Shameful

It is shameful that...

• Our great nation can't seem to find decent, capable,  ethical people of integrity and patriotism to run for the highest office in the land.
• The Washington Posts calls one of the most violent terrorist of our time an "austere religious scholar."
• State legislatures and city councils seek to nullify federal laws.
• Chicago teachers reject a 16% pay raise, while active duty military will receive 3.1%, the largest in decades.
• School boards are "convinced" by teacher union money to eliminate or curtail their competition: charter schools.
• Candidates for elected office pander in the worst possible ways.
• The NFL and NBA, once stalwart examples of American culture and competitive spirit, are now bastions of PC and foreign influence.
• People with no military experience presume to dictate to the men and women in uniform.
• Politicians appropriate cultures of which they do not belong.
• So-called social justice warriors believe that race, ethnicity, and gender identification provide shields of immunity for their illegal, unethical, and prejudiced actions.
• Candidates for public office who lost elections persist in proclaiming they actually won.
• Rich politicians take more and more from hard working American citizens.
• Illegal aliens are treated better than veterans.
• Colleges and universities deny legal rights to anyone merely accused of sexual assault, rather than refer the allegations to law enforcement.
• The media, once the lighthouses of truth, have sunk to being biased arms of the political parties.
• The American flag is scorned by some of her people.
• Colleges and universities no longer educate; they indoctrinate.
• Members of Congress amass fortunes while elected.
• California works at breakneck speed to irreparably damage the worlds 5th largest economy. 
• Hypocritical politicians dare to dictate to free American citizens.
• Government issued photo identification is required to buy beer, but not to vote.
• People will take out their smartphones to record someone in life threatening danger, rather than running to their aid.
• California raises taxes on gasoline and spends the money on everything but roads.
• The predominant answers from progressives is to dictate behavior and attempt to remove the rights of citizens.
• Congress spends money the nation doesn't have, while exempting themselves from the laws forced on the citizens.
• An elected official says, "a lot of people [are] more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
• All too many people accept the tripe filling social media platforms as verified facts.
• Most folks do not understand that the 1st Amendment means the government can not abridge free speech; private entities can.
• Elected individuals refuse to accept responsibility for their words and actions.
• Narcissism, illustrated by social media comments and selfie mania, has gripped the country.
• Federal, state, and local benefits are paid out to non-citizens. 
• Professional (entertainer) athletes are paid obscene amounts of money.
• California passes a law authorizing college student-athletes to be paid...on top of the enormous scholarships they receive.
• A candidate for president says, "...we choose about truth, not facts..." as if they are mutually exclusive.
• Public discourse and debate have been lowered to gutter level profanity.
• There are no term limits for Members of Congress.
• Law enforcement officers are derided by elected individuals.
• Failed candidates for president seek public acclaim long after the election they lost.
• Junior military enlisted are paid so little they qualify for food stamps.
• Free speech is trampled upon and limited by elected individuals.
• Texting and social media posting has replaced person-to-person conversations.
• Obesity is rampant in America.    

Eliminating the competition

Recent teacher strikes in Los Angeles and Oakland, California were resolved, in part by increased pay and limiting charter schools.  The exceptional power of teacher unions, which fear and loathe charter schools, directly contributed to the decisions made by school boards beholding to the unions for their election campaign funding.  

These recent school board decisions were nothing more than teacher unions coercing them to eliminate the competition.

Stipulating there are poor-to-unsatisfactory charter schools, just as there are poor-to-unsatisfactory conventional public schools; outstanding public school teachers, just as there are exceptionally poor ones (protected by onerous teachers bargaining union agreements); a closer examination of the problems with public education reveals one simple fact.

Charter schools would not be an attractive option for parents if traditional public schools did a better job creating a positive environment and educating students.  It comes as no surprise that policies governing public schools in mainly liberal areas of the country are abysmal, making charters more attractive.  For example, soft on suspension policies, such as in New York City, create chaotic campuses and classrooms, in which learning takes a distant second place to safety concerns.  Disruptive students, uncontrolled and unpunished by parents, dominate classrooms, up to and including assaulting teachers and staff.  And fewer and fewer are suspended.  Why?  Because of a false flag of racial disparity in suspensions.  It matters not the race or ethnic group of the student who tells the teacher to F*** Off, maybe throwing a chair for good measure.  Such behavior warrants immediate consequence, including removal from the classroom and school for three-to-five days.  This absence of basic classroom discipline ensures poor-to-unsatisfactory educational environment, leading parents to look for better options.

