Wednesday, August 31, 2016
The Old World
Don't know where this is. Paris? Berlin? Budapest? Wherever it is I love the charming, close streets with the cafes and markets. And apartments with great little balconies for watching the world go by. Those views just can't be beat!
Standing Against Oppression
Colin Kaepernick before he met his hot, Egyptian, BLM, Muslim media star girlfriend. Word is she radicalized him. But he's got the right to do what he wants. It's a free country. I've also read that he is in real danger of being cut by the 49ers so they don't have to pay him $14M. But if he draws enough attention to himself, then maybe the fawning media would give the 49ers huge grief for cutting him. Just sayin...follow the money. Always follow the money.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Winter is Coming
It's pretty much perpetual Summer in SoCal but in most other parts of the country, Winter is coming. So I thought I'd give you a little taste.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Race In America
You'd have to be living under a rock to not realize that race relations in America are frayed and getting worse. It is a complex problem made worse by media hyperbole, activist entrenchment, a stagnant economy, and both truths and lies regarding police interaction in the black community. But these issues and so many more make it difficult to even begin the dialog of reconciliation. As Trump and Hillary trade racist accusations, the problems only intensify. This problem not only doesn't serve our citizens, it could become a dangerous catalyst for some significant fraying of the fabric of society. And some would say we're already there.
I came across what I think is a pretty good overview of what is going on thought I'd share. As with any point of view, it's not perfect. But it is good food for thought and potentially offers the reader an opportunity a chance to stop, consider, and think through our problems before automatically assuming the worst of their fellow citizens. The article is titled, "Why Race Relations Got Worse" by J. D. Vance. It's in National Review but don't let that deter you. I know NR usually has a very conservative voice but this seems to me to be a really good and thoughtful analysis. At least I thought so upon reading it. I'd love to hear opinions, both for and against. Somehow we've got to create and sustain a dialog beyond what our so-called leaders are offering. You can read it here.
I came across what I think is a pretty good overview of what is going on thought I'd share. As with any point of view, it's not perfect. But it is good food for thought and potentially offers the reader an opportunity a chance to stop, consider, and think through our problems before automatically assuming the worst of their fellow citizens. The article is titled, "Why Race Relations Got Worse" by J. D. Vance. It's in National Review but don't let that deter you. I know NR usually has a very conservative voice but this seems to me to be a really good and thoughtful analysis. At least I thought so upon reading it. I'd love to hear opinions, both for and against. Somehow we've got to create and sustain a dialog beyond what our so-called leaders are offering. You can read it here.
Beautiful Day
Looks like a beautiful day. Great looking spa. Vineyards in the background. Really nice!
Gymnastics
I really miss the Olympics. But this is sorta like that. And BTW, I can stand up on a paddle board. This? Ha!
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Friday, August 26, 2016
Trump
It's really getting nasty, isn't it? Let's see who can make the most outrageous charge of racism. Not sure where this is going, but probably no place good. I obviously have a perspective, but to me it's pretty obvious that Hillary is rolling out this racist gambit to deflect attention from all her woes, of which there are many. Will it work? Don't know but if the media sees a way to make it work they will help her.
Saw an interesting piece on Powerline. You can read it here. This ad is part of the post but I thought I'd just post it here to make it easy. Because you'd never see it otherwise.
Saw an interesting piece on Powerline. You can read it here. This ad is part of the post but I thought I'd just post it here to make it easy. Because you'd never see it otherwise.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Good Form
Now that the Olympics are over I really miss all the sports. Especially the gymnastics. This is sorta like that...sorta.
Okay...I'm Going In!
I thought this might be a photoshop but saw a story on the news tonight about it. Apparently, this guy knew the pipe layout and decided he could just feel his way through to getting whatever he was installing done. Yikes!
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Reasons Trump Won't Win (as of today)
As much as so many are hoping against hope that the corrupt and criminal Hillary won't occupy the Oval Office come January, I think the chances of that not happening are pretty dim. As I look across the political landscape, it appears to me that there are a number of things that, at the end of the day, will be too much for Trump to overcome.
