aged and out of touch US Senators hubristically believe that they know better than the 64 million Americans who just voted. In this "new" CIA report the nation's sleuths apparently lay out more circumstantial evidence, further inferences, vague suggestions, and hypotheticals drawn from earlier inferentially based reports. But still there is no "smoking gun: and no actual proof that the Russians or Mr. Putin had anything to do with the cybersleuthing that revealed Ms.Clinton's embarrassing speeches to Wall Street audiences, the emails of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Ms Brazile, and the damning remarks of Mr Podesta. Certainly, there is no shred of a suggestion that the Wikileaks revelations had any impact on the actual election process or its out come as the Democrats and their supporters continually try to suggest by illogically ]conflating the hacking incidents with the election results.
The hackers (whomever they were--Russian, Chinese, British, disgruntled Clintonistas, or some guy in Washington DC) exposed to the voting public the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, as well as the hubris, lies, and venality of the Clintons and their supporters. That information was valid and true. It did not compromise the election process. It only added to the information that voters could process to make an informed decision. It may not have helped Mrs. Clinton's chances. But the leaks were not fabrications--they were the actual utterances and writings of the targets of the hacking incidents, the candidate and her supporters. They were simply a window into what the candidate and others said or wrote. Mrs Clinton's speeches, Podesta's views about Catholics, Wasserman-Shultz's thumb on the scale against Sanders. Brazile's attempts to purloin debate questions, all of these exposed the character and the motives of the candidates and their supporters. Similar devastating, embarrassing and revealing tapes and recordings were released about Mr. Trump as well. They did not help him either. No one seems to mind that they were released.
So let us finally leave this vale of tears and gnashing teeth. The Democrats lost fair and square. It is best for them and our nation which depends on a strong and vibrant opposition party that they make an honest assessment of their failures and rectify them, rather than continue this charade of fake news and cries that-"it's the Russians fault".
This weekend (December 10-11, 2016) the MS media, TV talking heads, and the jabbering self- absorbed pundits are focused on so-called "fake news stories" and the supposed "Russian cyber hacking" which these Clinton supporters claim altered the election results. The truth is that the Democrats seem incapable of accepting the fact that they decisively lost this last election. What makes it so difficult to admit is that they lost to a political novice..who had no "donor class" support, who won while spending only half of the $1.2 billion dollars Clinton spent. They lost against a candidate who the mainstream media despised, who had to weather a storm of mud slinging, who had no newspaper editorial endorsements, no Hollywood supporters, and the active antagonism of a sitting President, two former Presidents, the powerful Bush family, the Clinton Political Machine and the entire establishment wings of both political parties. What the Democrats can not swallow is the fact that they fielded a horribly flawed, inept and unlikeable candidate, who ran a campaign without a message, who focused on coastal big donors and elites and divisive identity politics, and who was so overconfident of her win that she squandered valuable time and resources in the final weeks to make "show appearances" in states she could not win, and ignored a vast swath of potential Democrat voters in the Rust Belt where she might have changed the outcome. Sadly. the Democrats do not want to face up to their failures. They would rather blame their embarrassing defeat on the Russians and an aberrant news incident that was not news at all.
With the apparent prodding of the President, some elements within the CIA have come up recently with a "more palatable" story of the "Russian effect"for the Obama Administration to peddle to the press and meet its misguided need to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration. Sadly, this partisan misinformation effort of the Administration was met with a chorus from a few of the disgruntled old guard GOP who have been sidelined by the People's choice. These two aged and out of touch US Senators hubristically believe that they know better than the 64 million Americans who just voted. In this "new" CIA report the nation's sleuths apparently lay out more circumstantial evidence, further inferences, vague suggestions, and hypotheticals drawn from earlier inferentially based reports. But still there is no "smoking gun: and no actual proof that the Russians or Mr. Putin had anything to do with the cybersleuthing that revealed Ms.Clinton's embarrassing speeches to Wall Street audiences, the emails of Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Ms Brazile, and the damning remarks of Mr Podesta. Certainly, there is no shred of a suggestion that the Wikileaks revelations had any impact on the actual election process or its out come as the Democrats and their supporters continually try to suggest by illogically ]conflating the hacking incidents with the election results.
The hackers (whomever they were--Russian, Chinese, British, disgruntled Clintonistas, or some guy in Washington DC) exposed to the voting public the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, as well as the hubris, lies, and venality of the Clintons and their supporters. That information was valid and true. It did not compromise the election process. It only added to the information that voters could process to make an informed decision. It may not have helped Mrs. Clinton's chances. But the leaks were not fabrications--they were the actual utterances and writings of the targets of the hacking incidents, the candidate and her supporters. They were simply a window into what the candidate and others said or wrote. Mrs Clinton's speeches, Podesta's views about Catholics, Wasserman-Shultz's thumb on the scale against Sanders. Brazile's attempts to purloin debate questions, all of these exposed the character and the motives of the candidates and their supporters. Similar devastating, embarrassing and revealing tapes and recordings were released about Mr. Trump as well. They did not help him either. No one seems to mind that they were released.
So let us finally leave this vale of tears and gnashing teeth. The Democrats lost fair and square. It is best for them and our nation which depends on a strong and vibrant opposition party that they make an honest assessment of their failures and rectify them, rather than continue this charade of fake news and cries that-"it's the Russians fault".
Thursday, December 8, 2016
ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUSINGS
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DEVISED TO PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY OF ONE SORT CONTINUES TO PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY OF ANOTHER
The recent election results, in which one candidate has won the popular vote while the other has garnered the majority of the elector's votes, to win the Presidency has been much in the public media. Many pundits on the left have complained about the Electoral College system's short comings, how it puts an unwelcome stumbling block in the path of the voter, making the government less responsive...less "democratic".
The Electoral College was set up by the Founders to protect the Republic from one of their major fears---the tyranny of the masses. In this 2016 election the inherent wisdom of the College has become manifest...as a means of shielding the nation as a whole from the potential tyranny of a cultural and ethnic minority of coastal elites and their minions. It illustrates for us the value of this seemingly arcane, undemocratic system as a means to insure that all of our citizens--members of our physically vast, ethnically and politically diverse nation----urban and rural--- are represented and weighed fairly on the political scale in Washington. It also assures that the winner would have a broad mandate to govern...with substantial popularity over a wide expanse of the physical nation.
As a result of analysis of the outcome of this last election...it has now been revealed (Dec 8, 2016) in press reports that of the some three thousand (3,113) counties (and similar regions) which record election results as a unit, Mrs. Clinton, the Democrat candidate, won 487 counties, or less than 16% of the total. Those won by Clinton were primarily concentrated in a narrow band along part of the east and west coasts. Mr. Trump, the Republican, on the other hand carried more than five times as many counties (2,626) or 84% of the total. The counties he won stretched over an area comprising the wide central, southern and northern swath of the nation.
Some may claim that the votes of REAL PEOPLE count...rather than just empty territory. Indeed many of the counties Trump won ARE sparsely populated. But were the USA to simply decide our elections on the popular vote, Americans living in "fly-over country" would be effectively disenfranchised. Politicians would naturally focus on the dense concentration of diverse voters living in enclaves on the coasts. Small town issues, valid and urgent rural concerns would likely be ignored. Such a system would in effect disenfranchise the central core of the nation and its rural, small town inhabitants. It would also make it difficult for such a candidate to govern the nation should he or she win in such a way. Unhappily for the Democrats---this was the strategy ( a losing one) that the Clinton team followed. Using "identity politics" they targeted a handful of demographic elements in the densely populated cities and suburbs: single women, blacks, hispanics, the gay and lesbian communities, etc., etc. and as they have been doing all along---ignored the 70% of the population that is white, high school educated, underemployed and living in the nation's mid section. The Clinton team forgot about the Electoral College. They thought that they had the election sewed up with their handful of minority voters all concentrated in the coastal zone. The ignored the founders intentions and the Electoral College and lost.
Clinton did win more popular votes. The Democrat racked up a plurality of more than 2.5 million popular votes at last count. However, this plurality of popular votes were derived from large turnout in only TWO states: California and New York. If our elections were decided on only the popular vote one could see how these dense enclaves, with their distinctive populations, their particular economic, social, and physical needs and circumstances, would dominate the political agenda of a vast nation. That would not be wise or fair. Furthermore, how could such a candidate, popular in only a small though densely populated region, lead an entire nation?
It would not be true to state that our Founders were "wise" in setting up this election system for such a diverse nation....they could not have imagined what the weak, conflicted, squabbling thirteen colonies would become. Their concerns were of different matters. So it was just lucky happenstance that our Electoral College system...devised to offset the potential for one kind of tyranny...has come to be a protector of the rights of multitudes of rural, exurban, small town Americans who live scattered between the Appalachians and Rockies in what some call "fly-over" country.
So let us celebrate the fortuitous circumstances of history which we have inherited: the (yes) arcane but useful convention we call the Electoral College.
The recent election results, in which one candidate has won the popular vote while the other has garnered the majority of the elector's votes, to win the Presidency has been much in the public media. Many pundits on the left have complained about the Electoral College system's short comings, how it puts an unwelcome stumbling block in the path of the voter, making the government less responsive...less "democratic".
The Electoral College was set up by the Founders to protect the Republic from one of their major fears---the tyranny of the masses. In this 2016 election the inherent wisdom of the College has become manifest...as a means of shielding the nation as a whole from the potential tyranny of a cultural and ethnic minority of coastal elites and their minions. It illustrates for us the value of this seemingly arcane, undemocratic system as a means to insure that all of our citizens--members of our physically vast, ethnically and politically diverse nation----urban and rural--- are represented and weighed fairly on the political scale in Washington. It also assures that the winner would have a broad mandate to govern...with substantial popularity over a wide expanse of the physical nation.
As a result of analysis of the outcome of this last election...it has now been revealed (Dec 8, 2016) in press reports that of the some three thousand (3,113) counties (and similar regions) which record election results as a unit, Mrs. Clinton, the Democrat candidate, won 487 counties, or less than 16% of the total. Those won by Clinton were primarily concentrated in a narrow band along part of the east and west coasts. Mr. Trump, the Republican, on the other hand carried more than five times as many counties (2,626) or 84% of the total. The counties he won stretched over an area comprising the wide central, southern and northern swath of the nation.
Some may claim that the votes of REAL PEOPLE count...rather than just empty territory. Indeed many of the counties Trump won ARE sparsely populated. But were the USA to simply decide our elections on the popular vote, Americans living in "fly-over country" would be effectively disenfranchised. Politicians would naturally focus on the dense concentration of diverse voters living in enclaves on the coasts. Small town issues, valid and urgent rural concerns would likely be ignored. Such a system would in effect disenfranchise the central core of the nation and its rural, small town inhabitants. It would also make it difficult for such a candidate to govern the nation should he or she win in such a way. Unhappily for the Democrats---this was the strategy ( a losing one) that the Clinton team followed. Using "identity politics" they targeted a handful of demographic elements in the densely populated cities and suburbs: single women, blacks, hispanics, the gay and lesbian communities, etc., etc. and as they have been doing all along---ignored the 70% of the population that is white, high school educated, underemployed and living in the nation's mid section. The Clinton team forgot about the Electoral College. They thought that they had the election sewed up with their handful of minority voters all concentrated in the coastal zone. The ignored the founders intentions and the Electoral College and lost.
Clinton did win more popular votes. The Democrat racked up a plurality of more than 2.5 million popular votes at last count. However, this plurality of popular votes were derived from large turnout in only TWO states: California and New York. If our elections were decided on only the popular vote one could see how these dense enclaves, with their distinctive populations, their particular economic, social, and physical needs and circumstances, would dominate the political agenda of a vast nation. That would not be wise or fair. Furthermore, how could such a candidate, popular in only a small though densely populated region, lead an entire nation?
It would not be true to state that our Founders were "wise" in setting up this election system for such a diverse nation....they could not have imagined what the weak, conflicted, squabbling thirteen colonies would become. Their concerns were of different matters. So it was just lucky happenstance that our Electoral College system...devised to offset the potential for one kind of tyranny...has come to be a protector of the rights of multitudes of rural, exurban, small town Americans who live scattered between the Appalachians and Rockies in what some call "fly-over" country.
So let us celebrate the fortuitous circumstances of history which we have inherited: the (yes) arcane but useful convention we call the Electoral College.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
TRUMP REVOLUTION OF 2016
The 2016 election made us all squirm. We had come to a point of flexion in our history...and we had to make a decision on which road to take. For the last eight years...we have experienced a stagnant economy, continued costly and ineffective foreign intervention, increasing hollowing out of the middle class, increasing wealth and income inequality, the growth of the super wealthy elite--insulated from the problems they spawned and secure that they would not be held accountable, uncontrolled immigration, and a generalized sense that all is not right with the nation and its elite governing class.
The American political system was not devised by our founders so as to represent the wishes and needs of the masses or of the nation as a whole...The founders formulated their political concepts from the philosophers of the Enlightenment and the anglocentric precepts of government prevalent at that time in the English speaking world. Perhaps one can glimpse the sense of their times by reading Gibbon's, 1776, "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". Englishmen in the mid to late 18th Century formulated their political concepts and ideals based on the misguided view, anglocentric, monarchist, elitist views derived from a romantic reading of the texts off the ancient Roman Republic and Empire---in my view too much of Ciciero. Their goals, like the ancients, were to ignore the masses, keep power in the hands of the wealthy, the elite, the few, and arrange a system of "checks and balances" not to further democracy, but to protect the Republic from the potential ascendency and conflicting interests of competing cliques of the connected, the powerful, the wealthy landowners and of that period. Our Constitution spoke of our aspirations for a more representative government. but also acted as a straight jacket and stumbling block limiting their implementation. And so we have, as a people, struggled on into the 21 Century...stumbling and inching--now forward and a now to the rear aspiring for a more responsive, representative system, but seemingly never able to get there.
