You know, Donald Trump has really stolen the show this election season. If the campaigns so far were a TV series, the Trump "show" would be the leader of the pack in the ratings. Regardless of the nature of some of the outrageous statements that Trump makes, he has dominated the press cycles and fueled an "angry" Trump crowd, seething with suspicion and hatred for others who "caused" their pain. And, as "the Donald" said recently, any press is "good" press. So, having captured the media with his outrageous statements and behaviors over the past 10 months or so, there is no surprise that his name recognition is in the stratosphere, along with the most famous woman in the nation - Hillary Clinton. What is concerning - if not terrifying - is that the recent poll data suggests that right now it is a coin flip that may determine which of the two becomes the next President of the United States - and in control of the nation's nuclear arsenal.
On the first day of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, a set of embarrassing e-mails suggested that the Party had been engaged in some activities that favored Hillary for the nomination. Of course, even Party Officials are entitled to their personal opinions, freedom of speech, etc., but in their role AS Party Officials, they also have a responsibility to be even-handed when a primary contest is underway. The Sanders Campaign has long charged that the DNC Chair and other staff had tilted the playing field to disadvantage Sanders and his supporters from the start. At least one of the hacked e-mails seemed to provide some damning proof that the DNC did "rig" the process - or, at least wanted to. Hmmmm... Wikileaks.... Isn't that the place run by Julian Assange? And, isn't he currently holed up somewhere in Russia as a guest of the Putin regime? And, didn't I just read in the NY Times that it appears that the hacks that plagued the DNC a few months ago seemed to be from a Russian Government operation according to a number of computer experts that reviewed the hacks? And, although the information was stolen some months ago, isn't it a curious coincidence that this seemingly damning information that would inflame the Sanders camp just happened to be released on the first day of the DNC Convention when it would do maximum political damage to the Democratic Party, its convention, and to the party nominee for the presidency, Hillary Clinton? Did all this result in the resignation of the Chair of the DNC - Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the very day that she was to open the Convention? And, does that considerable series of coincidences, and the resulting disarray in the Democratic Party, most advantage the Republican Party and their presidential candidate, Donald Trump? Hmmmmmm..... Does anyone really believe that this set of events is just happenstance? In any case, the DNC "hack" and the release of the information is currently under investigation by the FBI.
Now, I may sound like some conspiracy nut as I outline this issue, but I recently read an article by Josh Marshall on this matter. The information was also published on Facebook by Robert Reich - a staunch Sanders supporter, that put some of the pieces together. And, if accurate, there can be no other conclusion but that Putin and the Russian regime has attempted to interfere in the election process in the United States and that interference is intended to help Donald Trump! Any reasonably skeptical person would see this conclusion as suspect, of course. Why, after all, would Russia want Trump at the switch in the US? Trump has portrayed himself as a "strong leader" would would stand up forcefully to any threats to the US from any quarter. So, wouldn't a Trump Presidency be a greater risk to the Russian administration that., say a "weak" (as described by Trump) leader like Hillary? Well, like the Wizard of Oz, perhaps the man on stage is quite different from the man behind the curtain.... the former Iron Curtain.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the former "Soviet Republics" applied for and were granted status as member of the NATO alliance. These include the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as Poland and a number of others. Notably absent so far, is the Ukraine - currently a very sore spot and substantial diplomatic conflict between Russia and the US. Josh Marshall focuses in on this strained relationship between Putin and Obama and took notice of the few comments and compliments that have taken place between Putin and Trump over the past several months. At first, he just thought that the expressed admiration between Trump and Putin was simply an odd set of comments. But, after a closer look at the possible connections between these two, Marshall came to a different conclusion - evidently, one that caught the attention of Robert Reich and gave Reich pause.
Marshall presents the following:
1. Trump's finances seem to be strained. Over the past year his debt load has nearly doubled - from $350 million to $630 million. In addition, his liquid assets decreased and most major US banks have blackballed him, likely due to his multiple bankruptcies.
2. Since his bankruptcies, he has become highly reliant on money from Russia, increasingly concentrated in the hands of Russian Oligarchs connected to Putin. In fact, many Trump properties around the world have been bought by Russian investors. Donald Trump Jr. told a group of investors that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of our assets." This includes Trump's "Soho Development" in Manhattan funded with more that $50 million from a Russian investment group. Perhaps the Trump tax returns could shed some light on these issues. Don't hold your breath.
3. Paul Manafort, Trump's new Campaign Chair, Manager, and top advisor, spent the last 10 years as an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian former President who's ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crises and proxy war in the Ukraine.
