Trump to create secret spy network that answers to POTUS and CIA Director Pompeo

December 6, 2017

Secret Spy Network created to protect and report directly to President Trump and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.  

Will this network serve America or an individual? 

Is there a danger of this network going rogue and loyal to President Trump only?

_________________________________________________________________

The scary answer to the above questions is "possibly."

There was a recent article written in The Intercept by Matthew Cole and renowned war reporter Jeremy Scahill, who wrote a book on private security firm Blackwater (since disbanded).  It makes sense that Scahill would be involved with this article. He is a self-pronounced expert on the former Blackwater firm and its founder, former Navy Seal Erik Prince (whose sister is the current Department of Education Secretary in the Trump cabinet).  Mr. Prince now runs a consulting firm from Hong Kong, with a Chinese firm providing a partial equity stake in the company.  Additionally, the former intelligence official, and disgraced Reagan administration official Oliver North is a consultant for this plan, which makes me believe this is more than a benign idea. This network would not be required to share their information with the wider U.S. intelligence community.  I would hope this new group is not going to move forward with regard to this type of selfishness, because not sharing information between law enforcement and spy services led to a collapse of necessary information which eventually led to Al Qaeda operatives attacked the United States on September 11th.  It would be very sad for this secret unchecked network to form and operate, which would mean as a country, those elected to serve and protect the nation have not learned a single thing.  Additionally, this secret network would not adhere to the Constitution and serve an individual rather than the nation.

This new idea by White House staff is a dangerous path that the country is being led down to.  I am not sure why Republicans would want to go along with this.  What happens when a Democrat retakes the White House?  Will the GOP go along with this now that the opposition has access to its own secret intelligence group? The authors at The Intercept sought on the record affirmation, but sources told the authors that there is no concrete support for this plan, although investigative questions asked to the National Security Council denied any such plan.  There is no real definitive proof either way that this plan is going forward.  Although, with the involvement of Erik Prince (and his former associate and CIA veteran John McGuire), who has operated a private security force since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, my hunch is that he would run the secret intelligence group.

The Trump White House does not operate under the parameters of previous administrations. This idea would seem to have merit, once one looks back on the previous year of President Trump's policies and methods.

I am very troubled by this issue.  Since America is a very divided country, and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political spectrum create wildly inaccurate ideas that have no merit, there is no way to determine how this secret group will function.  I am worried that this secret group will spy on Americans and members of the "official" intelligence community.  Since President Trump is a paranoid and insecure man, the idea of this rogue intelligence group is something I feel he will get behind.  No telling what this group, and the intelligence apparatus that serves in a legitimate capacity for Congress and the White House do if there are two different conclusions regarding a serious foreign policy crisis.  If the White House tells the press that there was no rendition of a suspected terrorist in a country that will not allow extraction and the secret intelligence group that is authorized by Trump administration to go ahead and gets that individual out of that country.  That could cause a massive crisis, and might affect serious blowback that will harm Americans throughout the world and inside the United States.

The Intercept article goes on to state countries where Erik Prince's security firm already operates, which include Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt and part of the African continent.  Prince prefers to operate with vague contracts that include plausible deniability, according to the authors (Cole and Scahill).  If there are two intelligence services operating throughout the world, one official and the other rogue, it will lead to massive problems for the reputation of the United States with its allies and will be used against it by its enemies, notably Russia and China's intelligence operations.

This idea is not going to be a good initiative for the foreign policy of the United States.  The country is already divided, and this will exacerbate tensions between Democrats and Republicans, and members of the State Department, the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.  I sincerely hope that Congress does its job and investigate whether this plan is just a pipe dream or a dangerous idea that is taking flight.  It will cause problems and expedite the dangerous tensions that are simmering within the populace.  If the Mueller investigation does not yield the results that Democrats are hoping for, the Republicans will feel that it was nothing more than a political witch hunt, and they might be open to having President Trump to operate outside the parameters of Congress.  The future of the country hangs in the balance.  I pray President Trump does not move forward with this dangerous idea.

Has feminism turned into "Feminism, Inc.?"

November 23, 2017


Has modern "feminism" been removed from its earnest beginnings, and is now a corporate and hypocritical behemoth?

