MUCH ADO OVER NOTHING
THE GOLDEN RULE
"DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE OTHERS TO DO UNTO YOU"
Joe Scarborough and Mika Bresinski are the co-hosts of the MSNBC cable morning offering "Morning Joe" and 'on again off again' "friends" of the President. They make their living in the mud and mire of the Washington swamp where friendships are fleeting, confidences are never honored, and back stabbing is an art. They both have long experience in this area and finding themselves as kindred spirits have recently announced their plan to wed.
Not so long ago as guests of the President at Mar A Lago on New Year's Eve, just after the election, the President (and his son in law) offered to officiate at their wedding. But ratings wars beat out "friendships" in the river -flooded, saturated soil, and estuarine low lands we call "DC" where the "golden rule" is forgotten.
Over the last months--ignoring their past friendly personal relationship with the POTUS--and eager to build up their ratings, they have attacked and berated the President without let up. On this program he has been called a "schmuck", a liar, a buffoon and more. His hands, his family and his hair style has been attacked. His mental well being and honesty and integrity have been impugned by these former "friends".
Like the street fighter he is--our POTUS responded in kind after a vicious attack in which Mika claimed the President posted "'fake'Time magazine covers with his face on the walls of his golf club house, was lying everyday and destroying the country.". That was not nice. Mika ignored the Golden Rule there.
His Time magazine front pages were real, (he has been on Time covers often) the charge of lying every day (intentionally deceiving) does not hold water, and a good majority of the nation would not agree that his policies are "destroying" the country. These comments, coming from an unknown media attacker--there are many--may not have inflicted any deep pain on Trump. But when the source was a woman you actually befriended and even offered to officiate at her wedding, the thrust was too deep, and too much for the "street fighter" now in the /White House to silently accept.
In response Trump tweeted his now infamous charge that Mica is "low IQ", "crazy" and was bleeding from a "face lift". The first two charges are simply his opinion. But the last one--made much of by the feminist, Democrat-base, regarding a face lift is fact. . She did have a "procedure" and his admitted to it. Trump's response does not rise to the level of calling the President a "schmuck".
All of this is a great "tempest in a tea pot". It is a public display of intemperance, anger, pique, bad taste, bad TV, and a text-example of non-journalism. But it. Is mostly the failure to heed the golden rule of treating others the way you would like others to treat you. To my mind the blame accrues more to the initial attacker than the attacked. It seems here that the President only responed in kind.
The President is a counter puncher, left alone he has not initiated any quarrels. So perhaps for the betterment of the nation, and its needy and impatient citizenry it is time for the media, the talking heads, the "press", the Washington chattering classes to just STOP and think before they spout off unnecessary personal, senseless--ad hominem-- attacks. Stick to the issues. Think about the GOLDEN RULE.
Media, press, TV commentators and others please ask youselves when you are about to call the President ..a "liar", a "buffoon", a "schmuck", an "illegitimate " president, etcetera.,"How would I like that?"
This meaningless vituperation, is a waste of time, ink, paper and electricity. It is time to end it. And for the nation and its servants and leaders in Washington to return to the business of running a large complex country.
IT IS TIME TO STOP.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
THE RUSSIAN OBSESSION : MR PUTIN'S REVENGE FOR UKRAINE
"Don't get between a sow bear and her cub". Scrawled on piece of birchbark tacked to tree along the Appalachian Trail near Bondville, VT.
It has been six months of constant media and government obsession with the Russian intervention in our electoral system. The nation.has had it up to "here" (a hand-slash across the neck). But not one of the media outlets or commentators has bothered to explain the causes or motives for this foreign "intervention". Americans seem to prefer to claim their own purity of motives and blame any untoward events on the "evil" intentions or "jealousy" of their many and varied enemies. That does no go down well with analysts, physicians and scientist..who need to ascribe causes to social and political phenomena or disease.
The following is a much needed hypothesis for the cause of this obsession.
In 2014, President Obama and his interventionist-prone State Department decided to goad the Russian bear ( getting between it and its "cub" neighbor) by intervening in the Ukraine, a state with many historic and cultural ties to Russia. That was a terrible mistake in 'bear' etiquette. For some still unclear reason the Obama White House decided to destabilize the legally elected and generally mid-of-the-road, and perhaps a bit pro-Russian- leaning president Victor Victor Yanukovych. The CIA and State Department (and the now infamous anti-Russian State Department Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland) spent millions of US taxpayer dollars and $1billion loan-guarantee to encourage unrest, plant anti-Yanukovych propaganda, initiate and sustain anti-Russia riots and to generally destabilize and encourage "regime change" in a fragile Ukraine. The result was a major political, and foreign policy disaster. The Obama team effort (like in other areas of the world) led to a civil-war, a fractured and divided state, thousands of dead and displaced Ukrainians, and the eventual annexing of the Crimea by the the Russians, as well as a sharp deflection downward in the Russian-USA curve of relations.
To get the sense of what a threat this foreign policy blunder was to Russia, recall the immediate response of a very similar incident on our side of the Atlantic during the Cuba missiles crisis during the Kennedy administration. In that incident World War III was just barely avoided. But in the Ukraine crisis try to imagine the agita that would ensue were the Russians to intervene with a billion dollar loan to help destabilize a pro-USA Mexican government. Then succeed in nstalling a new Mexican president who held anti-American and pro-Russian sentiments. This right on our doorstep. It would be and understatement to claim that our leadership would be very much concerned and angered.
