PPP

It is incomprehensible that petty political posturing (PPP) dominates.

Policy differences aside, elected officials continue the disgusting PPP practice.  Rather than putting aside infantile personal animosity for the good of the American people, these folks would rather pursue Internet clicks and on air video minutes for their PPP.  Rather than work together to produce single purpose legislation unencumbered by pet projects, they snipe at one another incessantly.

Absolutely tone deaf, they posture in pursuit of wealth, power, and prestige.  So much for facetious concern for the American people.

And when called out for their outlandish behavior, they attempt to blame their political opponents, using absolute terms in a far-from-absolute world.  Or they issue clearly contradictory statements days, if not hours, apart. 

PPP.

Without due regard for the impacts of their their PPP, Pelosi and Trump head a list of elected officials who should be summarily and rounded condemned and forced from office at the earliest opportunity.

Not a perfect solution by any means, but removing all federally elected officials and starting anew would be a good start in reclaiming the power of the people.   

So True, Charlie Brown, So True

As famously, if not infamously exclaimed by Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"

Perusing Internet (so called) news sites leaves one thoroughly dismayed.  For example:

• Pelosi declared her six year old grandson wished he were brown.  
• A woman was denied aircraft boarding because of an "emotional support hamster."  
• Two school principals were arrested, one for failing to report six year olds had filmed themselves committing sex acts, and the other for failing to report a sexual assault by a seven year old.    
• A university professor told his class he wished the President were dead.
• POTUS wants a military parade in Washington, DC.
• Opinion writers, who never served in uniform, posing as journalists make categorical declarations about what it means to be in the military.  
• The Dow Jones drops more than 2000 points.
• Congress passes spending bills that deepen our already unfathomable sink hole of national debt.
• Self important "celebrities" declare this and that are horrible, yet strive for the most air time and "news" coverage.
• A bankrupt city wants to provide residents $500 per month, no strings attached. 

Good grief indeed.

Spending other peoples' money.  Narcissism running amok.  Avoiding personal responsibility.  Failing to perform the duties of the office to which elected.  Extending victimology to unheard of and unwarranted areas.  Ascribing sexual awareness where none exists.  Claiming unearned expertise.  Wanting to use the military as potted plants in shameless self-promotion (see footnote).

Good grief.   

That supposed intelligent people are involved in each and every (and vastly more) illustration is disturbing.  From this vantage point is seems as if reason and tolerance have been replaced by absurdity and bigotry.  And it continues unabated.

Good grief.  

The list of examples is virtually endless.  Has the nation gone mad?

Charlie Brown and his fellow characters could certainly do better than those involved in the illustrations.

------------------------------

Footnote: lest one think this is unique to the current White House, do not forget that First Lady Obama appeared on the broadcast of the 2013 Academy Awards, with uniformed military officers as set decorations and dressing.    

Rebuilding our military

There many available articles describing our underfunded and overworked military forces.  Machines and the manpower operating them are tired, worn out, and in precariously low raw numbers.

We face the tyranny of time as it impacts correcting the problems from the past decades and multiple administrations.  

How to reduce the time it will take to rectify all the material challenges, let alone personnel readiness, seems to rest on massive budget shifts.  Away from social, pork, and nonessential programs and into national security.  This requires smart reallocation of resources, without increasing the size of the federal budget.  

A secondary benefit to this shift will accrue from the need for more workers to rebuild the material elements, as well as more people in uniform, increasing employment.  

Now the question becomes one of political will and national leadership.  Unfortunately, the political will appears absent.  And White House/POTUS national leadership are lacking.  Unlike Reagan's ability to work with Congress and communicate with the American people and the world almost four decades ago, Trump has not measured up.  Furthermore, with significantly fewer military veterans in Congress, understanding and appreciating the critical dilemma in which we find ourselves are missing or drowned out by hyper-partisanship.  

POTUS needs to step up, as does Congress -- specifically the GOP -- to invest in our national security.  The goal, as a fellow military retiree so aptly put it, is to have "the most lethal fighting force on the face of the earth by an order of magnitude."  