___________________

Feminism is promoted as a movement for equality since its early beginnings with the Suffragettes in Seneca Falls, NY.  At that time, women were fighting for the right to vote and have an equal stake in the civic duty of all Americans.  After that victory, there were more fights relating to sexual harassment (which is making the news now because of Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Lauer etc).  Getting rid of hostile workplaces is a good thing, and hopefully, things will improve to the point it will be rare.  Women can make claims that will be investigated and those who are proven guilty will pay a heavy price.  I believe this is progress and that no woman will have to endure what those women who made claims against Harvey Weinstein.

However, on a political level, I think feminism is transforming into a corporate movement.  For one, it seems to me that now feminism is moving toward financial gain.  For instance, the "equal pay for equal work" language is now popular parlance for every issue.  There is already in place a federal law that states it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for salary based on gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. So, what does the "equal pay for equal work" mean?  To me, it is essentially the same thing, but for some reason, the Democrats and women's rights groups say that it needs to be in place. Is redundancy now an official position for women?  It does not change the current law throughout the country.  So, what is the main point of this agenda?

I think this is a political tool that tugs at the sense of "grievance" that certain liberal women hold. Why? Both the Democratic and Republican parties have focus groups and meetings with consultants to gauge what issues they can use to rally their base.  For the Democrats, single women are one of the largest group of voters that help them win elections (along with African-Americans, Millenials and a small share of white men).  For Republicans, older white conservatives, military veterans and large swaths of Christian evangelicals are the groups they target to win over voters. In order to keep that group happy, the Democrats need to create issues like the "War on Women," where the issue is framed that Republicans want to ban abortions for women who want or need them and protect companies and religious groups that do not want to cover birth control for their employees.

For the upcoming elections in 2018 and eventually the 2020 presidential campaigns, the Democrats will use the sexual harassment and assault allegations as a weaponized tool to force the party to favor women candidates and accuse those within the party and local officials of not "supporting women," or "don't want to see women succeed."  These are dangerous games the Democratic party is playing with the country.  Identity politics can only go so far, and it can be like Frankenstein's Monster, whereby the monster that was created (in this case, Identity Politics) will eventually turn on its creator.  The same thing will happen to Republicans, who are so dependent on their evangelical base that the GOP will see their own insurgency amongst the base they pander to (Trump was the first salvo in this war for the Republican party's soul).

For the Democrats, it will be more difficult to control the various factions within their party, especially the women's activist and rights groups who want to see more women run for Congress and the White House.  For the 2020 election, the high-dollar and powerful donors have already anointed Senator Kamala Harris (D-Ca) as President Obama's heir apparent. She is intelligent, biracial (black and South Asian) and a woman.  It is the perfect trifecta the Democratic party will hurl toward an unpopular GOP incumbent, one who brings out the hysterical in many Democrats and their party leadership.  Will this prove to be a good strategy? Who knows?  I doubt Trump will lose too many followers.  It seems that women who voted for President Trump will still vote for him so this pandering to women by Democrats may not be the best strategy.  Nonetheless, the party will try to work women into a lather by promoting certain policies.

I think that Democrats are hell-bent on running a woman because they have made many promises to the large segment of women voters in their party. Hillary Clinton was that promise, and it was a massive shock to the party that they did not get what they promised to those targeted voters.  So, what is next?  Here are the proposals I think the Democrats are planning for 2018 and 2020, geared toward the Feminism, Inc. (to turn envy and entitlement into a profit):

1. Use the current sexual assault/harassment in Hollywood, media, and Capitol Hill to push for more women in Congress (which is a good thing, but it should be based policies that benefit all Americans, and not geared to one gender under identity politics)
2. With the recent Matt Lauer sexual assault/harassment crisis front and center in the news, use that to force NBC News to have more women in power, and fire as many men associated with Matt Lauer, otherwise the lawsuits will drain Comcast (NBC parent) of its stock price and profits (this has nothing to do with envy, but more so profit for Feminism, Inc.).
3. Use the Lauer issue as a conduit for a (possible) Democratic control of both houses to pass legislation so that it would be legal for companies to hire more women (even though that would conflict with the current law that makes it illegal for companies to discriminate against anyone based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

I agree that it is a good thing to have people get paid close to what their peers make, but it needs to be nuanced.  When companies hire new staff, they base their salary offers on what work experience a person has, plus their educational qualifications.  It is very rare for any two people performing the same job to have the exact work history and educational experience.  While paying people the exact same wage is noble, the question becomes who do you promote if two people are getting paid the exact same wage for the same job?  It becomes a subjective decision and one that has no good outcome. So, while I agree that salary parity is a noble goal, the realities of the workplace is that a diverse employee pool will have diverse characteristics for its employees.  I do not think pandering to women will create a better work environment. In fact, it will create the opposite, a hostile work environment where men and women are more concerned as to who is getting paid more, rather than focusing on why they are working in the first place.