As I have written before...actions have consequences...Newton's Third Law of Physics stating that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I believe that Newton's Law apples in politics too. For every policy action there is a corresponding and opposing policy response.
Vladimir Putin was threatened and angered by Mr. Obama's actions in the Ukraine. This was a brazen, unthinking policy decision that was a clear existential threat to Russia. Mr. Putin must have decided then and there that he would make any future actions by the likes of the Victoria Nulands of the US and Mr. Obama very, very costly indeed.
A direct attack was unthinkable. But a cyber attack on the fragile, unwieldy, soft underbelly of the US, especially while it was engaged in its quadrennial madness of elections might be an easy mark. Mr. Putin's plan was hatched as a response and to get revenge on the Obama administration. In hindsight we can appreciate the extent to which he achieved his goal--and then some.
Putin's goal could not have been to HELP ELEECT Mr Trump, because when this plan was hatched no one knew who would be Mrs. Clinton's (the heir apparent--awaiting a coronation) opponent. So the idea that Trump and Putin somehow were in collusion is a red herring dragged across the trail by discomforted post-election Democrats. No, Mr. Putin's cyber attacks on the DNC and other attempts were simply saying to Obama "keep your nose out of Russian internal and local affairs" or suffer the consequences.
Mr. Obama and his party suffered the horrible consequences of his Ukraine intervention in the election outcome. Mr. Putin made his point and in spades. Obama's unpalatable candidate lost the election, Obama lost a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice, his legacy is in tatters, his Party lost "bigly", his legislation is being picked apart and discarded like post parade ticker tape on a Manhattan street. His fear is that he would suffer the fate of the 14th c BC Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, whose cult of Aten, his city, and his artwork, were defaced and forgotten by subsequent pharaohs and buried by the drifting sands..
There is a lesson here. All our government's actions, both foreign and domestic have CONSEQUENCES. A wise administrator and leader must understand and measure the expected responses of their actions BEFORE they forge ahead into the unknown. The unpredictable blowback against our actions often have undesirable or even disastrous reactions. We must anticipate the likely response and then act only if there is the hope of a worthy outcome...not the "F---k the UN" .Nuland type response. Think of the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, the Libya fiasco...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....Many of those horrible and costly Obama and Bush disasters were avoidable.
Was it worthwhile for Mr. Obama to intervene in the Ukraine? The post game analysis says that intervention was a horrible disaster for the Democrats...and for our nation too.
Mr. Putin made his point and then some. He has come out of this with the reputation of being a a great chess player and a powerful player on the world stage.
The Russian bear, gave Mr. Obama a severe clawing that will scar him permanently. Can we please learn something from this?
It has been six months of constant media and government obsession with the Russian intervention in our electoral system. The nation.has had it up to "here" (a hand-slash across the neck). But not one of the media outlets or commentators has bothered to explain the causes or motives for this foreign "intervention". Americans seem to prefer to claim their own purity of motives and blame any untoward events on the "evil" intentions or "jealousy" of their many and varied enemies. That does no go down well with analysts, physicians and scientist..who need to ascribe causes to social and political phenomena or disease.
The following is a much needed hypothesis for the cause of this obsession.
In 2014, President Obama and his interventionist-prone State Department decided to goad the Russian bear ( getting between it and its "cub" neighbor) by intervening in the Ukraine, a state with many historic and cultural ties to Russia. That was a terrible mistake in 'bear' etiquette. For some still unclear reason the Obama White House decided to destabilize the legally elected and generally mid-of-the-road, and perhaps a bit pro-Russian- leaning president Victor Victor Yanukovych. The CIA and State Department (and the now infamous anti-Russian State Department Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland) spent millions of US taxpayer dollars and $1billion loan-guarantee to encourage unrest, plant anti-Yanukovych propaganda, initiate and sustain anti-Russia riots and to generally destabilize and encourage "regime change" in a fragile Ukraine. The result was a major political, and foreign policy disaster. The Obama team effort (like in other areas of the world) led to a civil-war, a fractured and divided state, thousands of dead and displaced Ukrainians, and the eventual annexing of the Crimea by the the Russians, as well as a sharp deflection downward in the Russian-USA curve of relations.
To get the sense of what a threat this foreign policy blunder was to Russia, recall the immediate response of a very similar incident on our side of the Atlantic during the Cuba missiles crisis during the Kennedy administration. In that incident World War III was just barely avoided. But in the Ukraine crisis try to imagine the agita that would ensue were the Russians to intervene with a billion dollar loan to help destabilize a pro-USA Mexican government. Then succeed in nstalling a new Mexican president who held anti-American and pro-Russian sentiments. This right on our doorstep. It would be and understatement to claim that our leadership would be very much concerned and angered.
As I have written before...actions have consequences...Newton's Third Law of Physics stating that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I believe that Newton's Law apples in politics too. For every policy action there is a corresponding and opposing policy response.
Vladimir Putin was threatened and angered by Mr. Obama's actions in the Ukraine. This was a brazen, unthinking policy decision that was a clear existential threat to Russia. Mr. Putin must have decided then and there that he would make any future actions by the likes of the Victoria Nulands of the US and Mr. Obama very, very costly indeed.
