Appropriate for Halloween week!
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Conundrum
Saw this over on FB. I know that things aren't as simple as this little essay. Still...
Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free. (Think this one over and over…makes sense!)
HERE ARE SIX CONUNDRUMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
THESE THREE, SHORT SENTENCES TELL YOU A LOT ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT:
Conundrums
The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.
Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free. (Think this one over and over…makes sense!)
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."
HERE ARE SIX CONUNDRUMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.
THESE THREE, SHORT SENTENCES TELL YOU A LOT ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering…
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money ! What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
Think about it.....and Last but not least :
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
Friday, October 23, 2015
An Ah-Ha Moment
If you've read this blog at all you know I really like Peggy Noonan's writing. Her column in the WSJ every week is usually very good. This week's column is no exception. You can read it here.
As I said, the column is good. But what really stood out for me is one particular quote. It's about Joe Biden's decision not to run. I've thought exactly the same thing so many times but of course haven't been able to articulate it as clearly and eloquently as Ms. Noonan. It's a bit of an Ah-Ha moment for me. Sort of like...Yes, that's what I've been trying to say!
As I said, the column is good. But what really stood out for me is one particular quote. It's about Joe Biden's decision not to run. I've thought exactly the same thing so many times but of course haven't been able to articulate it as clearly and eloquently as Ms. Noonan. It's a bit of an Ah-Ha moment for me. Sort of like...Yes, that's what I've been trying to say!
"Joe Biden's decision not to run for president left me sad. He would have enlivened things. He has always reminded me of what Democrats were like when I was a kid—kind of normal and earthy and fun. They did not spend their time endlessly accusing people of being sexist-racist-homophobic-gender-biased persons of unchecked privilege. They would have thought that impolite."That's the thing about today's Dems. They are so strident. So superior. So sure they are right. So ready to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with their particularly brand of prejudice. It's tiresome. And whenever I get in a discussion with one, I have a tendency to first become insulted and then to roll my eyes and and walk away.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Hillary
Well, I wondered what it was going to be. And it will be a non-event. A blip. It may be dredged up in the general election during debates or in ads, but not much will come of it. Many are voicing admiration for her performance. That she withstood hours and hours of grilling that was nothing but partisan. That she didn't lose her temper. That she appeared sad and sorry about the events in Benghazi. The Dems are generally jubilant. As I said in my previous post, the path to the coronation seems secure.
I did a little turn around the Internet to the usual sites, both conservative and liberal. As predicted, the conservatives are holding to their story of lies and incompetent management. What many are pissed about is the whole smarmy "inside baseball" dimension to it. This Blumenthal slime. The small circle of protectors. That the people on the inside are oh so smart and can't be bothered to tell the truth. The inconvenient truth! But that is the Clintons. The libs are saying it was a witch hunt...much ado about nothing. Opinions abound. But like I said, this event is over and we'll move on. The media won't report on it after this weekend except to note it as an event. They will continue to promote her coronation.
The people who are indignant over her actions, were probably never going to vote for her anyway. These are the Clinton haters who would never come around. So the outrage will still be there in some quarters, but it will fall on deaf ears.
But here's the deal. There are two things that cannot be denied. They can be ignored...but they can't be denied. First is that there were Americans in very bad circumstances in a very bad place who repeatedly asked for help and were denied or ignored. And this is at the Ambassadorial level. This happened in her State Department. The result was the death of 4 brave Americans. Second is that she knew almost immediately that it was a deliberate attack by terrorists on an American facility. In fact we know she told that to people, including her daughter, in emails. And then she came out and went along with the bald-faced lies about some video sparking the assault. She pressed that narrative. She was silent during the days when Susan Rice and others lied to the American people on every network.
So like I said...we're moving on. But whatever your ideology, whatever party you support, wherever your prejudices lie...if you step back and look at this as an American, ask yourself if you want someone who clearly did not care about the plight of Americans in a very bad place and when it went down sideways, decided to support the lies to cover Obama's butt rather than tell the truth, as our next President.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Hillary
Great day for the presumptive nominee. The path to the coronation seems clear. Now that Biden is out, she should cruise to the nomination. Everyone else in that crowd is irrelevant.