Of course, the first thing is how he came out of the gate. He was a bombastic and arrogant businessman who was fed up and had this idea to run for President. He obviously said some things that a professional politician wouldn't say. Oh, many of the things were what many Americans were thinking, but he said them directly and without political nuance that people are used to. That turned a segment of the population off. Big time. Bigger than he expected (I think). But he won. And continued to win. So he continued the message and did what worked. That was then. That worked in the Primaries. It doesn't translate very well to the general. And there are a lot of people who won't forget, won't forgive, won't see any sort of change. Even though he is moderating his message, as any thinking person realizes he would eventually do, it is likely too little too late.
The second thing is that no matter how much he moderates, his message will never get out. As we've all seen and I've pointed out, the media is in Hillary's camp hook, line and sinker. They are actively working against him. Shameful, but true.
There is also the matter of money and organization. Hillary and the Democratic machine are ahead in that area. Way ahead. The Trump organization isn't close to being as extensive or as efficient as the Hillary organization. And she is raising a ton more money. And she's getting it from two places. The first is Wall Street. She is in their pocket. The second is Hollywood. She had a fundraiser today in Hollywood that was $33,400 a head. Seriously. You can read about it here. It's pretty slimy. It's just the thing the press will decry. But for her, they'll ignore it.
Then there is the issue of the Electoral College. The road for Trump is narrow. Very narrow. Dana Perino, who knows a thing or two about Presidential elections has a good analysis that you can read here. There is a lot of other analysis out there if you look for it. Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia is a guy to pay attention to. But bottom line is that most of the election geeks don't see a way for Trump to navigate the Electoral College.
Pretty grim, huh? Well, it is. But it can change. As many have said, this is a year unlike any other. Perhaps the media will wake up and start holding Hillary accountable. Perhaps the debates will turn the tide. Perhaps Trump's message (the moderated one) will get through. Perhaps people will start to see how bad it would be for Hillary to win. Perhaps Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, will get enough votes to throw the election to the House. Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps. Things will change...I'm just not sure how much and if it will be enough. No one does.
Of course, the first thing is how he came out of the gate. He was a bombastic and arrogant businessman who was fed up and had this idea to run for President. He obviously said some things that a professional politician wouldn't say. Oh, many of the things were what many Americans were thinking, but he said them directly and without political nuance that people are used to. That turned a segment of the population off. Big time. Bigger than he expected (I think). But he won. And continued to win. So he continued the message and did what worked. That was then. That worked in the Primaries. It doesn't translate very well to the general. And there are a lot of people who won't forget, won't forgive, won't see any sort of change. Even though he is moderating his message, as any thinking person realizes he would eventually do, it is likely too little too late.
The second thing is that no matter how much he moderates, his message will never get out. As we've all seen and I've pointed out, the media is in Hillary's camp hook, line and sinker. They are actively working against him. Shameful, but true.
There is also the matter of money and organization. Hillary and the Democratic machine are ahead in that area. Way ahead. The Trump organization isn't close to being as extensive or as efficient as the Hillary organization. And she is raising a ton more money. And she's getting it from two places. The first is Wall Street. She is in their pocket. The second is Hollywood. She had a fundraiser today in Hollywood that was $33,400 a head. Seriously. You can read about it here. It's pretty slimy. It's just the thing the press will decry. But for her, they'll ignore it.
Then there is the issue of the Electoral College. The road for Trump is narrow. Very narrow. Dana Perino, who knows a thing or two about Presidential elections has a good analysis that you can read here. There is a lot of other analysis out there if you look for it. Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia is a guy to pay attention to. But bottom line is that most of the election geeks don't see a way for Trump to navigate the Electoral College.
Pretty grim, huh? Well, it is. But it can change. As many have said, this is a year unlike any other. Perhaps the media will wake up and start holding Hillary accountable. Perhaps the debates will turn the tide. Perhaps Trump's message (the moderated one) will get through. Perhaps people will start to see how bad it would be for Hillary to win. Perhaps Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, will get enough votes to throw the election to the House. Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps. Things will change...I'm just not sure how much and if it will be enough. No one does.
Monday, August 22, 2016
The Letter Against Hillary
In the list of things that have happened in this election, the Never-Trump movement is one of the most peculiar. I've often thought that the smug, white, privileged liberal to be most offensive and obnoxious person on the planet. But I'm starting to think that the overly-strident, righteous, largely single issue, conservative is becoming a close second. For both these groups, there is no compromise, no countenance of the other side, and they'd rather lose while standing up for whatever issue it is that has them all worked up than win through compromise.
