Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump - two highly flawed candidates for the office of President of the United States, the most powerful office in the world.
Hillary has been part of and instrumental in the course in foreign affairs and agreements reached during Obama's reign. She has shown time and again that she really has no clue about the real world and what's happening. Her primary concern seems to be about her and protecting her position in the governing body. She put together a health plan during her husband's administration that even the Democrats couldn't swallow. When the incident in Benghazi blew up, she lied like a sailor to cover the state departments culpability in the whole affair. She had a private server installed in her own residence so that her e-mails would not be open to inspection by any government agency and proceeded to perform government classified activities on that unprotected server. Then she continued her lies when caught, stalled and erased thousands of e-mails from the server before the FBI could get their hands on it. Her story is that the documents that she received and transmitted at the time where not marked as classified. That's about the lamest excuse any public figure, especially the Secretary of State, can use to avoid prosecution for handling of classified data. She's supposed to know what's classified. On top of that, a former member of her staff has said that she directed that the classification markings on some documents be deleted before being transmitted.
Donald has tapped into a couple of sensitive issues for the blue collar workers and has exploited those issues to win a large lead in delegates to the convention. The problem he has now, is that he has left a trail of blood behind him. Personal insults levied at any and all of his opponents that dared to really challenge him. Now that he needs the party to unite behind him he has alienated everybody in sight. He didn't have to do that. His message was obviously resonating with enough voters to produce that lead. He didn't have to get personal with the other candidates. He managed to open his mouth and and say politically incorrect things that are often perceived to be an insult women, Hispanics and other minorities along the way. He probably was just being Trump, with no skill in playing the political game. The people who have known him for years say emphatically that he is none of those things. But, he has generated a prolific amount of potential sound bites for Hillary's campaign in the general election. Reality means very little in the political area, perception is everything. He is not going to do well among that group come November. And, without at least 25 to 30 percent of that group, you don't win.
A lot of key Republicans (the establishment),are frankly dubious about his ability to win in November. So what is the party to do? They see themselves losing the White House in an election that should have been a slam dunk. Even the local dog catcher could beat Hillary. They're afraid that Donald will take the party down with him and they might lose control of congress. As a result there is a lot of effort to force this primary into a open convention, where they feel that they may be able to field a better candidate. They look at the polls, break down the demographics, and see no way the Trump can win. Of course those same polls show that the next likely candidate, Cruz, can't win either. Unfortunately the polls show that the candidates that could win have been driven out of the race.
To set both Trump and Cruz aside at the convention would raise a storm within the party. A lot of their supporters would just stay home. There really is no way out of this conundrum. The only thing the party should hope for is that Donald will surprise every body again, just as he has throughout this whole campaign. In the beginning he was so incorrect in his statements all the pundits wrote him off. But, look what happened.
At this point Trump doesn't have the nomination wrapped. He's really the only one with a chance of doing so. Cruz may get close and challenge at the convention. Especially with the well funded and massive campaign being waged by the Republican establishment geared on stopping Trump from gaining the nomination on the first ballot. I think it would be best for the party if Trump did sew up the nomination before the convention. The last thing the party needs at this point is a floor fight over the nominee.
The question in November will be which candidate is the most disliked. Both have a large unfavorable rating.
We'll see how it plays out. For political junkies, this is a joyous time.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
The new attack on free speech
Ever since the adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment has been under attack. Especially the right of the citizen to gather in groups and to hear speakers expressing views contrary to those held by another faction.
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
The American Retreat
When you look at the history of American actions, or lack thereof, over the last few years, you can't come to any conclusion other than America is retreating from the world stage. We don't seem to have the will it takes to do the things that must be done to maintain our external and internal security.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)