You might ask, "what about Bernie?". Please. He may be drawing a crowd but I refuse to believe that this country would elect an avowed Socialist. Because here's the deal. He's right about inequality. We are not equal. Being equal is incompatible with freedom. As long as we have the freedoms offered by this country, we won't have equality. Some are more ambitious, have more initiative, and have more breaks than others. And at the end of the day, most people won't want to give up their freedom, no matter how great things are in Denmark!
Given the season, this seems appropriate...
But now let's see what happens in the hearing tomorrow. Could be a non-event. Or could be pretty interesting. But whatever happens, the Dems will just say it's political and try and move on. Of course, there are still 4 dead Americans because the bureaucrats in her State Department ignored the Ambassador's requests for help. Simple as that.
You might ask, "what about Bernie?". Please. He may be drawing a crowd but I refuse to believe that this country would elect an avowed Socialist. Because here's the deal. He's right about inequality. We are not equal. Being equal is incompatible with freedom. As long as we have the freedoms offered by this country, we won't have equality. Some are more ambitious, have more initiative, and have more breaks than others. And at the end of the day, most people won't want to give up their freedom, no matter how great things are in Denmark!
Given the season, this seems appropriate...
But now let's see what happens in the hearing tomorrow. Could be a non-event. Or could be pretty interesting. But whatever happens, the Dems will just say it's political and try and move on. Of course, there are still 4 dead Americans because the bureaucrats in her State Department ignored the Ambassador's requests for help. Simple as that.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Motivation Monday
A little late on MM this week. On a plane all day from Boston. We were visiting the Prince and his family and took a detour up to Bar Harbor, Maine and Acadia National Park. Wow! We've wanted to go there in Autumn for some time and finally got to do it. It was a wonderful 4 days. The sights were unbelievable. If you every get a chance, get up there.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Strategy
The lack of a coherent U.S. strategy in the Middle East has been decried by many for several years. Our retreat from the world and a disastrous series of missteps has been not only humiliating, but has made the world a much more dangerous place. I've seen a lot of articles and papers written about this subject in the last few years as the situations has continued to deteriorate. But one of the best summaries of the state of play in the Middle East and a potential strategy for the U.S. is in today's WSJ. It was written by Henry Kissinger so you know it's got some thought and some experience behind it. Whatever you think of Obama's foreign policy dealings, this is a good summary and a way ahead. I have no illusions that any of the oh-so-wise political hacks, errr...national security specialists on the NSA and in the State Department will pay attention. But at least it's nice to know that there are a few wise and experienced folks inside the beltway thinking about this stuff. You can read it here.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Friday Funnies
British humor never fails to crack me up!
In the great days of the British Empire, a new commanding officer was sent to a South African bush outpost to relieve the retiring colonel. After welcoming his replacement and showing the usual courtesies (gin and tonic, cucumber sandwiches etc) which protocol decrees, the retiring colonel said, “You must meet my Adjutant, Captain Smithers, He’s my right-hand man and is really
the strength of this office. His talent is simply boundless.”
...
Smithers was summoned and introduced to the new CO, who was surprised to meet a hunchback, one eyed, toothless, hairless, scabbed and pockmarked specimen of humanity, a particularly unattractive man less than three feet tall. “Smithers, old man, tell your new CO about yourself.” ”Well, sir, I graduated with honours from Sandhurst, joined the regiment and won the Military Cross and Bar after three expeditions behind enemy lines. I’ve represented Great Britain in equestrian events and won a Silver Medal in the middleweight division of the Olympics. I have researched the history of…..”
At that point, the colonel interrupted, “Yes, yes, never mind that Smithers, he can find all that in your file. Tell him about the day you told the witch doctor to fuck off.”
In the great days of the British Empire, a new commanding officer was sent to a South African bush outpost to relieve the retiring colonel. After welcoming his replacement and showing the usual courtesies (gin and tonic, cucumber sandwiches etc) which protocol decrees, the retiring colonel said, “You must meet my Adjutant, Captain Smithers, He’s my right-hand man and is really
the strength of this office. His talent is simply boundless.”
...