A direct attack was unthinkable. But a cyber attack on the fragile, unwieldy, soft underbelly of the US, especially while it was engaged in its quadrennial madness of elections might be an easy mark. Mr. Putin's plan was hatched as a response and to get revenge on the Obama administration. In hindsight we can appreciate the extent to which he achieved his goal--and then some.
Putin's goal could not have been to HELP ELEECT Mr Trump, because when this plan was hatched no one knew who would be Mrs. Clinton's (the heir apparent--awaiting a coronation) opponent. So the idea that Trump and Putin somehow were in collusion is a red herring dragged across the trail by discomforted post-election Democrats. No, Mr. Putin's cyber attacks on the DNC and other attempts were simply saying to Obama "keep your nose out of Russian internal and local affairs" or suffer the consequences.
Mr. Obama and his party suffered the horrible consequences of his Ukraine intervention in the election outcome. Mr. Putin made his point and in spades. Obama's unpalatable candidate lost the election, Obama lost a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice, his legacy is in tatters, his Party lost "bigly", his legislation is being picked apart and discarded like post parade ticker tape on a Manhattan street. His fear is that he would suffer the fate of the 14th c BC Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, whose cult of Aten, his city, and his artwork, were defaced and forgotten by subsequent pharaohs and buried by the drifting sands..
There is a lesson here. All our government's actions, both foreign and domestic have CONSEQUENCES. A wise administrator and leader must understand and measure the expected responses of their actions BEFORE they forge ahead into the unknown. The unpredictable blowback against our actions often have undesirable or even disastrous reactions. We must anticipate the likely response and then act only if there is the hope of a worthy outcome...not the "F---k the UN" .Nuland type response. Think of the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, the Libya fiasco...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....Many of those horrible and costly Obama and Bush disasters were avoidable.
Was it worthwhile for Mr. Obama to intervene in the Ukraine? The post game analysis says that intervention was a horrible disaster for the Democrats...and for our nation too.
Mr. Putin made his point and then some. He has come out of this with the reputation of being a a great chess player and a powerful player on the world stage.
The Russian bear, gave Mr. Obama a severe clawing that will scar him permanently. Can we please learn something from this?
Saturday, June 24, 2017
INEFFECTIVE US DRONE ATTACKS: KILL INNOCENTS AND GENERATE TERRORISM
We don't have to be avid news hawks to be aware that many Moslems have been "radicalized". Some have abandoned or ignored the humane and peaceful teachings of their ancient faith--Islam emphasizes peaceful and harmonious relations between individuals and groups. These "radicalized" individuals are so filled with hate that they ignore the underpinning of their faith and will purposely ram vehicles into crowds with the intention of harming or killing other human beings. Some go on rampages of death armed to the teeth with exploding vests or Ak47s , or as in the recent London tragedy, with plastic knives strapped to their wrists with which they slashed and stabbed the innocent victims into which they had just crashed their vehicle and others near by. What would motivate normal, sane human beings into such actions?
A good part of their motivation comes from the awful, unjustified indiscriminate violence inflicted by our "wars of choice" and attempts at "regime change" in states populated with their co-religionists----often men, women and children-- around the world. Yes, there is an equivalence. We brutally and violently kill innocents with our Hellfire missiles, 500 pound bombs and attack drones and they kill innocents commandeering commercial airplanes, trucks, suicide vests, and butcher knives to respond in (less effective but no less violent) kind.
As in foreign affairs and Newtonian physics (Newton's Third Law) "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". When we act violently there are violent consequences.
That brings us to the most recent atrocity visited upon Moslems--the recent US violence in Syria, by a Pentagon or CIA drone attack. Why are we killing innocents in Syria's confusing civil war remains a mystery to the American public. We were not invited by the legitimate government in Damascus and are there illegally without congressional approval as simply well armed invaders.
At about 7 PM on March 16, 2017 two drones were heard hovering overhead by locals. They assumed these were Syrian government or Russians photographing the contested area of Idlib Province where the village is located. But as the people prepared for a a meeting of visiting religious leaders and evening services in the packed mosque a salvo of Hellfire missiles slammed into the front part of the mosque, where the teachers and leaders were preaching. The bombs collapsed that part of the building killing many and trapping others in the rubble. As the dust began to settle, and the groans and screams of victims began, survivors ran in terror toward the closed doors on the still-standing rear portion of the mosque. Then, as they tried to escape, the same drones hovering overhead fired off a second round of Hellfire munitions and dropped a 500 pound bomb. There were many deaths and casualties. The British newspaper Daily Mail claimed there were 42 deaths with many women and children among the victims. The US press, reported only 38 dead with again many women and children among the dead.
The Pentagon and US Defense Department which at first denied it had any drones in the area eventually claimed that it had indeed "legally" hit a "gathering of terrorists", killed many "high level" individuals. They did not name or identify these individuals. To the Pentagon the dead were all "terrorists" if they were adults and male...regardless of their actual identity.
