A year with Trump

Three more years to go and then the title will be “A full term in office for Trump.”  Would anyone like to wager whether that happens?  I’m thinking it will be amazing if he lasts that long.  He might get pushed out by Republicans, or impeached by Democrats, or he might just walk away to spend more time with his family.  Why anyone in the last years of their life would want to put up with the nuttiness that comes with being the President of the United States is beyond me.

At this point, it seems that Trump is content to fight back against those that would like to defeat him.  How long will he want to fight?  Why does he want to fight?  Will he continue to view everyone as a potential enemy?  Probably.  Will he continue to pick a fight with everyone?  Absolutely.  Will insiders continue to align with Trump’s real and imagined enemies?  Regrettably, that answer is also yes.

And, who are those insiders?  The Justice Department seems to be infested with insiders who work against Trump.  They appointed their own employees to investigate Trump and they chose people who actively worked to derail the election process.  Justice personnel covered up the crimes of one candidate and fabricated crimes about the other candidate, and they did this during the election.  And then, the Justice Department assigned these same people to investigate the very candidate they actively worked to defeat.

Many people cringed when Trump led campaign chants that called for Hillary to be locked up.  In America, we don’t jail opposition candidates or have them killed.  But, in America, we also don’t expect our justice system to choose sides.  Justice must be a non-partisan organization, and individually, its employees must also remain non-partisan.  It is clear that biased Justice employees thrived in an environment that was highly partisan.  How did an exception become the rule?

It is easy to blame the previous Justice leaders and supervisors.  In fact, who else can be blamed?  These biased high-level Justice Department personnel advanced to the upper levels through a largely non-competitive process.  Lower levels government positions are earned, but not the upper levels.  Upper-level personnel advance to their positions through political patronage and not merit, and this is not unique to the current or previous administration.  The Bush administration sent incompetent personnel to Iraq after it fell and Iraq is still dealing with the mistakes they made.

So, should Justice Department employees be screened against some standard of fairness?  Who would develop that standard and who would administer the test?  And, when the next administration assumes power will they create their own version of the test and eliminate personnel who don’t measure up to their standard of fairness?  I don’t think a standard is possible.  We are all human, and those that create a test are human, and that means even the best effort will result in a flawed product.  Personnel will incorrectly be screened out and some of those that should leave will probably be missed.

Donald Rumsfield said, “…you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”  We have a flawed Justice Department and we can accept that as a fact when it comes to low-level employees; however, those at the top need to be fired.  New leaders must change the biased culture of the Justice Department because the tone of the office environment is established by leaders, not the employees.

Wolfowitz is a putz

This guy is the worst.  I got to Baghdad just over a year after the attack on the Rashid Hotel; an attack that cost the life of Lt Col Charles Behring and injured over a dozen of fellow Americans.  You could still see where the rockets hit the side of the building.

Wolfowitz, like other members of the Bush administration, was an amateur and caused untold suffering on both sides of the conflict.  Can you imagine the humiliation the Iraqi people felt when “their White House” was occupied for years by U.S. led soldiers and trailers by the thousands were erected on the grounds behind it?  Saddam’s palace was the people’s palace and we treated it with contempt.

We lost thousands of Americans because of Wolfowitz, the American Ambassador John Bremer, and the other political appointees who created flawed policies.  We lost patriots who simply raised their right hands a vowed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  We spent our national treasure without a clear goal.

Americans can be proud of their warriors, but not its leaders.  It is ironic that Obama makes Bush look like a competent leader.  Obama is the worst of the worst.  Bush is second to the worst, but at least he erred on the side of America.  Obama errors on the side of America’s enemies.

CNN discussion of the attack on Wolfowitz’ hotel

Wolfowitz decides Hillary is the better of two evils

 

Donna Brazile’s recounting of the Democrat Party’s treatment of blacks is deluded

USA Today posted an opinion written by Donna Brazile.

Here is a link to the 24 August 2016 story: Donna Brazile: Trump’s pitch to blacks is deluded

Donna’s statements are in blue.  Reality check statements are in red.

Forsake a party that has welcomed us, given us voice and advanced our interests?

The Democrat Party only welcomed blacks after the party stopped lynching blacks, stopped preventing blacks from voting, and stopped supporting segregation.  Many members of Congress were black soon after the Civil War and all of them were Republicans.  When those representatives were driven from office by the Democrat Party, blacks lost their voices and their interests could no longer be advanced by blacks.

For over 40 years, the Democratic Party has been my home. And it has been home to the vast majority of black voters in increasing numbers since the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and going back even further to the New Deal and earlier.

Black voters increased in numbers after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the objections of many Democrats; one in three Democrats voted no.  Democratic senators Byrd, Gore, Russell, and Thurmond filibustered against the act.  Richard Russell led the filibuster saying, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”  And, isn’t it telling that Brazile ran Al Gore Jr’s 2000 presidential campaign?  Brazile is well aware that democrats kept her parents and grandparents from voting and she still chose to support the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party would have been the natural home of black voters, but it was the GOP that turned away from us.

Really?  Which party put sheets over their heads and slaughtered blacks by the thousands?  GOP?  No.  The Democrat Party looked the other way while its members terrorized blacks.