Smithers was summoned and introduced to the new CO, who was surprised to meet a hunchback, one eyed, toothless, hairless, scabbed and pockmarked specimen of humanity, a particularly unattractive man less than three feet tall. “Smithers, old man, tell your new CO about yourself.” ”Well, sir, I graduated with honours from Sandhurst, joined the regiment and won the Military Cross and Bar after three expeditions behind enemy lines. I’ve represented Great Britain in equestrian events and won a Silver Medal in the middleweight division of the Olympics. I have researched the history of…..”
At that point, the colonel interrupted, “Yes, yes, never mind that Smithers, he can find all that in your file. Tell him about the day you told the witch doctor to fuck off.”
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Analyzing the Democratic Debate
It's actually pretty easy.
Socialism at home. Retreat abroad. That's it.
There were so many things that were objectionable that it's difficult to know where to start. So I won't because it would just piss me off. But...three things.
When did we become a country of people who just want free stuff? To hear the candidates you would think that our people are in dire straits and only want to be taken care of. And that our most successful people only want to screw the rest of the populace. That's not the country I know.
When Hillary was asked to name enemies she named other Americans who happen to be Republican. Really? Is that what we want? I had hoped that we could maybe get away from thinking the other side are enemies when Obama leaves. But maybe not. It's shocking...and sad.
Chafee and Webb (and maybe O'Malley) had no business on the stage. They have no chance.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Saturday, October 10, 2015
I'm Thinking
That it's going to be a great reception...
...and I guess I was right!
And then it just got ugly
...and I guess I was right!
And then it just got ugly
The Obama Doctrine
There is a very, very good article in today's WSJ on the Obama Doctrine. Mr Ferguson really hits the nail on the head. You can read it here. There are so many great pull quotes and points that in case you don't want to go to the link I'm going to past the whole article here. But if I were to pick one point to emphasize it is this:
The Real Obama Doctrine
Henry Kissinger long ago recognized the problem: a talented vote-getter, surrounded by lawyers, who is overly risk-averse.
By NIALL FERGUSON
Oct. 9, 2015
Even before becoming Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger understood how hard it was to make foreign policy in Washington. There “is no such thing as an American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger wrote in 1968. There is only “a series of moves that have produced a certain result” that they “may not have been planned to produce.” It is “research and intelligence organizations,” he added, that “attempt to give a rationality and consistency” which “it simply does not have.”
Two distinctively American pathologies explained the fundamental absence of coherent strategic thinking. First, the person at the top was selected for other skills. “The typical political leader of the contemporary managerial society,” noted Mr. Kissinger, “is a man with a strong will, a high capacity to get himself elected, but no very great conception of what he is going to do when he gets into office.”
Second, the government was full of people trained as lawyers. In making foreign policy, Mr. Kissinger once remarked, “you have to know what history is relevant.” But lawyers were “the single most important group in Government,” he said, and their principal drawback was “a deficiency in history.” This was a long-standing prejudice of his. “The clever lawyers who run our government,” he thundered in a 1956 letter to a friend, have weakened the nation by instilling a “quest for minimum risk which is our most outstanding characteristic.”
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Page Writer Sohrab Ahmari on Russian incursions into Turkish airspace and the defense alliance’s response. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Let’s see, now. A great campaigner. A bunch of lawyers. And a “quest for minimum risk.” What is it about this combination that sounds familiar?
I have spent much of the past seven years trying to work out what Barack Obama’s strategy for the United States truly is. For much of his presidency, as a distinguished general once remarked to me about the commander in chief’s strategy, “we had to infer it from speeches.”
At first, I assumed that the strategy was simply not to be like his predecessor—an approach that was not altogether unreasonable, given the errors of the Bush administration in Iraq and the resulting public disillusionment. I read Mr. Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech—with its Quran quotes and its promise of “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”—as simply the manifesto of the Anti-Bush.
But what that meant in practice was not entirely clear. Precipitate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, but a time-limited surge in Afghanistan. A “reset” with Russia, but seeming indifference to Europe. A “pivot” to Asia, but mixed signals to China. And then, in response to the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya, complete confusion, the nadir of which was the September 2013 redline fiasco regarding the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria and Mr. Obama’s declaration that “America is not the global policeman.”