The Pentagon had no personnel on the ground to report what they had achieved. But locals reported the act of horror and the carnage. Hospitals were overwhelmed in the small village and had to send injured to surrounding villages. Doctors reported the deaths and dismemberments they had witnessed. Then journalists and UN investigators went to the scene to photograph the collapsed mosque, the bloodstains and other evidences. Among the wreckage they observed and photographed fragments of munitions with US manufacturers logos and numbers identifying them as USA made.
After these reports the Pentagon was forced to make an "investigation" of its own. They finally admitted they had conducted the attack---on a mosque--. They claimed it was a gathering of "terrorists" not a gathering of religious leaders as the locals had claimed. They admitted the killing of many "high level" individual and ---one civilian.. This civilians was of small stature and could have been a child.
This is how to create more terrorists.
A good part of their motivation comes from the awful, unjustified indiscriminate violence inflicted by our "wars of choice" and attempts at "regime change" in states populated with their co-religionists----often men, women and children-- around the world. Yes, there is an equivalence. We brutally and violently kill innocents with our Hellfire missiles, 500 pound bombs and attack drones and they kill innocents commandeering commercial airplanes, trucks, suicide vests, and butcher knives to respond in (less effective but no less violent) kind.
As in foreign affairs and Newtonian physics (Newton's Third Law) "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". When we act violently there are violent consequences.
That brings us to the most recent atrocity visited upon Moslems--the recent US violence in Syria, by a Pentagon or CIA drone attack. Why are we killing innocents in Syria's confusing civil war remains a mystery to the American public. We were not invited by the legitimate government in Damascus and are there illegally without congressional approval as simply well armed invaders.
At about 7 PM on March 16, 2017 two drones were heard hovering overhead by locals. They assumed these were Syrian government or Russians photographing the contested area of Idlib Province where the village is located. But as the people prepared for a a meeting of visiting religious leaders and evening services in the packed mosque a salvo of Hellfire missiles slammed into the front part of the mosque, where the teachers and leaders were preaching. The bombs collapsed that part of the building killing many and trapping others in the rubble. As the dust began to settle, and the groans and screams of victims began, survivors ran in terror toward the closed doors on the still-standing rear portion of the mosque. Then, as they tried to escape, the same drones hovering overhead fired off a second round of Hellfire munitions and dropped a 500 pound bomb. There were many deaths and casualties. The British newspaper Daily Mail claimed there were 42 deaths with many women and children among the victims. The US press, reported only 38 dead with again many women and children among the dead.
The Pentagon and US Defense Department which at first denied it had any drones in the area eventually claimed that it had indeed "legally" hit a "gathering of terrorists", killed many "high level" individuals. They did not name or identify these individuals. To the Pentagon the dead were all "terrorists" if they were adults and male...regardless of their actual identity.
The Pentagon had no personnel on the ground to report what they had achieved. But locals reported the act of horror and the carnage. Hospitals were overwhelmed in the small village and had to send injured to surrounding villages. Doctors reported the deaths and dismemberments they had witnessed. Then journalists and UN investigators went to the scene to photograph the collapsed mosque, the bloodstains and other evidences. Among the wreckage they observed and photographed fragments of munitions with US manufacturers logos and numbers identifying them as USA made.
After these reports the Pentagon was forced to make an "investigation" of its own. They finally admitted they had conducted the attack---on a mosque--. They claimed it was a gathering of "terrorists" not a gathering of religious leaders as the locals had claimed. They admitted the killing of many "high level" individual and ---one civilian.. This civilians was of small stature and could have been a child.
This is how to create more terrorists.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
SAILING BLIND WITH HIGH TECH: SHIP CRYSTAL-USS FITZGERALD COLLISION
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at about 1:30 AM local time, the US Destroyer Fitzgerald, with a crew of 300, was struck amidship on its starboard side by the a Philippine container ship ACX Crystal, off the coast of Yokosuka, Japan. The Fitzgerald (about 500 feet long) sustained heavy damage to its midship superstructure and below the waterline to its hull. It nearly sunk due to a gash in the hull extending to the keel. Seven sailors died. Many more, including the captain, whose cabin was crushed, were severely injured. The sailors and their officers acted heroically to save the ship and bring their vessel and their injured crew to port Many of these men and women should and will be commended for heroism. But there are many questions to answer.
As any small boat sailor familiar with the seas around great commercial ports knows, giant container ships just might run you down. These ships are so huge, that in effect they can not stop, or turn to avoid anything. The Crystal is over 700 feet long (think two and a third football fields). Their size Ives them the "right of way". And they are always badly undermanned. The Crystal had only a skeleton crew of perhaps ten or twenty merchant mariners. It is common knowledge that their "deck look outs" may not exist, are Distracted, engaged below deck. So every small-boat skipper keeps a sharp lookout out for THEM, knowing that they are NOT looking out for you.
And as to the American ship. What were the circumstances and conditions on the USS Fitzgerald early Saturday morning that caused it to be struck and nearly sunk by this collision? That is another question all together,
How could an American warship sailing in a busy(400 ships a day), dangerous, pirate infested, commercial sea-lane be so unaware of a huge object the size of a small island approaching at high speed? Were they sailing blind? Was there a misunderstanding concerning the "right of way" --the seaman's "rules of the road"? Where was the seaman deckwatch? What was happening on the bridge? Where was the helmsman and the officer of the deck? Why didn't the radar and electronics crew warn those on the bridge of the rapid approach (17 knots) of this huge ship? What kind of landlubber Navy do we have now?