So when the Never-Trump crowd starting crowing about all the objections they had of him, I (in my naivete) thought they'd eventually come around. They'd see his inevitable moderation, they'd realize how awful and disastrous the alternative would be, and they'd hold their nose and vote for him. And that may still happen. But I'm not holding my breath. And then we saw the letter from "50 National Security Professionals" objecting to Trump and detailing the reasons why he'd be a disaster from a national security perspective. Of course, his retort was that these folks hadn't necessarily done a good job in the course of their turn at the wheel, so they could object all they want. Still, it was a blow. It was another objection by the establishment.
So lately I've been thinking about Hillary and her national security credentials. As I've detailed her many times and in many different scenarios, she has been a disaster. An unmitigated disaster. Certainly, as Secretary of State, she was horrible. All the reasons have been stated. So just as I was thinking of her incompetence, I got to wondering where are these "National Security Professionals" are and why isn't there a similar letter about Hillary. I mean, if Trump is inexperienced and impetuous, her faults are much, much worse. And then coincidentally, one of my favorite commentators, Victor Davis Hanson, wrote an article today about just that subject. He is a far better writer than me so I'll just let you read and ponder. I've copied it all below so you don't even have to hit the link.
So when the Never-Trump crowd starting crowing about all the objections they had of him, I (in my naivete) thought they'd eventually come around. They'd see his inevitable moderation, they'd realize how awful and disastrous the alternative would be, and they'd hold their nose and vote for him. And that may still happen. But I'm not holding my breath. And then we saw the letter from "50 National Security Professionals" objecting to Trump and detailing the reasons why he'd be a disaster from a national security perspective. Of course, his retort was that these folks hadn't necessarily done a good job in the course of their turn at the wheel, so they could object all they want. Still, it was a blow. It was another objection by the establishment.
So lately I've been thinking about Hillary and her national security credentials. As I've detailed her many times and in many different scenarios, she has been a disaster. An unmitigated disaster. Certainly, as Secretary of State, she was horrible. All the reasons have been stated. So just as I was thinking of her incompetence, I got to wondering where are these "National Security Professionals" are and why isn't there a similar letter about Hillary. I mean, if Trump is inexperienced and impetuous, her faults are much, much worse. And then coincidentally, one of my favorite commentators, Victor Davis Hanson, wrote an article today about just that subject. He is a far better writer than me so I'll just let you read and ponder. I've copied it all below so you don't even have to hit the link.
Where’s The Letter From Democratic Security Officials Opposing Hillary?
By Victor Davis Hanson//Town Hall
A group of 50 conservative foreign policy elites and veteran national security officials of prior Republican administrations recently wrote an open letter denouncing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
They cited especially his lack of character and moral authority — and his “little understanding of America’s national interests.” Particularly bothersome, they wrote, is Trump’s inability “to separate truth from falsehood.”
The letter stated that Trump’s one-year campaign of blustery rhetoric suggests he could be as reckless in deed in the White House as he has been in word on the campaign trail.
Is there a like group of past Democratic wise men and women who can commensurately “police their own” and so warn us about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton?
Unlike Trump, Clinton already has an actual political record as a former U.S. senator and secretary of state.
If there were such a group, the heart of their letter might read something like the following:
“We the undersigned who have served in prior Democratic administrations will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
“She has endangered U.S. national security by using an unsecured and unlawful personal email server. She has transmitted classified information over it, some of which was most likely accessed by foreign interests.
“Hillary Clinton deliberately undermined government intelligence-handling protocols and ignored Freedom of Information requests.
“Hillary Clinton deliberately undermined government intelligence-handling protocols and ignored Freedom of Information requests.
“FBI Director James Comey, after a lengthy investigation, has stated before Congress that Ms. Clinton was untruthful in her various public explanations about her reckless behavior.
“We are discovering from her unsecured and once-deleted correspondence more evidence of negligence and unethical behavior — from crossover business between State Department operatives and the Clinton Foundation to quid-pro-quo favors and discussions about a U.S. informant who was later executed by the Iranian government.
“We are discovering from her unsecured and once-deleted correspondence more evidence of negligence and unethical behavior — from crossover business between State Department operatives and the Clinton Foundation to quid-pro-quo favors and discussions about a U.S. informant who was later executed by the Iranian government.