In the second decade of the 21 Century, by the 2016 elections, the dangerous weaknesses of this ancient and creaky system had become all too apparent. The meager government safety nets which had become part of our system in mid 20th Century were under attack or already abolished. These laws had been put into place in response to the Great Depression, the threat of Communism and to offset the natural tendency of raw capitalism to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. But by 2016 these laws had been compromised, undermined and bypassed or replaced by successive misguided leadership----of both parties Democrat and Republican. The US voter was faced with a political system dominated by massive amounts of corrupting cash donated by powerful and wealthy elites, Wall Street bundlers, major banks and swarms of lobbyists. As a result of the fact that this infusion of corrupting financial support for politicians and parties came from essentially one demographic element of the citizenry--the wealthy---both parties had almost identical political philosophies. Both Republicans and Democrats supported and advanced platforms acceptable to and often agreed to by the "megadonor class". Their agenda? Cut taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, open foreign markets for US business (by fiat or diplomacy and when that did not work by war and invasion), encourage (or ignore) the open wound of immigration and uncontrolled borders, advance "free-trade" and globalism, and sing on to "trade deals" advantageous to the the multinational corporations, banks and Wall Street. Voters were faced with a choice between two parties...neither one of which cared about or represented the needs of a vast swath of the middle class, of working men and women, or indeed, of the well being of the nation as a whole.
Both parties were in the grasp of a few hundred individuals known as the "donor class"---wealthy elites like the Koch brothers and the single issue Adelsons who as multi billionaires could buy and sell candidates at will and set the political agendas of their political puppets. These few wealthy men and women had the finances to dominate the political story, pick the candidates, control the issues and the platforms. Their continued and growing dominance of our political system was assured to bring the nation into a form of oligarchy common in the banana republics of South America in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There seemed no savior on the political scene of the right or left that could alter this trend away from our stated democratic goals and toward political disaster.
Change was desperately needed...some exclaimed another revolution was necessary. "1776" saved us from the oligarchy and tyranny of the British monarchy and now we needed another uprising to rescue us from the cancerous growth of a powerful oligarchy within our own nation.
Revolution came in the form of candidate Donald J. Trump. He is an imperfect savior...but in 2016 he alone overturned the sinister hold of the megadonors. He shattered the power of the establishment Republicans and their obeisance to the monied power brokers, he finally ended the Bush dynasty, he poked holes in some of the establishment sacred cows, he smashed the power of the elites and their media facilitators. He eliminated the corrupt and corrupting Clinton machine, and its embarrassing "slush fund" Clinton Foundation engaged in machinations only to expand the wealth and power, of one family, and by a devastating political upset, even forced the Democratic party to rethink and perhaps revise their "right of center" and divisive "identity politics" policies.
In the greatest irony of all, the sinister forces which were moving our government toward decline have been brought to an abrupt halt on November 8, 2016 by a blustering, bloviating, energetic, multibillionaire, novice-politician from Queens, who has great difficulty with standard syntax, but also has the ability to think out-side of the box, to grasp a political opportunity, to communicate effectively and emotionally to the voters, and to lead.
Revolutions are tricky. They make renewal, regeneration and redirection possible. They provide opportunities for needed change, but require our close attention. Now that the political pieces are shattered we must all work toward putting them back together in a better, more just, more democratic and more responsive way so as to serve all our citizens, Moslem, Jew and Christian, rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, poet and farmer.
The American political system was not devised by our founders so as to represent the wishes and needs of the masses or of the nation as a whole...The founders formulated their political concepts from the philosophers of the Enlightenment and the anglocentric precepts of government prevalent at that time in the English speaking world. Perhaps one can glimpse the sense of their times by reading Gibbon's, 1776, "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". Englishmen in the mid to late 18th Century formulated their political concepts and ideals based on the misguided view, anglocentric, monarchist, elitist views derived from a romantic reading of the texts off the ancient Roman Republic and Empire---in my view too much of Ciciero. Their goals, like the ancients, were to ignore the masses, keep power in the hands of the wealthy, the elite, the few, and arrange a system of "checks and balances" not to further democracy, but to protect the Republic from the potential ascendency and conflicting interests of competing cliques of the connected, the powerful, the wealthy landowners and of that period. Our Constitution spoke of our aspirations for a more representative government. but also acted as a straight jacket and stumbling block limiting their implementation. And so we have, as a people, struggled on into the 21 Century...stumbling and inching--now forward and a now to the rear aspiring for a more responsive, representative system, but seemingly never able to get there.
In the second decade of the 21 Century, by the 2016 elections, the dangerous weaknesses of this ancient and creaky system had become all too apparent. The meager government safety nets which had become part of our system in mid 20th Century were under attack or already abolished. These laws had been put into place in response to the Great Depression, the threat of Communism and to offset the natural tendency of raw capitalism to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. But by 2016 these laws had been compromised, undermined and bypassed or replaced by successive misguided leadership----of both parties Democrat and Republican. The US voter was faced with a political system dominated by massive amounts of corrupting cash donated by powerful and wealthy elites, Wall Street bundlers, major banks and swarms of lobbyists. As a result of the fact that this infusion of corrupting financial support for politicians and parties came from essentially one demographic element of the citizenry--the wealthy---both parties had almost identical political philosophies. Both Republicans and Democrats supported and advanced platforms acceptable to and often agreed to by the "megadonor class". Their agenda? Cut taxes, cut spending, cut entitlements, open foreign markets for US business (by fiat or diplomacy and when that did not work by war and invasion), encourage (or ignore) the open wound of immigration and uncontrolled borders, advance "free-trade" and globalism, and sing on to "trade deals" advantageous to the the multinational corporations, banks and Wall Street. Voters were faced with a choice between two parties...neither one of which cared about or represented the needs of a vast swath of the middle class, of working men and women, or indeed, of the well being of the nation as a whole.
Both parties were in the grasp of a few hundred individuals known as the "donor class"---wealthy elites like the Koch brothers and the single issue Adelsons who as multi billionaires could buy and sell candidates at will and set the political agendas of their political puppets. These few wealthy men and women had the finances to dominate the political story, pick the candidates, control the issues and the platforms. Their continued and growing dominance of our political system was assured to bring the nation into a form of oligarchy common in the banana republics of South America in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There seemed no savior on the political scene of the right or left that could alter this trend away from our stated democratic goals and toward political disaster.
Change was desperately needed...some exclaimed another revolution was necessary. "1776" saved us from the oligarchy and tyranny of the British monarchy and now we needed another uprising to rescue us from the cancerous growth of a powerful oligarchy within our own nation.
Revolution came in the form of candidate Donald J. Trump. He is an imperfect savior...but in 2016 he alone overturned the sinister hold of the megadonors. He shattered the power of the establishment Republicans and their obeisance to the monied power brokers, he finally ended the Bush dynasty, he poked holes in some of the establishment sacred cows, he smashed the power of the elites and their media facilitators. He eliminated the corrupt and corrupting Clinton machine, and its embarrassing "slush fund" Clinton Foundation engaged in machinations only to expand the wealth and power, of one family, and by a devastating political upset, even forced the Democratic party to rethink and perhaps revise their "right of center" and divisive "identity politics" policies.
In the greatest irony of all, the sinister forces which were moving our government toward decline have been brought to an abrupt halt on November 8, 2016 by a blustering, bloviating, energetic, multibillionaire, novice-politician from Queens, who has great difficulty with standard syntax, but also has the ability to think out-side of the box, to grasp a political opportunity, to communicate effectively and emotionally to the voters, and to lead.
Revolutions are tricky. They make renewal, regeneration and redirection possible. They provide opportunities for needed change, but require our close attention. Now that the political pieces are shattered we must all work toward putting them back together in a better, more just, more democratic and more responsive way so as to serve all our citizens, Moslem, Jew and Christian, rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, poet and farmer.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
CLINTON AMBITION BRINGS DOWN PARTY AND NATION
DEMOCRATS BROUGHT DOWN BY CLINTON TOWERING AMBITION
The famed 19th Century, London based, Baptist-Minister, Charles Spurgeon once said: "Revenge, lust, ambition, pride and sell-will are too often exalted as the god's of man's idolatry..."
Adam Smith, stated in the Wealth of Nations: " The overweening conceit which the greater part of men (and women) have of their own abilities is an ancient evil remarked by the philosophers and moralists of all ages."
The Democrats and their supporters are reeling, unable to accept the devastating electoral and political defeat by novice politician Donald Trump. Party officials, the media, the punditry, Academia, Hollywood and diverse Clinton supporters are in denial. Some have inadvertently encouraged the anti-Trump demonstrations and vandalism plaguing the streets of some inner cities. The demonstrators, however, should be directing their ire, not at the GOP, but at the Democrats who failed their supporters and the nation as a whole.
The effective functioning of our Republican system of government relies on the existence and paeticipation of two effective, responsive, political parties. Democrat officials failed the Nation in this last 2016 election. Party elites chose a candidate behind closed doors and foisted her on the public. They bent the rules, lied, and cheated to win her the nomination. During the election, American voters rose up against this Party candidate and handed out a devastating rebuke. As a result, the Dems are in tatters. Leaderless and demoralized, party officials are now desperately scraping around in the bottom of the personnel barrel for someone---anyone---to prop up as a face of opposition. The perfidious, foolhardy behavior of the Democrat insiders and elites have weakened the fabric of a great nation. Our system functions best with a competent and effective counterweight to the party in power...The Democrats in their haste to crown a flawed, unpopular candidate failed us all.
Much of the blame for this tragedy can be laid at the pant-suited legs and swollen feet of former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Though damning culpability also lies with the weakness and stupidity of party leaders; the President, who carelessly pushed this woman of only middling abilities, but towering ambition (and powerful wealthy connections) along the "cursus honorum"; to elites, and insiders who established a coronation system for this candidate rather than exposing her before the party voters, to the infamous "super delegates" who insured her victory, and to all of those who cheated and schemed to put a flawed candidate up as the nominee of the national party.
But it is sad and frightening that the underlying cause of this massive political disaster can be primarily ascribed to one woman's overweening, towering, immoderate, plethoric, unwarranted, unjustifiable AMBITION to be the FIRST FEMALE president. She and her misguided facilitators dragged the nation through this mess as a consequence of simple self-serving behavior...and no one had the courage or good sense to stop her.
She convinced herself she deserved it. It took two massive campaigns, and the expenditure of nearly a billion dollars to finally persuade her otherwise. Thankfully, her fellow citizens, both male and female soundly rejected her, not once but twice.
Democrats get your house in order!
The famed 19th Century, London based, Baptist-Minister, Charles Spurgeon once said: "Revenge, lust, ambition, pride and sell-will are too often exalted as the god's of man's idolatry..."
Adam Smith, stated in the Wealth of Nations: " The overweening conceit which the greater part of men (and women) have of their own abilities is an ancient evil remarked by the philosophers and moralists of all ages."
The Democrats and their supporters are reeling, unable to accept the devastating electoral and political defeat by novice politician Donald Trump. Party officials, the media, the punditry, Academia, Hollywood and diverse Clinton supporters are in denial. Some have inadvertently encouraged the anti-Trump demonstrations and vandalism plaguing the streets of some inner cities. The demonstrators, however, should be directing their ire, not at the GOP, but at the Democrats who failed their supporters and the nation as a whole.
The effective functioning of our Republican system of government relies on the existence and paeticipation of two effective, responsive, political parties. Democrat officials failed the Nation in this last 2016 election. Party elites chose a candidate behind closed doors and foisted her on the public. They bent the rules, lied, and cheated to win her the nomination. During the election, American voters rose up against this Party candidate and handed out a devastating rebuke. As a result, the Dems are in tatters. Leaderless and demoralized, party officials are now desperately scraping around in the bottom of the personnel barrel for someone---anyone---to prop up as a face of opposition. The perfidious, foolhardy behavior of the Democrat insiders and elites have weakened the fabric of a great nation. Our system functions best with a competent and effective counterweight to the party in power...The Democrats in their haste to crown a flawed, unpopular candidate failed us all.
Much of the blame for this tragedy can be laid at the pant-suited legs and swollen feet of former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Though damning culpability also lies with the weakness and stupidity of party leaders; the President, who carelessly pushed this woman of only middling abilities, but towering ambition (and powerful wealthy connections) along the "cursus honorum"; to elites, and insiders who established a coronation system for this candidate rather than exposing her before the party voters, to the infamous "super delegates" who insured her victory, and to all of those who cheated and schemed to put a flawed candidate up as the nominee of the national party.
But it is sad and frightening that the underlying cause of this massive political disaster can be primarily ascribed to one woman's overweening, towering, immoderate, plethoric, unwarranted, unjustifiable AMBITION to be the FIRST FEMALE president. She and her misguided facilitators dragged the nation through this mess as a consequence of simple self-serving behavior...and no one had the courage or good sense to stop her.
She convinced herself she deserved it. It took two massive campaigns, and the expenditure of nearly a billion dollars to finally persuade her otherwise. Thankfully, her fellow citizens, both male and female soundly rejected her, not once but twice.
Democrats get your house in order!
Monday, November 14, 2016
DANGER FOR TRUMPISM IN DC
TRUMP MUST BEWARE OF THE QUICKSAND IN DC SWAMP.
Now that Mr. Trump's presidency is a reality...the hard part comes. Trump defeated one party decisively and has taken the other party prisoner. He has all his enemies on the run...but has to understand his mandate for change and continually remember who his real clients are. He has to serve their interests and if he does, perhaps he may be even elected to a second term.
The President--elect has to remember who elected him to this august position---and what THEY want. The so called "populism" he espoused during the campaign--the "movement" is real. The people elected Trump to control our borders, slow immigration, get the economy moving again, bring back good paying manufacturing jobs, staunch the power of the big donor class, and move away from globalism and damaging trade policies which drain wealth from our nation. These are his goals. These should be held against his forehead like the phylacteries observant Jews wear at morning prayer.
