Make military service a mandatory requirement for eligibility

We need a change to the eligibility requirements for high level elected federal offices, such as President, Vice-President, members of the Senate, and members of the House of Representatives.  Due to the extraordinary impact these individuals have on all facets of national security, to be eligible for these crucial offices, the laws should be changed to require satisfactorily and honorably completing at least three years of active duty in the nation's military.

According to a Fox News Report, "The 2012 election marked the first time in 80 years that neither major party presidential nominee had served in the military.  Two years later, the 114th Congress was sworn in with the smallest proportion of veterans on record. According to an October 2015 Congressional Research Service report, the high point was reached in the 92nd Congress (1971-72) when 73 percent of Congress had served in the military.  Today, veterans make up 20 percent of the Senate and just 18 percent of the House of Representatives."  And, "On Capitol Hill, veterans are even underrepresented among congressional staffs. Justin Brown, the founder of HillVets, told FoxNews.com vets account for approximately 3 percent of congressional staff members, a figure that reflects the high barrier they face."

These numbers reveal the exceptional disconnect between the nation and its military. With less than one-half of one percent of the nation's citizens currently serving in the military, the lack of understanding of the military is astounding, even dangerous.  Moreover, the disconnection makes it all too easy for our elected leaders to send our men and women into harm's way.  For example, the recent POTUS announcement that 250 more members of our military are being sent to Syria. (Can anyone remember the mission creep in Vietnam?)

With presidents allowed to send our military into combat without a declaration of war, under the pretense of spurious and inexact Congressionally approved Authorizations to Use Military Force (AUMF), the seriousness of such action is not debated by those who have actually served our nation in uniform.

Stop this practice and immediately enact laws mandating satisfactorily and honorably completing at least three years of active duty in the nation's military to be eligible for election or appointment to our highest elected federal offices: President, Vice-President, members of the Senate, and members of the House of Representatives.

  

Why should she be believed?

Why should Ms. Clinton's claims about the emails processed through the now infamous insecure personal server be believed?  She has said the following.

Regarding providing emails to the Department of State, she said, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related."  However, it was years after leaving office and happened only after the personal email server became public knowledge.

Regarding her supposed and self-defined personal emails, she said, "I chose not to keep my private personal emails."  A strange statement, since they were retained for years after leaving the Department of State and were supposedly deleted only after the whole email issue came to the surface.

Regarding categorizing the emails as work related or personal, she said, "For any government employee, it is that government employee's responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced."  Why should the people accept her assurances, after it took years for any emails to be provided?  

Regarding the security of the personal server, she said, "And there were no security breaches."  This seems questionable at best, as she also claimed the sever was physically protected by the Secret Service, which is accepted as fact.  However, physical contact is not required to "hack" a server.  The claim is further called into question by the recent revelation that an international hacker was extradited to the U.S. by the FBI team investigating this matter. 

And, finally, regarding the processing of classified information on the personal server, she said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.  So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."  This has been proven to be absolutely false, with two dozen of the more than 2,000 deemed to contain classified information are so highly classified that they could not be released in any form.

After the above, there is a major matter not receiving the public attention it warrants.  The contents of the so-called personal emails.  Granting that some of the more than 30,000 emails were likely mundane and truly personal does not mean that all were.  Follow the logic: if the emails were so carefully scrutinized, as Clinton has asserted, prior to release to the Department of State (and then only after the issue became public and only in printed hard copy form), how did more than 2,000 containing classified information get released?  Why would Clinton knowingly release emails containing classified information?

Is her claim that she is "well-aware of the classification requirements" to be believed?  With all the thus far released emails containing massive amounts of classified information, the answer must be NO.  Based on this glaring inaccuracy, if not outright falsehood, can the American people and the courts believe her statement that, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related?"  No.