The answer may be in part related to the fact that in modern times we are so dependent on high tech---computer apps, robotics, machinery, and so-forth. Our young sailors and their officers--seem to rely a great deal on technology. Perhaps to a fault. The tendency is to let the ship run itself. That is a dangerous and unsustainable practice. As a result of such landlubberly behavior seven young lives were lost. A valuable Navy asset worth perhaps a billion dollars was nearly sunk, and the reputation of our Navy besmirched.
This is a wake up call for our leaders in the US Navy and in Washington.
As any small boat sailor familiar with the seas around great commercial ports knows, giant container ships just might run you down. These ships are so huge, that in effect they can not stop, or turn to avoid anything. The Crystal is over 700 feet long (think two and a third football fields). Their size Ives them the "right of way". And they are always badly undermanned. The Crystal had only a skeleton crew of perhaps ten or twenty merchant mariners. It is common knowledge that their "deck look outs" may not exist, are Distracted, engaged below deck. So every small-boat skipper keeps a sharp lookout out for THEM, knowing that they are NOT looking out for you.
And as to the American ship. What were the circumstances and conditions on the USS Fitzgerald early Saturday morning that caused it to be struck and nearly sunk by this collision? That is another question all together,
How could an American warship sailing in a busy(400 ships a day), dangerous, pirate infested, commercial sea-lane be so unaware of a huge object the size of a small island approaching at high speed? Were they sailing blind? Was there a misunderstanding concerning the "right of way" --the seaman's "rules of the road"? Where was the seaman deckwatch? What was happening on the bridge? Where was the helmsman and the officer of the deck? Why didn't the radar and electronics crew warn those on the bridge of the rapid approach (17 knots) of this huge ship? What kind of landlubber Navy do we have now?
The answer may be in part related to the fact that in modern times we are so dependent on high tech---computer apps, robotics, machinery, and so-forth. Our young sailors and their officers--seem to rely a great deal on technology. Perhaps to a fault. The tendency is to let the ship run itself. That is a dangerous and unsustainable practice. As a result of such landlubberly behavior seven young lives were lost. A valuable Navy asset worth perhaps a billion dollars was nearly sunk, and the reputation of our Navy besmirched.
This is a wake up call for our leaders in the US Navy and in Washington.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
US TWISTS LOGIC INTO PRETZEL RE SYRIAN PLANE SHOOT DOWN
American forces in Syria have shot down a Syrian government plane claiming they have a right to protect the rebel (some say terrorist affiliated) forces they have cobbled together to fight ISIS and to act as surrogates to oppose the legitimate non-terrorist regime in Damascus. Mr. Assad now controls the vast majority of that nation's Christian and Shia population and a major portion of its western, habitable terrane. There are no logical alternatives to his control. . Why are we fighting there? Simply to deny a small portion of the state to Mr. Assad and extend a horrible civil war?
This shoot down was stupid move,,,sure to exacerbate the awful violence and extend the chaos in Syria which the former US administration helped get under way and intensify. . Perhaps one of our planes will be fired upon or downed? What will we do then?
We have no right and no fight in Syria. We were not invited there and our forces have no actual--leagal authorization to be shooting planes down (ISIS has none) or killing people there or to be killed there. The 16 year old (?) authorization to fight Al Qaida in Afghanistan has been stretched well beyond any logical limits. Time for Congress to decide to go to war there or to pull out of a man and materiel wasting quagmire.
Presient Trump promised to focus his attentions on Making America Great. Fobbing off decsion making to his top generals---is a mistake. Their job is to apply force appropriately to win a conflict. It is beyond their pay grade to decide where and when we should fight. Those decisions are the responsibility of the President and Congress. Both seem to be possesed of the strange madness called "investigations obsession".causing them to ignore the existential business of the nation.
Stupidly wasting our tax dollars, materiel, efforts and blood in Syria does nothing for the underemployed, poorly cared for, over taxed, and over regulated people here at home.
This shoot down was stupid move,,,sure to exacerbate the awful violence and extend the chaos in Syria which the former US administration helped get under way and intensify. . Perhaps one of our planes will be fired upon or downed? What will we do then?
We have no right and no fight in Syria. We were not invited there and our forces have no actual--leagal authorization to be shooting planes down (ISIS has none) or killing people there or to be killed there. The 16 year old (?) authorization to fight Al Qaida in Afghanistan has been stretched well beyond any logical limits. Time for Congress to decide to go to war there or to pull out of a man and materiel wasting quagmire.
Presient Trump promised to focus his attentions on Making America Great. Fobbing off decsion making to his top generals---is a mistake. Their job is to apply force appropriately to win a conflict. It is beyond their pay grade to decide where and when we should fight. Those decisions are the responsibility of the President and Congress. Both seem to be possesed of the strange madness called "investigations obsession".causing them to ignore the existential business of the nation.
Stupidly wasting our tax dollars, materiel, efforts and blood in Syria does nothing for the underemployed, poorly cared for, over taxed, and over regulated people here at home.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
BOGUS CHARGES--NO CRIME--PHONY INVESTIGATIONS
CONFLICT: THE FBI,AND DEEP STATE AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE
Let us summarize simply this confusing situation the President terms a "Witch Hunt".
