Thursday, September 29, 2016

“Leading From Behind” May Work With Grazing Sheep. It Does Not Work In Wolf Country.

Denmark’s former prime minister exhorts Americans to resist retreat. ‘Leading from behind’ may work with grazing sheep. It doesn’t in wolf country.

By Josef Joffe


When you chance on a book by a former NATO chief, your eyes glaze over. Please, not another “Whither NATO?” or a compendium of boilerplate, stitched together by a ghostwriter. Yet crack open “The Will to Lead” by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who also served as Denmark’s prime minister for eight years, and the glaze will vanish.

This book reads like a letter to an American friend, written by a “European classical liberal who has always counted on American leadership.” On the cusp of a new administration, this European doesn’t pine for yet another pledge of American allegiance. Instead he exhorts the U.S. “not to abandon its vital role as champion of freedom and guarantor of the global order.”

He sees the “global village” burning while its inhabitants bicker. So “we need a policeman to restore order; we need a fireman to put out the fire; we need a mayor, smart and sensible, to lead the rebuilding.” That sums up the role the U.S. ditched after World War I—and brilliantly reclaimed after World War II.

Why the alarm? Because, as Mr. Rasmussen writes, neo-isolationism, economic as well as strategic, is on a roll on both sides of the ocean. TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is on the way to the morgue, as may be TPP, the Pacific version. Under Barack Obama, the U.S. has pulled out of Iraq while downscaling in Afghanistan. He has turned away from old allies in the Middle East, working hard to secure a nuclear deal with the theocrats of Iran. He has given the Russians an all but free ride in Ukraine and in Syria.

When Mr. Obama trumpeted the “audacity of hope,” he forsook the first rule of statecraft: It is better (and cheaper) to man the lines than to return. Being there deters; pulling out suggests indifference, if not an invitation to rivals. “Leading from behind” may work with grazing sheep. It does not in wolf country.

Mr. Rasmussen’s hero is Harry S. Truman. The “little haberdasher from Missouri,” as his detractors had it, was a giant on the world stage. While FDR trusted in “Uncle Joe” Stalin, foreshadowing America’s withdrawal from Europe, Truman rearmed with a vengeance. His historic achievement was a new global order that endures to this day. Behold the alphabet soup: U.N., NATO, IMF, the World Bank, GATT (now WTO, the World Trade Organization). It still nourishes the rest of the world.

Call it “empire,” but it was one by invitation, not by imposition. It served American interests by serving those of others, be it security or free trade. It was rules, not rule. Never was awesome power so nicely enveloped in the common good.

Naturally, Mr. Rasmussen is no admirer of the 44th president, though his critique never strays from the polite. But you get the point when he muses that “Yes, we can” should actually have read “Yes, only we can.” For “only superpowers have the necessary capabilities to get things done.”

Alas, America is tiring of the burden, as the “come home” reflexes of the Obama years show both right and left. Hillary Clinton is trying to outbid Donald Trump on protectionism. The GOP, once the party of liberal internationalism, has now nominated a man whose campaign slogan is “America First.”

Mr. Rasmussen marshals two arguments against this downsizing of America. To “pull up the drawbridge” is, first of all, “morally repugnant.” It is “letting bad things happen and standing idly by.” Second, retraction embodies the erroneous belief that “if America stays away from the troubles of the world, the troubles of the world will stay away from America.” That wasn’t even true in the 20th century when Germany and Japan conquered Europe and much of Asia as prelude to war against the United States. Today the speed of travel and communication has shrunk distance to near naught, as this month’s terrorist attack in downtown New York demonstrates.

Hence Mr. Rasmussen counsels a global “broken window” strategy, just as the Romans did: respice finem, consider the end. He pleads for robust American interventionism: Hit them hard and early. If the “indispensable nation” won’t do it, nobody will. When the U.S. doesn’t act, it gets genocide, as in Rwanda. When it does, as against Serbia, peace has a chance. The author sticks to his guns even on Iraq, which he considers a legitimate war. The problem, he avers, was “not the military mission” but what he delicately calls the “political follow-up”—that is, restoring governance and the economy.

Let’s go back to his triple-image of America as “policeman, fireman and mayor.” The American temper lends itself perfectly to the firefighter role. The trucks rush in, the guys break down the walls and flood the building. Then back to the station house. But the police have to stay forever; so does the mayor. That’s not the American way of war, leaving aside the miraculous exceptions of postwar Europe, Korea and Japan, where U.S. troops still deter and reassure. In general, democracies do not like long, indecisive wars in faraway locales. In the end, they pull out. And the locals know it.