An approximation of an Obama strategy was revealed in April last year, at the end of a presidential trip to Asia, when White House aides told reporters that the Obama doctrine was “Don’t do stupid sh--.”
I now see, however, that there is more to it than that.
The president always intended to repudiate more than George W. Bush’s foreign policy. In a 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama made clear that he was turning away from Ronald Reagan, too. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” he jeered, “because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Mr. Romney’s reference to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” now looks prescient, whereas the president’s boast, in a January 2014 New Yorker magazine interview, that he didn’t “really even need George Kennan right now” looks like hubristic rejection of foreign-policy experience itself. Two months later, Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea.
Mr. Obama also had his own plan for the Middle East. “It would be profoundly in the interest” of the region’s citizens “if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,” Mr. Obama said in that same interview. “If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between . . . predominantly Sunni Gulf states and Iran.”
Now I see that this was the strategy—a strategy aimed at creating a new balance of power in the Middle East. The deal on Iran’s nuclear-arms program was part of Mr. Obama’s aim (as he put it to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in May) “to find effective partners—not just in Iraq, but in Syria, and in Yemen, and in Libya.” Mr. Obama said he wanted “to create the international coalition and atmosphere in which people across sectarian lines are willing to compromise and are willing to work together in order to provide the next generation a fighting chance for a better future.”
The same fuzzy thinking informed Mr. Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly last week, in which he first said he wanted to “work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law,” but then added that, to sort out Syria, he was willing to work with Russia and Iran—neither famed for spending time under that particular mantle—so long as they accepted the ousting of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
A fighting chance for a better future in the Middle East? Make that a better chance for a fighting future.
It is clear that the president’s strategy is failing disastrously. Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four, according to data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold, based on the University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism database. Nearly all this violence is concentrated in a swath of territory stretching from North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there is every reason to expect the violence to escalate as the Sunni powers of the region seek to prevent Iran from establishing itself as the post-American hegemon.
Today the U.S. faces three strategic challenges: the maelstrom in the Muslim world, the machinations of a weak but ruthless Russia, and the ambition of a still-growing China. The president’s responses to all three look woefully inadequate.
Those who know the Obama White House’s inner workings wonder why this president, who came into office with next to no experience of foreign policy, has made so little effort to hire strategic expertise. In fairness, Denis McDonough (now White House chief of staff) has some real knowledge of Latin America. While at Oxford, National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote a doctoral dissertation on Zimbabwe. And Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., has published two substantial books (one of which—“A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”—she will need to update when she returns to academic life).
But other key players are the sort of people Henry Kissinger complained about more than half a century ago: Michael Froman, the trade representative, was one of Mr. Obama’s classmates at Harvard Law School; Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken is a Columbia J.D.; éminence grise Valerie Jarrett got hers from the University of Michigan. What about Secretary of State John Kerry? Boston College Law School, ’76. Not one of the people who advise the president could claim to have made contributions to strategic doctrine comparable with those made by Mr. Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski before they went to Washington.
Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,” Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.” The next president may have cause to regret that Barack Obama didn’t heed those words. In making up his strategy as he has gone along, this president has sown the wind. His successor will reap the whirlwind. He or she had better bring some serious intellectual capital to the White House.
Mr. Ferguson’s first volume of his Henry Kissinger biography has just been published by Penguin.
"Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,” Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.”And here is the whole article:
The Real Obama Doctrine
Henry Kissinger long ago recognized the problem: a talented vote-getter, surrounded by lawyers, who is overly risk-averse.
By NIALL FERGUSON
Oct. 9, 2015
Even before becoming Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger understood how hard it was to make foreign policy in Washington. There “is no such thing as an American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger wrote in 1968. There is only “a series of moves that have produced a certain result” that they “may not have been planned to produce.” It is “research and intelligence organizations,” he added, that “attempt to give a rationality and consistency” which “it simply does not have.”
Two distinctively American pathologies explained the fundamental absence of coherent strategic thinking. First, the person at the top was selected for other skills. “The typical political leader of the contemporary managerial society,” noted Mr. Kissinger, “is a man with a strong will, a high capacity to get himself elected, but no very great conception of what he is going to do when he gets into office.”
