Postmortem

As the election postmortem continues ad nauseam, two points are irrefutable.

HRC deliberately chose to exclusively employ an unauthorized, unsecured email server for official government business, contrary to policy and regulations. 

The hacked and released DNC and HRC campaign staff emails were not altered in any way.  Thus, the contents must be taken as factual.

   

Freedom at work

The protests across the nation today illustrated freedom at work.  It is something we should celebrate, even if disagreeing with the messages and purposes. 

Some observations for consideration.

In many places around the world, such protests would not be allowed, or would be rejected violently.

In some places around the world, women are treated essentially as property of their husbands.  At best, as second class citizens.

In some places around the world, females have been denied education.

In some places around the world, women have been stoned to death.

So, while America is imperfect, at least our freedoms are at work.  We can speak our minds.  We can join together in peaceful protest.  We can pursue education.  We can work.  We can vote.

Some questions, in view of the numbers that turned out across our country.

Wonder how many of the protestors voted?  Of those who voted, wonder how many voted for Clinton?  

Finally, with the passion and intensity displayed today, where was Clinton?    

At onetime I thought disagreeing with things was natural as one ages.

At onetime I thought disagreeing with things was natural as one ages.  For example, my parents weren't too crazy about the music, style of clothes, and other manifestations of our generation.  As I am confident their parents weren't thrilled about similar things in their youth.  So differences between generations seem normal.

Be as that may be, however, it is clear the issues we now face are far more than generational.  Our entire belief system is being attacked on multiple fronts by multiple means.  This cultural war is being waged by politicians and activists seemingly bent upon taking down the country.  Belatedly in my view, the heartland is rising up in anger against demands falsely labeled as tolerance for difference.  

It is not enough for some to plead for tolerance for the secular lifestyle, they demand that all must accept and support it.  It is not enough to ask for acceptance of Muslims, they demand that we yield to their views and cast out our Christian beliefs.  It is not enough to seek workplace equality for females, they demand preference and lowered standards, while demanding we demean masculinity.  It is not enough to seek an end to racial bias, they now demand racial preferences, racially segregated housing on college campuses, and even reparations.  It is not enough to seek solutions to the immigration problems, they demand rights reserved for citizens be accorded illegal immigrants. 

Flying under this false flag of tolerance, they are actively demanding social and cultural changes.  And since they can't make wholesale changes for the entire country, they have found one element within our nation in which they can make these social and cultural changes at will, a stroke of the pen.  Executive fiat without care or consideration of the impact.  

Most disturbing to me and fellow veterans is a particularly dangerous manifestation of these demands for social and cultural changes.  The current administration, like Bill Clinton's, uses the military as their own social science laboratory.  Hating the integrity, sacrifice, honesty, honor, courage, and commitment of the men and women in uniform, Obama and Clinton have forced changes by edict upon the military, changes that have nothing to do with combat preparedness or readiness.  They are intent upon social and cultural policies that do away with what is needed to succeed in combat.  

Concurrently they reduced budgets, selected for senior flag officers many sycophants who join in degrading  the military, failed to gain Congressional approval for war, enacted failed national security policies, appeased our adversaries, squandered crucial resources, and used men and women in uniform as potted plants for photo ops.  Flying under the false flag of tolerance, they brought in others of their ilk to shove this crap down the throats of the uniformed forces.

And because the progressives have not been able to squelch the rising voices from the conservative heartland, they continue to force the military to yield to their increasing demands, breaking faith with those who serve.  Sadly, tragically it is not too surprising, since less than one half of one percent of the nation serves in uniform and the progressives are not in this group of patriots.  

The disdain in which Obama and Clinton hold the military is well known and unquestioned.  They and their fellow  progressives, liberals, left, Democrats, media, or whatever label best fits are actually the most intolerant group in our country.  Hence the vitriol surrounding the election, as the starkly different choices are magnified in the heartland of America.      
 

We must depart the path set upon by Obama in particular.  We must turn back by repeal, cancellation, legislation, repudiation, and other action the injurious policies and actions of the past seven plus years.  I truly believe the majority of Americans understand this.  The big question is whether they will turn out in significant numbers to vote.  Sadly, Trump's words and actions work against getting the high conservative voter turnout necessary to deny Clinton the presidency.

Profoundly telling, in conversations with fellow retired senior leaders, to a man they have expressed that we could not serve in today's military.  We'd either be jailed for speaking our minds or simply depart rather than force upon the youth of our nation the perverted social and cultural policies demanded by POTUS and his cronies, who are simultaneously weakening our military to dangerously low levels.