It is time to take out the red pen and identify the waste in the budget failing to support the entire nation, not the minuscule yet multiple special interests that fund elections and re-elections.  Some of what we read prior to the latest budget deal provided some hope.  For example, eliminating/severely reducing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and other line items.  Nice-to-have, not crucial need-to-have for the survival of the nation.  Across the federal budget, billions can be shifted without increasing the bottom line.  If done well, the annual budget can actually be reduced.  Sadly, it comes full circle to the issue of political will.

Other crucial actions, beyond just making funds available, include fixing the military procurement system; reducing/eliminating unnecessary elements in DoD (personnel reductions and associated O&M funding); streamlining the war fighting structure; and otherwise correcting the lopsided tooth-to-tail ratio.  Once more, political will and national leadership are needed.

Let us hope the leadership will step up and work to create the political will necessary to solve the problem.       

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.  

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.

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.  

An unwarranted victory lap

Following is a news report about comments POTUS made in Elkhart, Indiana, during his so-called victory lap, as he tells America how much better our nation, our citizens, and the world are since he took office.  In this case, he was discussing the economy.

Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.

“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”

Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”

His rhetoric is wholly unconvincing, in addition to taking an insulting and uncalled-for-shot at veterans.

If the nation is indeed so much better because of his time in office, then why are vastly more people out of the workforce than in it?  Why was the jobs report for May 2016 so dismal?  Why is the economy cited by voters as their number one concern?  Why is the national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars?  Why is the stock market performing tepidly and is currently below its high mark?  Why aren't savings accounts paying reasonable interest?  Why are health care insurance carriers departing Obamacare?  Why are health care premiums and co-pays dramatically increasing?  And the list goes on and on.

The most telling indicator though, is that voters from both the left and right are damned angry at his big government and its overreach, as indicated by the backlash prevalent in this year's election cycle.

Action speaks louder than words

People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do. ~ Lewis Cass

On Memorial Day we hear and read a great deal about honoring those who fell in service to our nation. This is as it should be.

Some allowed their comments to spill over to the general topic of veterans. For this, these commenters can be forgiven. At the end of this national day of recognition, hearing and reading their comments about veterans, I come away with an observation about POTUS.

 

When deeds speak, words are nothing. ~African Proverb

Watching several speakers on television and reading comments of others, many used the opportunity to decry the on-going issues with the Veterans Administration. During one such broadcast, the aforementioned observation came to mind about POTUS.

 

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke

It occurred to me that POTUS has said a great deal about the issues with the VA and veterans. But in my view, he has done very little. Though professing concern, in comparison to social issues he supports, POTUS has been notable for his lack of action. On social issues he has shown a proclivity to sign Executive Orders and to issue Federal Regulations. By some count, thousands of pages of the two.

 

Well done is better than well said. ~Benjamin Franklin

Setting aside for the moment the illegality of his Executive Orders and Federal Regulations, what is telling is that in spite of lofty rhetoric concerning issues with the Veterans Administration and care for our veterans, POTUS has chosen not to take the same approach in addressing them as he has with social issues, climate issues, the environment, LGBT issues, international security, and other matters not involving our veterans.

 

A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain. ~Arabian Proverb

A minor epiphany, but a revelation nevertheless. By his actions, POTUS demonstrates his lack of care for veterans and their concerns.

Actions speak louder than words.

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.

 

Honor, service, and sacrifice.

Saturday I will join what will undoubtedly be a large contingent of fellow veterans and bikers as we roll in the first of two missions to honor Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin, U.S. Marine Corps, KIA.  He was killed in combat last week in northern Iraq, in a war POTUS declared to be over.

I could write extensively about the political dimension, but choose not to, as it would dishonor my fellow Marine.  I write, instead, comparing those who send Marines to war and those Marines who go to war.

