An outrageous affront

Today's announcement that President Obama commuted the sentence of Private Manning is an outrageous affront to all those serving or who have served honorably in the Armed Forces.  Manning is a criminal, found guilty and sentenced by a court martial.  The full sentence should be served.

It is outrageous this Commander-in-Chief takes such action, clearly and forever breaking faith with our men and women in uniform.  By his action, Obama clearly and unequivocally shows his disdain for the members of the military, their honor, their service, their sacrifice, and the oath they took upon entering our military.

Make no mistake, this action was socially motivated.  No legal or military purpose is served by commuting the sentence of a former soldier who deliberately stole classified information and provided it to unauthorized others.  In other times it is conceivable Manning could have received the death sentence.  Of course, in other times, other Presidents of the United States admired and revered the Armed Forces.

It is particularly galling, given that this week we laid to rest Major Griffiths, U. S. Army at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery.  He died while a POW during the Korean war and his remains were just recently identified.  Posthumously awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and POW medals, Major Griffiths represents all the best of our Armed Forces.  Obama's action today effectively denigrates and insults Major Griffith's service and sacrifice.

When neither a Private (Manning) or General (Cartwright) are held fully accountable for their illegal actions, because of the decision of the president of the United States, something is sorely amiss in our nation.  

Shame on you, President Obama.

20 January 2017 Update  

Though Obama's action re Manning remains an outrageous affront, at least Bergdahl will have to face the military trial for his actions.





         

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.        

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.   

    

 

If utterly confused, you are not alone.

If utterly confused, you are not alone.

As what passes for the media, both left leaning and right leaning, pumps out opinions and purposefully slanted stories thinly disguised as "news" to suit their personal objectives, what are citizens to think?

Story after story and article after article seem more designed to inflame that to inform.  In pursuit of the aforementioned personal objectives, common decency has been shed in favor of sensationalism by unfounded accusation.  Honesty in reporting gone by the wayside, joining judgment, ethics, and integrity as traits no longer attributable to the press.

In our nation where the press once served an invaluable and honorable role, we citizens are now subjected to pummeling by social media driven drivel.  What once would have never risen to the level of publication now is given false credence by an over anxious group of individuals more intent on self promotion than truth, justice, and the American way.

Reiterating an earlier point, this sad state exists in both left leaning and right leaning media.

Where no offense exists, they seek to create it.  Where no law has been broken, they define actions as criminal.  Instead of reporting facts so the populace can exercise its considerable judgment, they spoon feed carefully and deliberately edited story lines.  Utterly disgusting.

Beyond the disgust, however, is the disservice done to the nation.  The battling personalities create and sew confusion and discontent, normally with an indignant sense of superiority.

Capitalizing upon this abhorrent phenomena, political entities of all types cite the tons of drivel as facts in their pursuit of power.

Some use the power of the media's considerable megaphone to declare objectivity is no longer required.  Others use the power to deliberately inflame and incite.  And some others are clearly crude, base, uncouth, shameless, vile, and despicable.

No wonder citizens are confused regarding what the media portrays as newsworthy.             

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.         

Veterans from different eras

Military veterans from different eras have and are pursuing a virtually identical past time - motorcycling.

The warriors who came home from World War II, purchased bikes, and grouped together are not a lot different from those from the nation's recent wars who have followed suit.

They prefer to associate with those who share similar experiences, as well as unbounded patriotism.

The wording on t-shirt worn by one young vet captures it well.  "If my patriotism offends you, your lack of a spine offends me." 

The camaraderie they learned and depended upon while in uniform is found in their biker clubs of today.  

Along with the aforementioned camaraderie and patriotism, like their forefathers they believe in integrity, honesty, hard work, earning your way through life, straight talk, the Second Amendment, brotherhood, directness, freedom, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, standing for the National Anthem, saluting the American flag, honoring the fallen, and having a good time together.

Even though from different generations decades apart, the two groups of veterans are amazingly alike.  And we certainly need more of them. 

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.)

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.  

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.