Across the nation, those with the resources pay for private schooling, including parochial schools.  This option is not available to the majority of parents, so they must either accept the unacceptable or pursue something else.  That something else led to the birth and growth of the charter school movement across the U.S.  It costs the family nothing more for their children to attend charter schools than it does to attend the public schools, into which more and more dollars have been dumped, without a corresponding improvement in education.

California was recently ranked 47 of 50 in public education, proving its approach to throwing more and more money at it does not work.  Parents are wise consumers, seeing that it is not working, so they seek out charter schools.  Competition at its best.

When students move from a traditional public school, state provided funding goes with them to the charter school.  This means, in districts like Oakland and Los Angeles, the public school have fewer butts in seats, meaning fewer teachers are needed.  Fewer teachers means less union dues (Note:  in the wake of the JANUS decision public sector union membership is declining, even as teacher unions manipulate the process by which members can resign, concurrently strong arming those desiring to resign.)  Now the real crux of the matter presents itself.  Money.

Fewer teachers are required in union dominant traditional public schools due to declining enrollment as families move their children to non-union dominant charter schools.  Combined with the JANUS Supreme Court decision, this means significantly fewer potential dues paying members in teacher unions.  Fewer dues paying members means less money into the union coffers.  Less money in union coffers means less money for supporting elections, so the unions created leverage by means of the strikes.

During the Oakland and Los Angels strikes, one major union objective was to curtail or eliminate the competing charter schools.  Be assured, this objective had nothing to do with improving education, because if the traditional Oakland and Los Angeles public schools were seen by families to be doing a good job teaching their children, there would not be a desire to go to a charter.  Parents are consumers of a product: public education.  They pay for the product by their tax dollars, allocated by what California calls Average Daily Attendance funding from the state based on per student funds calculated by attendance.  When an inferior product (poor-to-unsatisfactory public education) is foisted upon them, parents take their tax dollars to buy a superior product: charter school education.  So in their minds, teacher unions had to tamp down or eliminate the competition that is wooing away families by providing a better product. 

Rather than improve the traditional pubic school education, effectively removing the aforementioned motivation, unbelievably some boards of education kowtowed to the unions and effectively agreed to eliminating the competition.  In Oakland and Los Angeles, they could not legally eliminate the charters, so they did the next best thing, worked on capping new charters.  (As an aside, the lousy state of public education in the two named school districts drives the demand for new charters.)  It will not come as a surprise that unions are pressuring approving school districts and school boards to withhold renewing of charters.   

It is really fairly basic.  Rather than seriously undertake substantive improvements with staying power, consequently removing the parent/education consumer motivation to depart traditional public education, school districts, boards, and unions are focused upon eliminating any competition/alternative.  In this manner, the unions seek to preserve their source of funding: membership dues.  Of course, they will cloak it all in propaganda about it all being "for the students."

Why is anyone surprised?

The oft times not so subtle exhortations by elected individuals, members of the media, and others from both sides of the major political, social, and cultural divides sow hatred.  Vitriolic and emotional commentary perhaps intended for political purposes in an election season (when are we not in some form of election season?) is wholly inappropriate.

Sadly, tragically, the country is reaping that hatred sown by these exhortations.  Violence, the threat of violence, and planning for violence is now commonplace.

Bomb makers.  Assassins.  Rioters.  Mobs.  

Sickening in any context in this wonderful nation.

And the sickening is magnified by attempts by the political cadre to employ tragedy and lawlessness for personal gain at the ballot box.  Either by feeble attempts to enhance their own status or by repugnant attempts to place direct responsibility at the feet of political opponents.

Nauseous abuse of the loudspeakers provided by the media.

All factions, from both major parties share the real blame.  They have led the country to this point in history.

Why is anyone surprised by the increasing reports of violence?

Each and every politician and member of the media who has slyly, directly, craftily, angrily, or otherwise called for or encouraged physical confrontation or violence should immediately be arrested.  Inciting violence is a crime and should be addressed as such.  

The election be damned.  Your strife ridden pursuit of identity politics is ruining the country.

One approach?

Vote out every single incumbent.  Start anew.         

Judge them by the same standards

As news cycles ebb and flow, pieces judging candidates seem to dominate.  Apart from deliberately stilted coverage, this is the way it should be.  Though the fine art of principled journalism has yielded to expressing individual views disguised as "news," the valued role of the media is to inform.  Just the facts, nothing but the facts.

