Free speech

There are times when a political cartoon squarely hits the target.

It is time to walk away

Mr. Trump, it is time to walk away.

You are damaging the nation and contributing to Clinton's run for the presidency.  

Bombast, insults, and empty rhetoric are not qualifiers for the highest office in the land.

Perhaps, just perhaps, tapping into the anger of conservatives across the nation has served a purpose.  But your attempting to carry that standard has failed.  Alienating more than inspiring, your campaign is injurious to the American political landscape.  Just walk away.

Walk away and prepare to support the GOP nominee.

If you don't think your campaign is failing, consider the numbers.  Even at 25% in some polls, that means 75% of the people do not want you.  But a 3-to-1 advantage, someone else is preferred over you.

Shackle your ego, close your mouth, cease TV interviews, and walk away.

Do it for your you country. 

Next questions for Mrs. Clinton

Here are the next questions for Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, your foundation has amended tax returns for multiple years during the time you were secretary of state.  These amended returns for 2010-2013 indicate the foundation received $20,000,000 in government funds, the majority of it from foreign governments.

Question.  Why was it not a conflict of interest to accept funds from foreign governments when you were secretary of state?  (Unasked will be the logically associated question about soliciting funds from those governments.)  

Question.  What actions did you take on behalf of the foreign governments that gave money to your foundation? 

Paying for a college/university education

At the beginning, the following are stipulated:

• Earning that first undergraduate degree remains a solid predictor of future success.
• The cost of obtaining that first undergraduate degree has unreasonably risen over time.  One major contributing factor, seen first hand as a staff member at two public universities, has been the enormous increase in administrative personnel on campuses, particularly in senior positions.
• Too many students enter colleges and universities inadequately prepared for the rigors of undergraduate studies, ultimately prolonging their studies or resulting in dropping out.
• Too many universities, particularly in urban settings, require students to reside on campus, at a much higher cost.
• Too many students are ill advised, both before and after beginning their studies as to which major they should pursue.  Consequently, time and money are wasted in classes outside of the requirements for the eventual majors the students pursue, contributing to four year degrees now taking between five and six years to earn. This, of course, directly impacts student debt.  If it takes 50% more time to earn a degree, the cost rises at least another 50%.
• Too many colleges and universities offer majors that do little if anything to prepare degree earners for future employment.  Consequently, students leave with large debts and have significant difficulty finding meaningful employment.
• Too much, way too much, of the financial aid models rely on loans, either student or parent.
• Post secondary education is focused too much on being a business, rather than providing schooling.

How to pay for that first undergraduate degree?  Several, including some running for president, advocate having the American taxpayer pick up the tab.  News flash, it is not the task or role of the government to provide post secondary education.  Nor is it the role of government to provide jobs.  (For another view on government supported post secondary education, look at the option provided at the end of this piece.)

One route to pay for college is to work for it.  That is, the student works and earns the money to pay the costs.  It has been and is possible.  By no means is it easy.  And it requires tremendous self discipline, concentration, time management, and (at times) creative scheduling.  I know.  I did it.

My family could not afford to pay for my education, so it was known well in advance that I would have to foot the bill.  I began saving, by working after school, on the weekends, and over the summers of my junior and senior years in high school.  Although I could have attended a lower cost public university, I chose a more costly private one, meaning that I would have to work while attending school.  First in a grocery store, then in a restaurant  and finally in an auto center, my freshman year was difficult.  I stuck it out, and stayed with the company running the auto center for the remainder of my four year pursuit of that BA degree.  

I carried a full load (16 hours/4 classes) and worked full time (minimum of 40 hours per week).  Finding the right job with the right scheduling flexibility was key of course.  In addition to working every Saturday and Sunday, I worked three of the weekdays, normally always on Friday.  With an understanding boss, I took the late shifts each of those weekdays, attending classes in the morning and then heading off to work.  Of course, during the summers I worked the full 40 hours, with some rare overtime thrown in.  I found a way to make it all work and do not feel I missed out on any of the important college experiences.  