Trump has to remember that he is heading up a movement bigger that Jeff Sessions, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell or the wild militant--John Bolton who is decidedly not a member of the Trump movement. (So an emphatic NO! to any suggestion of him as Secretary of State). These folks are all part of the failed, elite, GOP system that the people decisively rejected in the primaries and then again in this last decisive national election. Trump may need them and their expertise on how the system works, but any he embraces must be held at arms length and ultimately must be bent to HIS will....not the other way around.
Time...and the names of those he will surround himself with...will reveal where Mr. Tump is heading. Will he abandon his "movement" for a few congenial hand shakes and slaps on the back and the good will of the swamp denizens, or will he drain the swamp and make it dry land for the people who elected him?
Don't go the way of Obama who had a mandate too....and became a wuss for the elites, the Clintonites, the big donors, and the party machine. He gave up his mandate to settle for a failed presidency, a phony Nobel Peace Award and the sobriquet of "first black" president. He served himself and forgot the people. .
The President--elect has to remember who elected him to this august position---and what THEY want. The so called "populism" he espoused during the campaign--the "movement" is real. The people elected Trump to control our borders, slow immigration, get the economy moving again, bring back good paying manufacturing jobs, staunch the power of the big donor class, and move away from globalism and damaging trade policies which drain wealth from our nation. These are his goals. These should be held against his forehead like the phylacteries observant Jews wear at morning prayer.
Trump has to remember that he is heading up a movement bigger that Jeff Sessions, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell or the wild militant--John Bolton who is decidedly not a member of the Trump movement. (So an emphatic NO! to any suggestion of him as Secretary of State). These folks are all part of the failed, elite, GOP system that the people decisively rejected in the primaries and then again in this last decisive national election. Trump may need them and their expertise on how the system works, but any he embraces must be held at arms length and ultimately must be bent to HIS will....not the other way around.
Time...and the names of those he will surround himself with...will reveal where Mr. Tump is heading. Will he abandon his "movement" for a few congenial hand shakes and slaps on the back and the good will of the swamp denizens, or will he drain the swamp and make it dry land for the people who elected him?
Don't go the way of Obama who had a mandate too....and became a wuss for the elites, the Clintonites, the big donors, and the party machine. He gave up his mandate to settle for a failed presidency, a phony Nobel Peace Award and the sobriquet of "first black" president. He served himself and forgot the people. .
Friday, November 11, 2016
GERMANY FEARS MAY HAVE TO SPEND $ TO DEFEND ITSELF
Germany Selfishly Fears It May Have To Defend Itself: Callls "Trump a political catastrophe"
Der Speiegel, (Nov 10, 2016) the German news magazine, ranted on and on about the danger of the Trump victory. They dramatically reprised a long list of Clinton-derived anti-Trump election hyperbole, as if it was established fact. They have had no contact with the man and know little of his actual agenda. They get a failing grade for journalism 101 as a result of having jumped to one-sided conclusions fed to them only by the opponent's camp in a tough, messy election year. But their lop-sided view is really the result of blind FEAR. They see their world "threatened" by being forced to actually defend themselves. They refer to this as "a dangerous phase of instability" but the instability is a domestic financial one. The fear of increased expenses. They fear the "new world" in which they may have to pay for NATO and the American military umbrella under which they cower. "The fact that Trump has indicated that he will demand that European NATO allies pay more for US military protection" terrifies them.
Having traveled for many years in Europe, and been impressed mightily, especially in Germany, with their infrastructure, their broadband wifi, the bustling economy, an economy in which each small town has its own "pet" (and protected) industry, their wonderful healthcare system, their long vacations and desirable lifestyle---I can understand their concern. It is the American citizen who is paying for their defense. We pay so they can focus their wealth on their lifestyle, and expansive welfare. While in the USA we are struggling to make ends meet, we suffer with crumbling infrastructure, off-shoring of well-paying jobs, shorter more difficult lives, so we look over there with envy. They can have their pleasant lifestyle because we pay for their defense.
More than one third of our government tax funds go into supporting a bloated military which is tasked with world protection. We have military bases all over Germany and Japan and in every nook and cranny around the world. It is not just "Fortress America" we protect, the US citizen is burdened with the protection of the entire western alliance and then some. Our American taxpayer foots the bill. "It ain't fair!" Not when our people are suffering.
Perhaps, its time that Germany and the rest of Europe, got off the US military dole. Lets bring all our boys home. Its been seventy years they have been there spending money that goes into the Germans national coffers. Perhaps its time for the germans to pay for their own defense. They would have to dig up about one-third or more of their tax income to cover an expanded military and their fair share of NATO. That may mean a less affluent lifestyle and more taxes for Germans. Perhaps when one has to actually put their hand down into their own pocket to fund some foolhardy military adventure, such as destabilizing the Ukraine, or the over-throw of Gaddafi in Libya, or Assad in Syria, the Germans and other Europeans may pause to assess the costs to their own taxpayers. Perhaps under those circumstances we might witness less dumb military adventurism on both sides of the Atlantic....and that would be a good outcome.
Der Speiegel, (Nov 10, 2016) the German news magazine, ranted on and on about the danger of the Trump victory. They dramatically reprised a long list of Clinton-derived anti-Trump election hyperbole, as if it was established fact. They have had no contact with the man and know little of his actual agenda. They get a failing grade for journalism 101 as a result of having jumped to one-sided conclusions fed to them only by the opponent's camp in a tough, messy election year. But their lop-sided view is really the result of blind FEAR. They see their world "threatened" by being forced to actually defend themselves. They refer to this as "a dangerous phase of instability" but the instability is a domestic financial one. The fear of increased expenses. They fear the "new world" in which they may have to pay for NATO and the American military umbrella under which they cower. "The fact that Trump has indicated that he will demand that European NATO allies pay more for US military protection" terrifies them.
Having traveled for many years in Europe, and been impressed mightily, especially in Germany, with their infrastructure, their broadband wifi, the bustling economy, an economy in which each small town has its own "pet" (and protected) industry, their wonderful healthcare system, their long vacations and desirable lifestyle---I can understand their concern. It is the American citizen who is paying for their defense. We pay so they can focus their wealth on their lifestyle, and expansive welfare. While in the USA we are struggling to make ends meet, we suffer with crumbling infrastructure, off-shoring of well-paying jobs, shorter more difficult lives, so we look over there with envy. They can have their pleasant lifestyle because we pay for their defense.
More than one third of our government tax funds go into supporting a bloated military which is tasked with world protection. We have military bases all over Germany and Japan and in every nook and cranny around the world. It is not just "Fortress America" we protect, the US citizen is burdened with the protection of the entire western alliance and then some. Our American taxpayer foots the bill. "It ain't fair!" Not when our people are suffering.
Perhaps, its time that Germany and the rest of Europe, got off the US military dole. Lets bring all our boys home. Its been seventy years they have been there spending money that goes into the Germans national coffers. Perhaps its time for the germans to pay for their own defense. They would have to dig up about one-third or more of their tax income to cover an expanded military and their fair share of NATO. That may mean a less affluent lifestyle and more taxes for Germans. Perhaps when one has to actually put their hand down into their own pocket to fund some foolhardy military adventure, such as destabilizing the Ukraine, or the over-throw of Gaddafi in Libya, or Assad in Syria, the Germans and other Europeans may pause to assess the costs to their own taxpayers. Perhaps under those circumstances we might witness less dumb military adventurism on both sides of the Atlantic....and that would be a good outcome.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
DEMOCRAT SELF INFLICTED WOUND--CLINTON CORONATION
DEMOCRATS CAN BLAME THEMSELVES-NO MORE CORONATIONS
The democrats and their supporters are wailing and gnashing their teeth. The loss was shocking, more so when the political technicians, the polls, the media, academia, and the politically connected and powerful were so hubristically sure of their right to win. But the devastating loss the Democrats suffered was brought on themselves. This major loss is a self inflicted wound. They had a failed coronation..not an open nomination process. It was a major mistake.
Trump turned the country red. His coat tails were long and he enhanced down ticket elections for his party. The Oval Office and both houses of Congress are now in the hands of the Republicans. Republicans dominate the state houses too. You have to go down to the level of alternate alderman and dog catcher to find some elected democrats. It didn't have to be this way.
But the loss of the White House is all the result of Democrat Party weaknesses, corruption, tunnel vision, and stupidity.
The Democrats fielded a corrupt, failed candidate. And she took the whole party down with her.
Unlike the wide open Republican nomination process---the Democrats had a coronation. Senator Sanders, a Independent Socialist from tiny Vermont, fighting an uphill battle was, unbeknownst to him, categorized by the insiders as "only a straw man" who was encouraged by the party insiders so he could be openly defeated by Hillary. The party needed to make it appear that she was legitimately nominated. Without Sanders it would have been too obvious a sham nomination. What actually happened during the course of the the election cycle was that Sanders' popularity surged beyond that of Clinton. He began to believe that he could really win. He almost did...until the party operatives undermined his candidacy to assure his loss. He never had a real chance....and his "damn your emails" statement revealed he was never going to go for anyone's jugular....especially Hillary's.
The Democrat nomination process was a sham. The propositioned, pre-acclaimed, pre-certified, pre-accepted candidate, with the billion dollar bankroll, the Clinton machine, an army of Clinton-Foundation-paid operatives, and unwarranted but widely touted "experience" also came to the election with an enormous pile of ugly baggage, a non-existent set of basic policies, a weak ability to express herself and relate to the citizenry, an aversion to communicate with the Press, and a penchant for secrecy. She also had "likeability", trust, and honesty issues.
There were available and are now many Democrats, male and female both, who have more and better experience, and would have been better candidates...but Hillary Clinton had taken up all the oxygen and all the money. The Democrats were too weak or too stupid to realize they were being taken by two "grifters". The nation may suffer for it.
For the welfare of the nation, for a more viable opposition party, and for the welfare of all our citizens...the Democrats must revise their nomination process. They must have a more democratic, open process with many debates. Yes it is messy and costly but it gives the people a chance to have their input. It is more democratic...and isn't that the way it should be for the DEMOCRAT PARTY?
The democrats and their supporters are wailing and gnashing their teeth. The loss was shocking, more so when the political technicians, the polls, the media, academia, and the politically connected and powerful were so hubristically sure of their right to win. But the devastating loss the Democrats suffered was brought on themselves. This major loss is a self inflicted wound. They had a failed coronation..not an open nomination process. It was a major mistake.
Trump turned the country red. His coat tails were long and he enhanced down ticket elections for his party. The Oval Office and both houses of Congress are now in the hands of the Republicans. Republicans dominate the state houses too. You have to go down to the level of alternate alderman and dog catcher to find some elected democrats. It didn't have to be this way.
But the loss of the White House is all the result of Democrat Party weaknesses, corruption, tunnel vision, and stupidity.
The Democrats fielded a corrupt, failed candidate. And she took the whole party down with her.
Unlike the wide open Republican nomination process---the Democrats had a coronation. Senator Sanders, a Independent Socialist from tiny Vermont, fighting an uphill battle was, unbeknownst to him, categorized by the insiders as "only a straw man" who was encouraged by the party insiders so he could be openly defeated by Hillary. The party needed to make it appear that she was legitimately nominated. Without Sanders it would have been too obvious a sham nomination. What actually happened during the course of the the election cycle was that Sanders' popularity surged beyond that of Clinton. He began to believe that he could really win. He almost did...until the party operatives undermined his candidacy to assure his loss. He never had a real chance....and his "damn your emails" statement revealed he was never going to go for anyone's jugular....especially Hillary's.
The Democrat nomination process was a sham. The propositioned, pre-acclaimed, pre-certified, pre-accepted candidate, with the billion dollar bankroll, the Clinton machine, an army of Clinton-Foundation-paid operatives, and unwarranted but widely touted "experience" also came to the election with an enormous pile of ugly baggage, a non-existent set of basic policies, a weak ability to express herself and relate to the citizenry, an aversion to communicate with the Press, and a penchant for secrecy. She also had "likeability", trust, and honesty issues.
There were available and are now many Democrats, male and female both, who have more and better experience, and would have been better candidates...but Hillary Clinton had taken up all the oxygen and all the money. The Democrats were too weak or too stupid to realize they were being taken by two "grifters". The nation may suffer for it.
For the welfare of the nation, for a more viable opposition party, and for the welfare of all our citizens...the Democrats must revise their nomination process. They must have a more democratic, open process with many debates. Yes it is messy and costly but it gives the people a chance to have their input. It is more democratic...and isn't that the way it should be for the DEMOCRAT PARTY?
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
PRESIDENT TRUMP
Trump Cleans the Augean Stable
Donald Trump, the brash, rough-edged New York billionaire, schooled on the streets of Queens, where he rubbed elbows with hard-hat construction workers, came out of right field to pull off an upset victory of historic proportions last night.
Beginning a year and a half ago, during the nomination process, Trump was the only candidate funding his own campaign so he could craft positions and a message of his own. Unlike his big-donor-controlled GOP competitors, he opposed job-killing globalization and unbalanced trade deals, to uncontrolled immigration and open borders, and frivolous foreign wars and "nation building" which sapped our resources and the strength of our military. His simple message promising to bring back good jobs, rigorous vetting of refugees and new immigrants, and establishment of a secure southern border touched a cord with an electorate still suffering economically from the Great Recession.
With his simple, straight forward message, a year and a half later he turned the map red. He helped sweep in Republicans down ticket and he decisively conquered the most powerful and corrupt political machine in recent American history. In achieving this, he over-turned the well-arranged, cozy relationships between banks, Wall Street, government and the long-entrenched and donor controlled Democrat and Republican parties. His win gives us all hope. It upended the reign in Washington of the Wall Streeters and bankers, the neocons, the big donor class, the 'pointy headed" elites, the Washington lobbies, the entrenched establishment in both parties, and the mass media which colluded with the latter to maintain a sinister power structure which ignored and abandoned a vast swath of American citizens.