4. Trump's chief foreign policy advisor is Carter Page - who's entire career involved investments in Russia and ties to Gazprom - the massive Russian energy company operated and controlled by the Putin administration. The Putin ties to Gazprom certainly empower him to chop off Page at any time. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly praised Putin as "a strong leader."
5. And, oddly, the Trump Convention team seemed interested in one one issue in the Republican Platform - the long-standing plank calling for aggressive arming of Ukraine to resist Russian territorial expansion. That platform plank was removed. Aside from this issue, Trump has evidently aligned himself with Putin in suggesting that the US might not come to the defense of a NATO ally as required by the mutual defense sections of the NATO Treaty, should a Russian invasion occur - say in the Baltics or in Poland. Given the stakes here, and the nuclear stockpiles in both US and Russian hands, such "coincidences" would seem to merit further review. Unlike Trump, I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not subscribe to the notion that Ted Cruz' father was somehow involved in the assassination of JFK. But, there is enough here as outlined by Josh Marshall, that merits concern, suspicion, and a clear explanation.
By any measure, the Republican Convention was largely unhinged, dark, negative, and paranoid. Fact-checkers had a field day with Trump's acceptance speech noting that the vast majority of statements made by the nominee was simply not so. Lets hope that Josh Marshall's report outlined above turns out to be just a coincidence - a simple confluence of disconnected items leading nowhere. But, if it more than that, then the American public is entitled to know.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Friday, July 22, 2016
PLANET TRUMP?
You know, more than 50 years ago another megalomaniac "leader" began a quest to take over his nation first and then the world all based on his world view. We all now know how that all played out... and the outcome too - millions of lives lost, communities an nations destroyed, and treasures squandered. Donald Trump's distorted view of the nation and the world was on full display last night during his speech accepting the nomination of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States. Wow.....
Donald's "dark" view of America - and the world - reeks of dangers around the corner and around the globe. FEAR is his goal. And, the belief that ONLY HE can keep us safe in our neighborhoods and from the global existential threats that exist, is his ticket to the White House. Or, at least that is what appears to be the strategy coming out of the Republican Convention. Trump describes himself as the "law and order candidate" that will infuse new approaches to keep our streets safe. And, on the global stage, in addition to making our allies pay up for their obligations to NATO and other alliances, he will force "them all" to pay up - OR ELSE! Want us to live up to our decades-long treaty obligations? Well, pay us and we just might. If we want to invades some godforsaken place on the planet because they had the gall to bad-mouth the USA - right or wrong - send troops, planes, and bombs or WATCH OUT! We just will not be there when you need us.... say in Poland or Estonia or Lithuania or Ukraine when Putin and Russia do the saber-rattle or actually step over the border to "protect Russian citizens." Or, Should China or North Korea violate International Law or their treaty obligations in the South China Sea, South Korea, the Philippines, or other neighbors in the Far East, we may help - if the bills are paid, or maybe we would just encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own atomic weaponry (in violation of our own Non-Proliferation Treaty agreements) and what happens, happens. And, in the Middle East? Well, according to Trump, any dictator is a good dictator, regardless of how brutal and non-democratic their reign may be, as long as they keep their own chaos at home and not bother us. Again, our allies are another question - depends on whether they are paid up or not. Taken together, sounds like the Trump plan is to put all of our alliances into a blender, add a dash of guilt and some cash, spin on high for a bit and see what comes out. Wow....
How is this for a "wow" factor? Discriminate against any member of a particular religion - Muslims - and discriminate against them on that basis alone. Keep them out of the US, and closely review all of the Muslims already here ("enhanced verification") to determine if they are loyal Americans or not. I am not sure if we interrogate all Muslims in the US, round them up into camps and only let them out after water-boarding, or simply send them a questionnaire with their tax forms. Hmmmmm...... Build a tall wall on the southern border of the US to keep Latin American immigrants out. And, then there is the issue of the INS enforcement squads tasked with rounding up more than 11,000,000 immigrants - mostly from Latin America - fleeing political repression or poverty and seeking no more than to participate the promise of America - and sending them all back to their country of origin. Now, this is Law and Order, right? Sure, many of these immigrants are illegals, but is this the solution? Or, are we looking more an more like an intolerant and unwelcoming nation totally contrary to our history, our traditions, and our immigrant heritage? Have we become the generation that believes that once we are here, enough is enough - raise the draw bridge?
Last night, Jon Stewart, appearing on the Steve Colbert's Late show, described the Republican plan to make "America Great Again." Stewart described the plan as "No. 1, jail your opponents; No.2 Inject Rudy Giuliani with a speed ball and a Red Bull enema; and, No.3, spend the rest of the time scaring the holy bejesus out of everybody." Stewart noted that the Republican Party has issues with minorities and women "fighting for their place at the American table." He said, "if you have a problem with that, take it up with the founders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL MEN are created equal." He said, that divisions in the American political landscape are not being caused by "those fighting to be included in the ideal of equality", but by "those fighting to keep these people out."