The matter not receiving adequate attention centers around the contents of the so-called personal emails.  If the review of work related email did not eliminate thousands of classified emails, we can not expect the review of personal emails was any more thorough or accurate.  Thus we can not believe that the deleted "personal" emails contained solely personal matters.  In party, because we can not believe how Clinton or her people would define personal.  For example, would communications on Clinton Foundation matters with business and government leaders in countries with whom the United States government was negotiating be defined as personal?

It is simple, we can not believe Ms. Clinton.

Let us hope the FBI is able to recover and review the so-called personal emails.  It is highly likely some of them contain potentially explosive insights into Clinton's behavior, judgment, and decisions while secretary of state.  

The slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments

It has been recently reported that SecDec announced that more members of our military will deploy to Iraq.  Astounding after Obama's unilaterally declaring the end of combat in Iraq.

 

Apart from the obvious contradiction, the more worrisome aspect is the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments that SecDef's announcement highlights.  Incremental increases by a president who ran for election and reelection on the promise of ending the war.  

And these orders ignore our own military history.

All of the past and current deployment orders, from presidential administrations led by both political parties, come without benefit of a declaration of war.  One need not have to think hard to draw the startling comparison of another long war fought without a declaration of war.

Vietnam also saw the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments, in spite of the worthless limits on troops touted by various administrations.  Then, as now, the real numbers were obscured by personnel accounting legerdemain.  For example, if only "temporarily" deployed, the count was not added to the troop ceiling.  Simply ridiculous.

Not only ridiculous, but dishonest and probably illegal.

If we are in a position that requires the use of military force, Congress must be called upon to declare war.  With the declaration in hand, the National Command Authorities then assign the mission to win to one of the combatant commanders, with the service chiefs providing the well trained and equipped forces requested by the combatant commander.  Then  the combatant commander fights to win.  (And without the widely reported interference by young inexperienced staffers assigned to the national security council.)

We have already begun the slide down that slope.  For example, Marine Staff Sergeant Cardin was killed in Iraq after artillery was deployed to assist our allies.  Most of the nation was blissfully unaware of this deployment.  And now more force protection assets will be required.  More aircraft are being deployed.  And then even more capabilities will be deployed because SecDef said only we can take on this mission.  So much for the end of the war in Iraq, as POTUS declared.  

Sadly, we have not learned from history.  Tighten your belts, because we are about to go down that same slippery slope. 

   

 

Clinton's unsatisfactory judgement

Without a doubt, Ms. Clinton's judgment can only be viewed as unsatisfactory.  Many examples exist, but two recent events highlight again her serious character failing. 

One recent example involved a racially offensive "joke" she shared with Mayor De Blasio of New York. 

Note that the African American actor on stage made comment that the term "CP time" is offensive, but Clinton attempted to make it a play on words, rather than condemning the language.

Elsewhere, POTUS stated Clinton was careless with her email.  Another example, from a supposed supporter, referring to her judgement.  In this case, her carelessness put the nation's secrets at risk.  (One can effectively argue that her unsatisfactory judgement directly contributed to the carelessness.)

With all the problems facing our nation, we can ill afford an individual whose demonstrated judgement is so very, very flawed that she publicly participates in a racially offensive joke.  Nor can the nation afford an individual who demonstrates the carelessness described by POTUS.

And the nation can not afford to elect an individual who dismisses valid criticisms of the above, attempts to blame others, and displays contempt for the American voter and the laws of our nation.

Unsatisfactory judgement is not what the nation needs.

 

Absurdities and atrocities

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” 

Voltaire

Reading this Votaire quotation immediately brings to mind the current election process.  Specifically, the absurdities in the long history of Ms. Clinton's comments and actions.  And what an atrocity would be a Clinton presidency.