“Unfortunately, Ms. Clinton cannot distinguish truth from falsehood in areas that transcend the email scandal. She went on record falsely attesting that the Benghazi tragedy was a result of popular anger against a filmmaker. In previous communications, she had asserted just the opposite — that it was a terrorist operation.
“After ranking members of the Democratic National Committee were found to have been massaging the primary race for Ms. Clinton, she nonetheless hired for her campaign the recently resigned and disgraced former head of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“Clinton’s role in the decision to bomb Libya ensured a subsequent failed state and terrorist haven there. Her laxity left the consulate in Benghazi without protection from terrorist violence that led to American deaths.
“Backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt nearly destroyed a traditional ally. The Iranian government has stepped up its support of terrorism, its hostage-taking and its promises to destroy Israel — after the Iran accord Clinton claims to have helped initiate.
“On her watch, all U.S. troops were precipitously withdrawn from Iraq, destroying what had been a promising calm, and ensuring the rise of ISIS and the implosion of nearby Syria. Allies in the Gulf and Israel have been as ostracized as often as hostile governments in Iran, Turkey and Cuba have been courted.
“Her signature “reset” policy emboldened Vladimir Putin’s Russia, helped to restart a Cold War, and led to the end of an independent Crimea and unified Ukraine.
“China’s unchecked expansionism has spread to new artificial island bases in the South China Sea. Uncertain of continued U.S. support, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea grow terrified in the face of renewed Chinese and North Korean aggression.
“As secretary of state, Clinton spearheaded the Obama’s administration’s effort to relegate jihadist violence to a euphemistic category of “violent extremism.”
“Hillary Clinton for political advantage has flipped positions on the Keystone XL pipeline, major international trade agreements, illegal immigration and a border fence.
“Hillary and Bill Clinton have become multimillionaires through speaking and consulting, often on the tacit understanding that their past and present public service could benefit unscrupulous corporate and foreign interests willing to pay them exorbitant fees.
“Just as our Republican foreign policy counterparts are rightly worried about what Donald Trump has said, we Democratic foreign policy veterans are equally terrified of what Hillary Clinton has said and done. In our view, further continuance of a long record of proven failure is even more worrisome than reckless rhetoric about future policy.”
No such letter will ever be published. Why?
Hillary Clinton is a fixture of the foreign policy establishment and thus is considered exempt from being judged empirically on her serial deceit and her disastrous foreign policy record.
In the world of elite Washington, crude bluster from an uncouth outsider like Trump is deemed more hazardous than the prevarication, dishonesty and incompetence of a familiar insider.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Worth a Read
This blogger drives me a bit crazy sometimes. We have similar backgrounds but he has some thinking that doesn't really jive with mine. That's okay. That's what makes the world go around. He also is much more articulate than me. Much more. I'm envious of his turn of a phrase. I wish I could organize my thoughts as well as him. So credit where credit is due...read this post. It's very reflective of my thinking. And I really think it's pretty reflective of the thinking of a lot of us. Worth pondering.
Strategy
We've talked about this previously. In fact there have been more than a few posts about it. It's not going away. There is no doubt that Obama has made a mess of our national security policy and our standing in the world. And that's not just theory. I've seen it up close and personal. His administration has been a disappointment in many areas, but it's been a disaster in foreign policy. As in other posts, there are others who can articulate this much better than me. Dr. Krauthammer's article below is as spot on as I can imagine. As he says..."Powerlessness has its consequences". The sad thing, as in many of Obama's other failures, is that it didn't have to be this way. He had the nation behind him. He had a Democratic Congress. He was an agent of change. Good change. Most gave him the benefit of the doubt. But he squandered it. He will leave a legacy of failure, obstinence, and decline. It's sad.
The price of Obama’s detachment: Powerlessness has its consequences, from Russia to Iran to Iraq and Syria
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, August 18, 2016, 8:00 PM
This week Russian bombers flew out of Iranian air bases to attack rebel positions in Syria. The State Department pretended not to be surprised. It should be. It should be alarmed. Iran's intensely nationalistic revolutionary regime had never permitted foreign forces to operate from its soil. Until now.