Robert Mueller Indictments: Is Paul Manafort the bait for the Big Fish (a.k. Donald Trump)?

Monday

November 7, 2017

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's Investigation for Russian Collusion 

________________

On October 30th, Independent Counsel Robert Mueller released the highly anticipated set of people who were arrested and charged with various crimes, per the announcement over the weekend.  The first set of targets were Paul Manafort and his business partner, Rick Gates, who were charged with tax evasion and money laundering. I am sure meetings with Russian contacts will be part of pre-trial hearings. Based on what I observed during the campaign, it appeared that several members of President Trump's inner circle, including his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, played a central role in trying to get opposition information about Hillary Clinton through Russian intermediaries.  So why are Manafort and his associates the only related campaign staff who have been indicted?  My guess is that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III is using Manafort to spill the beans on what he knew, and where the proverbial bodies are buried.

As campaign chair, Paul Manafort was the nerve center for Donald Trump's wacky candidacy for President of the United States.  He ran the operation and worked with supporters and others to craft his message and try to find a weakness for the Democratic nominee.  Plus, he had the ear of Trump until his family forced Manafort out midway through the campaign. Perhaps being pushed out by Ivanka and Jared will allow him to spill the beans on what he knew about the inner workings of the campaign and its alleged relationship with Vladimir Putin and his cronies.  If that is the case, then President Trump should be worried, especially if the rumors about Russian assistance prove to be true.

However, the hysteria by Democrats and members of the extreme left should be met with caution.  There could be bodies that are buried and treasonous meetings with supporters of the Kremlin, but at the same time, those rabid voices need to be tempered with the thought that nothing could come out of this.  The calls for impeachment need to be careful and met with sound evidence.  If a Democratic-controlled Congress tries to impeach President Trump, and the Mueller investigations prove no concrete collusion, then the circus that will be a Democratic chorus could backfire before the 2020 Presidential elections and cause serious problems for the unity of the country.  Impeachment proceedings that are "must-see" TV that does not present evidence or proof, but goes with hearsay, will cause an explosion of rage with Trump supporters.  In addition, future administrations (including Democratic ones) will lead to Democrats and Republicans taking turns to impeach the opposition's administration.  These types of situations lead to internal conflict and civil war.  That will tear the country apart.

If the Democrats win back the House in 2018, what they should do is focus on improving ways for Americans to vote, like making Election Day a national holiday, and providing protections against employers for anyone who wants to vote, be it working people, students, and senior citizens. For instance, there are similar laws in place for those who serve on juries. Also, if Republicans want ID cards for those who plan to vote, have the government pay for them.  Those are things a majority of Americans could get behind.
  
My hope is that Democrats focus on letting the Mueller investigations play out, and exhibit patience for the legal process to.  Impeachment of a president requires proof of high crimes and misdemeanors (which include breaking specific laws and treason).  If the evidence Robert Mueller presents is not a high bar for impeachment, Democrats raise the specter of a witch hunt.  That could provide Republicans an opportunity to preserve President Trump and his administration.  That would be an incredible result of aggressive Democratic tactics, supported by their friends in Hollywood and media companies that own MSNBC, CNN, and CBS.  The public relations firm for Republicans, Fox News, would have the ammunition it needs to show the "bias" that is exhibited by the aforementioned Democrats and their like-minded allies.  The channel would generate so much anger with Trump supporters and those in middle America and the South and within other red states.

Any investigation requires temperance, patience and researching of the facts and any other important details.  I am aware that hatred for President Trump is fierce, but the best method would be to let Robert Mueller do his job without any political pressure and be prepared for whatever rulings or proclamations that are released.  If not, any passionate plays for power and intensive Democratic pressure will start the unraveling of the respect for the rule of law and respect for the traditions, policies, and fairness itself, not just with members of Congress, the White House but among citizens of the country as well.