After the contentious 2016 election, the whiners and cry babies on the left tired to blame everyone but themselves for the crushing loss to Mr. Trump, a novice politician who up to the very last moments seemed sure to lose. Mrs Clinton famously pointed an aged and arthritis-deformed index finger at Mr. Putin who she claimed hacked her illegal server and revealed embarrassing secrets which turned the electorate against her. A short time after the election her partisans helped initiate an investigation to probe into possible Russian interference in the election. Much was made of the possibility of Mr. Trump and his team, (specifically his advisor General Michael Flynn) having conspired in some way with the Russians to aid in his shocking win. But disappointing to the Clinton losers and their many supporters...no shred of evidence has ever been revealed after more than six months of intensive effort into Mr. Trump's team.
Mr. Comey, the FBI Director at the time, was in charge of this Russian probe. His tenure was marked by persistent illegal leaks of information embarrassing to the new administration and having no basis in fact. He was fired for his role in leaking information and playing politics to undermine and weaken the new President. In a Congressional hearing to defend his shattered reputation, Comey claimed that the President tired to encourage him to "let go of the Flynn probe". He also admitted that he illegally leaked privileged information to a friend with the specific intention of stimulating the appointment of a special counsel--a new investigator . He got his perverse wish.
Comey's close friend, former FBI Director Mr. Robert Mueller, a similarly hard nosed and willful (to a fault) prosecutor was appointed as special counsel. Mr. Mueller's staff appointments seem to underscore his intentions to gear up to prosecute the President not on the intended Russian interference, but on anything he could dig with the intention of taking him down. Mr. Mueller is clearly the "great white hope" of the out of power Democrats and the Washington elites to rid themselves of Mr Trump whom they despise.
Most recently we lean (from leaks) that Mr. Mueller is focusing not on the original case of Russian interference---that proved to be a dead end---but on a case of obstruction of justice against the President for attempting to encourage Comey to abandon the Flynn probe. (That has been abandoned for no proof of wrongdoing) Thus this new probe is to attempt to document how the President tired to obstruct the investigation into a crime that has not occurred and does not exist.
To repeat that again. The President, is presently being investigated for attempting to obstruct an an investigation into a case which never rose to being a crime. There is no crime. Thus there can be no crime of obstruction. This nationally embarrassing and politically debilitating farce we are all witnessing in Washington is the evil and misguided intention of a small cadre of elite Washington insiders to overturn the election of a popularly elected President. Mr. Turmp won fair and square. He garnered the votes of 63 million Americans, took 306 to 232 electoral college votes, and turned vast swathes of the core of the USA red by carrying 84% of the nation's counties and political entities.
Those who would attempt to take down Mr. Trump on bogus charges beware. You are undermining the very core and fabric of our democracy, the sanctity of and confidence in our election system and the policy of a peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.
Let us summarize simply this confusing situation the President terms a "Witch Hunt".
After the contentious 2016 election, the whiners and cry babies on the left tired to blame everyone but themselves for the crushing loss to Mr. Trump, a novice politician who up to the very last moments seemed sure to lose. Mrs Clinton famously pointed an aged and arthritis-deformed index finger at Mr. Putin who she claimed hacked her illegal server and revealed embarrassing secrets which turned the electorate against her. A short time after the election her partisans helped initiate an investigation to probe into possible Russian interference in the election. Much was made of the possibility of Mr. Trump and his team, (specifically his advisor General Michael Flynn) having conspired in some way with the Russians to aid in his shocking win. But disappointing to the Clinton losers and their many supporters...no shred of evidence has ever been revealed after more than six months of intensive effort into Mr. Trump's team.
Mr. Comey, the FBI Director at the time, was in charge of this Russian probe. His tenure was marked by persistent illegal leaks of information embarrassing to the new administration and having no basis in fact. He was fired for his role in leaking information and playing politics to undermine and weaken the new President. In a Congressional hearing to defend his shattered reputation, Comey claimed that the President tired to encourage him to "let go of the Flynn probe". He also admitted that he illegally leaked privileged information to a friend with the specific intention of stimulating the appointment of a special counsel--a new investigator . He got his perverse wish.
Comey's close friend, former FBI Director Mr. Robert Mueller, a similarly hard nosed and willful (to a fault) prosecutor was appointed as special counsel. Mr. Mueller's staff appointments seem to underscore his intentions to gear up to prosecute the President not on the intended Russian interference, but on anything he could dig with the intention of taking him down. Mr. Mueller is clearly the "great white hope" of the out of power Democrats and the Washington elites to rid themselves of Mr Trump whom they despise.
Most recently we lean (from leaks) that Mr. Mueller is focusing not on the original case of Russian interference---that proved to be a dead end---but on a case of obstruction of justice against the President for attempting to encourage Comey to abandon the Flynn probe. (That has been abandoned for no proof of wrongdoing) Thus this new probe is to attempt to document how the President tired to obstruct the investigation into a crime that has not occurred and does not exist.
To repeat that again. The President, is presently being investigated for attempting to obstruct an an investigation into a case which never rose to being a crime. There is no crime. Thus there can be no crime of obstruction. This nationally embarrassing and politically debilitating farce we are all witnessing in Washington is the evil and misguided intention of a small cadre of elite Washington insiders to overturn the election of a popularly elected President. Mr. Turmp won fair and square. He garnered the votes of 63 million Americans, took 306 to 232 electoral college votes, and turned vast swathes of the core of the USA red by carrying 84% of the nation's counties and political entities.