Iraq was a disaster not simply because of the “political follow-up.” It also comes with a cruel realpolitik lesson: By eliminating Saddam and the Iraqi army, the U.S. acted as unwitting handmaiden of Iranian power. Iraq used to be the mightiest bulwark against Tehran’s ambitions, whether under the shah or the Khomeinists. Today the country is practically a Persian fiefdom, and Iranian forces and surrogates now range all the way to the Levant, carving up Syria and threatening Israel.

So take Mr. Rasmussen with a spoonful of salt. Intervene only if moral duty aligns with inherently limited means and strategic interests. Above all, don’t go after the wrong enemy, which was not Baghdad but Tehran. Always the strongest player in the Middle East, Iran is now challenging the “Great Satan” for primacy from Basra to Beirut. Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama grasped this elementary point.

That said, “The Will to Lead” delivers an altogether salutary counter to Obamism as well as Trumpism, not to mention those feeling the Bern on the left. There is no other “indispensable power”—and there won’t be for a long time.

Mr. Joffe is editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he teaches U.S. foreign policy.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Colin Kapernick Shredded: "Whining. Indulgent, Attention Seekiing Crybaby"

She speaks for so many of us." frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What a diifference -

Left coast eliitist, overpaid, spoiled, whining Americans
Levi Field - San Francisco, Californa

Middle America - plain, ordinary, hard workiing, proud Americans
Lambeau Field - Green Bay, Wisconsin

Walmart Peolple - No Doubt Deplorable

His uncontrollable laughter makes this well worth watching.


Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Great American Story

They told me the big black Lab's name was Reggie, as I lI'd only been in the area for six months, but everywhere I went in the small college town, people were welcoming and open.  Everyone waves when you pass them on the street.ooked at him lying in his pen.  The shelter was clean,no-kill, and the people really friendly. But something was still missing as I attempted to settle in to my new life here, and I though a dog couldn't hurt.
Give me someone to talk to.  And I had just seen Reggie's advertisement on the local news.  The shelter said they had received numerous calls right after, but they said the people who had come down to see him just didn't look like "Lab people," whatever that meant.  They must’ve thought I did.

But at first, I thought the shelter had misjudged me in giving me Reggie and his things, which consisted of a dog pad, bag of toys almost all of which were brand new tennis balls, his dishes and a sealed letter from his previous owner.

See, Reggie and I didn't really hit it off when we got home.  We struggled for two weeks (which is how long the shelter told me to give him to adjust to his new home).  Maybe it was the fact that I was trying to adjust, too.  Maybe we were too much alike.  I saw the sealed envelope.  I had completely forgotten about that. “Okay, Reggie," I said out loud, "let's see if your previous owner has any advice.

To Whomever Gets My Dog:  Well, I can't say that I'm happy you're reading this, a letter I told the shelter could only be opened by Reggie's new owner.  I'm not even happy writing it.  He knew something was different.

So let me tell you about my Lab in the hopes that it will help you bond with him and he with you.  First, he loves tennis balls.  The more the merrier.  Sometime I think he's part squirrel, the way he hoards them.  He usually always has two in his mouth, and he tries to get a third in there.  Hasn't done it yet.  Doesn't matter where you
throw them, he'll bound after them, so be careful. Don't do it by any roads.

Next, commands.  Reggie knows the obvious ones ---"sit," "stay," "come," "heel." He knows hand signals, too:  He knows "ball" and "food" and "bone" and "treat" like nobody's business.  Feeding schedule:  twice a day, regular store-bought stuff; the shelter has the brand.
He's up on his shots.  Be forewarned: Reggie hates the vet. Good luck getting him in the car.  I don't know how he knows when it's time to go to the vet, but he knows.
Finally, give him some time.  It's only been Reggie and me for his whole life.  He's gone everywhere with me, so please include him on your daily car rides if you can.  He sits well in the backseat, and he doesn't bark or complain.  He just loves to be around people, and me most especially.