All this from the Republican candidate for President of the United States. Please. The very same Donald Trump has suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton somehow murdered Vince Foster. Ted Cruz dad conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK? Obama is a Kenyan Muslim? The same Trump that said that he "saw and heard thousands of new Jersey Muslims cheer when the World Trade Center came down on 9-11." Vaccines cause autism? The Mexican government is "shipping their worst - murderers, drug lords, and rapists" to our shores? Justice Scalia was murdered? If that was so, who did it? Maybe the wealthy conservative Republicans who hosted him on that hunting trip on a private estate. And, he attacks the US Supreme Court for doing their job - making decisions based on the law and legal precedent - and calls for the removal of Justice Ginsberg for exercising her constitutional right of free speech. But, don't restrict the free flow of guns and weapons of war on the streets of America through common sense gun control measures that even the members of the NRA support. Do we really want this person - Donald Trump - who believes and advocates these screwy notions.... and, is currently in federal court for perpetrating a FRAUD on thousands of students with a fake college - Trump University? A person who will not release his tax returns in spite of his pledge to do so and proudly states that he declared several bankruptcies ... because he could under the rules? And, before the Republican Convention, the man who released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees who, if appointed, would gut much of the progressive agenda adopted over the past 70+ years - from the New Deal forward, including Roe v. Wade. Is this REALLY who we want in the Oval Office? Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, and even our long-time international allies around the world are all rightly concerned that this megalomaniac could possibly become President of the United States. Do we need yet another off-balance, self-centered, power-hungry person at the switch of the most powerful military that the world has ever seen? And, here we are today - with today's poll data in the battleground states indicating that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are dead even. Who will be at the switch and who's finger will be on the nuclear button come next January? Worrisome...... don't you think?
As this past week was the "Donald Show", next week will be wall to wall - the "Hillary Show" as the Democratic National Convention moves to center stage. We will see if the Democrats can put front and center a better Convention, and provide a platform, an agenda, and good cause to elect Hillary and down-ballot Democrats this fall. Let's hope that common sense and confidence in a better America can defeat bigotry and fear as the defining emotions of campaign 2016. My fingers will be crossed...... Stay tuned.....
Donald's "dark" view of America - and the world - reeks of dangers around the corner and around the globe. FEAR is his goal. And, the belief that ONLY HE can keep us safe in our neighborhoods and from the global existential threats that exist, is his ticket to the White House. Or, at least that is what appears to be the strategy coming out of the Republican Convention. Trump describes himself as the "law and order candidate" that will infuse new approaches to keep our streets safe. And, on the global stage, in addition to making our allies pay up for their obligations to NATO and other alliances, he will force "them all" to pay up - OR ELSE! Want us to live up to our decades-long treaty obligations? Well, pay us and we just might. If we want to invades some godforsaken place on the planet because they had the gall to bad-mouth the USA - right or wrong - send troops, planes, and bombs or WATCH OUT! We just will not be there when you need us.... say in Poland or Estonia or Lithuania or Ukraine when Putin and Russia do the saber-rattle or actually step over the border to "protect Russian citizens." Or, Should China or North Korea violate International Law or their treaty obligations in the South China Sea, South Korea, the Philippines, or other neighbors in the Far East, we may help - if the bills are paid, or maybe we would just encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own atomic weaponry (in violation of our own Non-Proliferation Treaty agreements) and what happens, happens. And, in the Middle East? Well, according to Trump, any dictator is a good dictator, regardless of how brutal and non-democratic their reign may be, as long as they keep their own chaos at home and not bother us. Again, our allies are another question - depends on whether they are paid up or not. Taken together, sounds like the Trump plan is to put all of our alliances into a blender, add a dash of guilt and some cash, spin on high for a bit and see what comes out. Wow....
How is this for a "wow" factor? Discriminate against any member of a particular religion - Muslims - and discriminate against them on that basis alone. Keep them out of the US, and closely review all of the Muslims already here ("enhanced verification") to determine if they are loyal Americans or not. I am not sure if we interrogate all Muslims in the US, round them up into camps and only let them out after water-boarding, or simply send them a questionnaire with their tax forms. Hmmmmm...... Build a tall wall on the southern border of the US to keep Latin American immigrants out. And, then there is the issue of the INS enforcement squads tasked with rounding up more than 11,000,000 immigrants - mostly from Latin America - fleeing political repression or poverty and seeking no more than to participate the promise of America - and sending them all back to their country of origin. Now, this is Law and Order, right? Sure, many of these immigrants are illegals, but is this the solution? Or, are we looking more an more like an intolerant and unwelcoming nation totally contrary to our history, our traditions, and our immigrant heritage? Have we become the generation that believes that once we are here, enough is enough - raise the draw bridge?