Those who would attempt to take down Mr. Trump on bogus charges beware. You are undermining the very core and fabric of our democracy, the sanctity of and confidence in our election system and the policy of a peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
DEM''S VIOLENT TALK INCITES REAL VIOLENCE
The Republican Congressional baseball team practicing for a charity game was targeted by a deranged shooter this morning in Alexandria, Virginia. Five men were wounded and the shooter killed. Representative Scalise was very seriously wounded and remains in critical condition. The sixty-six years old shooter James Hodgkinson, using a semiautomatic rifle sprayed the practice field with more than fifty rounds according to reports in the press. Reports indicate that Hodgekinson was a far-left political junkie. His letters and web pages reveal him to be an avid fan of hysterical anti-Trump polemicist Ms Rachele Maddow of MSNBC. He was also campaign worker and supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders. The vicious anti-Trump diatribes and propaganda from the hysterical left, the established Democrats, the so-called main stream media, and the entertainment world tipped this man's mind into a horrendous attack on his fellow citizens because they were Republicans.
That actual physical violence has erupted in this fractured nation as a result of the shameful vulgar and frightening VERBAL VIOLENCE and incitement emanating post-election from the left is NO SURPRISE. Still fresh in our minds and ringing ears is the verbal violence---the vile language of the swear-word-using "resist" Democrats; self-promoting, unfunny, comedienne(?) Kathy Griffen;s vicious hyperbole and her ISIL-like poster depicting the severed head of Mr. Trump; timid faux terrorist Madonna who dreamt only of "blowing up the White House", as well as the violent Trumpian adaptation of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in New York City. The truth is we have been inundated and swallowed up in violent incitement since the election. There are untold studies published which make the connection between depicted, imagery of violence and its effects on weak, unformed and juvenile minds. There is little question that such incitement can push the unstable and uninformed who have easy acces to powerful weapons into terrible acts. It is time for those who incite such violence begin to temper their comments.
What happened to the ideals of a peaceful turnover of power after an election? In a democracy--the people choose--and the--those rejected by the people--the losers must relinquish power peacefully otherwise we descend into chaos, reminiscent of horrible violence of the Late Roman Republic.
That actual physical violence has erupted in this fractured nation as a result of the shameful vulgar and frightening VERBAL VIOLENCE and incitement emanating post-election from the left is NO SURPRISE. Still fresh in our minds and ringing ears is the verbal violence---the vile language of the swear-word-using "resist" Democrats; self-promoting, unfunny, comedienne(?) Kathy Griffen;s vicious hyperbole and her ISIL-like poster depicting the severed head of Mr. Trump; timid faux terrorist Madonna who dreamt only of "blowing up the White House", as well as the violent Trumpian adaptation of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in New York City. The truth is we have been inundated and swallowed up in violent incitement since the election. There are untold studies published which make the connection between depicted, imagery of violence and its effects on weak, unformed and juvenile minds. There is little question that such incitement can push the unstable and uninformed who have easy acces to powerful weapons into terrible acts. It is time for those who incite such violence begin to temper their comments.
What happened to the ideals of a peaceful turnover of power after an election? In a democracy--the people choose--and the--those rejected by the people--the losers must relinquish power peacefully otherwise we descend into chaos, reminiscent of horrible violence of the Late Roman Republic.
Friday, June 9, 2017
COMEY EXPOSES SELF AS BIASED, VENGEFUL, SOURCE OF LEAK
COMEY: REVEALS SELF AS VENGEFUL, BIASED, VINDICTIVE FBI DIRECTOR
We learned more about Mr. Comey during the infamous hearings yesterday (June 8, 2017) than about Mr. Trump, the Russians, or the faux charges of collusion the Democrats are hallucinating about to the exclusion of all else, these days.
Mr. Comey's smooth career-arc from his college days at William and Mary to his legal and political career in New York and Washington and his rise to the pinnacle of power in Washington as the "seventh Director of the FBI" came to an abrupt flexion point in the last weeks, when this seeming huge, handsome man, who gives the appearance of a great leader was embarrassingly and summarily fired by President Trump.
Comey looks like the typical Washington bureaucrat. Sure of himself and sure his is right. The abrupt end of his career must have hit him very hard indeed. His need to represent himself as forthright and honest--unlike all those he has so frequently claimed he is surrounded by in DC--led him to reveal many of his weaknesses that led to his demise. His laser focus on self-advancement and his own job security over all-else, his partisanship, weaknesses, lack of good judgement, vindictiveness, and massive hubris all contributed to how he came to an end. After this exposure in front of the Senate Committee and the Nation...he will sit a long time at home writing memos.
How a man with these traits reached the pinnacle of Director of the FBI tells a great deal about the decline of that organization and the process and procedures for advancement within the Obama Administration.