From the beginning,Trump almost singlehandedly fought off sixteen well-heeled and politically-connected Republican candidates. Throughout the campaign he battled the Democrats, the billion-dollar Clinton political machine, the mass-media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street and the bankers, and a large majority of the "nevertrumpers" of his own party. There is not a modern politician I can think of who could have weathered the onslaught, the slime, innuendo, sex charges, the mud-throwing and the attempts at delegitimization, other than this tall, tough, flaxen-haired man from Queens. Bravo Mr. Trump.
On his side, he had only his determination to win, his own wealth, and a few stalwart politicians, such as: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Senator Sessions, General Flynn, and Newt Gingrich. He received no major editorial endorsements, and the support of only one media outlet (which wavered cowardly at times). His main and unwavering support was the mass of the American people who believed in him and his cause...to bring back jobs, control the borders and make America Great Again.
In the process of these herculean battles, Trump (with some help from Julian Assange of Wikileaks) exposed the corruption of Washington, the venality of the Clintons, the biased, unethical and craven main stream media, the politicalization within the Justice Department and in the leadership of our revered FBI which as a result of its head, at times became only an arm of the DNC. Even the power of the President was arrayed against this candidate. Mr. Obama entered the election fray with unseemly and inappropriate speech laced with ad hominem attacks. Trump's desperate opponents, including the President, only exposed the ugly under-belly of a corrupt system. The expose underscored the famous quote of Lord Acton who so well and succinctly stated that: "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Clinton0-Bush0-Obama administrations had reached a stage of such advanced political putrification, so severe as to require it to be extirpated like a cancerous tumor.
But Trump's revolution not only exposed the weakness and political corruption of the system and its players, but also our democracy's great strength. The Trump win last night is a testament to one type of "American political exceptionalism". It is the only kind we have. We are not the best in everything. Far from it. But on rare nights like last night we can all be proud to be Americans. In this country, like no other, the people can rise up and vote and truly manifest their will. . And last night it was the American people who spoke out loud and clear. The spirits of our great and wise founders of yore, who fought so courageously for our freedoms, and tormented and aroused by the Clinton-Bush-Obama years can again rest comfortably in their tombs secure in the hope of continuity and good health of the political system they left in our care.
Trump the billionaire non-politician is our new leader.. He needs all of our support and good will to succeed.
Donald Trump, the brash, rough-edged New York billionaire, schooled on the streets of Queens, where he rubbed elbows with hard-hat construction workers, came out of right field to pull off an upset victory of historic proportions last night.
Beginning a year and a half ago, during the nomination process, Trump was the only candidate funding his own campaign so he could craft positions and a message of his own. Unlike his big-donor-controlled GOP competitors, he opposed job-killing globalization and unbalanced trade deals, to uncontrolled immigration and open borders, and frivolous foreign wars and "nation building" which sapped our resources and the strength of our military. His simple message promising to bring back good jobs, rigorous vetting of refugees and new immigrants, and establishment of a secure southern border touched a cord with an electorate still suffering economically from the Great Recession.
With his simple, straight forward message, a year and a half later he turned the map red. He helped sweep in Republicans down ticket and he decisively conquered the most powerful and corrupt political machine in recent American history. In achieving this, he over-turned the well-arranged, cozy relationships between banks, Wall Street, government and the long-entrenched and donor controlled Democrat and Republican parties. His win gives us all hope. It upended the reign in Washington of the Wall Streeters and bankers, the neocons, the big donor class, the 'pointy headed" elites, the Washington lobbies, the entrenched establishment in both parties, and the mass media which colluded with the latter to maintain a sinister power structure which ignored and abandoned a vast swath of American citizens.
From the beginning,Trump almost singlehandedly fought off sixteen well-heeled and politically-connected Republican candidates. Throughout the campaign he battled the Democrats, the billion-dollar Clinton political machine, the mass-media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street and the bankers, and a large majority of the "nevertrumpers" of his own party. There is not a modern politician I can think of who could have weathered the onslaught, the slime, innuendo, sex charges, the mud-throwing and the attempts at delegitimization, other than this tall, tough, flaxen-haired man from Queens. Bravo Mr. Trump.
On his side, he had only his determination to win, his own wealth, and a few stalwart politicians, such as: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Senator Sessions, General Flynn, and Newt Gingrich. He received no major editorial endorsements, and the support of only one media outlet (which wavered cowardly at times). His main and unwavering support was the mass of the American people who believed in him and his cause...to bring back jobs, control the borders and make America Great Again.
In the process of these herculean battles, Trump (with some help from Julian Assange of Wikileaks) exposed the corruption of Washington, the venality of the Clintons, the biased, unethical and craven main stream media, the politicalization within the Justice Department and in the leadership of our revered FBI which as a result of its head, at times became only an arm of the DNC. Even the power of the President was arrayed against this candidate. Mr. Obama entered the election fray with unseemly and inappropriate speech laced with ad hominem attacks. Trump's desperate opponents, including the President, only exposed the ugly under-belly of a corrupt system. The expose underscored the famous quote of Lord Acton who so well and succinctly stated that: "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Clinton0-Bush0-Obama administrations had reached a stage of such advanced political putrification, so severe as to require it to be extirpated like a cancerous tumor.
But Trump's revolution not only exposed the weakness and political corruption of the system and its players, but also our democracy's great strength. The Trump win last night is a testament to one type of "American political exceptionalism". It is the only kind we have. We are not the best in everything. Far from it. But on rare nights like last night we can all be proud to be Americans. In this country, like no other, the people can rise up and vote and truly manifest their will. . And last night it was the American people who spoke out loud and clear. The spirits of our great and wise founders of yore, who fought so courageously for our freedoms, and tormented and aroused by the Clinton-Bush-Obama years can again rest comfortably in their tombs secure in the hope of continuity and good health of the political system they left in our care.
Trump the billionaire non-politician is our new leader.. He needs all of our support and good will to succeed.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
CLINTON LIES WEAVE A TANGLED WEB: EMAILGATE!
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Walter Scott
CLINTON GREED OVERPOWERS HER SOUND JUDGEMENT--UNDERMINES HER CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT
HOW CAN THE NATION ENTRUST THE NUCLEAR CODES TO A PERSON WHO HAS SO DISASTROUSLY MISMANAGED HER CAMPAIGN?
Mrs. Clinton's long history as a public servant has many examples (too numerous to reprise here) in which her decision-making processes were overwhelmed by her greed and venality. As Secretary of State, she made the egregious, unethical and illegal decision to ignore her promise to the Obama Administration to desist from mixing her personal business with that of the State Department and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. But the temptation was too great for her while in that powerful office. To further the wealth and influence of her family "slush fund" and her own self-emolument she and her husband colluded to brazenly sell access and influence to the highest bidder both domestic and foreign. As a consequence Of this first lie it became necessary to hide the evidence of her email trail from the prying eyes of the citizenry and of those who may take advantage of the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) to expose her mendacity and corruption. As a consequence of her lies, she has been dogged for a year and a half on the campaign trail by accusations of corruption, mishandling of classified, confidential and top-secret documents. She and others used influence to manipulate investigations into her schemes. She has embroiled and entangled the entire nation in her mendacity. Her actions have, in the end, smeared the good names of those who have become her defenders and those who have tried to expose her lies and misjudgment.
As a consequence of her mendacity and misjudgement, and the national circus which has developed around her lies our nation has lost credibility on the world stage, our citizens have less confidence in the legitimacy of the FBI and its director. She has even dragged the President into her evil web as well. Now it is clear that Mr. Obama lied to protect her and conceal the facts surrounding her home server. As a result of her misjudgement, the Department of Justice has been compromised in its actions, its decisions, and the reputation of the present attorney general which is sullied beyond repair after her secret and now infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
So this is a preview of what to expect of a Clinton Administration. An awful mess! A cacophony of claims and counterclaims. Government in perpetual stasis and chaos.
How can a thoughtful voter imagine handing over the awesome power of the presidency and the nuclear codes to a person who so mismanaged her own campaign. The Clintons have proved agin they are "grifters" who should not be offered a third term in the White House. The emailgate scandal has offered us a preview and it is disgusting.
CLINTON GREED OVERPOWERS HER SOUND JUDGEMENT--UNDERMINES HER CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT
HOW CAN THE NATION ENTRUST THE NUCLEAR CODES TO A PERSON WHO HAS SO DISASTROUSLY MISMANAGED HER CAMPAIGN?
Mrs. Clinton's long history as a public servant has many examples (too numerous to reprise here) in which her decision-making processes were overwhelmed by her greed and venality. As Secretary of State, she made the egregious, unethical and illegal decision to ignore her promise to the Obama Administration to desist from mixing her personal business with that of the State Department and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation. But the temptation was too great for her while in that powerful office. To further the wealth and influence of her family "slush fund" and her own self-emolument she and her husband colluded to brazenly sell access and influence to the highest bidder both domestic and foreign. As a consequence Of this first lie it became necessary to hide the evidence of her email trail from the prying eyes of the citizenry and of those who may take advantage of the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) to expose her mendacity and corruption. As a consequence of her lies, she has been dogged for a year and a half on the campaign trail by accusations of corruption, mishandling of classified, confidential and top-secret documents. She and others used influence to manipulate investigations into her schemes. She has embroiled and entangled the entire nation in her mendacity. Her actions have, in the end, smeared the good names of those who have become her defenders and those who have tried to expose her lies and misjudgment.
As a consequence of her mendacity and misjudgement, and the national circus which has developed around her lies our nation has lost credibility on the world stage, our citizens have less confidence in the legitimacy of the FBI and its director. She has even dragged the President into her evil web as well. Now it is clear that Mr. Obama lied to protect her and conceal the facts surrounding her home server. As a result of her misjudgement, the Department of Justice has been compromised in its actions, its decisions, and the reputation of the present attorney general which is sullied beyond repair after her secret and now infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
So this is a preview of what to expect of a Clinton Administration. An awful mess! A cacophony of claims and counterclaims. Government in perpetual stasis and chaos.
How can a thoughtful voter imagine handing over the awesome power of the presidency and the nuclear codes to a person who so mismanaged her own campaign. The Clintons have proved agin they are "grifters" who should not be offered a third term in the White House. The emailgate scandal has offered us a preview and it is disgusting.
CLINTON CHUTZPAH: RELEASE MY EMAILS!
Clinton Hypocrisy Re Comey
The bleached 33,000 emails may now come to light!
Like the "stained Blue Dress", illicit sex (or sexting) may bring down another Clinton.
Mrs.Clinton is on the war path. She has attacked FBI direct,or James Comey who, Friday, wrote a letter to Congress in which he informed that body that he is reopening the Clinton Email Investigation. His reason: the fact that pertinent new information (reportedly "thousands of emails" ) have surfaced which would have a bearing on the earlier Clinton investigation which Comey closed in July having found no "probable cause" to indict the former Secretary of State, though finding her and her staff reckless in their handling of confidential and secret documents. The Clinton Camp was very happy with Director Comey's findings then...now he has become an existential threat to her presidential aspirations and her campaign.
Clinton told a group in Daytona Beach Florida that Comey's actions were "unprecedented and deeply troubling"...because "voters deserve to get the full and complete facts." She urged the Director to "swiftly release all the information, put it all right on the table."
Isn't it ironic that Mrs. Clinton who has been so determined and persistent in hiding these emails,bleaching her secret server, smashing her blackberries, destroying her lap tops and determidly hiding this information for about 18 months, is now insistent on getting all the emails out? The emails are not Director Comey's..they are those of Mrs. Clinton and her staff..If she really wanted them "out on the table" she could have easily done that more than two years ago. She is demanding that Director Comey release her OWN emails, documents which she HAS BEEN HIDING all these months. What Chutzpah.
The fact is that Mrs. Clinton has NOT been reckless or CARELESS with her emails..she has been CALCULATING. Yes , calculating, not careless in hiding emails which by all measures of likelihood may contain the "lost trove of 33,000 emails she DELETED which documented her illicit, corrupt, sale of access to her State office, pay for play and self emolument dealings with political donors, foreign corporations and agents of the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
How did "thousands of emails" become recently available to Comey, causing him to reopen the email investigation? Ms Huma Abedin, a veery close aide to Mrs Clinton, is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. The former congressman and failed mayoral candidate who is presently being investigated by the FBI for email sexting with a 15 year old North Carolina minor. In the process of investigating Mr. Weiner's interstate dalliance with a minor, the FBI confiscated and analyzed his lap top computer. Unknown to the Clinton camp, Ms Abedin who had been in daily communication with candidate Clinton over the years, had shared her computer with her husband--(they are now separated). While Mrs. Clinton was deleting the 33,000 emails she claimed were "personal" and bleaching them off her home basement server, smashing her blackberries and tossing other computers into the Potomac, these so called "personal" and probably damaging documents were well-preserved on the instrument in Mr. Weiner's sleazy bedroom. Clinton was unaware that Ms. Abedin was sharing her computer with a sex addict who was to be investigated by the FBI, and the "personal" emails she was so concerned about, may now become public. One wonders wether Ms. Abedin was secretly hiding these documents for her own purposes. Was she planning a tell all book after the election or at the end of an era?
The saga of the emails is, as Donald Trump has characterized them, as big as Watergate.
The bleached 33,000 emails may now come to light!
Like the "stained Blue Dress", illicit sex (or sexting) may bring down another Clinton.
Mrs.Clinton is on the war path. She has attacked FBI direct,or James Comey who, Friday, wrote a letter to Congress in which he informed that body that he is reopening the Clinton Email Investigation. His reason: the fact that pertinent new information (reportedly "thousands of emails" ) have surfaced which would have a bearing on the earlier Clinton investigation which Comey closed in July having found no "probable cause" to indict the former Secretary of State, though finding her and her staff reckless in their handling of confidential and secret documents. The Clinton Camp was very happy with Director Comey's findings then...now he has become an existential threat to her presidential aspirations and her campaign.
Clinton told a group in Daytona Beach Florida that Comey's actions were "unprecedented and deeply troubling"...because "voters deserve to get the full and complete facts." She urged the Director to "swiftly release all the information, put it all right on the table."