And at the height of the civil rights struggle, President Lyndon Johnson made a conscious decision to fully commit the Democratic Party to the cause of equality for African Americans, even though he knew that would cost the Democrats the South — and many elections — for at least a generation.

Brazile got this one right.  President Kennedy and his brother Bobby were not civil rights champions until just before Kennedy was elected president.  It was Bobby who authorized wire taps on Martin Luther King Jr.’s phone and allowed the FBI director to continue to harass civil rights leaders.  Would you believe that Bobby Kennedy was an intern for Joseph McCarthy as McCarthy ruined the careers of many Americans?  Johnson used President Kennedy’s death to push the civil rights agenda through Congress and signed the act just 7 months after Kennedy was assassinated. 

Does anyone even know that Martin Luther King Sr. was a Republican?  Brazile knows.  She knows that if the truth about the Democrat Party is told, she will lose the source of her power and influence.  Brazile knowingly tows the part line.  Her actions are analogous to slave overseers who tortured and punished fellow slaves at the behest of slave owners.

It is time for all voters to educate themselves.  Voters need to decide whether Democrats are different from Republicans and what actions need to be taken when that decision has been made.  This activist has made his choice.  I wish Bruce Carter success as he pushes against the party of slavery.

Stand by your man, as long as he puts money in your pocket

Bill Hillary and TammyMost of us first heard of the Clintons when they began their race to the White House.  In 1992 they gave their first interview to 60 Minutes and she let everyone see a little of the darkness inside her heart.  When Hillary said, “I’m not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” she let us know she was different.  Hillary didn’t just sit next to “her man,” Hillary began destroying women who had anything to do with “her man.”

Hillary’s path of destruction widened when her power and influence increased over the years.  She left a trail of destroyed lives, some literally dead, and some who wondered how their lives could have veered so far from normal.  It turns out Hillary doesn’t just have an enthusiasm for destroying women who turn Bill’s eye, Hillary has a quest for money and power that has no limit.

When she lost to Obama, she was given the keys to the State Department and she became its queen.  Rules did not apply to her.  America’s policy were not her policies unless there was something in it for her.  There were hints all along, but the news is beginning to flood over all of us, and the news is not just from the “Great Right Wing Conspiracy” news organizations Hillary feared back in the 90’s.  All the news organizations have begun spilling the beans.

Hillary has always been corrupt.  She has always been ruthless.  She has always been shielded by news organizations.  Hillary will never change her stripes, but those who shielded Hillary seem to have lost their will to do so.

Nobody would accuse the AP of leaning toward the right.  Here is an article three years in the making:  Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

 

This nightmare just won’t go away

 

Screen Shot 2016-07-17 at 7.13.34 AM

Hillary advertisement on Washington Post pro-Hillary article

 

The Washington Post famously broke the story about the Watergate Hotel break in and soon Richard Nixon was out of office.  One of the members of the team investigating Nixon was Hillary.  And, Carl Bernstein was one of the Washington Post reporters who uncovered much of what we know about Watergate.  He is quoted in this fluff piece.

How things have changed.  Hillary is one of the most corrupt politicians of our time and the same newspaper that dethroned a despotic sitting president is helping elect a despotic presidential candidate.

For good measure, the Washington Post has three articles bashing Hillary’s opponent on the same page.  The background is white, but this is clearly yellow journalism.

The electorate does not have a real choice, but certainly, certainly, news organizations don’t have to stoop the the level of the candidates.  Tell the truth–don’t manufacture it.

via Hillary Clinton, the candidate we know so well — and don’t – The Washington Post

Has the world gone mad?

imageMaybe she can be forgiven for having an extra glass of wine and falling asleep during Obama’s State of the Union speech to Congress.  It was a snoozer even without alcohol.  But I assume Justice Ginsburg was sober and awake when she attacked a presidential candidate twice this past week.  Really?  A supposedly nonpartisan body of government should not get involved in a blatantly partisan body of government.  These are the guidelines all third graders learn about when they are introduced to our form of government.

The Chicago Tribune said “I Cannot see any possible defense of what Ginsburg did, given that she violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Supreme Court Justices are not strictly bound by that code, but they nonetheless act as exemplars for the rest of the judiciary, and this canon seems pretty important.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-ginsburg-scalia-trump-clinton-judicial-ethics-0712-jm-20160711-story.html.

The many lawsuits winding through the court system might end up in front of the Supreme Court and this candidate is involved in many of them.  The Supreme Court must maintain at least the appearance of impartiality.  This Justice has publicly  tainted herself.  Maybe she knows she will leave the bench before any of Trump’s cases could be argued before the Supreme Court.  But, we might need the Supreme Court to step into the election process.  Hopefully she skips the second glass of wine before she puts on her robe.

Updated.  The answer is yes.  The world has gone mad.  The NY Times agrees with me?  It is a mad, mad world.

“And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?”

I wonder if the NY Times is reading this blog.  Just joking.  That would be silly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=2

Updated again.  Ginsburg walks back her comments.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office,” she wrote in a brief statement issued by the court, admitting her remarks were “ill advised” and expressing regret. “In the future I will be more circumspect.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html