And that's why I need to share one more bit of info with you...  His name's not Reggie.  He's a smart dog, he'll get used to it and will respond to it, of that I have no doubt.
But I just couldn't bear to give them his real name.  But if someone is reading this ...well it means that his new owner should know his real name.  His real name is "Tank."  Because, that is what I drive.  I told the shelter that they couldn't make "Reggie" available for adoption until they received word from my company commander.
You see, my parents are gone, I have no siblings, no one I could've left Tank with ... and it was my only real request of the Army upon my deployment to Iraq, that they make one phone call to the shelter the "event" ... to tell them that Tank could be put up for adoption.  Luckily, my CO is a dog-guy, too, and he knew where my platoon was headed.
He said he'd do it personally. And if you're reading this, then he made good on his word.  Tank has been my family for the last six years, almost as long as the Army has been my family.  And now I hope and pray that you make him part of your family, too, and that he will adjust and come to love you the same way he loved me.  If I have to give up Tank to keep those terrible people from coming to the US I am glad to have done so.  He is my example of service and of love.
I hope I honored him by my service to my country and comrades.  All right, that's enough.  I deploy this evening and have to drop this letter off at the shelter.  Maybe I'll peek in on him and see if he finally got that third tennis ball in his mouth.  Good luck with Tank.  Give him a good home, and give him an extra kiss goodnight - every night - from me.
Thank you, Paul Mallory


I folded the letter and slipped it back in the envelope.  Sure, I had heard of Paul Mallory, everyone in town knew him, even new people like me.  Local kid, killed in Iraq a few months
ago and posthumously earning the Silver Star when he gave his life to save three buddies.
Flags had been at half-mast all summer.

I leaned forward in my chair and rested my elbows on my knees, staring at the dog.  "Hey, Tank," I said quietly. The dog's head whipped up, his ears cocked and his eyes bright.
“C'mere boy."

He was instantly on his feet, his nails clicking on the hardwood floor.  He sat in front of me, his head tilted, searching for the name he hadn't heard in months. "Tank," I whispered.  His tail swished. I kept whispering his name, over and over, and each time, his ears lowered, his eyes softened, and his posture relaxed as a wave of contentment just seemed to flood him.  I stroked his ears, rubbed his shoulders, buried my face into his scruff and hugged him.

"It's me now, Tank, just you and me.  Your old pal gave you to me."  Tank reached up and licked my cheek.
"So whatdasay we play some ball?"  His ears perked again.
"Yeah? Ball?  You likes that? Ball?"
Tank tore from my hands and disappeared into the next room.  And when he came back, he had three tennis balls in his mouth.


If you can read this without getting a lump in your throat or a tear in your eye, you just ain’t right. 

 "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
 ~ G.K. Chesterton

To ALL the veterans, I THANK YOU for your Service to our great County!!

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

I''m 73 and Tired

By  Robert A. Hall

Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard,  since I was 18.
Despite some health challenges, I still put in
50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in
seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but
I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I
worked to get where I am. Given the economy,
there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired.
Very tired.   

I'm tired  of being told
that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to
people too lazy to earn it.  

I'm tired   of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men
killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't
"believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari ???a law tells them to.  

I'm tired   of being told that, out of "tolerance for other cultures," we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund
mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America and Canada , while no American nor Canadian group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance..   

I'm tired   of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.

I'm tired   of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the
damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder uptheir noses while they tried to fight it off?  

I'm tired   of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes,
stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was  etting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.  

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the
government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems. 

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 73 . Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughters and grandsons. 
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served
five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Women Are Paid Less Than Men- -- Old Lies