Las Vegas and the endless tragedy of America and its love of guns

The Tragedy of Death of the Mandalay Bay Shooter and the Route 91 Festival 

October 4, 2017

When I went to bed on Saturday night, I saw a blurb about a shooting in Las Vegas. I thought initially it was part of the usual nuttiness that is part of the Vegas weekend experience.  However, once I logged onto my computer, I was absolutely shocked to read that the death toll from this incident was 59 dead, and a horrible number of wounded, 495 (number could change). It turned out that a random shooter (Stephen Paddock) took an arsenal of powerful guns with endless rounds of bullets, and rained hell on a country music festival that was across the street from the Mandalay Bay hotel, where the shooter was staying.  The amount of carnage was inescapable, and not lost on the rest of the country that this was the most devastating active shooter casualty levels since Orlando's Pulse nightclub shooting in 2015.  It is equally appalling that the country is resigned to being despondent, shocked and angry when these types of events happen on a regular basis.  As soon as these tragedies occur, lines are drawn and proponents of gun control and supporters of the 2nd Amendment assume their usual positions and yell and scream at each other, advocating that their position is right.  Neither side has a monopoly on the correct way to deal with this.  Liberals and Democrats think more intensive background checks and other far-reaching regulations will end this type of violence.  Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians feel that those invasive and draconian methods will not change anything or save lives.  They feel that a more aggressive stance on finding those with mental health issues and ensuring they are found before they commit violence, along with protecting law-abiding citizens access to the gun of their choice (AR-15s, revolvers with large magazines, etc.).

However, there are many holes in the arguments of both sides of this hyper-partisan issue.  Democrats immediately want to institute gun laws, which they feel would limit the number of persons with mental health issues from purchasing guns.  The GOP and the NRA want the government to enforce the laws already on the books.  However, both positions do not truly seek an answer as to how to end this carnage in our country.  New laws will not prevent those who pass background checks from committing mass murder.  The NRA has such a powerful stranglehold on the Congress that many members are too scared to protect its citizens.  The gun lobby wants to make sure that any American citizen has the ability to purchase as many guns as possible, and they know gun and ammo sales increase after every major massacre.

So, where to go from here?  More background checks will not stop anyone who passes background checks from buying an arsenal of weaponry and on any random day, committing murder on a large scale.  Nor will having more guns in the homes of Americans allow them to return fire and save the day.  I think the main issue is that guns are readily accessible to any person who qualifies.  No background checks (unless they are very invasive) can predict which person at any given time will go nuts, so to speak.

What is the solution?  I think the problem is that America is a very violent society, and adding to that is the immense racial tensions that are just under the surface. Unless we tackle those two main issues, I don't see the gun violence going away.  Conservatives, or should I say conservative gun owners, do not want any infringement on their ability to buy as many weapons as possible, regardless of their need or realistic necessity to have so many.  Liberal policymakers tend to live on the coasts (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami) and do not have empathy or understanding of those who live in the middle of the country.  People who live in large cities and have access to law enforcement arrival in a short period of time do not understand the life of those who live in rural parts of the country. Law enforcement's arrival could take too long to arrive to be effective.

Adding to this tension are the two political parties and the cable networks who constantly feed the point of view to those like-minded people who watch their respective channels.  It is a fight between the fearful of increasing racial demographics of brown, black and Asian American and those who feel that guns are no longer necessary in a 21st Century America.

This war between different thinking about what guns mean to America has no end in sight.

Charlottesvilla and Trump...Why I believe Trump needs to resign

July 19, 2017

What transpired in the college town of Charlottesville, Virgina this past weekend is a pivotal moment in American history.  The election of Donald Trump was a surprise to many in the United States,  and around the world, myself included.  While I did not think Hillary Clinton was the best choice for President of the United States, I did not think President Trump would shame this country in the eyes of the world community. His election gave racists and "aggrieved" white men an opportunity to become emboldened to be open about their horrible worldview.