Perhaps no where is this more important than when judging elected officials and those seeking elected office.  All that can be asked is that elected officials and those seeking elected office be judged by the same standards.    

Determining the standards by which they are judged is fairly easy.  For example, truthfulness, honesty, obeying the law, integrity, performance, ethics, consistency, knowledge, fidelity, accomplishment, respect, veracity, humility, decency, patriotism, honor, judgment, principle, and embodying American values.

Applying the standards is also fairly easy.  Review the records of accomplishment or lack thereof.  Review what has been said, publicly and privately.  Look at the family life.  Compare and contrast stated objectives with accomplishments.  Evaluate friendships and associations (birds of a feather flock together).  Critically review political speeches for the truth.  And many more.

And judge each by these same standards.  Do not hold one candidate or elected official to one set of standards and the opponents to another.        

Opinions and debates

In the seemingly perpetual campaigning across the country, serious damage is being done to essential aspects of our uniquely American freedoms.  Political campaigns, aided and abetted by the media, are leading the way in causing the damage.  Damage that is magnified by the quasi-to-actual anonymity of social media.

Freedom of expression is a pillar of freedom upon which our nation stands.  This freedom extends to the ability to express opinion and then debate the merits of said views.  In establishing this freedom, wisely neither the Constitution nor the Amendments require that the opinions be based on fact or even logical conclusion.  It is debate about the opinion that will or will not convince others of its merit.  Those opinions with value will earn support and those without will be disregarded.

Or at least that is the way things should work.  But it is certainly not the way it happens today.

Starting at the very top, pursuing votes as a candidate for president has devolved into anything but informed opinions being debated, so that the electorate may determine which have merit.  Rather than mature iterations of opinion and debate, candidates sling about outlandish insults at one another.  Hyperbole replaces reason.  All sorts of intent and behaviors are ascribed to opponents.  And this goes on unchecked.

The behavior is left unchecked by the media, who actually serve to inflame the situation.  Talking heads no longer merely report, they filter, edit, and opine to meet their personal objectives.  The damaging behavior, left unchecked, aided and abetted by the media, is subsequently proliferated by rampant social media.  And social media is notoriously unreliable, but certainly full of scathing, often anonymous screed.  But hey, if a candidate for the presidency and the media can behave in such a repugnant manner, should not voters able to follow suit.

Imagine primary and general campaigns in which the candidates refrained from the hyper-toxic accusations and personal attacks.  What if the campaigns strictly put forth their opinions on important matters, then debated their opponents on the merits pro and con?  What if the media simply reported the stated opinions and accurately reported the ensuing debates, without attempting to tilt the information one direction or another?

Yes, under our system of free speech an individual can utter falsehoods with legal immunity.  Individuals can take to social media and communicate inflammatory and wholly false rhetoric with legal immunity.  And individuals on social media can transmit all sorts of vile, reprehensible, and troubling comments without being held legally responsible.

Imagine candidates not declaring as fact matters that are subsequently proven to be false.  Imagine candidates not employing social media to communicate inflammatory comments.  Imagine candidates communicating civilly.  Imagine candidates presenting opinions and seriously debating their merits. 

That would exhibit the manner in which our freedom of expression of opinions and debates is meant to be. 

If candidates, starting with those seeking the presidency, set the tone and example by taking this approach, the damage would be slowed.  If followed by the media seriously and judiciously reporting the opinions and debates, without leaning one way or the other, the damage would be further slowed.  And maybe, just maybe, such examples set by candidates and the media would bleed over into the realm of social media.          

 

  

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.    
 

Common politeness and decency

A favorite neighbor and I were chatting this morning, as friends and neighbors do.  He and his wife embody America, as they and one of their sons work at a company founded by her grandfather.  Hardworking, family oriented, lovers of our great nation.

After talking baseball (we'd been to a game together on Sunday, in which our local team lost) and the inevitable politics, our discussion switched to events in our neighborhood, small town, and nation.  Specifically, people seeming to "go off" on one another for even the slightest of reasons.  

Why, we wondered aloud, is this happening more and more?

Recently another neighbor yelled and created a scene about something that could have been dealt with quietly and politely.  Sure, the underlying matter was an aggravation, as workmen were spewing concrete dust into the air, rather than using the right systems and procedures to control the contaminants.  Instead of calmly informing the workers, our neighbor just "went off," as the saying goes.

We then recounted other similar examples, including some that have made headlines.  People condemning and demanding of others, for a full spectrum of perceived slights.  Politeness and decency are becoming lost in this age of social media insults hurled without thought.  No longer are reason and courtesy the best approaches.

