In the political run up to the Republican nomination for President of the USA, the nation is witnessing the awesome display of talented and able people who identify themselves as Republican. Is this significant
Category: Uncategorized
2nd GOP Debate, Donald Trump and Rand Raul
Well, I think we can all agree that it was not a debate. I think that we can also agree that the CNN people wanted to focus on Donald Trump and Carly Fiorino. Interesting, that Mr. Trump was quoted as saying that he thought it unfair to the other candidates to give him so much attention at their expense. Bravo, Donald. And I guess it is fair game that Mr. Trump attacked Senator Paul because Senator Paul broadcast in his blog that he intended to blast Mr. Trump. However, the candidates and the media need to focus on substance and not entertainment.
In this area I believe that Senator Rand Paul is the clear winner. He has a cohesive and comprehensive plan for the USA. He is a man who has already defined the issues. This can be seen by the many candidates who are copying Senator Paul’s statements about marijuana convictions, about Syria and the need to stop arming rebels against the legitimate government of Syria, and about the Federal Reserve and lack of transparency. Senator Paul is popular among his fellow Senators because he has clear ideas and does not attack and besmirch the intentions of his fellow senators. Rand Paul is quiet and not flashy which is something media commentators dislike. They want flash and fire because it is good television. Senator Paul prefers quiet, rational, and reasonable conversation in order to bring about change and not merely to sell himself as an entertaining personality.
Senator Paul and many of the candidate put out their own information through the Internet. This is really great. I subscribe to all of them. Yes, that means they also email me for money. That’s okay. It is what they are supposed to do. How else are they going to get the millions of dollars it costs citizens who want to help their county? But it is a very good way to hear what each candidate wants to say without the filter of the media.
Russia is not our Enemy.
In a previous Post I said this:
In the days before the UN resolution authorizing the no fly zone in Libya, the Russian Foreign minister stated that if the USA pursued the no fly zone concept as regards Libya, the Russians would veto it in the Security Council. Instead, the Russians merely abstained. However, soon after the NATO aggression against Libya began, Putin stated that the attacks against Libya were barbaric and reminiscent of the Crusades. However, the President of Russia disagreed and Putin shut up. It is noteworthy that Secretary Gates visited Russia before the UN resolution. It is frightening to think that the world may need to depend upon Russia and a veto in the UN Security Council for protection of the rights of sovereign States. After all, it was the Russians who after WW II were the criminal aggressors against Poland, Czech, etc. All during those terrible Cold War years the USA constantly invoked the concept of the Sovereign Nation State in order to counter the criminal occupation of the Eastern Block nations. However, now the USA under Obama’s New World Order ideas, is the aggressor and maybe occupier of another sovereign nation! Russia has murmured on the side lines since Putin was forced to shut up. However, the future of the free world may depend upon a former communist dictatorship and not in the USA. It seems like the Pres. and the Admin. are willing to bomb and destroy the armed forces of another country all the while declaring that the bombs and cruise missiles and other brutal military weapons are the agents of peace and harmony protecting the so called civilians from bad bad Gaddalfi.
Today (Oct, 2015) we witness another in the strange interpretation of the world put forward by the Obama administration. In the past few weeks, the Russians have send military supplies, weapons and ammunition to the Assad government of Syria. Please note, that this is a legal government to legal government transfer of assets. While people may not like either Assad or Putin, they are the legal leaders of their sovereign nations. Both nations are recognized by at least 105 nations as legal governments. Both are full member nations of the United Nations. However, the Obama government states that supplying the Assad government with the ability to defend itself against terrorist ISIS and US backed insurrectionists is illegal.
However, the USA finds nothing wrong with arming, supplying, training and providing millions of dollars to hundreds of insurrectionists. Please note, that if a person is armed and proposes to lead an insurrection against the Obama government in the USA, that person will be arrested and if found guilty, is liable to execution. If that same person is employed by a foreign government to overthrow the Obama administration, he is called a State terrorist. If he is a free lance US citizen attempting to overthrow the US government, he is a traitor. But, according to the Obama government, none of this applies to those we use to overthrow the Assad government.
Today this author read the responses of Marco Rubio and Caryl Fiorino to the Russian airforce warning to USA air planes over Syria to not interfere with them. The USA planes have been bombing Syria for months. The claim is that our bombing is okay because we are only bombing ISIS and have the permission of the Assad government. (Strange that we use the approval of the Assad government to defend ourselves against charges of criminal aggression!) Anyway, Rubio, and Fiorino think that we should tell the Russians that there are serious repercussions including our shooting at their planes because they warned us to stay away as they bomb ISIS. I hope they and Ted Cruz are not suggesting that we fire against Russian military jets operating over Syrian airspace with the Assad government’s permission. Such an action would clearly be an act of war and indicates that we are willing to fight the Russians as they attempt to destroy ISIS.