Last night, Jon Stewart, appearing on the Steve Colbert's Late show, described the Republican plan to make "America Great Again." Stewart described the plan as "No. 1, jail your opponents; No.2 Inject Rudy Giuliani with a speed ball and a Red Bull enema; and, No.3, spend the rest of the time scaring the holy bejesus out of everybody." Stewart noted that the Republican Party has issues with minorities and women "fighting for their place at the American table." He said, "if you have a problem with that, take it up with the founders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL MEN are created equal." He said, that divisions in the American political landscape are not being caused by "those fighting to be included in the ideal of equality", but by "those fighting to keep these people out."
All this from the Republican candidate for President of the United States. Please. The very same Donald Trump has suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton somehow murdered Vince Foster. Ted Cruz dad conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK? Obama is a Kenyan Muslim? The same Trump that said that he "saw and heard thousands of new Jersey Muslims cheer when the World Trade Center came down on 9-11." Vaccines cause autism? The Mexican government is "shipping their worst - murderers, drug lords, and rapists" to our shores? Justice Scalia was murdered? If that was so, who did it? Maybe the wealthy conservative Republicans who hosted him on that hunting trip on a private estate. And, he attacks the US Supreme Court for doing their job - making decisions based on the law and legal precedent - and calls for the removal of Justice Ginsberg for exercising her constitutional right of free speech. But, don't restrict the free flow of guns and weapons of war on the streets of America through common sense gun control measures that even the members of the NRA support. Do we really want this person - Donald Trump - who believes and advocates these screwy notions.... and, is currently in federal court for perpetrating a FRAUD on thousands of students with a fake college - Trump University? A person who will not release his tax returns in spite of his pledge to do so and proudly states that he declared several bankruptcies ... because he could under the rules? And, before the Republican Convention, the man who released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees who, if appointed, would gut much of the progressive agenda adopted over the past 70+ years - from the New Deal forward, including Roe v. Wade. Is this REALLY who we want in the Oval Office? Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, and even our long-time international allies around the world are all rightly concerned that this megalomaniac could possibly become President of the United States. Do we need yet another off-balance, self-centered, power-hungry person at the switch of the most powerful military that the world has ever seen? And, here we are today - with today's poll data in the battleground states indicating that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are dead even. Who will be at the switch and who's finger will be on the nuclear button come next January? Worrisome...... don't you think?
As this past week was the "Donald Show", next week will be wall to wall - the "Hillary Show" as the Democratic National Convention moves to center stage. We will see if the Democrats can put front and center a better Convention, and provide a platform, an agenda, and good cause to elect Hillary and down-ballot Democrats this fall. Let's hope that common sense and confidence in a better America can defeat bigotry and fear as the defining emotions of campaign 2016. My fingers will be crossed...... Stay tuned.....
Monday, July 18, 2016
DRINKING THE TRUMP COOL-AID OR, A PENCE FOR YOUR THOUGHTS....
Mike Pence - former Member of Congress.... Evangelical.... Governor of Indiana ... and all around... well.... someone who will do or say anything to get away from his home state. At least, that is what it appears to be. You see, in addition to being a total loon, Donald Trump apparently is a master magician as well. With one wave of the Vice-Presidential magic wand, the Donald has transformed Mike Pence from the solid and principled conservative he has been for 20 years and more to the ultimate yes man for almost-nominated Trump. A simple comparison of the record and policy positions of Pence and Trump tells the story of how substantial a transformation Pence's recent visit to NYC really was.
Mike Pence has a policy record in the Congress and as Governor of Indiana that is sharply at odds with the Trump positions. Like Hillary Clinton, Pence voted for and supported the Iraq war. Trump delights in attacking Hillary as having "very poor judgment" for that vote, but spins a rationalization for Pence, with the very same vote. In one MSNBC interview, Trump appeared to be caught like a deer in the headlights of a speeding car when asked about this apparent gross inconsistency. The Donald said that Pence's vote was OK... after all, "he is entitled to a mistake and information was misrepresented." Hillary, evidently, isn't entitled to the very same courtesy.