Disagreeing with the actions of the current administration is not based upon generational differences.  It is based upon injurious actions being forced upon the military under the false rubric of pursuing tolerance.  

Only a high voter turnout can turn the tide.  

Clinton Insults Voters

 

A candidate for president has insulted voters.  Here is how one news outlet reported it.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, told the fundraiser audience that half of the supporters for Trump, the Republican nominee, could be put into a "basket of deplorables."

“Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said. “There are people like that and he has lifted them up.”

Though she attempted to soften the remarks, her comments displayed unmitigated gall and expansive narcissism.  Perhaps a bit of desperation in view of recent polling.

She can not bring herself to accept that voters just do not find her qualified to serve as president.  Poll after poll clearly show the overwhelming number of Americans find her to be untrustworthy and dishonest.

So, in typical Clintonian style, she attacks them.  Attacks voters through the use of vile and inflammatory language.  Attacks voters in a manner intent on fomenting racial, ethic, and social discord.

Ms. Clinton, a newsflash.  Opposing your candidacy does not make one deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic.  Opposing your candidacy is because of your corruption, perpetual lying, lack of integrity, "exceptionally careless" mishandling of classified information, greed, malfeasance in office, flip flopping on TPP, abysmal judgment, attacking women accusing your husband of sexual assault and harassment, and all sorts of other disqualifying actions over the years.  Such as thoroughly debunked claim that you landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.

People just do not want you to be president.  They are not deplorable.  They are exercising their right to choose for whom to vote.   

    

 

Trump insults our nation

Egad!  

Trump insults our nation.  Almost every time he tweets or opens his mouth.

A list of the insults, aimed at individuals and groups, would be far to long to repeat here.  But the accumulated impact is a massive insult to the nation.

One seeking the presidency of the United States should, above all else, be serious.  By words and actions, the candidate must demonstrate he/she understands the enormity of the position they seek.

Clearly, Trump does not.

With the verbal eloquence of a recalcitrant child, demeanor of either a bully or horrible Las Vegas lounge comic, and social media persona of an immature teenager, he has most assuredly made a mockery of the office.

Histrionic to the extreme, his utterances, tweets, and boasts demonstrate absolute unsuitability for the presidency.  One example makes the point.

Stipulating that the DNC unquestionably chose to have Mr. Khan speak as a provocateur, Trump's scurrilous response was unacceptable.

A response was not in fact required.  

If compelled to respond, Trump could have simply said, "Like all Americans, I honor all Gold Star families."   But he did not.  He chose to insult the Khans multiple times.

Again, a extremely long list of other examples could fill volumes.

Bottom line: Mr. Trump insults the nation and its people and is unworthy of their votes.

Footnote:  To be completely clear on the matter, Ms. Clinton is equally unworthy of our votes.    
 

Clinton can't have it both ways

Of recent, Ms. Clinton attempts to deflect justifiable criticism and concern of her by blaming subordinates, including her members of her innermost circle.  

As one working to persuade the American electorate that she is the leader for the future, she can not have it both ways.

Basic, elementary leadership means willingly accepting responsibility for everything your organization does or fails to do.  Good leaders know and practice this.  For example, in the military it is not uncommon for the commanding officer to held absolutely responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates.  This includes being relieved for cause, as the military saying goes.  Such as the commanding officer of a navy ship being relieved after it runs aground, even if he/she were asleep in his/her stateroom at the time of the grounding.

But Clinton, who demands that her adversaries be held to this very high standard of responsibility for the actions and words of their subordinates, wants to be a leader in name only.  

She seeks all the authority, without any of the responsibility.

In a recent situation, her advocates seek to deflect criticism of possible pay-to-play actions in the state department during her tenure, arising from emails revealing direct contact between her aides and those of former President Clinton, by saying she did not personally communicate with the external parties by email.  

Sure, two of her most trusted and closest aides did so, but according to her and others, she is not to be held responsible.

Simple answer...wrong!

The real leader creates a climate in which his/her subordinates, including the inner, personal staff, operate and for which he/she is responsible.  This climate sets the tone for the organization.  And it establishes that responsibility goes right to the top.  Responsibility for anything that is done or failed to be done. 

A leader can delegate authority to act in their name, but not the responsibility for the outcome of those actions.

The leader holds subordinates accountable for their actions in pursuit of the objectives the leader sets, and taken within the climate he/she establishes.  It is inconceivable that Clinton's closest and most trusted innermost staff would act on such high matters (described in one revealed email as on behalf of a "very imortant" person) without either her explicit approval (which did not need to be recorded in an email) or within their understanding of the objectives and climate she expressly set.  