The reordering of the Middle East is proceeding apace. Where for 40 years the U.S.-Egypt alliance anchored the region, a Russia-Iran condominium is now dictating events. That’s what you get after eight years of U.S. retrenchment and withdrawal. That’s what results from the nuclear deal with Iran, the evacuation of Iraq and utter U.S. immobility on Syria. Consider:
Iran
The nuclear deal was supposed to begin a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. Instead, it has solidified a strategic-military alliance between Moscow and Tehran. With the lifting of sanctions and the normalizing of Iran’s international relations, Russia rushed in with major deals, including the shipment of S-300 ground-to-air missiles. Russian use of Iranian bases now marks a new level of cooperation and joint power projection.
These bombing runs cross Iraqi airspace. Before President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq, that could not have happened. The resulting vacuum has not only created a corridor for Russian bombing, it has gradually allowed a hard-won post-Saddam Iraq to slip into Iran’s orbit. According to a Baghdad-based U.S. military spokesman, there are 100,000 Shiite militia fighters operating inside Iraq, 80% of them Iranian-backed.
Syria
When Russia dramatically intervened last year, establishing air bases and launching a savage bombing campaign, Obama did nothing. Indeed, he smugly predicted that Vladimir Putin had entered a quagmire. Some quagmire. Bashar Assad’s regime is not only saved. It encircled Aleppo and has seized the upper hand in the civil war. Meanwhile, our hapless secretary of state is running around trying to sue for peace, offering to share intelligence and legitimize Russian intervention if only Putin will promise to conquer gently.
U.S. admits $400M to Iran was 'leverage' for prisoners' release
Consider what Putin has achieved. Dealt a very weak hand — a rump Russian state, shorn of empire and saddled with a backward economy and a rusting military — he has restored Russia to great power status. Reduced to irrelevance in the 1990s, it is now a force to be reckoned with.
In Europe, Putin has unilaterally redrawn the map. His annexation of Crimea will not be reversed. The Europeans are eager to throw off the few sanctions they grudgingly imposed on Russia. And the rape of eastern Ukraine continues.
Ten thousand have already died and now Putin is threatening even more open warfare. Under the absurd pretext of Ukrainian terrorism in Crimea, Putin has threatened retaliation, massed troops in eight locations on the Ukrainian border, ordered Black Sea naval exercises, and moved advanced anti-aircraft batteries into Crimea, giving Moscow control over much of Ukrainian airspace.
And why shouldn't he? He’s pushing on an open door. Obama still refuses to send Ukraine even defensive weapons. The administration’s response to these provocations? Urging “both sides” to exercise restraint. Both sides, mind you.
And in a gratuitous flaunting of its newly expanded reach, Russia will be conducting joint naval exercises with China in the South China Sea, in obvious support of Beijing’s territorial claims and illegal military bases.
Yet the President shows little concern. He is too smart not to understand geopolitics; he simply doesn’t care. In part because his priorities are domestic. In part because he thinks we lack clean hands and thus the moral standing to continue to play international arbiter.
And in part because he’s convinced that in the long run it doesn’t matter. Fluctuations in great power relations are inherently ephemeral. For a man who sees a moral arc in the universe bending inexorably toward justice, calculations of raw realpolitik are 20th-century thinking — primitive, obsolete, the obsession of small minds.
Obama made all this perfectly clear in speeches at the U.N., in Cairo and here at home in his very first year in office. Two terms later, we see the result. Ukraine dismembered. Eastern Europe on edge. Syria a charnel house. Iran subsuming Iraq. Russia and Iran on the march across the entire northern Middle East.
At the heart of this disorder is a simple asymmetry. It is in worldview. The major revisionist powers — China, Russia and Iran — know what they want: power, territory, tribute. And they’re going after it. Obama takes Ecclesiastes’ view that these are vanities, nothing but vanities.
In the kingdom of heaven, no doubt. Here on earth, however — Aleppo to Donetsk, Estonia to the Spratly Islands — it matters greatly.
The price of Obama’s detachment: Powerlessness has its consequences, from Russia to Iran to Iraq and Syria
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, August 18, 2016, 8:00 PM
This week Russian bombers flew out of Iranian air bases to attack rebel positions in Syria. The State Department pretended not to be surprised. It should be. It should be alarmed. Iran's intensely nationalistic revolutionary regime had never permitted foreign forces to operate from its soil. Until now.