From POTUS to Congress to SecDef, the integrity deficit is profound.  Elected and appointed officials send our best and brightest to foreign shores to fight without the Constitutionally mandated declaration of war.  For far too long our young men and women have answered their country's call in these undeclared wars.  And often they do so in the shadows.  Case in point: the nation was unaware the Marines have an artillery battery from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Northern Iraq until SSgt Cardin's death forced their hand.  And the official spokesmen have acknowledged that the "troop ceiling' number they tout is inaccurate.  Using phrases like "temporary assignment," the actual numbers of men and women going is harm's way are much larger.  Utterly shameful.  The lack of honor, integrity, and ethics is monumental.  Balanced against this ineptitude are the courage and commitment of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines sent into harm's way.

These men and women embody what is best about our great nation.  All they ask, and have a right to expect, are competent leaders who will respect and honor their service and sacrifice, as well as their very lives.  These men and women stand head and shoulders above the elected and appointed officials, save some of those who have honorably served our nation in uniform and now speak out forcibly on their behalf.  

Not one of the average elected or appointed officials is worthy of the respect from those in uniform.  They do not embody the beliefs and honor of those in uniform.  Yet, they show massive disrespect by the manner in which the government treats them, including pay and benefits, and the ill performing VA.

May it be that not one more American serviceman dies for the corrupt politicians and appointed officials.

The nation might benefit

It is nearly nauseating contemplating either Clinton or Trump being elected president.  But might the nation benefit from such a horrendous outcome?

Should the unspeakable occur, one indisputable fact presents itself.  It would be a one term presidency.  

During that one term, it just might be that our nation finds its way again, recovering from years of gross incompetence in Congress and the White House.  Career politicians from each party would be removed by angry voters.  Idiots and fools in each party would be cast aside.

Of course, external and internal threats might increase, requiring a focused defense.  That focus might benefit the nation, as it comes together to fight the threat.  People might not be whipped into frenzies by the media.  Skin color, religion, political leanings, and other identifiers used by shameless politicians and the media would not matter, as we would find it necessary to come together to fight for survival.

The unethical and lying Clinton or the bigoted and shallow trump would be forced to face a nation united against her or him.  New lows in presidential approval ratings would only be surpassed by new lows for Congress.  Rejection of proposed legislation and presidential events would skyrocket.

As the four years of the one term president unfold, we might see a new awakening or reawakening.  People of differing views might find it necessary to compromise.  Idiotic pronouncements of the sort spewed by Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Trump, Boehner, McConnell, Cummings, and others will not be allowed to stand.

Accountability will be demanded.  Serving the people will be demanded.  These non-negotiable positions will rise from the ashes of the worst presidential election in American history.

Politicians will be thrown out of office left and right.  Clinton or Trump might be thrown in jail.

Those seeking advantage at the expense of middle American will be cast aside.  The military will again be esteemed.  Our enemies will one more fear us.  Our allies will once more trust us.  

The GOP and Democrat political parties will be destroyed and be replaced by better organizations. 

The people will forget their differences while finding their common and shared values.  

American just might  be better in 2020 that it is in 2016. 

Bring question time to our government

While seated in the barber's chair this afternoon, my rather erudite barber had the TV tuned into C-SPAN and question time in the British Parliament was being broadcast.  According to Wikipedia, "Question time in a parliament occurs when members of the parliament ask questions of government ministers (including the prime minister), which they are obliged to answer."

Obliged to answer!

What a novel concept, foreign to our form of government.  For the elected representatives of the people to ask questions of the leaders of government which must be answered.

In no way recommending the parliamentary system for our country, it would nevertheless be refreshing and invigorating for the President and Cabinet to be "obliged to answer" directly those questions put to them in a public forum by members of Congress.  Instead, we endure carefully scripted and staged byplay between spokesmen/women of various entities.  Or vacuous, unchallenged statements from this elected official or that, often times offering as fact unfounded and ridiculous utterances.  And the so called press conferences POTUS rarely convenes are equally orchestrated.  He controls who is permitted to ask a question, an exercise of the ultimate in control in a free country.

As a result, our government's leaders are almost never called to answer the people.  They are never called to task, so to speak.