Second, the government was full of people trained as lawyers. In making foreign policy, Mr. Kissinger once remarked, “you have to know what history is relevant.” But lawyers were “the single most important group in Government,” he said, and their principal drawback was “a deficiency in history.” This was a long-standing prejudice of his. “The clever lawyers who run our government,” he thundered in a 1956 letter to a friend, have weakened the nation by instilling a “quest for minimum risk which is our most outstanding characteristic.”
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Page Writer Sohrab Ahmari on Russian incursions into Turkish airspace and the defense alliance’s response. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Let’s see, now. A great campaigner. A bunch of lawyers. And a “quest for minimum risk.” What is it about this combination that sounds familiar?
I have spent much of the past seven years trying to work out what Barack Obama’s strategy for the United States truly is. For much of his presidency, as a distinguished general once remarked to me about the commander in chief’s strategy, “we had to infer it from speeches.”
At first, I assumed that the strategy was simply not to be like his predecessor—an approach that was not altogether unreasonable, given the errors of the Bush administration in Iraq and the resulting public disillusionment. I read Mr. Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech—with its Quran quotes and its promise of “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”—as simply the manifesto of the Anti-Bush.
But what that meant in practice was not entirely clear. Precipitate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, but a time-limited surge in Afghanistan. A “reset” with Russia, but seeming indifference to Europe. A “pivot” to Asia, but mixed signals to China. And then, in response to the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya, complete confusion, the nadir of which was the September 2013 redline fiasco regarding the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria and Mr. Obama’s declaration that “America is not the global policeman.”
An approximation of an Obama strategy was revealed in April last year, at the end of a presidential trip to Asia, when White House aides told reporters that the Obama doctrine was “Don’t do stupid sh--.”
I now see, however, that there is more to it than that.
The president always intended to repudiate more than George W. Bush’s foreign policy. In a 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama made clear that he was turning away from Ronald Reagan, too. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” he jeered, “because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Mr. Romney’s reference to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” now looks prescient, whereas the president’s boast, in a January 2014 New Yorker magazine interview, that he didn’t “really even need George Kennan right now” looks like hubristic rejection of foreign-policy experience itself. Two months later, Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea.
Mr. Obama also had his own plan for the Middle East. “It would be profoundly in the interest” of the region’s citizens “if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,” Mr. Obama said in that same interview. “If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between . . . predominantly Sunni Gulf states and Iran.”
Now I see that this was the strategy—a strategy aimed at creating a new balance of power in the Middle East. The deal on Iran’s nuclear-arms program was part of Mr. Obama’s aim (as he put it to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in May) “to find effective partners—not just in Iraq, but in Syria, and in Yemen, and in Libya.” Mr. Obama said he wanted “to create the international coalition and atmosphere in which people across sectarian lines are willing to compromise and are willing to work together in order to provide the next generation a fighting chance for a better future.”
The same fuzzy thinking informed Mr. Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly last week, in which he first said he wanted to “work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law,” but then added that, to sort out Syria, he was willing to work with Russia and Iran—neither famed for spending time under that particular mantle—so long as they accepted the ousting of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
A fighting chance for a better future in the Middle East? Make that a better chance for a fighting future.
It is clear that the president’s strategy is failing disastrously. Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four, according to data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold, based on the University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism database. Nearly all this violence is concentrated in a swath of territory stretching from North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there is every reason to expect the violence to escalate as the Sunni powers of the region seek to prevent Iran from establishing itself as the post-American hegemon.
Today the U.S. faces three strategic challenges: the maelstrom in the Muslim world, the machinations of a weak but ruthless Russia, and the ambition of a still-growing China. The president’s responses to all three look woefully inadequate.
Those who know the Obama White House’s inner workings wonder why this president, who came into office with next to no experience of foreign policy, has made so little effort to hire strategic expertise. In fairness, Denis McDonough (now White House chief of staff) has some real knowledge of Latin America. While at Oxford, National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote a doctoral dissertation on Zimbabwe. And Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., has published two substantial books (one of which—“A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”—she will need to update when she returns to academic life).