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
We expect to hear a lot of lies during an election year, and this year is certainly no exception. What is surprising is how old some of these lies are, and how often they have been shown to be lies, years ago or even decades ago.
One of the oldest of these lies is that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. Like many other politically successful lies, it contains just enough of the truth to fool the gullible.
Women as a group do get paid less than men as a group. But not for doing the same work. Women average fewer annual hours of work than men. They work continuously for fewer years than men, since only women get pregnant, and most women are not prepared to instantly dump the baby on somebody else to raise.
Being a mother is not an incidental sideline, and being a single mother can be a major restriction on how much time can be put into a job, either in a year or over the years.
People like Hillary Clinton can simply grab a statistic about male-female income differences and run with it, since her purpose is not truth but votes. The real question however is whether, or to what extent, those income differences are due to employers paying women and men different wages for doing the very same jobs, for the very same amount of time.
We do not need to guess about such things. Many studies have been done over many years -- and they repeatedly show that women and men who work the very same hours in the very same jobs at the very same levels of skill and experience do not have the pay gaps that people like Hillary Clinton loudly denounce.
As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.
People who are looking for grievances are not going to be stopped by facts, especially if they are in politics. But where are our media pundits and our academic scholars? Mostly silent, either out of fear of being denounced as anti-women or because they have chosen to take sides rather than convey facts.
Nevertheless, there are enough scholars, including women economists, who have done enough honest studies over the years that there is no excuse for continuing to repeat a discredited lie, based on comparing apples and oranges. A book written by two women and titled "Women's Figures" shows the results when you compare women and men with comparable qualifications.
It is much the same story with black-white comparisons. More than 40 years ago, my own research turned up statistics on black and white professors who had Ph.D.s from equally high-ranked institutions in the same fields, and who had published the same number of articles.
When all these things were held constant, the black professors earned somewhat more than white professors. But, since all these things are not the same among black and white professors in general, there is a racial gap in pay that allows some to loudly denounce racial discrimination among academics.
Those who wish to check out my statistics can get a copy of my 1975 monograph, "Affirmative Action Reconsidered." It has not been updated because not all the same statistics will be released now. This is not unusual. Statistics that might undermine some other popular conclusions -- whether on affirmative action, global warming or whatever -- have been kept under wraps when other researchers tried to get them.
Too many people in the media and in academia abandon their roles as conduits for facts and take on the role of filterers of facts to promote social and political agendas.
In all too many educational institutions, from kindergartens to postgraduate university programs, students may never hear any facts that contradict the prevailing groupthink.
How many students taught by Keynesian economists will ever learn about the 1921 recession, when the Harding administration did nothing -- and unemployment dropped steeply as the economy recovered on its own?
There are many reasons why old lies, refuted long ago, are still heard every election year, and in all too many other years.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

E Pluribus Unum - America Under Attack From Within

Excerpts from George:

Sorry - no idea as to who George is but he does grasp the greatness of our Country and the danger of diversity that is pulling us apart.
  • We began with a Revolution and we did not execute the losers, those who supported the other side or who sat on the fence during that eight year struggle. Per capita it was the second most deadly war we have ever fought. Yet, when it ended we coalesced as a country. Check your history books to find another revolution that achieved such an outcome.  
  • We fought a civil war with over one million casualties and over a half a million killed, our highest casualty and killed rates of all our wars.  We not only survived as a nation but became an economic powerhouse and eventually a major world power.  We allowed the losing side to retain their personal weapons and reunited the union plus we ended slavery.
  • In WWII we not only fought a major two front war but, we were the economic and industrial engine that permitted the Allies victory.  Then, we rebuilt our enemies into thriving and co-operative nations, while claiming no territories.  No, perfection was not achieved but, there will never be perfection.  We in the spirit of "E Pluribus Unum" kept trying to make it better.
  • During the 1960's, we saw the first overt signs of divisiveness that would eventually collapse the motto that had been the backbone of our success.  it was a strange occurrence for at the same time there was a great civil rights surge to become more inclusive.
So where are we today?

"E Pluribus Unum begins at home in the family unit, with the dissolution of the family unit today on a grand scale and the emphasis on diversity being taught to our children in the public schools from K thru University --- reinforced by the Progressive Political Philosophy of the Democrat Party,  "E Pluribus Unum is rapidly disappearing not only as a motto but as the backbone of our strength as a nation.  Today,  through our misguided policies we have sacrificed unity and inclusivity at the alter of diversity. By segmenting our citizens into hyphenated groups we divide our loyalties, inclusivity and unity. The overbearing central government and the struggle for voting blocks by political parties have created the belief of self before country.  If this Progressive Diversity Philosophy continues  we will dissolve as a nation not from outside forces but from within.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