While viewing the British question time, I was also struck by the civility of it all.  None of the corse language increasingly, if not incessantly dominating American politics.

It would be very refreshing to institute question time in our country.   

Conundrum

It is a conundrum!

For the first time I see a possibility of not voting in a presidential election.  This is based on an assumption that Trump and Clinton will be the candidates.  A sad proposition leaving me wondering how many others out there feel the same.

For a bit I was firmly committed to voting against Clinton, but correctly placed criticism of Trump under the “lessor of two evils” construct left me revisiting the commitment.  As much as I strongly believe Clinton is wholly unsuited for and absolutely unworthy of the office and should be voted against accordingly, it is sadly beginning to look like Trump will be the GOP standard bearer.  If this indeed happens, to vote against Clinton one would have to vote for Trump.  I have concluded the unshakable strength of my convictions about Clinton does not outweigh my profound disgust with Trump.  

For a period of time I honestly believed the GOP would/will find a way to deny him the candidacy, so the issue of voting for him wouldn’t materialize.  I would then be able to vote against Clinton with a clear conscience, noting however that neither Rubio nor Cruz light my fire.  In the back of my mind I was secretly hoping the GOP would draft someone like Paul Ryan as its candidate.  Such thoughts reflect a futile mental exercise of grasping at straws in a windstorm.

So here I sit, having reached the very uncomfortable realization that I may not cast a vote in the presidential election.  And that realization is amazingly unsettling.

Strangely, perhaps, I support Sanders’ attempt to win the Dem nomination, in part to deny Clinton the nomination.   To that end, I was thoroughly impressed by Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as she explained why she resigned from the DNC and announced her support for the "Bern.”  A Sanders – Gabbard ticket would be formidable.  

Maybe, just maybe, either legal problems or a major health issue (not hoping for such, but she doesn’t look well to me) will derail Clinton’s pursuit of the nomination.  With the DNC totally invested in her, those would likely be the only possible happenings that could take Clinton out of the race.  (Speaking of the DNC, its super delegate structure takes the votes right out of the hands of individuals.)  Back to Sanders…he is principled and genuine.  But the Clinton – DNC cabal will block his candidacy. And Obama will not permit the legal issues to interfere with Clinton’s coronation.  (I agree that he won’t pardon her, but he can certainly ensure she isn’t indicted.)

So where is all this headed?  If fellow conservatives agree with my conclusion and do not vote, Clinton will most likely be the next president, a dark day for our country.  Even darker would be an unlikely Trump victory.

In the windstorm of straws to be grasped, Sanders & Gabbard vs. Ryan & Haley would be the better presidential race for the country.  There are many, many issues for the voters to consider and that warrant a presidential election to give guidance for the nation.  These two tickets would provide that opportunity.  

A footnote of sorts.  The GOP campaign is totally disgusting.  Leaves a conservative ashamed of the label.

Conclusion: if it indeed comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, I won't vote for the first and can't vote for the other.

Clinton says she has never lied

Is she kidding?

Here is an exchange between Ms. Clinton and Scott Pelley.  

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I have always tried to.

PELLEY: Some people are going to call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself "always tried to." 

Jimmy Carter said, "I will never lie to you."

CLINTON: You're asking me to say, "have I ever?" I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I am going to do the best I can to level with the American people.

Focus on parts of the second response (emphasis added).  "I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have." 

Is she kidding?  

Given her history of proven lies, not the least of which being "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, there are two crucial interpretations for her answer.  First, she lied once more in responding to Pelley.  Second and potentially more troubling, that she actually believes she has never lied.  

If the first interpretation is accurate, her dishonesty renders her unqualified for office.

If the second interpretation is accurate, her pathology renders her unqualified for office.

In either case, Ms. Clinton once more displays judgment (and possibly a pathology) that make it impossible for her to be president.

I wonder if the main stream media will give this the coverage it so richly deserves?

Lessor of two evils

Speaking with a highly respected, informed, and very intelligent voter younger than I, a telling question was tabled.  "In the worst case of the election coming down to Trump or Clinton, who is the lesser of two evils?"  Implying, for whom would I vote?