Have we forgotten that by jet we are fourteen hours away from Syria? Have we forgotten that Russia has a treaty of mutual assistance with Syria? Have we forgotten that Russia is a hugely powerful nuclear weapon-ed nation?
This writer exposed the danger of the so called Arab Spring proposed by Obama. Since then we have suffered through our acts of criminal aggression against Libya. We have witnessed our subversive covert operations in Egypt toppling our ally Mubarak and installing a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist leader in his place. We agonized over the attack on our embassy in Benghazi and the murder of ambassador Stevens. During all this time the Obama government has persisted in its supply, funding, and training of insurrectionists in Syria. ISIS has risen although the Obama government insists on the name ISIL which is a tacit approval of their legitimacy as a government. This ISIS is now being rumored to be an undercover agency of the French, British, and American governments as they attempt to reassert European colonial imperialism in the Middle East.
By the way, did you read that USA is supplying weapons, training anti aircraft and anti missile defense systems to Ukraine? Whatever you think of problems between Ukraine and Russia, please consider that our actions there are the same as Khrushchev supplying missiles to Castro. It is the same as IF the Russians supplied the same weapons to Mexico and aimed them at us.
The only person who is talking reasonably is Senator Rand Paul. He wants the USA to stop interfering in the internal affairs of independent sovereign nations. He wants us to allow people within a region to determine their own affairs. He wants us to stop beating the drums of war every time we are opposed by anyone. He wants us to use the power of diplomacy and meaningful cooperation and collaboration to solve the problems that occur. He does not want the US government to fall victim to a man versus man contest between Obama’s pride and Putin’s pride. When he says this he is talking from a position of strength because he will not equivocate and cave in at every opportunity. Rather, he will stand fast and use what we must, but only if it is absolutely a “must” situation.
Speaker John Boehner Resigned, He was not Ousted.
In a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio show dated Sept 28th, 2016, Mr. Limbaugh says that John Boehner was ousted from the third most powerful position in the United States. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Boehner, according to the US Constitution, was third in line of succession to the Presidency.
The cause for the Speaker to resign was not stated by the Mr. Boehner. But the headline to Rush Limbaugh’s transcript is that the third most powerful man in America was ousted by forces lead by Senator Ted Cruz. According to this theory, Senator Ted Cruz was an instigator and advocate for conservative Republican congressmen to consistently and persistently oppose Speaker Boehner’s leadership. He did this, according to Limbaugh, because Senator Cruz had no support for his conservative views among fellow senators. Therefore, he decided to go to the other house, Mr. Boehner’s house, and spoil it.
The quote from the transcript is the following:
“The point is, Ted Cruz was aware of all this, and he decided there was no way since he was so vastly outnumbered in the Senate, that what he instead did was to work with the conservative members in the House to strengthen them, to focus them. Not that they needed it, but just to form some unity and have a coordinated effort that was aimed at Boehner’s resignation, since Cruz was not gonna be able to engineer a similar thing in the Senate because he was basically a party of one.”
The transcript relates how Mr. Limbaugh rationalizes all of this as being a good thing. He has his opinion. Why not, he gets paid millions of dollars to tell us what he thinks. But if he is correct in his opinion of this event, I do not see it as credit to Senator Cruz but a shame. I guess you could credit Cruz with being savvy in understanding, as Limbaugh says, that in the Senate he is a party of one among 100 elected Senators. I guess you could praise him for being smart enough to know that he could gather the discontented, unhappy, miserable conservative congressmen who did not like Speaker Boehner and form them into a focused, united group of mostly freshmen congressmen who in their disgruntlement could work in a coordinated effort to oust the Speaker. I guess you can compliment him for subverting the office of Speaker of the House of Representative instead of fighting and winning better credibility in his own house, the Senate. But if Mr. Limbaugh is correct and according to the transcript, ” So there’s any number of people who you might…if you want to consider this in a doling-out-of-credit sense, Cruz is right there at the top.”
All of us wonder about the resignation of Speaker Boehner. He also will not stand for election to his congressional seat. He is retiring. It seems to me that there was a day not long ago when powerful forces were in motion to do something or other. The accomplishment of it, back then, may have involved the resignation or the retirement of some powerful person. However, I seem to remember, that there was a sense of grace and largeness on the part of the winners over the vanquished. It may have been called, back then, a sense of class or classiness. The winners were the first ones to come out and congratulate the defeated with words of praise for their service, and with a reminder of their many accomplishments and the excellence of their career and the honorable and praiseworthy things for which they stood. But according to Mr. Limbaugh, this sense of class and honorable victory is not true of the Value Voter’s Summit in Washington (DC) where, as Limbaugh states, (Senator Rubio is speaking) and says: …Just a few minutes ago Speaker Boehner announced that he will be resigning..AUDIENCE (wild Applause) Rush: Now, that (applause) went on and on and on. It was over the top. And this was something that a number of people have been attempting to make happen for months now going into years.