America At Its Worst

Alphabet Soup Corruption

Thursday, July 21, 2016
Name a government agency or cabinet, and chances are its reputation has nosedived since 2008.  A Pew poll, which has charted public trust in the federal government over some 57 years, hit a historic low last year, with only 19% expressing confidence in Washington. Despite President Obama’s campaign promises in 2008 to usher in a new era of accountability and transparency, formerly disinterested agencies have either been politicized to the point of corruption or rendered ineffective by the appointment of incompetent and politically driven directors.
The Hillary Clinton email scandal has tarnished the reputation of both the FBI and the Department of Justice for the foreseeable future. FBI Director James Comey concluded that his agency’s investigation of Clinton’s careless use of private emails to transmit confidential and classified communications on a private server likely led to security compromises, but that her actions were not a result of intentional wrongdoing—and thus not in his view prosecutable. However, the statutes in question do not require willful intent to break the law, only negligence (the causes of such dangerous carelessness are irrelevant).
Clinton’s conduct has been described as “extremely careless” and yet neither Comey nor progressive legal gymnasts have been able to explain why that’s not synonymous with the statute’s standard of “gross negligence” for indictments—as if the adverb “extremely” is not a synonym for the adjective “gross,” or the adjective “careless” is not equivalent to the noun “negligence.”
In other words, Comey laid out a case for wrongdoing but then erroneously reinterpreted the law to largely exonerate Clinton, the all but certain Democratic nominee for president. His conclusions followed the bizarre meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between the private jets of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. The two allegedly serendipitously met and yet ordered the private meeting to be kept from the media. Surely two Ivy League trained lawyers know that the spouse of someone under investigation does not consult privately with the principle prosecuting attorney in an ongoing case.
On the day of Comey’s announcement, Clinton was scheduled to campaign with President Obama, Lynch’s boss. And earlier, unnamed Clinton advisors had reported to The New York Times that Lynch would be welcome to stay on as Attorney General in Hillary Clinton’s envisioned administration—purportedly to “prioritize diversity.” The resulting incoherence of the FBI and numerous angles of conflict of interest in the Obama Department of Justice have nearly tarnished the reputations of both agencies. After all, ordinary Americans do not get away with having their spouses meet off the record with the principal district attorney about their ongoing exposure to tax evasion charges, or find exemptions on the grounds that their serial violations of statutes were supposedly without ill-intent, or, if in a possible position of superiority, promise to retain the prosecuting attorney at a future date.
Lynch, remember, replaced Attorney General Eric Holder, the first and only AG to be held in contempt by Congress. Holder was at the center of scandals, both personal and professional, ranging from the failed Fast and Furious gun-running sting operation to the unlawful use of a private government jet to junket family and friends to the Belmont Stakes horse race. He also dropped a voter intimidation case by the New Black Panther Party and made inflammatory statements such as referring to African-Americans as “my people” and deriding America as a “nation of cowards” for not framing racial issues in the manner Holder would have wished. To top it all off, toward the end of his time in DOJ, he was accused of improper and stealthy surveillance of Associated Press journalists. For her part, Lynch, when called to testify before Congress, on 74 occasions refused to answer questions concerning the administration decision not to pursue an indictment for Clinton’s likely violations of the Espionage Act.
The Internal Revenue Service is likewise now a tainted agency, having lost the public trust. In similar fashion to the Clinton email scandal, the FBI found that the IRS had mismanaged taxpayer accounts, but argued that the agency had no deliberate intent to break the law. Yet Lois Lerner, an IRS director of tax-exempt organizations, publicly confessed to targeting Tea Party groups and others deemed inordinately conservative. Lerner, who pled the Fifth Amendment before Congress and was held in contempt, was allowed to retire with full pension, after ensuring that several conservative grassroots organizations were denied tax-exempt status in the critical months before the 2012 presidential campaign.
It doesn’t stop there. The director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, stepped down shortly after Obama’s reelection, given that she belatedly admitted to using a false email alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct official EPA correspondence in a fashion that was not subject to public transparency. After pressure from congressional committees and the EPA’s own inspector general’s requirement for Jackson to produce some 12,000 “Richard Windsor” alias emails, Jackson resigned—and was almost immediately hired as an environmental consultant by Apple Inc.
The United States may not any longer have the capability to launch a rocket capable of sending men into space, but the National Aeronautical and Space Administration administrator Charles Bolden, shortly after assuming office, assured the public that among the agency’s foremost priorities would be “to reach out to the Muslim world . . . to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” Bolden is a decorated military officer, but he might have worried more about the underfunded and sclerotic NASA building rockets before he assured Al Jazeera that it will find ways to emphasize the historical scientific contributions of the Islamic world.
Gen. Eric Shinseki, who became a hero to the progressive anti-war movement for his congressional testimony during the Bush administration questioning troop levels, became Obama’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs. But the agency was quickly mired in scandals at the Veteran Health Administration, where critically ill veterans were not given prompt care, lives were needlessly lost, and records were doctored to cover up such incompetence. Like the IRS and the EPA, the VA also remains under a cloud of suspicion, well after Shinseki’s resignation.