Damn.  Could American politics really sink to the point that these two will represent the choices for our nation?

Does abject disgust with Trump's insulting arrogance, flippant attitude, and lack of specific policies overcome total abhorrence of Clinton's dishonest arrogance, untrustworthiness, and amorality?  Does Clinton's undistinguished time in the senate and as secretary of state tilt the scales over Trump's questionable time in the business world?  Is Trump's unethical use of laws such as imminent domain worse that Clinton's illegal use of a private email server that placed national secrets at risk?  How do Clinton's dubious and devious dealings connected with the Clinton Foundation compare to Trump's similar dealings as a businessman?  Do Trump's campaign statements on social issues overcome Clinton's record on them?  Does the nation want an individual worth billions accumulated questionably over an individual worth hundreds of millions accumulated questionably?

Such comparisons and contrasts can be listed ad nauseam.  One area, however, of greater importance was noted.

Who has by examples of character and temperament shown the qualifications necessary in the commander-in-chief?  The aforementioned voter raised this specter in the context of who would be most likely to enter the nation into (another) unnecessary war?  

The immediate and obvious answer is that neither are suited for the all important role of president as commander-in-chief.  Acknowledging this point nevertheless leads to the dilemma.  

If Clinton and Trump are the two choices, who is the lessor of two evils?

Would it come down to voting against one, rather than voting for the other?  Would it come down to a single issue, national security and the actions as commander-in-chief?

It will be no surprise to readers of this blog that I could never vote for Clinton.  But could I vote for Trump?

   

Obama's Action Speaks Louder than Words

It is rare that a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America dies.  There are only nine justices serving on the court at any one time, so the rarity of a funeral is further increased. 

Why, then, did POTUS not attend the funeral for Justice Scalia?

Obama speaks often about crossing the divide between the liberal and conservative points of view.  He speaks often about working together.  He speaks often about what he believes "all Americans" hold near and dear.  

In fact, he speaks often about a lot of matters.  But actions speak louder than words.

On Saturday 20 February 2016, Obama's action spoke clearly and loudly.  By his absence, Obama displayed arrogance.  He acted contemptuously towards a member of the court who did not yield to his liberal views.  

That the President of the United States failed to attend the funeral for a sitting member of the Supreme Court is shameful and disgraceful.  Differing views aside, it was the President's duty to attend.

His action will long be remembered and is indelibly marked upon his legacy. 

Exceedingly bad judgment is disqualifying

Bernie Sanders is right.  Paraphrasing, judgment is vastly more important than experience.  No where is this most certainly than the case than in the individual in the office of the President of the United States. 

By the nature of the office and its span of responsibility and control, no one person will have experience in every area in which the electorate expects and demands the president to make sound judgments.  Business, foreign policy, national security, healthcare, finance, taxation, diplomacy, domestic policy, natural disasters, science, education, environment, cybersecurity, legislation, law, agriculture, commerce, transportation, veterans, and countless other matters demand the president's best judgment.  It is obvious, despite what our current POTUS may claim, no one individual can be the duty expert in each and every one of these topic areas, let alone the subtopics.  So the judgment of the president, as he/she takes in the facts and arrives at conclusions must be unassailable.

Just as unassailable must be the president's judgment in people.  He/she must choose the best possible team.  He/she must be able to take in opposing recommendations from a wide variety of people, judge their credibility and the quality of their recommendations.  He/she must be an astute judge of the character of individuals.

As the commander-in-chief, the president must have unassailable judgment when deciding to put our Armed Forces in harm's way.

No matter how one looks at it, judgment is overwhelmingly more important than mere experience.  Experience alone does not provide the basis for good judgment.  Perhaps an over simplification, it could be argued that one could have vast quantities of experience composed of exceptionally bad judgment. 