As Voltaire's statement conveys, in pursuit of the presidency, Clinton wants the American people to believe all sorts of absurdities.  For example, that she accomplished something as secretary of state; that her private, insecure email server was permissible and there was nothing classified on it; that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia; that she is just like regular folk; that her judgment is flawless; that the women accusing her husband of abuse were bimbos; that she miraculously and innocently made a ten-fold return on a rather routine investment; that the attack on the Benghazi compound was caused by an obscure video; that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi does not matter; that she is the original architect of Obamacare; that she is "fighting for us;" that she was dead broke when they left the White House; that all of her grandparents were immigrants; that she accidentally took White House government furnishings when they left; that she was named after Edmund Hillary; that she changed her positions on same sex marriage; that her daughter was near the World Trade Center on 9/11; that the TPP was the "gold standard" of trade agreements; that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees makes her just one the regular folk; that college education should be free for everyone; and she is "fighting for us." 

It is abundantly clear that she regularly lies, lives in the exceptionally rarefied environment of the uber rich, is amoral, and cares solely about self.  These negative qualities will certainly lead to an atrocious presidency.

Thinking of Voltaire's statement in this context brings to mind another well know saying that would apply to this election if people choose Clinton.  

There's a sucker born every minute.     

Elsewhere, the liberals

It is mightily concerning to look at our country and see the wide disparities between real America and that which the power elite, main stream media, politicians, and other liberals embrace.

Real Americans turned out in the hundreds to honor fallen Marine Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin.  Elsewhere, many liberals fawn over serial liar and likely felon Hillary Clinton, eagerly seeking to elect her to the highest office in the land. 

Real Americans wake up each day, thanking God for their health, family, and well being.  Elsewhere, liberal judges, educators, unionists, and activists wake up each day seeking to silent Christians and punish the free exercise of their religious beliefs, while simultaneously demanding we accept the views of others.

Real Americans rise, take their morning meal, and then head off to their jobs, doing their best to support themselves and their families.  Elsewhere, liberals seek to take more and more from these working real Americans and simply give it away to those considering it a right to take from those who do and give to those who don't, a situation created by the liberals.

Real American warriors wearing the cloth of our country's military go in harm's way, standing ready to defend all the people of this nation.  Elsewhere, liberals seek to make the military institution a social science laboratory, determined to force their views on others, while simultaneously reducing our military readiness.

Real Americans tolerate opposing views of others, disagreeing while acting in tolerance.  Elsewhere, dogmatic liberals demand that views different from their own be silenced and even punished, while simultaneously demanding that all acquiesce to and accept their views.

Real Americans recognize and honor that the nuclear family (a marriage of one man and one woman, plus their children) is the foundation upon which our country's success is built.  Elsewhere, liberals embrace and celebrate same sex marriage, unwed motherhood (sometimes by multiple men), fathers failing to take responsibility for their offspring, and a nanny state philosophy.

Real Americans recognize the need for and support law enforcement, understanding that civil society requires willing obedience from its members.  Elsewhere, the liberals condemn law enforcement; celebrate the death of police officers; advocate looting, stealing, and property damage as forms of protest; and condone riots as "freedom of expression."

Real Americans recognize that one gets out of life what he/she puts into it, that achievement is directly related to effort, that self-esteem is directly derived from accomplishment.  Elsewhere, liberals believe that simply being is reason for being provided the products of the efforts of others.  

Real Americans seek opportunities to celebrate our great nation, proudly standing during the National Anthem, and display the American flag.  Elsewhere, liberals criticize our nation at every turn, condemn our success, and demand home owners remove displayed American flags.

Real Americans honor our veterans.  Elsewhere, liberals seek to use veterans for political benefit.

Real Americans simply want to be left free to pursue the American dream.  Elsewhere, liberals seek to use government, laws, and regulation to stifle the natural freedom inherent to the pursuit of the American dream.

Real Americans accept and embrace Martin Luther King's dream that we not be judged by the color of out skins, but by the content of our character.  Elsewhere, liberals seek to inject racism where it does not exist, to inflame through rhetoric, to create tension where none exists, to judge people by the color of their skin.