Isn't it ironic that Mrs. Clinton who has been so determined and persistent in hiding these emails,bleaching her secret server, smashing her blackberries, destroying her lap tops and determidly hiding this information for about 18 months, is now insistent on getting all the emails out? The emails are not Director Comey's..they are those of Mrs. Clinton and her staff..If she really wanted them "out on the table" she could have easily done that more than two years ago. She is demanding that Director Comey release her OWN emails, documents which she HAS BEEN HIDING all these months. What Chutzpah.
The fact is that Mrs. Clinton has NOT been reckless or CARELESS with her emails..she has been CALCULATING. Yes , calculating, not careless in hiding emails which by all measures of likelihood may contain the "lost trove of 33,000 emails she DELETED which documented her illicit, corrupt, sale of access to her State office, pay for play and self emolument dealings with political donors, foreign corporations and agents of the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
How did "thousands of emails" become recently available to Comey, causing him to reopen the email investigation? Ms Huma Abedin, a veery close aide to Mrs Clinton, is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. The former congressman and failed mayoral candidate who is presently being investigated by the FBI for email sexting with a 15 year old North Carolina minor. In the process of investigating Mr. Weiner's interstate dalliance with a minor, the FBI confiscated and analyzed his lap top computer. Unknown to the Clinton camp, Ms Abedin who had been in daily communication with candidate Clinton over the years, had shared her computer with her husband--(they are now separated). While Mrs. Clinton was deleting the 33,000 emails she claimed were "personal" and bleaching them off her home basement server, smashing her blackberries and tossing other computers into the Potomac, these so called "personal" and probably damaging documents were well-preserved on the instrument in Mr. Weiner's sleazy bedroom. Clinton was unaware that Ms. Abedin was sharing her computer with a sex addict who was to be investigated by the FBI, and the "personal" emails she was so concerned about, may now become public. One wonders wether Ms. Abedin was secretly hiding these documents for her own purposes. Was she planning a tell all book after the election or at the end of an era?
The saga of the emails is, as Donald Trump has characterized them, as big as Watergate.
Friday, October 28, 2016
WSJ.: "CLINTONS TWO GRIFTERS"
The Clintons: "Grifters-in Chief". WSJ, October 27, 2016
Grifter: American slang probably derived from the word "graft". In carnival, and circus slang a grifter is a confidence trickster, a pickpocket, a crooked gambler, a con artist and a person who swindles another out of money through fraud. The Clintons are grifters according the Wall Street Journal...I fully agree.
The Wall Street Journal published two devastating and unprecedented articles on the Clintons and the Clinton presidency yesterday, October 27, 2016. The "Grifters-in -Chief" by Kimberley Strassel and the "Cold Clinton Reality" (Bill McGurn) both hammer the Clintons as corrupt officials who mix politics, business and the activities of a supposedly charitable foundation all for personal enrichment. McGurn, analyses the devastatingly frank and revealing Doug Band Wikileaks-hacked emails (posted to John Podesta) which reveal the chicanery and venality of the Clintons and their band of facilitators and co-conspirators. McGurn asks "Why isn't the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?" Ms Strassel does not to mince words as she warns that a "Hillary Clinton presidency will be built from the ground up on self-dealing, crony favors, and utter disregard for the law." Strassel spells out the ugly facts about Clinton corruption in "black and white" which she carefully derives from the "memo from longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band...who for years worked both for the Clinton Foundation" and headed his own consulting firm Teneo.
That the WSJ could finally find some column space and courage to attack the Clintons and the their awesome (yes that overused word fits here) political machine and their media facilitators is shocking. And further that they could bring themselves to publish these devastating, accusations is a huge story in itself. I am astounded but I as a concerned patriot welcome it. Finally, the truth that the Clintons are "grifters" (thank you Ms. Strassel) is a powerful and fitting appellation for these two confidence tricksters, frauds, large-scale pick-pockets,and swindlers on a massive scale.
So when you enter that booth to pull the lever...be fully aware that there is a "grifter" on one of the ballots. Don't put her in the White House.
Grifter: American slang probably derived from the word "graft". In carnival, and circus slang a grifter is a confidence trickster, a pickpocket, a crooked gambler, a con artist and a person who swindles another out of money through fraud. The Clintons are grifters according the Wall Street Journal...I fully agree.
The Wall Street Journal published two devastating and unprecedented articles on the Clintons and the Clinton presidency yesterday, October 27, 2016. The "Grifters-in -Chief" by Kimberley Strassel and the "Cold Clinton Reality" (Bill McGurn) both hammer the Clintons as corrupt officials who mix politics, business and the activities of a supposedly charitable foundation all for personal enrichment. McGurn, analyses the devastatingly frank and revealing Doug Band Wikileaks-hacked emails (posted to John Podesta) which reveal the chicanery and venality of the Clintons and their band of facilitators and co-conspirators. McGurn asks "Why isn't the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?" Ms Strassel does not to mince words as she warns that a "Hillary Clinton presidency will be built from the ground up on self-dealing, crony favors, and utter disregard for the law." Strassel spells out the ugly facts about Clinton corruption in "black and white" which she carefully derives from the "memo from longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band...who for years worked both for the Clinton Foundation" and headed his own consulting firm Teneo.
That the WSJ could finally find some column space and courage to attack the Clintons and the their awesome (yes that overused word fits here) political machine and their media facilitators is shocking. And further that they could bring themselves to publish these devastating, accusations is a huge story in itself. I am astounded but I as a concerned patriot welcome it. Finally, the truth that the Clintons are "grifters" (thank you Ms. Strassel) is a powerful and fitting appellation for these two confidence tricksters, frauds, large-scale pick-pockets,and swindlers on a massive scale.
So when you enter that booth to pull the lever...be fully aware that there is a "grifter" on one of the ballots. Don't put her in the White House.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
CLINTONS :BRIBE FBI?
Virginia Governor- $700,000--To FBI--Pay to look the Other Way,
Only the Tip of the Iceberg.
The Wall Street Journal published one of the most troubling revelations about Clinton corruption on Monday (yesterday)...It exposed how the infection in the body politic originating with the Clintons and their facilitators and paid operators have become like a metastasizing cancer and has even reached into the inner sanctum of the FBI...a frightening development considering the power and (perhaps former) prestige of that organization.
The Journal revealed the stench of a money trail that, during the highly sensitive investigation of MrsClinton's email fiasco by the FBI,led from the Clinton machine to a top FBI official who was intimately involved in Mrs.Clinton's email probe. According to the Journal, present Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, a former "bagman", operative, and longtime "friend" of the Clintons steered hundreds of thousands of dollars to the wife of FBI deputy-director Andre McCabe. McCabe was "running the Washington DC field office" at the time and served as Director Comey's "right had man", according to the Journal. McCabe, as the head honcho in DC was no doubt deeply involved in the sensitive probe into Mrs. Clinton's mishandling of confidential and top secret emails. If anyone could alter the outcome of the investigation McCabe who was right there on the ground would be the man to get to. The ugly details indicate that Governor McAuliffe provided nearly three quarters of a million dollar to the campaign of Ms Jill McCabe who was running for a house seat in Virginia. The funds represented approximately one-third of the total the candidate had raised.
Comey's FBI office has claimed that there was no quid pro quo. But the Journal pointed out that their investigation revealed that "98% of the McAuliffe donations to Mrs. McCabe' came after the FBI launched its Clinton probe".
We can expect that this is only the tip of the iceberg of the saga of past and future Clinton scandals. Hillary may be able to win the election, but she and her morally and ethically challenged husband, and our nation will again be forced into the mire of another Clinton regime. Another four years of this? Can we survive it?
Only the Tip of the Iceberg.
The Wall Street Journal published one of the most troubling revelations about Clinton corruption on Monday (yesterday)...It exposed how the infection in the body politic originating with the Clintons and their facilitators and paid operators have become like a metastasizing cancer and has even reached into the inner sanctum of the FBI...a frightening development considering the power and (perhaps former) prestige of that organization.
The Journal revealed the stench of a money trail that, during the highly sensitive investigation of MrsClinton's email fiasco by the FBI,led from the Clinton machine to a top FBI official who was intimately involved in Mrs.Clinton's email probe. According to the Journal, present Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, a former "bagman", operative, and longtime "friend" of the Clintons steered hundreds of thousands of dollars to the wife of FBI deputy-director Andre McCabe. McCabe was "running the Washington DC field office" at the time and served as Director Comey's "right had man", according to the Journal. McCabe, as the head honcho in DC was no doubt deeply involved in the sensitive probe into Mrs. Clinton's mishandling of confidential and top secret emails. If anyone could alter the outcome of the investigation McCabe who was right there on the ground would be the man to get to. The ugly details indicate that Governor McAuliffe provided nearly three quarters of a million dollar to the campaign of Ms Jill McCabe who was running for a house seat in Virginia. The funds represented approximately one-third of the total the candidate had raised.
Comey's FBI office has claimed that there was no quid pro quo. But the Journal pointed out that their investigation revealed that "98% of the McAuliffe donations to Mrs. McCabe' came after the FBI launched its Clinton probe".
We can expect that this is only the tip of the iceberg of the saga of past and future Clinton scandals. Hillary may be able to win the election, but she and her morally and ethically challenged husband, and our nation will again be forced into the mire of another Clinton regime. Another four years of this? Can we survive it?
Thursday, October 20, 2016
WHY TRUMP?
Why Trump over Clinton?
Mr. Trump is a novice politician. He speaks like the workmen in the Queens neighborhood in which he was raised---emotionally, imprecisely and sometimes crudely. In the past, like the hard-hat workmen of Queens, he has treated women and others in a boorish manner. He is not a perfect candidate, nor a perfect individual. But he does understand and identify with the concerns of a great swath of the working class American electorate. He has amply demonstrated his ability and competence by singlehandedly creating a world-class business, starting in a hardscrabble neighborhood in the suburbs of New York and growing it into a phenomenal multi billion dollar corporation situated in premiere locations around the world. It is ironic that if fell to Mr. Trump...a billionaire businessman- to become the political voice and advocate of working class Americans. But he has. He alone enunciates the polices and the direction (what it seems) is a clear majority of the what average Americans want. He stands for a more equitable distribution of wealth; a secure border; control of rampant immigration, the flood tide of which effects the jobs both native born Americans and those recent immigrants who reside and work here already. He wants to "drain the swamp of corruption" in Washington DC, and end the ugly dictatorship of the "inside-the-Beltway -elites" who control and manipulate policies for their own benefit. His concept of a more open, lower taxed, lower regulated US economy give us all hope of an end to economic stagnation. He would review and revise the harmful global trade deals our nation's leaders have formulated that bring prosperity to only the corporatist, big business, and a handful of the well-connected and super wealthy.
As for our other choice...Mrs. Clinton, is part of the problem not the solution. She is the ultimate insider who has gamed the system for her own benefit for three decades. She is indeed well-rehearsed and well-prepared. Well prepared to take the reins of the existing establishment and keep going in the same old direction. Every word she speaks is parsed, tested, and replayed over and over again to to keep the establishment types happy. She represents the very problem that the average working Americans are attempting to correct. Their goal is eliminate the dictatorship of the few, well-heeled, well-connected, over the many. By her own admission, (to Goldman Sacks audiences), her life in the heady world of the wealthy and powerful have changed Mrs. Clinton's perceptions, altering any vague understanding and empathy she may have had with the "regular working Joe and Jill". After decades of living off the taxpayer's dime she is well versed in how to live high on the hog by means of "pay to play" schemes and well versed in how to hide her "private" policies and formulated to enunciate only "public platitudes" to the people. Her stilted public persona is not shyness. It is simply the result of the need to constantly lie. She has the facial tics of a habitual mendicant, or prevaricator.
In my view, Clinton is too corrupt to serve as President. Her past is shot through with examples of venality too numerous to reprise here. But the most recent and most egregious is her relationship with the Clinton Foundation--a sinister slush-fund for the Clintons and their hangers on. The catastrophic email scandal which has dogged her all these months mistates her errors and misdeeds. She did not simply "mishandle" secret documents. She did do that, and yes it is a felony, punishable by jail time. But the question of why she erased and "bleached" 33,000 government property emails is more telling. The answer to that question is that as Secretary of State she was selling access to her office for private gain. That is ugly corruption of the first order. Imagine what she, Bill, and Chelesea could manage to rake in were she to have the power of the President's office?
A related fault and equally disqualifying factor is that she can not be trusted to tell the truth. She has, by her own admission, both a private and a public stance on issues. In a severe crisis, such as the recent Great Recession, how could anything she states to the nation be believed and accepted by the electorate and the citizenry? Her positions will always be suspect...and her ability as a leader would be severely compromisedan issue which could not be tolerated in a leader.
Our nation is not a true democracy, nor a parliamentary democracy...where the electorate actually chooses the parties which best represent their interests and then the parliament chooses its leader...the Prime Minister. In the USA we, with our ancient and creaky, two-party system..we always have a Hobson's choice...having to pick only of the better of two evils.
This time it is clear..Mrs. Clinton with her sinister ties to the powerful, rich, and foreign-dominated Clinton Foundation, and the un-American dynastic implications of her candidacy is much more dangerous to our nation's well-being than the less than perfect Donald Trump. Pick the candidate who will work his heart out for you...who has a chance to unite the nation, not the one who will divide it, and who is in it for only her own benefit.