And, then there is the issue same-sex marriage - Trump says it's OK and Pence is opposed. On the issue of transgender use of particular bathrooms, Trump says that in his hotels, who cares what bathroom an individual uses while Pence signed an Indiana bill into law to limit bathroom use to the birth gender of the individual. Pence is opposed to women right to choose and have control of their own body as upheld in Roe v. Wade. In fact, as a Member of Congress, he announced that his greatest day would be the day that a future Supreme Court (with Judges evidently appointed by Trump) reverses Roe v. Wade thereby destroying a woman's right to choose. Pence said, "I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the trash heap of history." He also sponsored a bill in congress that would have allowed hospitals to refuse to perform abortions even in those cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Trump, on the other hand, says that he is anti-abortion but fudges on several exceptions... and stated in another interview that a woman who violates the law and gets an abortion outside any applicable limitations "should get some form of punishment." Pence voted for legislation that would give "personhood" rights to embryos. What a team! Scary, right?
Pence has said that tobacco doesn't kill, supports the NRA position that guns don't kill either... so, guns-for-all is the answer, denies the impact of human activity on global warming (must be cow releases of methane), supported the shut-down of the federal government to prevent the funding of (pick one) Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Medicaid, School Lunch Program, and/or PBS. He threatened to block funding for hurricane Katrina relief unless cuts were made to Medicare , and the National School Lunch Program. If all of this sounds vaguely familiar or that you may have heard those positions or demands before, you are right. These positions have been the issues of the Tea Party, the Evangelical Movement, and the Far Right for decades. And, in fact, you can find the very same positions in the Speaker Ryan Budget and in the Republican Platform just adopted this week. That's right - Mike Pence is a darling of these groups.... and that is why Donald Trump selected him instead of Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie as his running mate. The Trump plan is to secure his right flank with the Pence candidacy and go for the middle ground with a dash of Law and Order, attacks on minorities and immigrants - especially Muslims - and a new round of isolationism seasoned with heavy doses of fear-mongering, finger-pointing, scapegoating, and blaming others for the challenges that we face as a nation.
The result is Trump's long-held positions of building a wall to keep Latin American immigrants out of the United States, exporting 11 million or more current illegal immigrants who are living in our communities, preventing any further Muslim immigration, and vigorously interrogating current Muslims living here in peace to make sure that they do not harbor any ill will toward the USA, are all still on the table. When Pence endorsed Ted Cruz for the Nomination during the primary cycle, he opposed the wall, questioned the strategy of rounding up all of the illegals already here by special squads of INS Agents and busing them out of the country by the millions, and commented that discrimination against all Muslims was just plain wrong. When asked about these inconsistencies last week - after Trump announced his selection as his Vice Presidential running mate, Pence dodged the questions and, instead, described Trump as " a good man" who would become a "great president." Huh? Does Pence support Trump and his policies? Or, does Trump support Pence's policies - the man who is one heartbeat away from the Presidency and who's positions are largely opposite Trump's positions? Or, maybe this political marriage isn't about governance and policy after all but, simply raw, rough and tumble politics? Do Trump and Pence actually stand for nothing at all and would they say or do virtually anything to get to the White House and the power that comes with the office? What do you think? The only thing that seems to be missing are the brown shirts, the burning books, and the street thugs in uniform. We do, however, have the Trump salute and loyalty oath as witnessed during the primary at several Trump "rallies." The question is, did Mike Pence do the Trump salute, drink the Trump cool-aid, and swear the Trump loyalty oath before or after he had a Trump steak with some Trump wine? What other price did Pence pay to get his ticket punched as a Vice-Presidential candidate on the 2016 Trump ticket? Only time will tell. Perhaps we will get the answer to that question about the time that we see the Trump tax returns. Don't hold your breath.....
Mike Pence has a policy record in the Congress and as Governor of Indiana that is sharply at odds with the Trump positions. Like Hillary Clinton, Pence voted for and supported the Iraq war. Trump delights in attacking Hillary as having "very poor judgment" for that vote, but spins a rationalization for Pence, with the very same vote. In one MSNBC interview, Trump appeared to be caught like a deer in the headlights of a speeding car when asked about this apparent gross inconsistency. The Donald said that Pence's vote was OK... after all, "he is entitled to a mistake and information was misrepresented." Hillary, evidently, isn't entitled to the very same courtesy.