I was not in a fraternity, so that distraction didn't exist.  I did have a steady girlfriend (more on that in a bit), so didn't miss out on the romance.  I also was known to attend the occasional party or concert with my classmates, so didn't miss out on the social life.  For the first two years, I lived in the dorm.  For the last two, I lived out in town.  Up front, I won't claim to have been an outstanding student, but I was passing.

In addition to carrying the full load and working full time, my girlfriend and I married in the middle of my junior year at age 20.  There I was, married, carrying a full load, and working full-time.  The bills were being paid, with roughly 57% of my monthly take home going to the university.  Another 23% went for the one bedroom apartment.  The remaining 20% of my take home paid for food, gas for the one car (a clunker), and all other bills.  I did not seek loans.  I did not receive scholarships.  We were not racking up debt.  In fact, we were saving a little bit every month.  

In my senior year, my wife did get a minimum wage job, which made our lives easier.  We moved into a nicer place.  And we could afford a once monthly trip the best pizza place in town.  Normally, Saturday nights were either with friends playing cards or watching TV in that little place of ours.  When the clunker broke down, I walked to and from school and work.  Begrudgingly, we dipped into our savings for a down payment on a used car.  Nothing fancy, just basic transportation.  At work, I had earned small raises over the nearly four years.  Nothing huge, but every little bit helped.

After four years, I graduated with a BA degree.  We were debt free and had some money in the bank.  Determination.  Self-discipline.  Time management.  Some luck.  Delayed gratification.  And a very, very supportive wife.  It was and is possible.  

And there were so very many intangibles that we realized by the route we took.

At graduation, I had a solid six years of employment (full time employment) history, adding together that of my junior and senior years in high school with the four years while in college.  My contemporaries were lucky to have sporadic summer employment.  I had learned how to work for supervisors, accept criticism, and improve my performance.  After a while, I also learned lower level supervision.  We knew how to manage our personal finances, never bouncing a check or missing a payment.  That in turn built a solid credit history.  We knew how to purchase and sell an automobile.  We knew how to budget our resources.  We knew how to enter into a lease.  I knew how to manage my time.  I appreciated the value of hard work.  I learned no job was beneath me, having swept floors, taken out trash, unloaded trucks, shoveled snow to clear paths for the customers, stocked shelves, and run a cash register.  I learned the responsibility of managing a cash box so it perfectly balanced each and every day.  I learned how to work with the public and my co-workers.  And I learned how to earn the respect of others by the quality of the work I did.

All of this and I had my degree.

It is possible to work your way through school, finishing not owing anybody anything, and having grown into a responsible adult ready to tackle the world.     

============================================================================

So you want the government to pay for your schooling?

President Obama and others are touting another expensive, unfunded taxpayer supported program.  This one addresses paying for a college education - America’s College Promise.  It would provide for two years of “free” community college education to all.   (Of course, nothing is really free.)   In recent commentary, Dr. Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College, voiced support for the plan, by (among other points) citing the historical example of the post World War II GI Bill as an illustration meant to justify the president’s proposal. 

One major issue, however, exists in citing the WWII GI Bill (or the Post 9/11 GI Bill for that matter) as justifying the president’s proposal.  After WWII, the nation decided the GI Bill recipients had earned its financial support for higher education by honorably serving their nation in the armed forces during wartime.  There is no such requirement for serving the nation in America’s College Promise.  It is just free money.

There is no doubt paying for college is challenging.  If the nation believes it is critically important to incur more national (and state) debt in order to expend federal (and state) tax dollars to pay for or defray the costs of a college education, then loosely citing the post WWII GI Bill and its relative the Post 9/11 GI Bill for justification can be instructive.  Specifically, in order to receive this new benefit, the recipients must first earn it.

Just as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines earned the benefits of the various GI Bills, let the intended citizen recipients of America’s College Promise earn it by satisfactorily completing three years of mandatory national service to begin upon graduating from high school.