Mr. Trump is a novice politician. He speaks like the workmen in the Queens neighborhood in which he was raised---emotionally, imprecisely and sometimes crudely. In the past, like the hard-hat workmen of Queens, he has treated women and others in a boorish manner. He is not a perfect candidate, nor a perfect individual. But he does understand and identify with the concerns of a great swath of the working class American electorate. He has amply demonstrated his ability and competence by singlehandedly creating a world-class business, starting in a hardscrabble neighborhood in the suburbs of New York and growing it into a phenomenal multi billion dollar corporation situated in premiere locations around the world. It is ironic that if fell to Mr. Trump...a billionaire businessman- to become the political voice and advocate of working class Americans. But he has. He alone enunciates the polices and the direction (what it seems) is a clear majority of the what average Americans want. He stands for a more equitable distribution of wealth; a secure border; control of rampant immigration, the flood tide of which effects the jobs both native born Americans and those recent immigrants who reside and work here already. He wants to "drain the swamp of corruption" in Washington DC, and end the ugly dictatorship of the "inside-the-Beltway -elites" who control and manipulate policies for their own benefit. His concept of a more open, lower taxed, lower regulated US economy give us all hope of an end to economic stagnation. He would review and revise the harmful global trade deals our nation's leaders have formulated that bring prosperity to only the corporatist, big business, and a handful of the well-connected and super wealthy.
As for our other choice...Mrs. Clinton, is part of the problem not the solution. She is the ultimate insider who has gamed the system for her own benefit for three decades. She is indeed well-rehearsed and well-prepared. Well prepared to take the reins of the existing establishment and keep going in the same old direction. Every word she speaks is parsed, tested, and replayed over and over again to to keep the establishment types happy. She represents the very problem that the average working Americans are attempting to correct. Their goal is eliminate the dictatorship of the few, well-heeled, well-connected, over the many. By her own admission, (to Goldman Sacks audiences), her life in the heady world of the wealthy and powerful have changed Mrs. Clinton's perceptions, altering any vague understanding and empathy she may have had with the "regular working Joe and Jill". After decades of living off the taxpayer's dime she is well versed in how to live high on the hog by means of "pay to play" schemes and well versed in how to hide her "private" policies and formulated to enunciate only "public platitudes" to the people. Her stilted public persona is not shyness. It is simply the result of the need to constantly lie. She has the facial tics of a habitual mendicant, or prevaricator.
In my view, Clinton is too corrupt to serve as President. Her past is shot through with examples of venality too numerous to reprise here. But the most recent and most egregious is her relationship with the Clinton Foundation--a sinister slush-fund for the Clintons and their hangers on. The catastrophic email scandal which has dogged her all these months mistates her errors and misdeeds. She did not simply "mishandle" secret documents. She did do that, and yes it is a felony, punishable by jail time. But the question of why she erased and "bleached" 33,000 government property emails is more telling. The answer to that question is that as Secretary of State she was selling access to her office for private gain. That is ugly corruption of the first order. Imagine what she, Bill, and Chelesea could manage to rake in were she to have the power of the President's office?
A related fault and equally disqualifying factor is that she can not be trusted to tell the truth. She has, by her own admission, both a private and a public stance on issues. In a severe crisis, such as the recent Great Recession, how could anything she states to the nation be believed and accepted by the electorate and the citizenry? Her positions will always be suspect...and her ability as a leader would be severely compromisedan issue which could not be tolerated in a leader.
Our nation is not a true democracy, nor a parliamentary democracy...where the electorate actually chooses the parties which best represent their interests and then the parliament chooses its leader...the Prime Minister. In the USA we, with our ancient and creaky, two-party system..we always have a Hobson's choice...having to pick only of the better of two evils.
This time it is clear..Mrs. Clinton with her sinister ties to the powerful, rich, and foreign-dominated Clinton Foundation, and the un-American dynastic implications of her candidacy is much more dangerous to our nation's well-being than the less than perfect Donald Trump. Pick the candidate who will work his heart out for you...who has a chance to unite the nation, not the one who will divide it, and who is in it for only her own benefit.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
ATTEMPT TO HIDE CLINTON WAR-MONGERING RECORD
TRUMP DID NOT SUPPORT IRAQ WAR
APPLES AND ORANGES:TRUMP ON-AIR MUSING NOT EQUAL TO FORMAL VOTE OF SENATOR
The Clinton camp is attacking Donald Trump for his supposed early support for the Iraq War. Forty days from the election why does this seem so important to them? The reason: they would like to nullify their candidate's well-deserved reputation for war mongering. They want the voters to forget her Senate-Iraq war-vote and her persistent support of that disastrous conflict, her position in favor of toppling of Syrian dictator Assad and the humanitarian crisis which ensued there, and her warring efforts in Libya and the resulting political, humanitarian and economic basket-case that resulted in that now failed nation. They would like to make the false claim that the musings of private-citizen Trump were equivalent to the formal vote and powerful support of a US Senator and the US Secretary of State. They would like to claim that Trump supported the Iraq War too, so as to muffle and obscure the use of that issue against her.
Let us be clear, Trump's pre-Iraq War conversations on the air with Howard Stern, Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity..in the distant past, were simply those of a PRIVATE CITIZEN. Reviewing those transcripts one come away with the impression that Trump was NOT a war-supporter. He is at times uncertain, and unclear, speaking as he does in his New York syntax, but clearly no flag waver. Significantly, the reason why he was chosen as a subject of interview by these TV and Radio hosts was the very fact that he WAS NOT a war supporter, at a time when most celebrities were wrapping themselves in the flag and beating the drums for an attack on the "evil" Saddam Hussein. Trump was making news as an interesting dissenter from the mainstream view. Furthermore, Trump was not a member of Congress or a political figure...he was a businessman and an entertainer at the time. He didn't take his opinions too seriously, and we should not either. His musings had no impact other than as making news as a minority view about the impending war.
We can not compare the rambling radio and TV conversations of Mr. Trump with the FORMAL VOTES of Ms Clinton who was a sitting Senator at the time of the Iraq War vote, or the Secretary of State during the Benghazi affair and the Libya fiasco. Mrs. Clinton held the responsibility of a representative of the people and as a high government official to make the fearful decision of sending our young men and women into a terrible war to face death or horrible mutilation. It is these decisions of Mrs. Clinton as a Senator and as Secretary of State on war that interest the voter, fearful of her past missteps on matters of use of force. Most significantly, after the Iraq War proved to be one of the most devastating mistakes in US history, she continued to support it and other conflicts in the same region. She continued making similar mistakes concerning use of military force, apparently not learning from her earlier experiences.
Mr. Trump on the other hand, may have been an uncertain and wobbly opponent of the war in his on air ramblings, early on...but his position on Iraq evolved. When he entered the competition for the Republican nomination, a position in support of the war would have been a more tenable political position. The GOP at that time held that Iraq was a "necessary war". During the nomination process Trump held firm, stating that the war was not justified. He alone spoke of the mistake of the Iraq War. He had the courage of his conviction. Among the 16 other candidates, he was the only one who firmly opposed the Bush-Cheney Wars. He took heat for that position at first, but he held to it, often stating: "The Iraq War was a disaster."
Don't let the Clinton lie-machine get away with it. Clinton can not be trusted wielding the vast power of the military. She has proved her incapacity, by consistently making the wrong decisions.
APPLES AND ORANGES:TRUMP ON-AIR MUSING NOT EQUAL TO FORMAL VOTE OF SENATOR
The Clinton camp is attacking Donald Trump for his supposed early support for the Iraq War. Forty days from the election why does this seem so important to them? The reason: they would like to nullify their candidate's well-deserved reputation for war mongering. They want the voters to forget her Senate-Iraq war-vote and her persistent support of that disastrous conflict, her position in favor of toppling of Syrian dictator Assad and the humanitarian crisis which ensued there, and her warring efforts in Libya and the resulting political, humanitarian and economic basket-case that resulted in that now failed nation. They would like to make the false claim that the musings of private-citizen Trump were equivalent to the formal vote and powerful support of a US Senator and the US Secretary of State. They would like to claim that Trump supported the Iraq War too, so as to muffle and obscure the use of that issue against her.
Let us be clear, Trump's pre-Iraq War conversations on the air with Howard Stern, Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity..in the distant past, were simply those of a PRIVATE CITIZEN. Reviewing those transcripts one come away with the impression that Trump was NOT a war-supporter. He is at times uncertain, and unclear, speaking as he does in his New York syntax, but clearly no flag waver. Significantly, the reason why he was chosen as a subject of interview by these TV and Radio hosts was the very fact that he WAS NOT a war supporter, at a time when most celebrities were wrapping themselves in the flag and beating the drums for an attack on the "evil" Saddam Hussein. Trump was making news as an interesting dissenter from the mainstream view. Furthermore, Trump was not a member of Congress or a political figure...he was a businessman and an entertainer at the time. He didn't take his opinions too seriously, and we should not either. His musings had no impact other than as making news as a minority view about the impending war.
We can not compare the rambling radio and TV conversations of Mr. Trump with the FORMAL VOTES of Ms Clinton who was a sitting Senator at the time of the Iraq War vote, or the Secretary of State during the Benghazi affair and the Libya fiasco. Mrs. Clinton held the responsibility of a representative of the people and as a high government official to make the fearful decision of sending our young men and women into a terrible war to face death or horrible mutilation. It is these decisions of Mrs. Clinton as a Senator and as Secretary of State on war that interest the voter, fearful of her past missteps on matters of use of force. Most significantly, after the Iraq War proved to be one of the most devastating mistakes in US history, she continued to support it and other conflicts in the same region. She continued making similar mistakes concerning use of military force, apparently not learning from her earlier experiences.
Mr. Trump on the other hand, may have been an uncertain and wobbly opponent of the war in his on air ramblings, early on...but his position on Iraq evolved. When he entered the competition for the Republican nomination, a position in support of the war would have been a more tenable political position. The GOP at that time held that Iraq was a "necessary war". During the nomination process Trump held firm, stating that the war was not justified. He alone spoke of the mistake of the Iraq War. He had the courage of his conviction. Among the 16 other candidates, he was the only one who firmly opposed the Bush-Cheney Wars. He took heat for that position at first, but he held to it, often stating: "The Iraq War was a disaster."
Don't let the Clinton lie-machine get away with it. Clinton can not be trusted wielding the vast power of the military. She has proved her incapacity, by consistently making the wrong decisions.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
WHY NOT CLINTON?
WAR HAWK, GLOBALIST, CORPORATIST, BOUGHT BY MEGADONORS, SCANDAL RIDDEN ELITIST, WILL NOT CHANGE DIRECTION OF NATION
I watched the debate last night (September 26, 2016) between candidates Madam Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump, (or "Donald" as Mrs Clinton so dismissively referred to him). As a former college debater, I scored Clinton, "the debater" a winner, but she lost as candidate Clinton for not advancing her political situation.
Clinton wobbled and was on the ropes during the first quarter hour, but with the "third debater" Lester Holt, on her side, she recovered and, in the end, won on scored points. But she may have not advanced her position in the polls. Secretary Clinton showed herself to be very well rehearsed and practiced as a political debater...she was smooth, scripted, and smug. Perhaps she was too smooth...too scripted and and to my thinking, way too smug.
Mrs. Clinton has so far spent some $100 million dollars on TV ads generated to falsely brand Mr. Trump as a racist, liar, and woman hater. Yet, most recent polls show her losing ground to Mr. Trump, both nationally and in the battleground states, indicating that her massively costly campaign of vilification has not been successful. But she doggedly continued in this same vein of attack last night. I found the ad hominem thrusts unpleasant to watch...as many others may have. It did not change my negative opinion of her as a female (not so humble) Uriah Heep of politics: sinister, plotting and insincere.
But Mrs. Clinton's main problem is not Mr. Trump. It is that a vast number of American voters who know her all too well--- do not like or trust her. Added to that is a deep American distaste for and resentment against the establishment of an American political dynasty, a cadre of elite families who trade the top positions in government back and fourth between them as in some tin pot South American nations of the 1930s. Voters aware of her long history of misdeeds, peddling access to public office and personal and political scandals, real and self inflicted all while public officials fear the turmoil and conflict of another bout with Clintonism. They are repelled by her and her husband's ethics and moral challenges and her facilitation of his misbehaviors and her sliming of his female accusers. They question the challenge and the obvious conflicts of interest posed by the Clinton Foundation. Of concern also is former president Bill Clinton's possible position in the White House and his penchant for selling access to power to the highest bidder, foreign and domestic.
The necessary goal of altering these issues of trust and character and conflict of interest where not altered by the debate, and I contend that her "win" on debating points did not change any voter's minds. I conclude she may have won a tactical battle last night, but has made a strategic blunder. Instead her performance in the debate only seemed to have underscored her "unlikability quotient". She has, after all, a long history of Strategic blunders from incidents way back during the Travelgate era, to her Senate, Iraq War vote, to her Bengazi attack and Libya war mongering, and her email scandal decisions. These when taken together seem to be characteristic of Mrs. Clinton's mental processes...and one must ask do we want her in the White House?
Which brings me to the reason why I cannot cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton.
I. DO NOTHING COAT TAIL RIDER. Mr. Trump Has actually produced something. He took a loan from his father to create a huge international and immensely successful international business. He has actually created jobs and met a payroll. He was chosen by the GOP primary voters. Republican voters had a clear choice of 17 candidates...they chose Mr. Trump fair and square. Mrs. Clinton's ascendency was more of a monarchial coronation. She has plotted and schemed her way on a cursus honorum, not on her own but on the coattails of her husband and others to establish a nominally creditable curriculum vitae for president....but her accomplishments in each post were minimal or often missing altogether. Each position being only a way-stop for her presidential event. The first attempt was a failure. Then as a booby prize she was handed the position of Secretary of State. In each post she proved only her limitations. Now having been a nominal carpet bag Senator, and a failed and careless Secretary of State she seems to think she deserves to be usshered into the White House because it is owed to her and she deserves it.
2.BOUGHT BY MEGADONORS. During the primaries, Mr. Trump shunned the megadonors. He did not follow the path of the other candidates to the doors of the Koch brother and the Adelsons of this nation who think they can buy our candidates and control them with cash. Mr. Trump's campaign was self funded, and as a consequence he was able to freely address the needs and concerns of the average American as he saw them, not having to comply with the directives from the elite, super wealthy one-tenth-of-one-percenters to whom the other candidates went hat in hand for an imprimatur. Not so Mrs. Clinton, who is in bed with the monied class and mega donors. She owes these elites and wealthy and will no doubt repay them amply on the taxpayer's dime while in office.