According to Mr. Comey's own testimony, while serving under President Barack Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, we learn that Ms. Lynch demanded that Comey refrain from using the perfectly accurate term "investigation" when referring in his official reports to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use and misuse of emails and a private server. Ms Lynch directed Comey to use the term "matter" as a euphemism for the criminal investigation actually underway. She explained to him that this was in keeping with the candidate's own campaign usage. Mr. Comey uncomplainingly complied with this request and the overt political interference in the FBI's investigation. Yet Mr. Comey testified that he was "anguished and upset" when confronted by Mr. Trump who made a relatively similar request when he suggested that Comey find a way to 'Let the Flynn thing go". Neither one of these requests were up to "Comey's vaunted standards he claims to have set for himself and the FBI, but his radically different responses reveal how he let his bias against Mr. Trump color and control his actions. His testimony revealed that of a political and partisan FBI Director. He deserved to be fired.
Comey also offered up the embarrassing fact that he leaked the contents of personal memos he penned to document the conversations he had with President Trump. He arranged for this leak revealing his intention was for the information to cause a political stir that would engender a call of a special investigator into the case. He directed these government documents (he was still FBI director when they were written) to the New York Times, via a close friend of his who was a Columbia University Professor. Comey then lied about the motivation for this act---he claimed it was in response to the President's tweet about having "tapes". But a time line of the events shows that the Times was using the contents of the memos a day before the President's tweet. His motivation was purely vengeance for his firing. The common and perhaps human reaction of a vengeful employee being summarily and embarrassingly terminated.
Mr. Comey referred to Mr. Trump's evaluation of the state of affairs at the FBI under Comey's direction and his style of administration as unsatisfactory. The turbulent events during the 2016 campaign, when Comey first found "no reason" to indite Clinton in the face of massive evidence that she mishandled secret documents, and then soon, after reopened the investigation a few days before the election with what were universally characterized as drastic results for the Democrat candidate are only two examples. These were job evaluations that many would agree with. But they were not "lies"---a word which Comey bandied about at the hearing and were reported over and over again. The only "lie" that occurred was that of Comey trying to give a good reason for his vengeful and illicit act of leaking government documents.
We learned more about Mr. Comey during the infamous hearings yesterday (June 8, 2017) than about Mr. Trump, the Russians, or the faux charges of collusion the Democrats are hallucinating about to the exclusion of all else, these days.
Mr. Comey's smooth career-arc from his college days at William and Mary to his legal and political career in New York and Washington and his rise to the pinnacle of power in Washington as the "seventh Director of the FBI" came to an abrupt flexion point in the last weeks, when this seeming huge, handsome man, who gives the appearance of a great leader was embarrassingly and summarily fired by President Trump.
Comey looks like the typical Washington bureaucrat. Sure of himself and sure his is right. The abrupt end of his career must have hit him very hard indeed. His need to represent himself as forthright and honest--unlike all those he has so frequently claimed he is surrounded by in DC--led him to reveal many of his weaknesses that led to his demise. His laser focus on self-advancement and his own job security over all-else, his partisanship, weaknesses, lack of good judgement, vindictiveness, and massive hubris all contributed to how he came to an end. After this exposure in front of the Senate Committee and the Nation...he will sit a long time at home writing memos.
How a man with these traits reached the pinnacle of Director of the FBI tells a great deal about the decline of that organization and the process and procedures for advancement within the Obama Administration.
According to Mr. Comey's own testimony, while serving under President Barack Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, we learn that Ms. Lynch demanded that Comey refrain from using the perfectly accurate term "investigation" when referring in his official reports to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use and misuse of emails and a private server. Ms Lynch directed Comey to use the term "matter" as a euphemism for the criminal investigation actually underway. She explained to him that this was in keeping with the candidate's own campaign usage. Mr. Comey uncomplainingly complied with this request and the overt political interference in the FBI's investigation. Yet Mr. Comey testified that he was "anguished and upset" when confronted by Mr. Trump who made a relatively similar request when he suggested that Comey find a way to 'Let the Flynn thing go". Neither one of these requests were up to "Comey's vaunted standards he claims to have set for himself and the FBI, but his radically different responses reveal how he let his bias against Mr. Trump color and control his actions. His testimony revealed that of a political and partisan FBI Director. He deserved to be fired.
Comey also offered up the embarrassing fact that he leaked the contents of personal memos he penned to document the conversations he had with President Trump. He arranged for this leak revealing his intention was for the information to cause a political stir that would engender a call of a special investigator into the case. He directed these government documents (he was still FBI director when they were written) to the New York Times, via a close friend of his who was a Columbia University Professor. Comey then lied about the motivation for this act---he claimed it was in response to the President's tweet about having "tapes". But a time line of the events shows that the Times was using the contents of the memos a day before the President's tweet. His motivation was purely vengeance for his firing. The common and perhaps human reaction of a vengeful employee being summarily and embarrassingly terminated.
Mr. Comey referred to Mr. Trump's evaluation of the state of affairs at the FBI under Comey's direction and his style of administration as unsatisfactory. The turbulent events during the 2016 campaign, when Comey first found "no reason" to indite Clinton in the face of massive evidence that she mishandled secret documents, and then soon, after reopened the investigation a few days before the election with what were universally characterized as drastic results for the Democrat candidate are only two examples. These were job evaluations that many would agree with. But they were not "lies"---a word which Comey bandied about at the hearing and were reported over and over again. The only "lie" that occurred was that of Comey trying to give a good reason for his vengeful and illicit act of leaking government documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)