The ability of people to either grin and bear it or politely state their positions appear absent in our current divisive, hyper-charged environment fueled by inflammatory rhetoric from political candidates, activists, university professors, talk show hosts, and other cretins who are provided the proverbial electronic microphone by a compliant and biased media.

We are inundated by hate filled messaging.  And if hate isn't present, there are those intent on fomenting it.  Of course, the media is right there to fan the flames in order to sell more and get better ratings.  So it is no surprise, really, when example after example of folks losing it come to the surface.

From the road rage incident in which a woman runs over and kills a motorcyclist, to an argument at a ballgame that leads to a fight leaving a man permanently disabled, to the school child who attacks the teacher, our nation seems to be woefully off track.

Common politeness and decency are now the exceptions, rather than the (expected) norms.  Can it be traced to the proliferation of near perpetual election campaigning based upon the division born of identity politics?  Can it be traced to talk shows, radio, television, and social media stirring up problems in the name of pseudo-journalism?

I don't have any answers, but these two questions may point in the right direction.      

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.

Let their actions speak for themselves

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Protesters at Trump rallies have stomped on the American flag. 

Burned the American flag.

And repeatedly flown the Mexican flag.

 Let their actions speak for themselves.

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.

  

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.

 

California public education is a mess

Dan Walters hits the nail squarely on the head in his piece about public education in California.

This part speaks volumes. "It’s evident, too, that a 56 percent increase in K-12 school spending over the last five years — up $23 billion per year — has not solved all problems."

56% increase in spending over five years! Outrageous, considering the return the taxpayers, parents, and students are not getting.

Governor Brown and the state legislature are beholden to their education union masters, caring more about reelection funded (illegally some say) by union dues. What is so distressing and disturbing is that this corruption is out in the open and the voters do not seem, as yet, able to halt it.

Surely, there are tremendous teachers working hard at a very demanding profession.

But there are union bosses and elected officials actively thwarting their efforts in the name of political power generated by massive donations to election/reelection campaigns. Donations NOT approved by the rank and file.

This vicious circle of corruption must be broken.

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. 

Underscoring Clinton's unsatisfactory, disqualifying judgment

Though some choose to ignore the matter, excuse it, or want to wish it away, Ms. Clinton's deliberate set up and use of a private, insecure server for official -- including classified -- government business is very real.  

The recent Washington Post story that Ms. Clinton personally wrote and initiated 104 emails containing classified information underscores her unsatisfactory, disqualifying judgment.  In all, thousands of her emails have been determined to contain classified information, forever and irrevocably disputing her statement, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”

Based on her statements and those of her surrogates and spokespersons, she would want the voters to believe it was simply an issue of the information not being marked as such at the time she handled it; she simply passed on information others failed to protect; it is a matter of over classification; everyone else did it; or equally vacuous rhetoric.  A calm analysis again underscores these arguments.

At the worst, Ms. Clinton knowingly and deliberately established by affirmative action a system that bypassed (on countless occasions) federal laws and regulations governing the handling and protection of classified information, as well as federal records keeping subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  If this is the case, her judgment was unsatisfactory and disqualifying.

As covered by the Washington Post piece, Ms. Clinton personally initiated at least 100 emails containing classified information on her insecure server, sending many of them to individuals who did not possess the requisite security clearances to receive said information.  Doing so again displayed unsatisfactory and disqualifying judgment.

Repeatedly, as addressed in a recent Washington Post piece, Ms. Clinton has parsed, misled, obfuscated, and misrepresented in her attempts to deny, justify, and nullify.  This approach to a serious problems again displays more unsatisfactory and disqualifying judgment.

Alternatively, Ms. Clinton was contemptuous of the contents of the nondisclosure agreement she signed at the beginning of her service as secretary of state, displaying equally unsatisfactory and disqualifying judgment.

Or Ms. Clinton is so ignorant of the government regulations and laws pertaining to the protection of classified information, contrary to her March 2015 assurances to the contrary, that her judgment in the matter is unsatisfactory and disqualifying.  As we know, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.  

No matter how one chooses to calmly analyze the publicly known information, no other conclusion can be drawn other than Ms. Clinton has irrefutably and profoundly displayed unsatisfactory and disqualifying judgment in this unambiguous matter.

Such a major character flaw can not, must not be overlooked when considering if an individual is qualified for the office of the presidency of the United States.

This blog was updated 9 Mar 2016.

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?