The nation can greatly benefit from mandatory national service for all able-bodied citizens.  It was estimated that in 2014 approximately 4.1 million students started high school.  For the purposes of this piece, it is estimated that 15% of that student population would eventually be ineligible for mandatory national service for a variety of reasonable causes.  Based on this estimate, there would be roughly 3.5 million citizens eligible for mandatory national service beginning in the summer of 2018. 

Imagine how nearly 3.5 million young citizens can serve their nation, performing all manner of things that directly benefit their fellow citizens, while gaining many direct and indirect benefits.  From national defense to working in federal parks, the participants will serve across the nation for the benefit of its people.   

At age 18 or 60 days subsequent to graduation from high school, whichever occurs last, all able bodied citizens will be required to serve a period of three years mandatory national service.  Said national service would include serving in one of the existing programs (some of which would be converted from volunteer status), such as but not limited to the following: Armed Forces; Peace Corps; greatly expanded Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA); US Army Corps of Engineers; National Park Service; Fish and Wildlife Service; Bureau of Land Management; US Forest Service; US Geological Survey; National Resource Conservation; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency; US Bureau of Reclamation; Americorps; and Federal Emergency Management Agency Corps.  It is also offered that national service could support state and local programs benefitting all citizens.

Only upon satisfactory and successful completion of the three-year stint in national service would these citizens have earned and be eligible for a variety of direct federal benefits, such as federal student financial aid and, should the nation decide it is justified, America’s College Promise.  By their national service, the citizen recipients earn the educational benefits from their nation. 

Along the way, they would also receive indirect benefits, such as employment of an important segment of the population at a critical point in their lives (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in July of 2014, only 51.9% of youth were employed at this normally high water point of summer employment); an early employment history; acquiring skills for personal financial management, which will have long term benefits for the nation; promotion of equality, because everyone serves; realizing critical maturity prior to attending post secondary education or entering the work force; learning service above self; instilling a work ethic and teamwork; and instilling national pride.

If satisfactorily completing mandatory national service is not embraced as a prerequisite for America’s College Promise, then the program should not be approved.  The nation cannot and should not provide “free” benefits.

POTUS and Congress are failing the American people

A year ago, POTUS said his strategy was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL (ISIS). Just three days ago, POTUS stated, “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them.” This seems to me to be a dramatic change in strategy. In the aftermath of the preplanned and determined attacks in Paris on Friday, his statement is being justifiably criticized. On the 15 November Sunday talk shows, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said, "We absolutely agree that this was an act of war by ISIL." Over the past year-plus, in the view of this retired military officer, POTUS and Congress have failed in their responsibilities regarding this war.

POTUS and his Executive Branch have failed to recognize and react to international and national security concerns associated with the war against ISIL (ISIS), if we are indeed at war.  For example, no war has ever been won by air power alone.  On July 6, POTUS proclaimed, "Our coalition has now hit ISIL with more than 5,000 airstrikes.  We’ve taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps."  His statement needs to be put into context for an accurate understanding.  During the 43 day air campaign in Operation Desert Storm, 109,876 combat sorties, or an average of 2,555 per day, were flown (source: www.u-shistory.com).  Even after that air campaign, we launched a ground offensive.  In the nearly year and one-half of Obama's air campaign against ISIL (ISIS), the 5,000 sorties he noted amount to less than ten strikes per day.  Not exactly an overwhelming use of military power.  It seems to match Secretary of State Kerry's September 2013 description of the plan for the ill-fated air campaign in Syria, when he said, “That is exactly what we’re talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”  Even Senator Diane Feinstein sees the current strategy is failing, stating, "It has become clear that limited air strikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies." 

We are either at war with ISIL (ISIS) or we are not.  Stating we are at war with ISIL (ISIS) and not forcibly and comprehensively engaging the enemy with all forms of military, as well as other, power is folly.  Putting American lives at risk in combat without a determination to win the war is criminal.  (Make no mistake, Mr. President, those aircrew, special operators, and others engaged in your even less than half-hearted effort against ISIL (ISIS) are at war.)  