This writer is aware of the advertisements on Facebook and Internet to get rid of Speaker Boehner. I have always wondered who these disgruntled and discontented people were. I even imagined that the advertisements were planted by Democrats to defeat the Republicans. Now, I know that it is something (as Limbaugh states) ” a number of people have been attempting to do for years.” Really!? Is there a secret group of political outsiders trying to subvert the political process? Were there powerful people, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Senator Cruz, trying to revolt and oust the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am not one of them. In fact, I get very nervous around discontented, disgruntled, malcontents who are in positions of power and are fighting against their fellows who are in positions of power.
Are they so sure that they would do a better job? Are they so sure that if their man gets the power he will not use that power against the revolutionaries who put him or her there? Do they want the power for themselves? Are they willing to blame the so called leadership for their own inability to cooperate and focus on passing meaningful solutions to the nation’s problems- preferring to blame, as Mr. Limbaugh does, ” The …insider class, or ruling class or whatever you call it elite mind-set.” I wonder about people who are willing to subvert and collaborate in a focused, united, cooperative campaign against someone else, are they going to be better or worse than those they ousted? After all, they got to the top by subverting the authority of those they replaced. They can expect the same for themselves, unless they are the first to attack and remove the attackers.
Limbaugh goes on to state his agenda for the ouster of Majority Leader McConnell. He uses a quote from somebody else to hide behind, Gerald Selb, of the Wall Street Journal, who claims that the so called Tea Party forces are increasing their power and loosening the Republican (so called) establishment’s grip. So, after all, this transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show is actually a self proclaimed testimonial to Rush Limbuagh’s success at fostering the take over of the Republican party by his brand of conservatives?
New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive
It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant. To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect. The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies. Further, non enforcement of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother. It denies their rights as a living human being. Even worse, it allows that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing. While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.
Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill. They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies. So what.! To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.
Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)
The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO
Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)
The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO
Donald Trump?
“People respond to Donald Trump because he has tapped the anger that people are feeling about their leaders.” These are the words of a good friend of mine with extensive USA travel experience and a very large client list. He then said, “But I feel that Trump will prove to be someone who is really not to be taken seriously as a candidate for President, no matter his polling numbers.” I asked him why he felt that way? He replied that he thought people were reacting emotionally and sensationally to “The Donald” because they are very frustrated with their elected officials who they feel do not care about them. Somehow, Mr. Trump has convinced some people that he cares about them…it is something personal..something visceral… He continued that in the end they will realize that the billionaire Trump cares very little about them and a very lot about himself.
This writer is also amazed that Mr. Trump is given any credibility. However, there seem to be thousands who are chanting that they want him to be the Republican nominee for President. But, there are many others who sincerely doubt if Mr. Trump is a sincerely Republican candidate. For them, he is a phony candidate seeking to divide the Republican party in order to insure that the wife of his friend wins the election. Yesterday, a friend of mine who has a small plumbing business said that many of his customers are enjoying the entertaining ways of Mr. Trump, but they quickly follow that with their opinion that he will not be able to just “fire” the Congress, the Supreme Court and just about anybody who disagrees with him.
Sadly, his popularity and media depiction as a super mogul is detracting from real discussion and honest intellectual debate. The debate on the topics that are angering Americans should be presented in the public square. This presentation needs to be civil, courteous, and without slogans or cute but meaningless sound bites. Sound bites might curry the favor of the angry and disillusioned but they do not present any meaningful plan to address the real problems we are experiencing today.
Do We Really Understand the Impact of our Presence?
Think of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, and places like that. Maybe you have traveled and been to some of these countries. I have been to several. Well, not to the whole country, but to a tiny part of them that is reserved for the tourist trade. I was in part of Egypt, Syria and Israel in 1971. I was in Morocco in 2013. Nice places to visit, but to me they were very different culturally, ethnically and in terms of religion. Frankly, I admit that I was merely a tourist, and my exposure to the people and their world was miniscule.
So what do we think we are doing when we bring the massive United States military into a country and topple their government (Iraq and Libya) or attack their leadership, (Egypt, Somalia)? This writer suggests that we are bringing instability and rapid change, (too rapid) to areas of the world very much different than our own. Face it, the USA is comprised of people of European ancestry, Western culture and traditions and Jewish or Christian religion. When we enter the countries listed, we bring into these places the impact of that ancestry.