The reordering of the Middle East is proceeding apace. Where for 40 years the U.S.-Egypt alliance anchored the region, a Russia-Iran condominium is now dictating events. That’s what you get after eight years of U.S. retrenchment and withdrawal. That’s what results from the nuclear deal with Iran, the evacuation of Iraq and utter U.S. immobility on Syria. Consider:
Iran
The nuclear deal was supposed to begin a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. Instead, it has solidified a strategic-military alliance between Moscow and Tehran. With the lifting of sanctions and the normalizing of Iran’s international relations, Russia rushed in with major deals, including the shipment of S-300 ground-to-air missiles. Russian use of Iranian bases now marks a new level of cooperation and joint power projection.
These bombing runs cross Iraqi airspace. Before President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq, that could not have happened. The resulting vacuum has not only created a corridor for Russian bombing, it has gradually allowed a hard-won post-Saddam Iraq to slip into Iran’s orbit. According to a Baghdad-based U.S. military spokesman, there are 100,000 Shiite militia fighters operating inside Iraq, 80% of them Iranian-backed.
Syria
When Russia dramatically intervened last year, establishing air bases and launching a savage bombing campaign, Obama did nothing. Indeed, he smugly predicted that Vladimir Putin had entered a quagmire. Some quagmire. Bashar Assad’s regime is not only saved. It encircled Aleppo and has seized the upper hand in the civil war. Meanwhile, our hapless secretary of state is running around trying to sue for peace, offering to share intelligence and legitimize Russian intervention if only Putin will promise to conquer gently.
U.S. admits $400M to Iran was 'leverage' for prisoners' release
Consider what Putin has achieved. Dealt a very weak hand — a rump Russian state, shorn of empire and saddled with a backward economy and a rusting military — he has restored Russia to great power status. Reduced to irrelevance in the 1990s, it is now a force to be reckoned with.
In Europe, Putin has unilaterally redrawn the map. His annexation of Crimea will not be reversed. The Europeans are eager to throw off the few sanctions they grudgingly imposed on Russia. And the rape of eastern Ukraine continues.
Ten thousand have already died and now Putin is threatening even more open warfare. Under the absurd pretext of Ukrainian terrorism in Crimea, Putin has threatened retaliation, massed troops in eight locations on the Ukrainian border, ordered Black Sea naval exercises, and moved advanced anti-aircraft batteries into Crimea, giving Moscow control over much of Ukrainian airspace.
And why shouldn't he? He’s pushing on an open door. Obama still refuses to send Ukraine even defensive weapons. The administration’s response to these provocations? Urging “both sides” to exercise restraint. Both sides, mind you.
And in a gratuitous flaunting of its newly expanded reach, Russia will be conducting joint naval exercises with China in the South China Sea, in obvious support of Beijing’s territorial claims and illegal military bases.
Yet the President shows little concern. He is too smart not to understand geopolitics; he simply doesn’t care. In part because his priorities are domestic. In part because he thinks we lack clean hands and thus the moral standing to continue to play international arbiter.
And in part because he’s convinced that in the long run it doesn’t matter. Fluctuations in great power relations are inherently ephemeral. For a man who sees a moral arc in the universe bending inexorably toward justice, calculations of raw realpolitik are 20th-century thinking — primitive, obsolete, the obsession of small minds.
Obama made all this perfectly clear in speeches at the U.N., in Cairo and here at home in his very first year in office. Two terms later, we see the result. Ukraine dismembered. Eastern Europe on edge. Syria a charnel house. Iran subsuming Iraq. Russia and Iran on the march across the entire northern Middle East.
At the heart of this disorder is a simple asymmetry. It is in worldview. The major revisionist powers — China, Russia and Iran — know what they want: power, territory, tribute. And they’re going after it. Obama takes Ecclesiastes’ view that these are vanities, nothing but vanities.
In the kingdom of heaven, no doubt. Here on earth, however — Aleppo to Donetsk, Estonia to the Spratly Islands — it matters greatly.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Trump
I guess I'm just going to have to keep this up. I'm still not totally in his corner, although under no circumstances will I vote for the criminal. But the fact is he's getting better. And his message is starting to resonate. Today's speech in North Carolina may be his best yet.
Except, it's not getting out. The media keep up the same narrative against him. So when I hear or see something, I'll just put it here and some of you can decide for yourselves. Because you're not going to see it if you're watching your normal sources.