But other key players are the sort of people Henry Kissinger complained about more than half a century ago: Michael Froman, the trade representative, was one of Mr. Obama’s classmates at Harvard Law School; Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken is a Columbia J.D.; éminence grise Valerie Jarrett got hers from the University of Michigan. What about Secretary of State John Kerry? Boston College Law School, ’76. Not one of the people who advise the president could claim to have made contributions to strategic doctrine comparable with those made by Mr. Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski before they went to Washington.
Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,” Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.” The next president may have cause to regret that Barack Obama didn’t heed those words. In making up his strategy as he has gone along, this president has sown the wind. His successor will reap the whirlwind. He or she had better bring some serious intellectual capital to the White House.
Mr. Ferguson’s first volume of his Henry Kissinger biography has just been published by Penguin.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Hillary
A friend forwarded this to me. First, here's a disclaimer that many of these things may be exaggerations or a recollection from a particular point of view. But...if you're of an age you remember these things. You remember the lies, the denials, the arrogance. So I'll just put it out there for what it's worth. If you're of a particular mind you'll scoff at this. Or you'll have an excuse for all these things. But...there's not denying that she is a liar and would be a disaster as President.
If you're under 50, you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you
> lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I
> had forgotten!
>
> When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over
> a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
> even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the
> American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and
> other efforts.
>
> Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female
> attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood -
> both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose
> Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake."
> Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and
> the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of
> deaths of women and children.
>
> Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the
> Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little
> probing led to the discover of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to
> be withdrawn from consideration.
>
> Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more
> recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice
> Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for
> the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison,
> Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
>
> Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted
> to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and
> the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them
> reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them
> their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee,
> Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of
> mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in
> less than two hours.
>
> Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a
> close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of
> White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper
> access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the
> widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the
> president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge
> of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its
> White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven
> presidents.
>
> Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual
> harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo
> eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the
> debacle was:
>
> She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the
> Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
>
> She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the
> appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of
> taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky,
> which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
>
> Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice
> law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent
> impeachment by the House of Representatives.
>
> Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the
> Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no
> recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
>
> After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated
> $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork that she had stolen.
>
> What a swell party - ready for another four or eight year of this type
> low-life mess?
>
> Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while
> Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton
> Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal
> fans - "what difference does it make?"
>
> Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution
> and giving him the keys to heaven!
>
> Pass this on. Our way of life may depend on it.
If you're under 50, you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you
> lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I
> had forgotten!
>
> When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over
> a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
> even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the
> American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and
> other efforts.
>
> Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female
> attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood -
> both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose
> Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake."
> Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and
> the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of
> deaths of women and children.
>
> Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the
> Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little
> probing led to the discover of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to
> be withdrawn from consideration.
>
> Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more
> recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice
> Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for
> the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison,
> Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
>
> Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted
> to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and
> the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them
> reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them
> their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee,
> Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of
> mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in
> less than two hours.
>
> Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a
> close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of
> White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper
> access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the
> widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the
> president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge
> of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its
> White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven
> presidents.
>
> Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual
> harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo
> eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the
> debacle was:
>
> She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the
> Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
>
> She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the
> appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of
> taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky,
> which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
>
> Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice
> law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent
> impeachment by the House of Representatives.
>
> Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the
> Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no
> recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
>
> After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated
> $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork that she had stolen.
>
> What a swell party - ready for another four or eight year of this type
> low-life mess?
>
> Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while
> Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton
> Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal
> fans - "what difference does it make?"
>
> Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution
> and giving him the keys to heaven!
>
> Pass this on. Our way of life may depend on it.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Friday Funnies
A friend of mine recently picked a new primary care doctor.
After two visits and exhaustive Lab tests, the doctor said he was doing 'fairly well' for my age. (I had just turned "seventy-five"). A little concerned about that comment, my buddy couldn't resist asking him,
'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
The doctor asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer, wine or hard liquor?
'Only occasionally,' he replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'
Then the doctor asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?
'IHe said, 'Not much... my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'
'Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?
'No, I don't,' he said.
He asked, 'Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lots of sex?'
'No,' he said.
he doctor paused, looked at me and said, 'Then, why do you even give a shit?'