Is our bringing our ancestry and all its parts a bad thing? No, it is not! However, ponder if it is a bad thing when it comes uninvited, under the flag of war and with the power of bombs and boots. For my part, I think that the impact of our forced entry into South West Asia, (I think that is the official geographical designation of the area) is unnecessary turmoil, too rapid change and fear. Fear? Afraid of the USA? How can someone say such a thing? We are not a people to be feared.
Agreed, Americans are a wonderful people. They are not fearsome nor should anyone be afraid of us. However, America is the greatest military, economic and industrial nation of the world and our bombs and boots are to be feared. Afraid of our military? Yes, and it should be so because ours is the mightiest and most effective military in the world. However, we really do not intend, at least at the level of the rank and file, to destroy and dominate the world. Nonetheless, our military does destroy and it does dominate. It is what the military does.
America is the greatest, free democracy on planet earth. We are truly an exceptional nation. We are an exceptional people. All things being equal, I believe that the vast majority of people on our planet would like to be like us, enjoy the blessings that we have been given, and live in peace and freedom, as we do. Maybe it is time for us to forget the Post WW II decision that we are the sole defenders of freedom and democracy. Maybe it is time for us to forget the Cold War decision that we are the last and best hope against international communism. Maybe it is time to simply be proud of who we are, of what we have accomplished and to offer our example to a world that very much wants to be like us.
Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?
John Boehner is not a Coward
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/hannity-rips-cowardly-boehner-being-145947372.html
Mr. Hannity is a Gruber. He started the show with the obvious intention to attack Speaker Boehner. He then proceeded to tell each guest that Speaker Boehner was wrong to work toward a budget. Mr. Hannity said that he believed the House of Representatives could have gone with a Continuing Resolution (CR) which would put them into the New Year when they would have super majorities in both Houses. However, Mr. Hannity did not explain what Hannity would do about balking Democrats and rebellious Tea Party Conservatives. He also did not explain how putting off the budget deal would have better served the nation. He seemed to think that the only reason the Republicans had a majority was to defeat Democrats and thwart President Obama. It seemed to this writter that Mr. Hannity proposed a totally partisan answer to the budget without regard for Democrats. However, this writer thinks that a key message from the 2014 election was to get Congress working again and not to merely promote a Conservative Republican political agenda.
It is impossible for anyone to describe this episode of Hannity as “fair and balanced.” It was a small minded intolerant attack on the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was personal and Mr. Hannity made no apologies for the “mano y Mano” nature of his assault. But is it really fair to attack Speaker in this way? The speaker was not there to defend himself and as a public official he has very little recourse for an answer. For the Speaker of the House of Representatives to directly answer Mr. Hannity would be to give Hannity way too much respect. This is especially true since Sean Hannity acted so disrespectully toward John Boehner by never addresing his comments to the “Speaker”. Instead, he preferred to use the dismissive title “Boehner”. But in references to Rep. Pelosi, he called her by her first and last name.
Does anyone need to even honor Mr. Hannity’s insulting use of the word “coward” or “cowardly”? Such comments by Mr. Hannity should be rejected and this viewer thinks that an apology is required.
All the guests on Hannity were partisans and could be expected to agreed with Sean, and they did. The one guest to disagree was Mr. Karl Rove, who was cut off by what (I hope) was a hard commercial break and not Mr. Hannity’s control board?!
One last word from here; Mr. Hannity accused Speaker Boehner, who is third in line to the Presidency, of being a Gruber. This reference to thinking that you could fool the American people because they are stupid, is more true of Mr. Hannity than Speaker Boehner. Mr. Hannity seems to feel that he can come on the TV, attack the Speaker of the House of Representatives as a coward, as acting cowardly and of being a Gruber. Well, Hannity can do that but at the risk of infuriating his viewers and of tarnishing the reputation of the news network for which he works. He further hurts himself because its shows his personal and passionate dislike for Mr. John Boehner. At the least, Mr. Sean Hannity should stop such shameful treatment of Speaker. Maybe all future reporting on the Speaker should be handled by someone else.
Ohio Law Second in a Popular Revolt Against Tyranical Unions
The Ohio statue for limiting the negotiation privileges of Public Employee Unions is the second in a popular and publicly supported wave for Responsible Government. The problem with having Unions for government employees is that the Unions apply their money to the support of candidates that favor them. This results in a closed and circular system. The Unions automatically support Democrat candidates who in turn are obligated to support Unions. This means that an agency of government is obligated to support a fraction of the population ad versus the rest of the non unionized population. The result is a prejudice against the non unionized in favor of the unionized. This prejudice uses favorable actions of the Executive and legislative branch to singularly favor unions and thereby exclude the majority population which is non union. This prejudice of the government in favor of the unionized means that the majority… |
View original post 153 more words
Progressive Politics 