Except, it's not getting out. The media keep up the same narrative against him. So when I hear or see something, I'll just put it here and some of you can decide for yourselves. Because you're not going to see it if you're watching your normal sources.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Trump
So it is apparent by now that the media is virulently anti-Trump. And it's not just a few people, but a broad coalition of reporters, pundits, writers and editors who are doing all they can to deny Trump the Presidency and allow for the coronation of their hero, Hillary Clinton. The fact that she is corrupt, a criminal, bought and paid for by slimy guys like George Soros, is in the back pocket of Wall Street and will continue the disastrous policies of the Obama regime seems to make no difference to them. It's pretty distressing.
In this environment, how can the truth get out? Well, it will be difficult. But one way is through grass roots. If you've been reading, you know I've done my part in trying to bring to light Hillary's crimes over the last several months. But now she is the nominee. So I think one thing I can do is at least try and bring what he is saying to this blog so maybe, just maybe a few folks will read it or watch it and start to wonder. Start to question the establishment. Start to question whether or not the system really is rigged. And maybe, just maybe, the word will spread wider. Because a coronation for a corrupt and cynical criminal to the highest office in the land is not acceptable.
This was his speech on law and order last night in Wisconsin. You won't see it in any of the national media. Or if you do see it they will provide negative spin or cut snippets out of context to make you think he's terrible. I realize most will pass they by. But if you have a few minutes, watch and listen. What he is saying makes huge sense. Huge.
In this environment, how can the truth get out? Well, it will be difficult. But one way is through grass roots. If you've been reading, you know I've done my part in trying to bring to light Hillary's crimes over the last several months. But now she is the nominee. So I think one thing I can do is at least try and bring what he is saying to this blog so maybe, just maybe a few folks will read it or watch it and start to wonder. Start to question the establishment. Start to question whether or not the system really is rigged. And maybe, just maybe, the word will spread wider. Because a coronation for a corrupt and cynical criminal to the highest office in the land is not acceptable.
This was his speech on law and order last night in Wisconsin. You won't see it in any of the national media. Or if you do see it they will provide negative spin or cut snippets out of context to make you think he's terrible. I realize most will pass they by. But if you have a few minutes, watch and listen. What he is saying makes huge sense. Huge.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Specifics
One of the things that get really old as the press continues its quest to take down Trump, is all the harping on specifics. Trump lays out a goal. He provides some concepts of things he wants to be done. And the press savages him for not being specific. Where are the details, they want to know? How will you do this, they want to know. Of course, it's all a thinly veiled attempt to show him as shallow, not very smart, and not very engaged. And of course, they never, ever apply the same standard to Hillary.
So I got to wondering about presidential goals. I mean, do we want a president who will micromanage the day to day workings of the government? I don't think so. We've seen that model. Can you say, Carter? To me, Trump has been about right when it comes to policy. He is focusing on the economy, jobs, immigration and national security. He has laid out some specific pieces of those issues, but not hard and fast tactics. Nor should he. So in my wondering, did a little research and came up with presidential goals going back to Reagan. All this info comes from the Miller Center at the University of Virginia just to be consistent. I've paraphrased some of it, but it's pretty accurate. What do they all have in common? They are all very non-specific. They all set a vision in policy areas that they care about and think the American people care about. And they are all pretty non-specific.
If you for some reason don't think the press is out to annihilate Trump, pay attention to some of their rants about his lack of policy detail. It is total bullshit and really shows their hand. And like many other things about him, they are driving a lot of people toward him because they are such arrogant pricks.
Ronald Reagan's Presidential Goals: In domestic affairs, he set out to revitalize the economy, reduce taxes, balance the federal budget, and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. In foreign affairs, he vowed to rebuild the American military and confront the Soviet Union and its allies with new vigor and purpose.
George H.W. Bush's Presidential Goals: Bush came into office promising continuity with the Reagan years and proceeded cautiously; he did not advocate radical change or announce sweeping domestic programs. He was constrained by a large budget deficit, limited federal revenue to fund programs, and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Critics charged that his administration lacked vision and did not communicate its approach effectively to the public. Although Bush had some notable domestic achievements, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments, he focused much of his attention on foreign affairs.