Perhaps no agency has been rendered more suspect that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, largely because U.S. immigration enforcement for all practical purposes has been rendered null and void, and no longer can or will stop illegal immigration from crossing the southern border. The old reputations of the “Border Patrol” as a no-nonsense law enforcement agency that ensured foreign nationals entered the United States legally has been redefined by ICE as a sort of politicized facilitator of executive amnesties. Over 300 municipalities in multiple states have now declared themselves exempt from enforcement of federal immigration law, and ICE has agreed that it will allow such nullification of federal law and will not deport over one million illegal aliens who have been arrested and charged with or convicted of crimes.
The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Janet Napolitano admonished Americans that “terrorism” should be redefined as a “man-caused disaster” and counter-terrorism as an “overseas contingency operation,” while issuing a report warning that among our chief terrorist threats was not radical Islam, but right-wing extremism, especially among supposedly suspect returning war veterans. The agency proved inept in articulating and assessing the threat of Islamic terrorism following the Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando terrorist attacks. Just as the IRS seems more interested in pursuing conservative groups than tax-cheaters, so too does DHS seem more concerned with finding euphemisms for terrorist attacks to deflect responsibility away from radical Islamic terrorism. Certainly under the current Secretary Jeh Johnson, DHS does not see serious existential security challenges from either illegal immigration or radical Islamists, but rather seems more worried about the undue reactions of Americans to such perceived violations of the law and threats to their national security.
To the above alphabet scandals could be added the a number of scandals involving the Secret Service; the General Service Administration debacle of lavish conferences and unauthorized government junkets; the abrupt post-election resignation of CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus under mysterious circumstances; the likely forced resignation of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius after the promises of the Affordable Care Act proved fantasies and its website unworkable; and the diminution of National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who falsely assured the public on five Sunday morning news outlets that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were the fallout from an obscure video maker (subsequently jailed)—when both she and Secretary of State Clinton already knew that an al Qaeda affiliate was responsible for the killings and that such terrorism proved inconvenient to the pre-election narrative of an “al Qaeda on the run.”
What do all these scandal and embarrassments have in common? Aside from the fact that many appointees were selected based on their progressive bona fides and that they saw their missions to promote liberal causes, sometimes even at the cost of overriding their own agencies’ mandates, there was a widespread sense that the law simply did not apply to them. The President set the tone with a series of executive orders that overrode federal immigration law. He arbitrarily suspended some elements of the Affordable Care Act for fear that they would prove unpopular in the months before the 2012 election, and has bypassed congressional oversight and jurisdiction, whether by sidestepping the Senate’s ratification of treaties with the Iran deal or allowing the EPA to create new laws regulating coal plants and water standards that were never ratified by Congress.
The ensuing message was that social awareness, fairness, and egalitarianism trumped the rule of law. And the result was that an IRS director, a Secretary of State, an Attorney General, and a Department of Homeland Security Director were assessed not by whether they executed the law but by whether they promoted a progressive agenda.
The Obama administration in this regard was largely successful in warning conservatives that the government was not neutral, but now a force for social justice, led by a “pen and phone” president who was quite willing to reward friends and punish enemies, without much worries over the legal niceties involved. Given a largely obsequious media, it will take years to assess the full legacy of the Obama administration. But, eventually, historians will find that it marked one of the more politically driven, corrupt, and unconstitutional eras in the history of American governance.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Believeable? You Be The Judge

"FBI Director James Comey basically delivered a coded message to the American People and the world. He said...she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly should not be president and should be brought to justice ..however our country has been infiltrated and is basically corrupt!

Lynch and Obama made it clear to him...if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election...If....he then failed to get a conviction...he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison...

Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for indictment.

Also....The key is in what Comey said...80 email chains.....that means an exchange between people...Hillary sending AND if he charges Hillary he has to charge the others in the chain...what if the exchange is with is not a stretch to think the Sec of State would be in email contact with POTUS....Let’s just say...Bill went to Loretta and said shut this down...or else if Hillary is charged she will tell under oath that some of the emails were with the he is also guilty of a felony...THAT is IMPEACHABLE...the Republicans would go for it...the Dem would yell racism and the country erupts in violence......Lynch tells better watch it or you could be to blame for violence tearing this country part...what is he to do???...So Comey takes 20 minutes spelling out everything bad Hillary did....just like a trial in public.....then stops short to prevent any unrest......"