The movement of racists, neo-nazis and white supremacists came into the open with the planned support and defense of Confederate monuments in Charlottesville against their proposed removal.   The sight of hundreds of white men with torches marching through the town shouting shameful slogans such as "Jews will not replace us!" and "we shall not be replaced," was bad enough.  What made the images worse was the open, physical fighting between those white men and residents and others in opposition.  The tragedy of a white supremacist driving his car (images above) into a crowd of opposition groups, which resulted in the death of a 32-year old woman, Heather Hyer was so appalling.  That this is 2017, and America is still fighting the Civil War in a figurative sense, is very sad indeed.  President Trump had a wonderful opportunity to shame those racist groups (known as the "alt-right,)" but chose to spread the blame around is not indicative of this great country.  I am at a loss as to why he would not publicly speak against the alt-right is questionable.  What is the reason for that?  What is President Trump's end game for his cowardice?

I am of the opinion that he is genuinely afraid to call out these groups because he desperately needs them in order to mount a defense of his first term, should be want to run for re-election.  Since he has the loyalty of a small segment of die-hard supporters, many of whom are part of the alt-right, he cannot make them angry.  Otherwise, he has no strong coalition for victory in 2020.  President Trump will not carry a majority of women, Asians, blacks or Hispanics, he needs to protect what little of his coalition he has. I think Trump is truly afraid of losing people who support him because, without them, he cannot validate anything he says or does.

Trump is, at his core, a very insecure and needy man.  He does not have the capacity to genuinely be sorry for what he says or does, and by doing so, he feels that doing so would lower his self-esteem.   Since he grew up in wealth and privilege, there was no need for him to be humble and generous.

Additionally, I feel that he is incapable of expressing remorse.  The reason I have strong feelings about this is before he challenged President Obama's legitimacy, he was a 'man about town' in New York City.  He was friendly with many members of society and attended social events throughout the city.  In fact, he had good relationships with both Democrats and Republicans. Trump was a well-known commodity in the city, and he, from what I have read and researched, was not the person he is now.  

I think it all changed when Donald Trump attended the White House Correspondent's Dinner in Washington, D.C. a few years ago (2014 or 2015), and sat in that large crowd, listening to SNL's Seth Meyers and President Obama tear into him, and make fun of him personally.  From that moment on, he was on a war path to avenge his image.  This plays into my belief that he wanted to repeal Obamacare since it was the signature achievement of America's first black President of the United States as revenge. Trump is motivated by vindictiveness, and it clearly shows in his demeanor when talking about Obamacare and the 44th President.

His poor habit of tweeting instead of going through the White House Press Secretary and Office of Communications makes a mockery of the official process.  Tweeting shows the world how far the politics of the country has fallen, in that an immature man leads the so-called Free World.  President Trump has no filter, which can be good when you want to change the ways things are done in the nation's capital.  However, when that filter cannot bring unity towards the various groups in conflict in Charlottesville, then the bully pulpit, the power of the president is muted.

What brings me to my decision that President Trump needs to resign, is that when he had an opportunity to shame, by name, the alt-right groups that caused mayhem and fighting amongst American citizens, he lost a lot of the benefit of the doubt that he was given when he was elected President last November 2016.  If a sitting President of the United States does very little to show the nation that he covertly supports the alt-right groups that embarrassed the nation last weekend, it meant that he has lost the country.  Various members of the GOP took umbrage with what he said and condemned the alt-right groups in attendance. However, being the GOP, those members of Congress did not call out President Trump by name and did not shame him into being more forceful in his own condemnation of what transpired in Charlottesville.  That shows that most Republicans want to salvage his presidency as long as possible so that one or two more Supreme Court justices can be appointed.  Those Republicans have more allegiance to their own party and their worldview, rather than protecting the office of the president and the reputation of the country around the globe.

If President Trump does nothing to heal the country and continues to quietly support the alt-right, then he will lose the good faith of many Americans, and eventually, his ability to govern.  If that is the case, then Trump would do the country some good by resigning.  If he does not, he will allow the country to tear itself apart.  Some say that we as a country are still effectively fighting the Civil War. With the ending of fighting in most wars, the victor generally gets to write the rules. What should have happened after General Lee signed the Confederacy's surrender at the Appomattox Courthouse is that President Lincoln should have tried in court those that led secession in the states, and along with Jefferson Davis. Additionally, any symbols of the Confederacy (the Stars and Bars rebel flag, uniforms, etc.) should have been outlawed and burned.

Since that was not what happened, and General Grant vociferously pleaded with President Lincoln to not try General Lee, Lincoln instead allowed those who fought against the Union to be forgiven, which was an attempt to heal the country.  However, that mercy that President Lincoln showed allowed the Confederacy to still linger for an additional 160 years.