And, then there is the issue same-sex marriage - Trump says it's OK and Pence is opposed. On the issue of transgender use of particular bathrooms, Trump says that in his hotels, who cares what bathroom an individual uses while Pence signed an Indiana bill into law to limit bathroom use to the birth gender of the individual. Pence is opposed to women right to choose and have control of their own body as upheld in Roe v. Wade. In fact, as a Member of Congress, he announced that his greatest day would be the day that a future Supreme Court (with Judges evidently appointed by Trump) reverses Roe v. Wade thereby destroying a woman's right to choose. Pence said, "I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the trash heap of history." He also sponsored a bill in congress that would have allowed hospitals to refuse to perform abortions even in those cases where the life of the mother was at risk. Trump, on the other hand, says that he is anti-abortion but fudges on several exceptions... and stated in another interview that a woman who violates the law and gets an abortion outside any applicable limitations "should get some form of punishment." Pence voted for legislation that would give "personhood" rights to embryos. What a team! Scary, right?
Pence has said that tobacco doesn't kill, supports the NRA position that guns don't kill either... so, guns-for-all is the answer, denies the impact of human activity on global warming (must be cow releases of methane), supported the shut-down of the federal government to prevent the funding of (pick one) Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Medicaid, School Lunch Program, and/or PBS. He threatened to block funding for hurricane Katrina relief unless cuts were made to Medicare , and the National School Lunch Program. If all of this sounds vaguely familiar or that you may have heard those positions or demands before, you are right. These positions have been the issues of the Tea Party, the Evangelical Movement, and the Far Right for decades. And, in fact, you can find the very same positions in the Speaker Ryan Budget and in the Republican Platform just adopted this week. That's right - Mike Pence is a darling of these groups.... and that is why Donald Trump selected him instead of Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie as his running mate. The Trump plan is to secure his right flank with the Pence candidacy and go for the middle ground with a dash of Law and Order, attacks on minorities and immigrants - especially Muslims - and a new round of isolationism seasoned with heavy doses of fear-mongering, finger-pointing, scapegoating, and blaming others for the challenges that we face as a nation.
The result is Trump's long-held positions of building a wall to keep Latin American immigrants out of the United States, exporting 11 million or more current illegal immigrants who are living in our communities, preventing any further Muslim immigration, and vigorously interrogating current Muslims living here in peace to make sure that they do not harbor any ill will toward the USA, are all still on the table. When Pence endorsed Ted Cruz for the Nomination during the primary cycle, he opposed the wall, questioned the strategy of rounding up all of the illegals already here by special squads of INS Agents and busing them out of the country by the millions, and commented that discrimination against all Muslims was just plain wrong. When asked about these inconsistencies last week - after Trump announced his selection as his Vice Presidential running mate, Pence dodged the questions and, instead, described Trump as " a good man" who would become a "great president." Huh? Does Pence support Trump and his policies? Or, does Trump support Pence's policies - the man who is one heartbeat away from the Presidency and who's positions are largely opposite Trump's positions? Or, maybe this political marriage isn't about governance and policy after all but, simply raw, rough and tumble politics? Do Trump and Pence actually stand for nothing at all and would they say or do virtually anything to get to the White House and the power that comes with the office? What do you think? The only thing that seems to be missing are the brown shirts, the burning books, and the street thugs in uniform. We do, however, have the Trump salute and loyalty oath as witnessed during the primary at several Trump "rallies." The question is, did Mike Pence do the Trump salute, drink the Trump cool-aid, and swear the Trump loyalty oath before or after he had a Trump steak with some Trump wine? What other price did Pence pay to get his ticket punched as a Vice-Presidential candidate on the 2016 Trump ticket? Only time will tell. Perhaps we will get the answer to that question about the time that we see the Trump tax returns. Don't hold your breath.....
Friday, July 8, 2016
MORE BLOODSHED ON THE WAY TO CONVENTIONS.......
A sad day for America...... Last night's news of the massacre in Dallas came on the heels of yet another pair of deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers. Of course, these two events are related, as one of the Dallas attackers stated to police during an active negotiation before he was killed by a police-planted bomb. Three others were arrested as suspects in what appears to be a coordinated attack by several attackers seeking to kill white police officers. Let us offer up a moment of silence for those lives lost - black and white - in these events and offer some prayers of comfort for the families left behind. Truly a sad day for our nation and, especially, for the families who are suffering this loss. Appropriately, both political campaigns cancelled appearances out of respect for these horrible losses. Together, we must find a way to stop this carnage which has spun out of control for years. Perhaps the next President can lead the way to a better relationship between our communities and those sworn to serve and protect.