Since no one was fired, the public can rightfully conclude the actions of Mills and Abedin (and others) have been and continue to be exactly what Clinton directs and desires.

Thus, in this latest of many, many questionable (if not criminal at worst or unethical at best) actions, Clinton can not have it both ways.  She can not stand for the most important leadership position within the country, seeking all the authority that comes with the office, and simultaneously seek to avoid the basic tenet of leadership: responsibility.         

Predictably

At a recent gathering, the older veterans' comments were predictably negative about the state of affairs in our country.  Equally predictable were words -- harsh, angry, condemning, frustrated, emotional -- about the choices in this presidential election.  "What fools!" from a retired Navy Captain captured it best.

It was a decidedly an anti-Clinton group, to no one's surprise I am sure.  As a retired Marine Colonel observed, when she falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, she insulted all those who have and do wear the uniforms of our nation's military.  This alone, in his mind, disqualifies her.

But make no mistake, Trump faired no better.  His scurrilous and despicable comments to and about a Gold Star Family enraged these veterans.  They were livid!  

The outrage across the nation at Trump was most eloquently captured in an op-ed written by the retired soldier who was Captain Khan's commanding officer at the time of his death.  As only a commanding officer can do, he put the entire matter in proper perspective.

But whether it is Clinton's hubris or Trump's maniacal attacks, their comments expose their unfitness for the office they seek. 

Predictably, it will likely occur that these episodes will be just others in the litany of episodes to come this election season.  One candidate continues to lie, obfuscate, and misrepresent, displaying a total absence of character.  The other candidate continues to insult, belittle, and attack just about every element of our great nation, displaying a total absence of judgment.

Predictably, however, one of these two fools, borrowing the retired Navy Captain's apt description, will be elected.

Predictably, the nation will bemoan that day.

Dismal and challenging times (that we will survive)

Dang, it is hard to keep smiling these days.  If the stock market reaction to the Brexit vote isn't enough to get the stomach acids churning at full force, then the continual, nay perpetual, bad news about the two presumptive presidential candidates should.

Ridiculous statements from each, unsupported by facts.  Inflammatory as well.

A previously undisclosed State Department email reveals once again Clinton's arrogant, if not manic pursuit of personal secrecy.  The email was most definitely official state department business, but did not make it into the 55,000 pages of printed emails Clinton ultimately provided (only after information about her personal server came to light). 

Trump's outlandish comments from Scotland reveal once again an inability to take matters seriously or understand the impact of his statements.  Can't the man think before he speaks?
 
Egad!

From where I sit, a cold beer and relaxing with my bride are in order this evening.

The stock market will rebound.

The country will survive whoever is elected president.  (It's not absolutely certain either Clinton or Trump will be the one.)

Our country will survive

Five months to go until the 2016 elections.  It hardly seems possible the political choices could be any more dismal.

For differing and similar reasons, the presumptive major party candidates for the office of the presidency are simply unworthy of the position they seek.

This leaves our nation facing a quandary for which no clear palatable, reasonable, or (dare it be said) sane alternative presents itself.

Legions of woefully uninformed, ignorant, greedy, and/or inept voters will certainly cast their ballots for one of these two.  Unless some cataclysmic event arises, one of them will be elected to serve as the next President of the United States of America.

At this point, one could start forecasting all the doom and gloom that will befall our nation.  It matters not which individual is elected, because the strident supporters from the other side can provide long lists of reasonable and unreasonable predictions.  Perhaps some of the gloom and doom, regardless of who is elected, will come to pass.  But it isn't reason to flee the country.   

A singular strength of our nation is its ability to survive.  It has survived the Civil War, multiple world wars, political scandals, slavery, economic recessions, the Great Depression, housing booms and busts, civil unrest, riots, 9/11, reconstruction, impeachments, Vietnam, high unemployment, the Dust Bowl, assassinations, Watergate, and countless other challenges.  It has survived its previous exceptionally poor choices for president.  

It has survived.

We cannot accurately predict what form survival will take in response to this new challenge, but survive the country will.  

There may be pain involved, but at the other end, our country will be better for its survival. 

We will endure the next months of hyperbole, insults, shrill voices, unfounded claims, stilted polls, expenditure of outrageous sums of money, ridiculous pronouncements, outright lies, clever misrepresentations, and perhaps even legal upheaval.  Then the election will be done.

Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and remember that our country has survived worse and will survive this.  

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.  

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.