Bill Clinton's Presidential Goals: Clinton vowed to focus on economic issues like a "laser beam," working especially to overcome the sluggish growth of the American economy. He also sought to remake the Democratic Party by focusing on issues supported by the middle class, such as government spending to stimulate the economy, tough crime laws, jobs for welfare recipients, and tax reform that shifted the burden to the rich. At the same time, Clinton stood firm on certain traditional liberal goals such as converting military expenditures to domestic purposes, gun control, legalized abortion, environmental protection, equal employment and educational opportunity, national health insurance, and gay rights.
George W. Bush's Presidential Goals: The most transformative event of the Bush presidency occurred on September 11, 2001. The Bush presidency began with conservative reform goals, such as lowering taxes, but became better known as the presidency that prosecuted America’s war on terror. The September 11, 2001, attacks changed the entire focus of the Bush administration. The long, hard wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost thousands of U.S. lives, billions of dollars, and damaged Bush’s popularity as President.
Barak Obama Presidential Goals: The Obama Administration had a comprehensive and detailed policy agenda. Among many important domestic and foreign policy objectives, priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthen our public education and social security systems; define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change; end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan; work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
So I got to wondering about presidential goals. I mean, do we want a president who will micromanage the day to day workings of the government? I don't think so. We've seen that model. Can you say, Carter? To me, Trump has been about right when it comes to policy. He is focusing on the economy, jobs, immigration and national security. He has laid out some specific pieces of those issues, but not hard and fast tactics. Nor should he. So in my wondering, did a little research and came up with presidential goals going back to Reagan. All this info comes from the Miller Center at the University of Virginia just to be consistent. I've paraphrased some of it, but it's pretty accurate. What do they all have in common? They are all very non-specific. They all set a vision in policy areas that they care about and think the American people care about. And they are all pretty non-specific.
If you for some reason don't think the press is out to annihilate Trump, pay attention to some of their rants about his lack of policy detail. It is total bullshit and really shows their hand. And like many other things about him, they are driving a lot of people toward him because they are such arrogant pricks.
Ronald Reagan's Presidential Goals: In domestic affairs, he set out to revitalize the economy, reduce taxes, balance the federal budget, and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. In foreign affairs, he vowed to rebuild the American military and confront the Soviet Union and its allies with new vigor and purpose.
George H.W. Bush's Presidential Goals: Bush came into office promising continuity with the Reagan years and proceeded cautiously; he did not advocate radical change or announce sweeping domestic programs. He was constrained by a large budget deficit, limited federal revenue to fund programs, and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Critics charged that his administration lacked vision and did not communicate its approach effectively to the public. Although Bush had some notable domestic achievements, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments, he focused much of his attention on foreign affairs.
Bill Clinton's Presidential Goals: Clinton vowed to focus on economic issues like a "laser beam," working especially to overcome the sluggish growth of the American economy. He also sought to remake the Democratic Party by focusing on issues supported by the middle class, such as government spending to stimulate the economy, tough crime laws, jobs for welfare recipients, and tax reform that shifted the burden to the rich. At the same time, Clinton stood firm on certain traditional liberal goals such as converting military expenditures to domestic purposes, gun control, legalized abortion, environmental protection, equal employment and educational opportunity, national health insurance, and gay rights.
George W. Bush's Presidential Goals: The most transformative event of the Bush presidency occurred on September 11, 2001. The Bush presidency began with conservative reform goals, such as lowering taxes, but became better known as the presidency that prosecuted America’s war on terror. The September 11, 2001, attacks changed the entire focus of the Bush administration. The long, hard wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost thousands of U.S. lives, billions of dollars, and damaged Bush’s popularity as President.
Barak Obama Presidential Goals: The Obama Administration had a comprehensive and detailed policy agenda. Among many important domestic and foreign policy objectives, priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthen our public education and social security systems; define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change; end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan; work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Clever
It's a dog-eat-dog job market. Sometimes it pays to be clever. This wouldn't always work. In fact it might not work most of the time. But in the right situation...nailed it!
Before and After
I love these kinds of shots. It really shows that we all bloom at different rates. And there are some who really bloom well. Jennifer Garner is one!
Friday, August 12, 2016
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Johnson/Weld...An Alternative to Consider
As things spiral down regarding the two knuckleheads running for President...this is certainly an alternative to consider. Not sure I'm there yet...but certainly something to consider.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)