3. WAR HAWK. Mrs Clinton's foreign policy is one of continued USA interventionism abroad. She has staked out a foreign policy position even further right of the disastrous presidency of George W Bush. I and the American people are well aware we can not afford to continue to spend trillions of dollars abroad in such adventurism when the needs here at home are so great. Mr. Trump has called for a retreat from these costly adventures and an emphasis on making America great again by attention to the home front. He will not waste our children's blood and our wealth in senseless wars around the world.
4. CORPORATIST AND GLOBALIST. Mrs. Clinton's policies favor international corporations and unrestricted free trade, and a form of globalism and trade polices which have had drastic effects on our nation's trade balance, the working class jobs, and the cities here at home which were once bustling with industry are now idle and in decay. Her policies would not address this issue or alter the course of our decline. She is not for America first.
5. FOCUS ON FRINGE, IGNORES NEEDS OF WORKERS AND BUSINESSMEN Mrs. Clinton has focused her attention on the urban minorities that may make her election possible in populated cities on the east and west coast as well as the needs of her megadonor supporters, government elites, denizens of Hollywood and academics who rabidly support her. She has ignored the desperate plight of the vast majority of average, hard-working Americans, of all creeds and races, and of small businessmen, and the underemployed across this broad land who are suffering economically as a result of the drag of the Great Recession much of which was an economic consequence of her and her husband's policies of deregulation and global trade deals..
No Ms. Clinton your day has come and gone. We reject you.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
CLINTON EMAIL STORY= A NEW WATERGATE
CLINTON EMAIL STORY, NOT "OUT OF CONTROL" IS ANOTHER WATERGATE
The editorial board of the illustrious Washington Post...a former great sheet..which once published the Watergate stories, an act which ultimately took down a sitting president, today sealed its fate as a top down controlled politicaal rag, useful only for nailing on the outhouse wall..as my grandpa used to do with similar out of date and useless paper products. The editors of WP managed this base feat by publishing an opinion piece entitled: "The Hillary Clinton Email Story Is Out Of Control, " Wash. Post, September 8, 2016.
Apparently, unhappy with Mrs. Clinton's performance at the National Security Presidential Forum on Wednesday last, and Mr. Lauer's LEGITIMATE efforts in questioning the Democrat candidate regarding the email issue, the editors opined: "one would think that her (Mrs. Clinton's) homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election." Unfortunately, for the misinformed editors, Mr Lauer and the vast majority of the nation were and are correct, the Clinton email story is of primary import. The Post's editorial board is sadly wrong or so partisan they are incapable of envisioning an issue (the interplay of the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation and egregious conflict of interest) which threatens the very foundations of our nation.
The email controversy is not a minor mishandling of a few "(c)" confidential or "secret" or classified emails...The facts uncovered by the FBI indicate that Mrs. Clinton's handling of these were indeed careless and cavalier...she or her aids may have indeed committed a felony. But that is not the real import of this story. As it was in Watergate, Nixon was not unseated by a simple break in of DNC offices. The email scandal is not what appears on the surface either. It is not the illegal use of a home brew server. What should concern us all is WHY Mrs. Clinton had to hide her emails from public scrutiny. This story concerns the underlying REASONS for the USE of a home brew server and its coverup. The story IS critical and, rather than out of control, it deserves close scrutiny by the media and the electorate. The question is NOT "THOSE DAMNED EMAILS"...as Senator Sanders so famously stated. The real story is WHY SHE WAS SO DETERMINED TO HIDE HER EMAILS.
Some have wondered as this saga has evolved into an embarrassing politically damaging mantra, how could a savvy pol like Hillary do this to herself? Mrs. Clinton is not stupid, far from it. And she is definitely not careless, (regardless of Mr. Comey's characterization). A more precise and calculating person would be difficult to find in all of Washington. So why did she generate this horrible career-threatening mess by attempting to go around the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) laws to hide her inconsequential "personal" correspondence from scrutiny? The answer is there were more sinister and much more threatening elements in her personal communications which were necessary for her to hide and maintain her presidential aspirations..
What is clear now is that in contravention to the transparency agreements she signed with the Obama Administration, prior to her tenure as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was intimately involved with her husband in the machinations of the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation. As a result of revelations, and surviving emails it is clear now to all that as Madam Secretary she used her position of authority and power as an officer of the state (Secretary of State) to enrich her husband and herself by means of shunting "donations" and "speaking fees" to the Clinton Foundation and its many related operations and funds. The Foundation, which started out as a legitimate Presidential Library fund for past-President Bill, grew into a $100 billion dollar international slush fund. It served as a source of wealth for the high-living Clinton's and their daughter, as a means of keeping key actors in their organization on their payroll and available for Mrs. Clinton's planned 2016 run for president, and as a source of future campaign funds.
When Mrs Clinton lost to Obama in 2008, she pressed the President for a high level government post to add luster to resume as she planed for her 2016 presidential resume. The Obama Administration handed her the position of Secretary of State. The post came with the particular advantage of high visibility, global exposure and interaction and great political power for a potential presidential candidate. In spite of promises to the contrary husband Bill, under these new circumstances, could continue to sell his "presidential expertise" and official contacts to the highest foreign and domestic bidder, as he had been doing all along. But with this new situation he could also sell access to Hillary as the Secretary of State. He did so with enthusiasm and gusto, as numerous surviving emails make clear.
What an opportunity for corruption for this ethically challenged couple, who in the past were wont to sell off "sleep nights" in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House, or purloin national trinkets. Their past efforts were literally chicken feed in comparison to the $100s of millions of dollars they were able to rake in with this new "pay for play" gig. What damage they did to the nation and its interests in hot pursuit for their own personal gain while they were paid government employees are unknowable.
The money they raked in was mind boggling, literally approaching the GDP of a small nation. With their new "Pay to play" gig they made themselves rich as Croesus and as powerful as Caesar. But the possibility of unwonted exposure was a severe threat to their long term plans. Mrs. Clinton, who used her thirteen different Blackberrys, for "family business" had to keep all of these so-called "personal" emails strictly private. Yes, some were no doubt related to the size of her pantsuits, Chelsea's wedding, and her Yoga dates, but those were not really what she was hiding and would not have required the massive subterfuge and effort she expended in her coverup. The real reason: Her correspondence would have made it perfectly clear, exposed to public knowledge, that she was selling off access to her government office for personal gain, avoiding the FOIA act and disabusing the binding legal agreements she signed with the Obama Administration.
Thus the need for massive secrecy about her private email and her "home brew" server, her thirteen different blackberries, and five iPads, her lies, and more lies about the need for "convenience", about using "one" instrument, about her aides smashing blackberries, others"bleachbiting" her server after the data was subpoenaed. ( And not as she stated so innocently when a journalist queried about "wiping her server" with the response: "What do you mean? Wiping it with a cloth?"). Clinton's behavior was criminal corruption.
So Washington Post editors, decisively NO, this is not a story "out of control". It is NOT about a simple act of carelessness, as the Wapo editors should like to portray it. It is not, in Watergate terms, (as you Wao creditors should know well), the simple "break in" of the office of the DNC. This is a story of massive corruption in government, misuse of power, use of government office for self-enrichment. It is a lapse in judgement and ethical standards, an act of criminality that should disqualify this candidate from consideration for the highest position in the land.
Our nation can not survive the corrupting influences of the Clintons, the powerful, immensely wealthy, international Clinton Foundation and all its permutations, and the venality and lack of trustworthiness of the past President and Mrs. Clinton, The email affair, and its causes and underpinnings, rather than being "out of control" have underscored how dangerous the election of this candidate would be to our nation. Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation pose a threat to the very fabric of our democracy, the rule of law and the idea that we are all equal under the law. There shoould be no special place in our democracy for the Clintonian elites.
Think of the descent of the Roman Republic into the tyranny, corruption and decay of Imperial Rome under Caligula. That is a scenario to envision. Imagine Bill padding around the White House, a shapely female intern and a foreign dignitary (and Clinton Foundation donor) in tow, while Hillary in the Oval Office is plotting how to sell off our national treasures to the highest bidder.
Get the picture?
Friday, August 19, 2016
ON OMRAN DAQEESH AND OBAMA'S DECISION TO DESTABILIZE SYRIA
ON OMRAN DAQEESH AND OBAMA'S DECISION TO DESTABILIZE SYRIA
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WRINGS ITS BLOODIED HANDS OVER ALEPPO TO TRY TO SHIFT BLAME FOR THIS FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER FROM ITSELF.
THE OBEDIENT MEDIA AND PRESS OBLIGE WITH HORROR STORIES FROM ALEPPO.
SADLY THE MEDIA IGNORE THE FACT OF OBAMA AND CLINTON'S COMPLICITY IN THE CONTINUING DESABILIZATION OF SYRIA, AND RESULTING EXPANSION OF ISIS.
The newspapers and TV reports are filled with pictures and horror stories from Aleppo. They are true. A recent touching photo of a little Syrian boy, Omran Daqeesh, obviously dazed and bloodied, is pictured sitting on an orange ambulance seat, apparently only minutes after having been pulled from the wreckage of his bombed out home. The picture has been displayed around the world. It rightly exposes and underscored the horrible tragedy of war and the sad fact that it is the innocents who suffer the most in these conflicts----children, the elderly, women, the poor and the defenseless. We all should be horrified.
But as well as the horror of war we must also be aware of the actions of those who are responsible directly and indirectly for the onset and continuation of this terrible civil war. Here in the USA, we are faced with the need to recognize that our own government has been complicit in this disaster. The President and his Secretary of State made calculating "political and foreign policy decisions" that purposely destabilized that nation and have made continuing decisions which have resulted in extending and intensifying the conflict in Syria. Their policies have increased the death and destruction and the evil horror of civil war. They bear a good part of the responsibility for the five year length and terrible intensity of the conflict in Syria. They bear equal blame in other surrounding nations...Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen....
In March 2011the Arab Spring protests reached Syria. The unrest grew out of the dissatisfaction with the long reigning Assad regime, sectarian tensions, failed political and economic reforms, climatic changes and a long drought affecting food crop yields, high food prices, and wealth inequality. Syria prior to the civil war was not a democracy. But it was a functioning nation. Early, cruel attempts of the Assad regime to put down the protests and riots, exacerbated the situation, resulting in more demonstrations and wider civil disobedience. In a few short weeks riots swept through the Kurdish areas of northeastern Syria. The unrest ultimately engulfed nearly the entire nation. These demonstrations of dissatisfaction with the Assad government were seen abroad, particularly in the USA, home of the "regime change" policies of recent decades, not as an unfortunate destabilizing event to be somehow quelled, but and as an opportunity to undermine what was viewed as a political foe. It was during this initial stage of instability in which the Obama Administration, foolishly decided to covertly intervene in Syria to increase sectarian tensions, destabilize the Assad government, topple that regime and replace it with some unknown, but (to their erroneous thinking) NEW government more amenable to American direction and interests. In this they foolishly followed policies of predecessors Bush and Cheney who had similar incoherent polices related to Syria. To that end they sent CIA activists, with bags of money into Syria to stir up the restive population and incite riots. The USA covertly encouraged (or looked the other way) as US counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey joined in the destabilization of their neighbor state. The end results of these decisions became and remain a political and humanitarian disaster of proportions we have not seen since World War II.
The complicity of the Obama administration (with Hillary Clinton at the State Department) did not end there. More aid and money was spent by the Obama Administration to intensify and extend the human suffering, deaths and destruction. More and more money and increasingly sophisticated arms were ferried through Turkey's porous border to the insurgents to fight the legitimate government of Syria. Often these funds and arms only ended up in the hands of known terrorist groups. Then too there were major exposes of failure and stupidity. In September 16, 2015 in public Senate testimony Centcom Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin, revealed that the Obama Administration, spent $500 million dollars training what they envisioned would be "thousands" of anti- Assad "opposition" fighters resulted in only "four or five" fighters. The other trainees absconded with their uniforms, equipment and guns to join the various factions of Syria terrorists, such as the Kurds, al Nusra Front. Al Qaida, ISIS and others that make up the fractious groups in this senseless war.
Please note, that Obama expenditure of $100 million per anti-Assad fighter must be some kind of a record of inefficiency and stupidity.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WRINGS ITS BLOODIED HANDS OVER ALEPPO TO TRY TO SHIFT BLAME FOR THIS FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER FROM ITSELF.
THE OBEDIENT MEDIA AND PRESS OBLIGE WITH HORROR STORIES FROM ALEPPO.
SADLY THE MEDIA IGNORE THE FACT OF OBAMA AND CLINTON'S COMPLICITY IN THE CONTINUING DESABILIZATION OF SYRIA, AND RESULTING EXPANSION OF ISIS.
The newspapers and TV reports are filled with pictures and horror stories from Aleppo. They are true. A recent touching photo of a little Syrian boy, Omran Daqeesh, obviously dazed and bloodied, is pictured sitting on an orange ambulance seat, apparently only minutes after having been pulled from the wreckage of his bombed out home. The picture has been displayed around the world. It rightly exposes and underscored the horrible tragedy of war and the sad fact that it is the innocents who suffer the most in these conflicts----children, the elderly, women, the poor and the defenseless. We all should be horrified.
But as well as the horror of war we must also be aware of the actions of those who are responsible directly and indirectly for the onset and continuation of this terrible civil war. Here in the USA, we are faced with the need to recognize that our own government has been complicit in this disaster. The President and his Secretary of State made calculating "political and foreign policy decisions" that purposely destabilized that nation and have made continuing decisions which have resulted in extending and intensifying the conflict in Syria. Their policies have increased the death and destruction and the evil horror of civil war. They bear a good part of the responsibility for the five year length and terrible intensity of the conflict in Syria. They bear equal blame in other surrounding nations...Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen....