Obama's containment strategy implemented by less than ten combat sorties per day; an occasional drone strike killing of notable figures, like Jihadi John; occasional rescue operations, one leading to the death of a U.S. soldier; 50 special operators assigned to the fight (we sent more troops to battle the Ebola outbreak); and supporting allies may provide disjointed tactical success and good PR and political sound bites, but they are woefully inadequate in a war.  The recent attacks in Paris irrefutably underscore the failure of this containment strategy.  Congress enabling this failed strategy is equally criminal.

Congress has the sole authority for providing funding, including that for our military.  In passing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress has only partially fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities.  Seeing the failed strategy of the Obama Administration in this war on ISIL (ISIS), Congress is obligated to use its power.  How can this be done, when so many errors compound one upon the other?  Sequestration brought about by abysmal expenditures exceeding revenues.  Voting to draw down the military at a time when the existential threat posed by ISIL (ISIS) is so very real.  Irresponsibly enacting costly domestic legislation that drags on the economy.  Then puffing out one's collective chests stating they have to "support the troops."  Damn right the troops need to be supported, but by corralling the ill conceived and ill executed Obama strategy.  Cut off the funding for combat operations (except for force protection) until or unless the executive branch provides Congress with a comprehensive and convincing strategy to actually defeat, not contain, ISIL (ISIL).  And this strategy can not be made public, as all politicians are prone to do.  If we are in a war, we must fight to win.  

As Sunday fades, both POTUS and Congress are failing the American people.  When ISIL (ISIS) attacks on American soil, it will be too late.  Tragically, it is not a matter of if the attacks will come, but only when and where.  Absent dramatic action by Congress and POTUS, we will see Americans killed.  Regardless of the political season, Congress has a larger responsibility to the American people.  Regardless of the past, POTUS has a responsibility to the American people.  That responsibility is to provide for the security of the nation.   

              

What do they have in common?

What do these women have in common?

Ms. Clinton, Ms. Click, and Ms. Goldberg are hypocrites.

Democrat presidential aspirant Ms. Clinton voices advocacy for women's issues, yet fails to criticize a man who told her of his desire to "strangle" Ms. Fiorina.

Progressive professor Ms. Click voices advocacy for First Amendment rights for students, then calls for "some muscle" to forcibly remove a photo-journalist taking pictures in a public place.

Liberal TV show personality Ms. Goldberg voices advocacy for social censorship, saying, "“we have a history of utilizing words to harm people and hurt people and the people who have been on the other side of it, I think are at the point where they’re saying, this is not okay anymore.” Then she makes harmful and hateful statements about Ms. Fiorina, then attempts to pass them off as a "comic comment" or "humorous things."

Liberal, progressive, democrats, and hypocrites. Lots in common.

Next question for Mrs. Clinton

Ms. Clinton, how does laughing when someone says they'd like to strangle Ms. Fiorina advance women's issues, demonstrate leadership, or support American democracy?

Female bullies on The View

After cast members of The View criticized the looks of Ms. Fiorina, using words like demented and Halloween mask, Ms. Fiorina appeared on the program.

During that appearance, Ms. Goldberg made this comment on 6 November, "I wondered, because we saw some of the — that you were a little upset with us about a comic comment that was made. And so, how will you steel your skin? How will you get a thicker skin to accept some of the humorous things that will be said about you?"

How on earth can someone describe the severely personal criticisms about ones appearance as "comic comment" or "humorous things?"

Serious, polite, and professional people can't. But female bullies, as described in the book "The Odd Girl Out," can and do. 

The View is neither serious, polite, nor professional. It is simply a gaggle of female bullies. That not one of the cast members repudiated Ms. Goldberg's above descriptions is convincing and irrefutable confirmation.

Questions for Mrs. Clinton

Here's a question for Mrs. Clinton.

Picture taken in March 1999 in Bosnia

How does your lying about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia differ from Brian Williams lying about being in a helicopter that came under fire?

He was removed from his job for lying to the American people.  

Here's another question for Mrs. Clinton.  Why shouldn't you be removed from consideration for elective office?