Meanwhile, the Republican Congress continues to resist any common sense gun control measures or to even debate the issue of denying access to guns for those on the terror watch list. Instead, an "emergency" meeting of the House Oversight and Governmental Affairs was called to grill FBI Director James Comey to challenge his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should not be criminally charged in the never-ending e-mail server issue. After a 1 year study of the entire issue, a review of 30,000+ emails - those handed over and others re-created by the FBI from other "fragments" or full messages residing on the recipients or senders computers, the FBI non-political, career investigators and prosecutors, determined that no charges were warranted. In spite of the fact that considerable carelessness was indeed reported, such an outcome did not rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy or an intentional breach of the law. This, of course, was contrary to the political agenda of the Republicans in the House and on the Committee. They were eagerly awaiting a recommendation for a Special Grand Jury or a call for an indictment of Hillary Clinton - a wet dream for right-wing Republicans for more than 20 years. But, Director Comey, a life-long Republican himself, dashed their hoped-for destruction of the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Comey, reporting to the public in a rare public statement on the investigation, noted that he found a handful of "classified" e-mails among the tens of thousands reviewed - 8 (3-thousandths of 1 %) containing information that was classified as "Top Secret - Special Access Program", another 22 (7 thousandths of 1 %) as "Top Secret", and another 36 (1 thousandth of 1 %) classified as "Secret." In all, including some others that were noted as "sensitive but not classified" came to less than 3% of the e-mail reviewed.
Hillary had said over and over that none of her e-mails - either sent or received - contained classified material and the Director's report seems to contradict this statement. Needless to say, the Republican members of the Committee gleefully pointed to this conflict and essentially began to accuse Hillary of perjury in testimony before their committee, lying to the public, and, potentially, lying to the FBI. Lying to Congress is a crime as is obstruction of justice if lying to the FBI. Director Comey clearly stated that Hillary did not lie to the FBI during her interview with their investigators. And, that leaves her testimony before the Congressional Committee.
Director Comey did state that the of the 3% of e-mails in question with the other 97% not an issue at all, the "classified" e-mails did not comply with the "classification rules book." The rules call for such communications be clearly labeled as CLASSIFIED in the header along with the level of classification, "TOP SECRET" for example. In addition, a mark in the text of the transmission - (c) - also indicates that a part or a paragraph or some portion of the message, perhaps all of the content, is "classified." It goes without saying that such a in-text mark cannot convey the level of "classification" attached to the material. Director Comey testified that none of the subject e-mails contained the CLASSIFIED notation in the header. It would seem a reasonable conclusion that a reader/reviewer of a substantial number of e-mail messages - not alerted to the CLASSIFIED nature of the content of the message by the use of a header in the subject line of at the top of the message - could overlook an in-text - (c) - during a review of multiple e-mails - again, less than 3 out of 100. Had the header notation read CLASSIFIED - EYES ONLY or some other indication rather than a - (c) - in the text somewhere, such a conclusion would have been far more difficult to reach. But, the facts are, none of the e-mails followed the rule book and the reader was not warned by the bold header classification notice as required. An oversight by the sender? Of course. And an oversight by the recipient - Secretary Clinton? Of course. Criminal charges to be brought? I think not... and, evidently, the FBI Director agreed.
The "shock" evidenced by the Republicans on the Committee was predictable. After all, the outcome didn't support their predetermined political agenda. And, just like another Republican - Supreme Court Justice Roberts - who had the courage of his convictions in supporting Obamacare against legal attacks on 2 occasions, the right wing reacted with scorn, personal attacks, and political rumor. It seems that they just cannot stand judgments based on careful and balanced consideration of the facts, application of the law and precedent, and arriving at a clear and sustainable conclusion. Unless you support their narrow view of the world and the people in it, you are to be condemned as "traitor" and suspect of being in the pockets of liberals" and "socialists." It is a shame that the far right has abandoned common sense, measured debate, and negotiation and has taken on hard-line, bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners politics. If the Republicans were reasoned in their approach to government and reasonable in their policies and politics and kept the well-being of the American people paramount in their minds, perhaps we would not have suffered the awful news of so many deaths in the last 2 days. The Republicans should take to heart a line from one of their founders - Abraham Lincoln. These are the words he spoke just after the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865 - "with malice for none and charity for all. " If the House Republicans would follow that practice, then, perhaps, we can again "bind up the nation's wounds ... to do that that may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Applying that approach to issues of gun control and the relations between the police and their communities, to the issues of race and the racial divide that continue to haunt our neighborhoods, and inserting "charity for all" into public policy dialogue to excise the politics of hate and division that plague our democratic system and stymie our ability to address the important issues that face the nation, would be a giant step forward and a major step toward reconciliation and measured progress. Perhaps then we - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike - can "bind up the nation's wounds." At least, it might be a start.
Light a candle. Say a prayer.