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
HiLIARy
The flip-flops, the lies, the opportunism just keeps on keeping on. In the last few weeks she has changed her stance on a number of different things. She is against the Keystone pipeline which is a direct kowtow to the union thugs. She is now in favor of a no-fly zone in Syria. Of course, that's pretty easy to be for because she knows that Obama wouldn't do that in a million years. And you can bet that if by some miracle she gets the nod, neither will she. She came out with a tax plan in August that will double short term capital gains. Genius! She is a master at stunting growth. And in the latest flip-flop, she is now agains the Trans-Pacific free trade deal, which is another kowtow to the union thugs. Of course, when she was SecState she helped negotiate the initial construct of the deal. Unbelievable. And oh yeah, the sordid email scandal just keeps getting worse. Now there are documents pointing to pretty significant coverup. But don't worry about it people, nothing to see here, just move along.
This seems appropriate:
This seems appropriate:
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Technology Overload
A friend posted this video over on FB. Well worth a few minutes of your time...especially if you have kids and their heads are down in their devices!
Friday, October 2, 2015
Killers
By now, unless you're living under a rock, you've been blasted day and night about the tragedy of 9 people who were gunned down by a crazy killer at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. It was a senseless and depraved act. Full stop. No one can pretend to understand what demons the asshole who pulled the trigger had running around in his head that would lead up to this act. I guess the only good thing, if it is a good thing, is that he is now dead.
This stupid killing spree is unfortunately becoming all to common in our country. It seems that every few months we see another crazy guy (and most are guys) go off the deep end and kill some number of innocents. And that brings out all the hand wringers. "What are we going to do?" they cry. And the head hand wringer is President Obama. He predictably comes to the podium in the White House press room, decry's the event, tells everyone that we're with the families, and then launches into his frustration that no one is doing anything and he's getting tired of it. As if he is some janitor in the back room. HE IS THE PRESIDENT!!! There is plenty he could do but he is a political coward and a gas bag.
Since he just drones on and on that something should be done, but then he does nothing, let me help him. There is plenty he could do. The first thing is to implement some gun controls. Now all you second amendment types don't go apoplectic. There are 310 million weapons in this country. No one is talking about rounding them up or getting rid of them. And if they did, I'd be first in line to cry bullshit. But...there are some things he could do on the federal level to limit some of the most dangerous weapons in the inventory. He could sponsor legislation to slow the proliferation of guns and better regulate the ones already out there. Many would support a ban on military style assault weapons. Armor-piercing bullets and other types of the most devastating ammunition could be better controlled and would receive wide-spread support. There is technology today to implement tracing technology so that every bullet can be identified by manufacture and buyer. Better, more comprehensive background checks and waiting periods are a no brainer. Better regulations at gun shows could be something that is implemented nation-wide. All these things could be done. Or at least tried to be done. He could call a major conference on deciding what could be done to reasonably restrict weapons. It could include all levels of government. And none of that would endanger the 2nd Amendment or endanger the public. But...it would require leadership. It would require political will. It would require that he invest time in it. It would require that he care.
But for my money all that would be pretty minimal and wouldn't be nearly as impactful as putting some attention on mental health. Because...it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. Here's the deal. You don't do something like this unless you have serious mental health issues. I always hesitate to say we need to throw money at it, but we need to throw money at it. I don't have the answers, but there are a lot of smart people out there who probably do. Here's a good example. There is a program in California being developed to determine whether potentially dangerous people own guns illegally. But it's way behind in implementation because of bureaucratic delays. There are other programs that I'm sure could be implemented to identify these nut cases and treat them accordingly. And who would object? Who would not think this is a good idea? Uh...no one. But what would it take. It would take leadership. It would take him picking up the phone to talk to people about it. He could also call a White House conference on this issue. Bring in all the state and local folks. Come up with solutions. Twist arms to get something done. But no...he'd have to expend political capital and he won't do that.
Here's another one. School security. No...not putting an armed guard on every campus or razor wire around the perimeter. But every district superintendent and every principal should be held accountable for appropriate safety measures and insure drills are conducted to minimize damage if an incident occurs.