In March 2011the Arab Spring protests reached Syria. The unrest grew out of the dissatisfaction with the long reigning Assad regime, sectarian tensions, failed political and economic reforms, climatic changes and a long drought affecting food crop yields, high food prices, and wealth inequality. Syria prior to the civil war was not a democracy. But it was a functioning nation. Early, cruel attempts of the Assad regime to put down the protests and riots, exacerbated the situation, resulting in more demonstrations and wider civil disobedience. In a few short weeks riots swept through the Kurdish areas of northeastern Syria. The unrest ultimately engulfed nearly the entire nation. These demonstrations of dissatisfaction with the Assad government were seen abroad, particularly in the USA, home of the "regime change" policies of recent decades, not as an unfortunate destabilizing event to be somehow quelled, but and as an opportunity to undermine what was viewed as a political foe. It was during this initial stage of instability in which the Obama Administration, foolishly decided to covertly intervene in Syria to increase sectarian tensions, destabilize the Assad government, topple that regime and replace it with some unknown, but (to their erroneous thinking) NEW government more amenable to American direction and interests. In this they foolishly followed policies of predecessors Bush and Cheney who had similar incoherent polices related to Syria. To that end they sent CIA activists, with bags of money into Syria to stir up the restive population and incite riots. The USA covertly encouraged (or looked the other way) as US counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey joined in the destabilization of their neighbor state. The end results of these decisions became and remain a political and humanitarian disaster of proportions we have not seen since World War II.
The complicity of the Obama administration (with Hillary Clinton at the State Department) did not end there. More aid and money was spent by the Obama Administration to intensify and extend the human suffering, deaths and destruction. More and more money and increasingly sophisticated arms were ferried through Turkey's porous border to the insurgents to fight the legitimate government of Syria. Often these funds and arms only ended up in the hands of known terrorist groups. Then too there were major exposes of failure and stupidity. In September 16, 2015 in public Senate testimony Centcom Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin, revealed that the Obama Administration, spent $500 million dollars training what they envisioned would be "thousands" of anti- Assad "opposition" fighters resulted in only "four or five" fighters. The other trainees absconded with their uniforms, equipment and guns to join the various factions of Syria terrorists, such as the Kurds, al Nusra Front. Al Qaida, ISIS and others that make up the fractious groups in this senseless war.
Please note, that Obama expenditure of $100 million per anti-Assad fighter must be some kind of a record of inefficiency and stupidity.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
CLINTON PURPOSELY FLOUTS EMAIL LAW...NOT "CARELESS"
"CARELESS", CORRUPT CLINTON TOO UNSAVORY FOR WHITE HOUSE
The unsettling conclusion of FBI Director Comey is that Mrs. Clinton lied ceaselessly concerning this most recent "Clinton" scandal and was "careless in handling her email account". She mishandled the top secret documents she illegally and unadvisedly routed through her personalized email server (conspiring to avoid the nation's freedom of information laws) while ostensibly serving the people as Secretary of State. "What was she hiding?" should be the question on every voter's mind this fall. In fact, the designation "careless" is not really applicable. In fact she was purposeful in her illegal plan to avoid revealing her personal emails which are suspected of having much to reveal about her improper dealings with the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors. In doing so she put the nation's security at risk. This fact will haunt her Presidency and the entire nation which she claims she wants to serve if she is ever elected....
Touted as the candidate with the "most experience to be President", Clinton is also the least trusted and the most corrupt. She has a long and checkered record of incompetency and malfeasance as White House First Lady, US Senator from New York, and Secretary of State. She has used her connections to achieve those august positions, but aside from feathering her own nest via Wall Street speeches and foreign "pay to play" donations to the Clinton Foundation "Slush Fund" she accomplished little for the nation.
Her many past scandals (and this present one) expose her as a corrupt,scheming, self-serving empty "pants suit" who should NOT be elected to ANY high office of trust....least of all the Presidency.
The unsettling conclusion of FBI Director Comey is that Mrs. Clinton lied ceaselessly concerning this most recent "Clinton" scandal and was "careless in handling her email account". She mishandled the top secret documents she illegally and unadvisedly routed through her personalized email server (conspiring to avoid the nation's freedom of information laws) while ostensibly serving the people as Secretary of State. "What was she hiding?" should be the question on every voter's mind this fall. In fact, the designation "careless" is not really applicable. In fact she was purposeful in her illegal plan to avoid revealing her personal emails which are suspected of having much to reveal about her improper dealings with the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors. In doing so she put the nation's security at risk. This fact will haunt her Presidency and the entire nation which she claims she wants to serve if she is ever elected....
Touted as the candidate with the "most experience to be President", Clinton is also the least trusted and the most corrupt. She has a long and checkered record of incompetency and malfeasance as White House First Lady, US Senator from New York, and Secretary of State. She has used her connections to achieve those august positions, but aside from feathering her own nest via Wall Street speeches and foreign "pay to play" donations to the Clinton Foundation "Slush Fund" she accomplished little for the nation.
Her many past scandals (and this present one) expose her as a corrupt,scheming, self-serving empty "pants suit" who should NOT be elected to ANY high office of trust....least of all the Presidency.
Friday, June 10, 2016
TRUMP NO RACIST---PAUL RYAN: TURNCOAT, CLOSET- CLINTONISTA?
"RACISM: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
TRUMP: LIKELY VICTIM OF BIAS, NOT A PERPETRATOR OF BIAS IN THE CURIEL CASE.
After hearing Ryan's ridiculous claim that Trump's tirade against Judge Gonsalo Curiel was a "text book example" of racism I can only conclude that the Speaker Paul Ryan does not know the definition of "racism", does not realize that "Mexican" is not a "race", but a nationality, and that the vast majority of Mexicans are of the Caucasian race like Ryan, himself. In fact I think calling Trump a "racist" reveals, more about Ryan's (racist?) view of the darker-skinned (though Caucasian) Mexicans than Trump's supposed racism. Speaker Ryan's behavior makes one suspect he has decided that his own personal and political standing and future would be more lucrative and opportune while serving under a Democrat, Clinton-led government in 2017, rather than that of the GOP. With self-serving Ryan types leading the Republican circular firing squad, Americans of all stripes will surely be faced with a disastrous Clinton presidency. Sp Mr.Ryan's recent acts seem to be clearly placing, the House Speaker's own personal political agenda and future above that of the needs and aspirations of the American electorate and the nation as a whole. Shame on Ryan, with this behavior he does not deserve to be Speaker of the House.
In regard to Mr. Trump's supposed racism: Trump's complaint against Judge Curisel is NOT RACISM. Trump simply stated that he thought this jurist was not objective in his rulings during the Trump University trial. Mr. Trump was, or claims to be the VICTIM in this case. His claim is that this judge is biased against him. In this case Trump is the victim of bias not the perpetrator of bias. It is entirely possible he is correct in his charge against the judge...though no one could actually know it. But, I f one thinks that when a judge puts on his judicial robes and sits before a court in his plush leather chair, he somehow becomes a sort of a judicial robot. Can we expect that his past, his ethnic background, his family connections, his childhood experiences, and his personal biases are all somehow instantly expunged from his mind? I doubt it. If that is what you believe, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, cheap.. There may be a rare case of such a judicial being, but I doubt it. Ask any trial lawyer....they will tell you of well known and oft discussed judicial biases...in great detail.
Was Trump right in calling the judge biased? Certainly, he was patently wrong both tactically and strategically. This was not a fight worth the political damage and set back in the polls. Was Trump acting as a racist? Calling the judge a "Mexican" is not a racist remark, or even an ethnic slur, not even a national slur. But being an. American judge of Mexican extraction may explain this. Man's bias when dealing with a case of a nationally known politician who has widley and loudly claimed that the surge of recent illegal "Mexican" immigrants are laced with "rapists", "thieves" and "murdereers". Add to that, the fact that this particular politician has won the nomination for his party and his political spurs by loudly and repeatedly promising to "build a Great Wall" along the Mexican border to protect us from this surge of illegal "Mexicans". Judge Curiel is not a judicial robot....he is a human being under those dark robes, still subject to human feelings of hurt, revenge, and capable of injudicial response. I suspect that the vast majority of Republican voters, and Independents too would agree.
Trump may be brusque, unruly, impassioned, and impolitic....but he is not a racist.
Trump is taking incoming from all directions. He is fighting the Republican elites, and those quislings of the GOP who claim they are his supporters (like Paul Ryan) but act to undermine him. He is also fending off attacks from the Democrats, in league with the main-stream media and the press, and now even the President has joined the fray against him. Trump has only the vast majority of the suffering American public on his side.
It is also worth noting that the viscious way the press, and the media jumped all over the unfounded "racist" charge seems a sure sign and an excellent example of how frightened the oligarchs, super donors, political operatives and elites of both parties are of Trump and the vast majority of his "regular guy and gal" supporters out here in the body politic.
TRUMP: LIKELY VICTIM OF BIAS, NOT A PERPETRATOR OF BIAS IN THE CURIEL CASE.
After hearing Ryan's ridiculous claim that Trump's tirade against Judge Gonsalo Curiel was a "text book example" of racism I can only conclude that the Speaker Paul Ryan does not know the definition of "racism", does not realize that "Mexican" is not a "race", but a nationality, and that the vast majority of Mexicans are of the Caucasian race like Ryan, himself. In fact I think calling Trump a "racist" reveals, more about Ryan's (racist?) view of the darker-skinned (though Caucasian) Mexicans than Trump's supposed racism. Speaker Ryan's behavior makes one suspect he has decided that his own personal and political standing and future would be more lucrative and opportune while serving under a Democrat, Clinton-led government in 2017, rather than that of the GOP. With self-serving Ryan types leading the Republican circular firing squad, Americans of all stripes will surely be faced with a disastrous Clinton presidency. Sp Mr.Ryan's recent acts seem to be clearly placing, the House Speaker's own personal political agenda and future above that of the needs and aspirations of the American electorate and the nation as a whole. Shame on Ryan, with this behavior he does not deserve to be Speaker of the House.
In regard to Mr. Trump's supposed racism: Trump's complaint against Judge Curisel is NOT RACISM. Trump simply stated that he thought this jurist was not objective in his rulings during the Trump University trial. Mr. Trump was, or claims to be the VICTIM in this case. His claim is that this judge is biased against him. In this case Trump is the victim of bias not the perpetrator of bias. It is entirely possible he is correct in his charge against the judge...though no one could actually know it. But, I f one thinks that when a judge puts on his judicial robes and sits before a court in his plush leather chair, he somehow becomes a sort of a judicial robot. Can we expect that his past, his ethnic background, his family connections, his childhood experiences, and his personal biases are all somehow instantly expunged from his mind? I doubt it. If that is what you believe, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, cheap.. There may be a rare case of such a judicial being, but I doubt it. Ask any trial lawyer....they will tell you of well known and oft discussed judicial biases...in great detail.
Was Trump right in calling the judge biased? Certainly, he was patently wrong both tactically and strategically. This was not a fight worth the political damage and set back in the polls. Was Trump acting as a racist? Calling the judge a "Mexican" is not a racist remark, or even an ethnic slur, not even a national slur. But being an. American judge of Mexican extraction may explain this. Man's bias when dealing with a case of a nationally known politician who has widley and loudly claimed that the surge of recent illegal "Mexican" immigrants are laced with "rapists", "thieves" and "murdereers". Add to that, the fact that this particular politician has won the nomination for his party and his political spurs by loudly and repeatedly promising to "build a Great Wall" along the Mexican border to protect us from this surge of illegal "Mexicans". Judge Curiel is not a judicial robot....he is a human being under those dark robes, still subject to human feelings of hurt, revenge, and capable of injudicial response. I suspect that the vast majority of Republican voters, and Independents too would agree.
Trump may be brusque, unruly, impassioned, and impolitic....but he is not a racist.
Trump is taking incoming from all directions. He is fighting the Republican elites, and those quislings of the GOP who claim they are his supporters (like Paul Ryan) but act to undermine him. He is also fending off attacks from the Democrats, in league with the main-stream media and the press, and now even the President has joined the fray against him. Trump has only the vast majority of the suffering American public on his side.
It is also worth noting that the viscious way the press, and the media jumped all over the unfounded "racist" charge seems a sure sign and an excellent example of how frightened the oligarchs, super donors, political operatives and elites of both parties are of Trump and the vast majority of his "regular guy and gal" supporters out here in the body politic.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
TRUMP TURNS IT AROUND WITH JUNE 7 "AMERICA FIRST" SPEECH
I was busy with something else and just happened to hear a snippet of Trump's "Victory Speech" on June 7, 2016. It staggered me. I had to stop and listen carefully. Trump did not give his usual rambling stump speech, pouring out his hurt and his soul, as if he was on his psychiatrist's couch. He spoke coherently and logically. What gave me pause was his sincerity and the simplicity of his message:.."I am going to be America's champion.....America First!"
Trump reminded us of our decaying infrastructure, "our crumbling cities, dilapidated airports, bridges, highways". He lamented the loss of our manufacturing jobs overseas. He rightly termed the lost jobs "an embarrassment" to our nation. He placed himself squarely against foolish and wasteful foreign interventions that have been a massive drain on our treasury and a distraction from our main task of getting our middle class back to work and making America great again. He promised he promised to get us all working again...citing his pledge to support "every American worker of every background, protecting all their rights and privileges"...
He reiterated his stance against NAFTA and other one-sided, destructive trade deals which put American workers and their meaningful jobs at risk from unfair foreign competition. He promised to rebuild our inner cites and take care of our downtrodden black, white and brown city folk who have been ignored so long by government of both parties.
He made the case as a successful businessman, promising to put his energies toward making Americans safe, employed and working at meaningful jobs, and moving forward to prosperity.
But he also (rightly) attacked the Clintons. He promised to expose them for their past transgressions, policies and their "politics of self-enrichment". He reiterated how they both sold favors and government access to make millions for themselves.
The speech was a watershed event. If this is the new Trump...he is a formidable candidate.
With this message he can win in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)