When it comes down to it, Ms. Clinton's record is all too rife with too many examples of woefully bad to abysmal judgment.  As current news reports reflect and she acknowledged (and regardless of how the legal matters are addressed), it was unbelieveably bad judgment to deliberately set up and exclusively use an unsecure private service for her email while Secretary of State.  Pure and simple: the requirements of the job as Secretary of State includes receiving and transmitting classified information.  Remaining on this topic for a moment, her deliberate and specific claim in March 2015 that there was no classified information in her email is another example of monumentally bad judgment.  As we have recently learned, some of the information is so highly classified that the Department of State will not release even redacted copies.  It was her judgment to make that now is a fully debunked statement.  Further, her deliberate and knowing judgment to exclusively use an insecure, private server for email communications also exposed classified information to individuals not cleared/approved to have access to it.

Two other notable examples of her deficient judgment: personally and publicly supporting Anthony Weiner prior to his resignation and the deliberate decision to publicly claim having landed under fire in Bosnia (proven false). 

Bottom line, taken alone and separate from many other reasons not to support Ms. Clinton, her exceedingly bad judgment is wholly disqualifying.

  

Low level politics

While still believing there is cause for hope in 2016, in the face of the multiple and significant issues facing our nation, it is vexing to observe the abysmally low level to which our national politics are sinking.

On one side is a candidate who may very well be indicted on felony charges.  If the FBI presents charges to the Department of Justice and no indictment ensues, the damage will be immense.  If the individual is indicted, some ridiculously argue it would be permissible for the candidate to continue to campaign for office.  How telling of the state of American politics if such a scandal were to occur.  In the same party is a proudly self-described candidate raging to demolish our basic economy.  As the candidate is the most genuine and sincere of those in his party seeking the nomination, it is scary how many people turn out in support.

On the other side is a bombastic, disingenuous candidate who speaks in perpetually negative descriptions and criticisms of the opponents.  It is tremendously sad that this candidate leads in individual polling.  Others campaigning for this party's nomination range from the virtually unknown to the shrill to the complaining, with one perhaps filling a proper role.  Still, not unlike the other party, no stellar candidate stands out.

A criminal and a fool lead the polling for their respect parties.  This alone speaks to the abysmally low level of American politics.  Were it not the highest office in the land to which the aspire, it would make great comedic theater.

Still seeing 2016 as a year of promise, I hope the nation can put aside the criminals and idiots and rise to select a good person who will work with leaders from both parties to find compromise solutions to move our country forward, unify the citizenry (after nearly eight years of purposeful divisive rhetoric), and restore honor to the political class.   

Questions for Ms. Clinton prior to Iowa, New Hamsphire, and South Carolina

Shortly, after what seems to have been a decade long process, voters will begin making their choices as to who should be selected to carry their political party's banner into the national election for president.  As Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina approach, here are questions for Ms. Clinton. 

Question.  Why was it not a conflict of interest to accept funds from foreign governments when you were secretary of state?    

 

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

 

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

Question:  How is directing one of your staff to remove classification and other markings from a document in order to send it via unsecure means not a violation of the law? 

Question:  How can you stand for the importance of an individual's character, when you supported Anthony Weiner?

Question:  Since you did not demand immediate military assistance be dispatched to help our people during the attacks in Benghazi, why should we believe you will direct immediate military action to protect Americans from future attacks overseas?  

Question:  Regarding the loss of American life in Benghazi in September 2012, which of your direct actions before, during, and shortly after the tragedy did make a difference?

Question:  This is a multiple part question regarding your voting record in the Senate: How many votes were called during your time in the Senate?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote YEA?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote NAY?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote PRESENT?  Of the called votes, how many times were you absent?  

Question:  How can you purport to be an advocate for women's rights and equality, when you remain in the marriage to a serial philanderer and adulterer?  

Question:  What is your specific view on the sanctity of marriage vows? 

Question:  What are the meaning and requirements of the oath of office for the presidency? 

Question:  Since there is a two term limit for the office of President, why shouldn't there be a two term limit for the members of Congress? 

Unfortunately, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that any of these questions will be asked.  And it is certainty that if asked, Ms. Clinton would not truthfully answer.  But one can dream.