Meanwhile, the Republican Congress continues to resist any common sense gun control measures or to even debate the issue of denying access to guns for those on the terror watch list. Instead, an "emergency" meeting of the House Oversight and Governmental Affairs was called to grill FBI Director James Comey to challenge his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should not be criminally charged in the never-ending e-mail server issue. After a 1 year study of the entire issue, a review of 30,000+ emails - those handed over and others re-created by the FBI from other "fragments" or full messages residing on the recipients or senders computers, the FBI non-political, career investigators and prosecutors, determined that no charges were warranted. In spite of the fact that considerable carelessness was indeed reported, such an outcome did not rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy or an intentional breach of the law. This, of course, was contrary to the political agenda of the Republicans in the House and on the Committee. They were eagerly awaiting a recommendation for a Special Grand Jury or a call for an indictment of Hillary Clinton - a wet dream for right-wing Republicans for more than 20 years. But, Director Comey, a life-long Republican himself, dashed their hoped-for destruction of the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Comey, reporting to the public in a rare public statement on the investigation, noted that he found a handful of "classified" e-mails among the tens of thousands reviewed - 8 (3-thousandths of 1 %) containing information that was classified as "Top Secret - Special Access Program", another 22 (7 thousandths of 1 %) as "Top Secret", and another 36 (1 thousandth of 1 %) classified as "Secret." In all, including some others that were noted as "sensitive but not classified" came to less than 3% of the e-mail reviewed.
Hillary had said over and over that none of her e-mails - either sent or received - contained classified material and the Director's report seems to contradict this statement. Needless to say, the Republican members of the Committee gleefully pointed to this conflict and essentially began to accuse Hillary of perjury in testimony before their committee, lying to the public, and, potentially, lying to the FBI. Lying to Congress is a crime as is obstruction of justice if lying to the FBI. Director Comey clearly stated that Hillary did not lie to the FBI during her interview with their investigators. And, that leaves her testimony before the Congressional Committee.
Director Comey did state that the of the 3% of e-mails in question with the other 97% not an issue at all, the "classified" e-mails did not comply with the "classification rules book." The rules call for such communications be clearly labeled as CLASSIFIED in the header along with the level of classification, "TOP SECRET" for example. In addition, a mark in the text of the transmission - (c) - also indicates that a part or a paragraph or some portion of the message, perhaps all of the content, is "classified." It goes without saying that such a in-text mark cannot convey the level of "classification" attached to the material. Director Comey testified that none of the subject e-mails contained the CLASSIFIED notation in the header. It would seem a reasonable conclusion that a reader/reviewer of a substantial number of e-mail messages - not alerted to the CLASSIFIED nature of the content of the message by the use of a header in the subject line of at the top of the message - could overlook an in-text - (c) - during a review of multiple e-mails - again, less than 3 out of 100. Had the header notation read CLASSIFIED - EYES ONLY or some other indication rather than a - (c) - in the text somewhere, such a conclusion would have been far more difficult to reach. But, the facts are, none of the e-mails followed the rule book and the reader was not warned by the bold header classification notice as required. An oversight by the sender? Of course. And an oversight by the recipient - Secretary Clinton? Of course. Criminal charges to be brought? I think not... and, evidently, the FBI Director agreed.
The "shock" evidenced by the Republicans on the Committee was predictable. After all, the outcome didn't support their predetermined political agenda. And, just like another Republican - Supreme Court Justice Roberts - who had the courage of his convictions in supporting Obamacare against legal attacks on 2 occasions, the right wing reacted with scorn, personal attacks, and political rumor. It seems that they just cannot stand judgments based on careful and balanced consideration of the facts, application of the law and precedent, and arriving at a clear and sustainable conclusion. Unless you support their narrow view of the world and the people in it, you are to be condemned as "traitor" and suspect of being in the pockets of liberals" and "socialists." It is a shame that the far right has abandoned common sense, measured debate, and negotiation and has taken on hard-line, bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners politics. If the Republicans were reasoned in their approach to government and reasonable in their policies and politics and kept the well-being of the American people paramount in their minds, perhaps we would not have suffered the awful news of so many deaths in the last 2 days. The Republicans should take to heart a line from one of their founders - Abraham Lincoln. These are the words he spoke just after the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865 - "with malice for none and charity for all. " If the House Republicans would follow that practice, then, perhaps, we can again "bind up the nation's wounds ... to do that that may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Applying that approach to issues of gun control and the relations between the police and their communities, to the issues of race and the racial divide that continue to haunt our neighborhoods, and inserting "charity for all" into public policy dialogue to excise the politics of hate and division that plague our democratic system and stymie our ability to address the important issues that face the nation, would be a giant step forward and a major step toward reconciliation and measured progress. Perhaps then we - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike - can "bind up the nation's wounds." At least, it might be a start.
Light a candle. Say a prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)