Or....what about parental responsibility? President Kennedy launched a national physical fitness agenda. How about a parental responsibility agenda. What about making sure every parent knows that they have a responsibility to observe and report signs that your child or your child's friend is emotionally disturbed and may be a potential threat. Why couldn't he speak out on this? He has the bully pulpit! There have been too many disappointments with this guy to count, but perhaps the biggest is his not doing anything to improve the state of young black men in this country. He could have made a difference. He could have been heroic. 6 years ago I thought he would. And it's been a bitter disappointment.
So when Obama slithers out and says he's mad about something and then hits the links, for me it falls on deaf ears. He is all talk...no substance. He could do something. HE IS THE PRESIDENT!!! He just chooses not to. What a jackass...
This stupid killing spree is unfortunately becoming all to common in our country. It seems that every few months we see another crazy guy (and most are guys) go off the deep end and kill some number of innocents. And that brings out all the hand wringers. "What are we going to do?" they cry. And the head hand wringer is President Obama. He predictably comes to the podium in the White House press room, decry's the event, tells everyone that we're with the families, and then launches into his frustration that no one is doing anything and he's getting tired of it. As if he is some janitor in the back room. HE IS THE PRESIDENT!!! There is plenty he could do but he is a political coward and a gas bag.
Since he just drones on and on that something should be done, but then he does nothing, let me help him. There is plenty he could do. The first thing is to implement some gun controls. Now all you second amendment types don't go apoplectic. There are 310 million weapons in this country. No one is talking about rounding them up or getting rid of them. And if they did, I'd be first in line to cry bullshit. But...there are some things he could do on the federal level to limit some of the most dangerous weapons in the inventory. He could sponsor legislation to slow the proliferation of guns and better regulate the ones already out there. Many would support a ban on military style assault weapons. Armor-piercing bullets and other types of the most devastating ammunition could be better controlled and would receive wide-spread support. There is technology today to implement tracing technology so that every bullet can be identified by manufacture and buyer. Better, more comprehensive background checks and waiting periods are a no brainer. Better regulations at gun shows could be something that is implemented nation-wide. All these things could be done. Or at least tried to be done. He could call a major conference on deciding what could be done to reasonably restrict weapons. It could include all levels of government. And none of that would endanger the 2nd Amendment or endanger the public. But...it would require leadership. It would require political will. It would require that he invest time in it. It would require that he care.
But for my money all that would be pretty minimal and wouldn't be nearly as impactful as putting some attention on mental health. Because...it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. Here's the deal. You don't do something like this unless you have serious mental health issues. I always hesitate to say we need to throw money at it, but we need to throw money at it. I don't have the answers, but there are a lot of smart people out there who probably do. Here's a good example. There is a program in California being developed to determine whether potentially dangerous people own guns illegally. But it's way behind in implementation because of bureaucratic delays. There are other programs that I'm sure could be implemented to identify these nut cases and treat them accordingly. And who would object? Who would not think this is a good idea? Uh...no one. But what would it take. It would take leadership. It would take him picking up the phone to talk to people about it. He could also call a White House conference on this issue. Bring in all the state and local folks. Come up with solutions. Twist arms to get something done. But no...he'd have to expend political capital and he won't do that.
Here's another one. School security. No...not putting an armed guard on every campus or razor wire around the perimeter. But every district superintendent and every principal should be held accountable for appropriate safety measures and insure drills are conducted to minimize damage if an incident occurs.
Or....what about parental responsibility? President Kennedy launched a national physical fitness agenda. How about a parental responsibility agenda. What about making sure every parent knows that they have a responsibility to observe and report signs that your child or your child's friend is emotionally disturbed and may be a potential threat. Why couldn't he speak out on this? He has the bully pulpit! There have been too many disappointments with this guy to count, but perhaps the biggest is his not doing anything to improve the state of young black men in this country. He could have made a difference. He could have been heroic. 6 years ago I thought he would. And it's been a bitter disappointment.
So when Obama slithers out and says he's mad about something and then hits the links, for me it falls on deaf ears. He is all talk...no substance. He could do something. HE IS THE PRESIDENT!!! He just chooses not to. What a jackass...
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Twister
This game has been around a long time. Great party game. It's fun to play but you have to have the right partner!