President Trump could have taken this opportunity to do what Lincoln should have done, and made efforts to outlaw the rebel flag and force the alt-right and those harboring negative views about the Union to move into the 21st Century, and let the Confederacy die already.  That would be part of "draining the swamp," because those horrible beliefs by some conservatives about race is an underlying part of Washington, D.C. and the lack of compromise.  The Republican party has morphed from a party of limited government compassionate citizens into a party that encourages dog whistles in its ideology to inflame bitterness and anger about race relations in this country, and slavery, America's original sin.

Since he chose not to follow that route, his behavior has emboldened the alt-right to continue to seek conflict. This will eventually create such a large fissure amongst citizens of this country and could tear it apart. Donald Trump needs to resign from his position as President of the United States.   To save this country from internal conflict and rage, he must, for the first time in his short presidency, do the right thing, and resign.

-AK

Serena Williams GOAT Controversy

July 27, 2017

John McEnroe stirs controversy when he says tennis star Serena Williams is the female G.O.A.T., but when compared to men, she would not fare too well.

Recently, tennis legend John McEnroe made waves of controversy when he said that Serena Williams is, in his opinion, is the greatest women's tennis player in history.   He was being interviewed on NPR while promoting his newest book.  The NPR host quantified her question by stating why does McEnroe feel she is the best "female" player, and not greatest "tennis player," of all time? McEnroe, in response, said that if Serena Williams played on the men's tour, she would be ranked somewhere around 700th in the world.  That response set of a political and gender-related hornet's nest of people being offended, and a virtual rehash of the Battle of the Sexes between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs.

Everyone who commented on this story has an opinion of their own.  Women defended Serena and felt that she could beat men's players.  Men defended John McEnroe by stating that men are bigger, stronger and faster and any match between Serena and an elite man would be no contest.  I personally agree with that assessment.  Men are stronger, and the men's game is faster and is known for its sheer power in terms of rallies.  Serena would not win against elite men's tennis players, but that does not stop people from commenting on this controversy.

I think the main problem with this kerfuffle is that women with an agenda, known as "social justice warriors," do tend to inflate female athletic success, and make assumptions and assertions about women competing against men, and expect men to not challenge that flagrantly biased assertion. I feel that is part of it: to create controversy to sell books, films, tv shows, etc. In other words, to devalue women's competitive athletic performance, but to ensure that any success is not inflated when trying to compare that achievement to any performance a man has done.    Chris Evert was right when she stated that comparing men's and women's athletic achievements against each other was in fact, " comparing apples to oranges."  However, it is women doing the comparing, reaching for a sense of vanity and a self-esteem boost.

Comparing women's achievements against men devalues those achievements by saying they are great stories of success, but suddenly change when compared against men's athletic achievement.

Just enjoy both.

Trump Advisors want regime change in Iran - Is this a joke?

War with Iran?  Is Trump Seriously Considering This?

The recent news from a Politico article that some of President Trump's foreign policy advisors want regime change in Iran has got to be troubling news.  Has the president not been following the long and unfruitful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Those wars were supposed to show the strength of the US military and the "power of Ameria" to transform those nation-states into Western-style democracies in short time period.  The war in Afghanistan is a never-ending back and forth between the Taliban and ISIS (rumored) and Coalition forces fighting over the same space and cities.  I don't see anything getting better in that country.  

War with Iran would engulf (no pun intended) the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East, and this horrible military endeavor will not end well and will plunge the area into total conflict for many, many years.  I believe it will damage our military and the lasting effects will be irreparable, for Iran, the United States, Israel and neighboring countries.

President Trump may feel that in order to prove that he is no puppet of Putin, he will have to attack and defeat Iran and Syria, two client states of Russia.  He seems to have no understanding of how a government works, and what it can do, or what it can't.  If he cannot grasp that, how on earth do people think he can hold onto the prospects of war and its effects?  Syria is going to be a continued quagmire, with Russian, American and now recently exposed Israeli contributions to both sides of the fighting.  Israel wants President Bashar Assad out of power, which will eliminate a source of concern and one less enemy for the State of Israel.  However, Assad is a loyal client of Russia, and Russia has to show that it too will defend its friends, the same way America has to defend Europe and its allies in the Pacific region (Australia, the Philippines, Singapore and Japan).

Knowing this, why would President Trump want to start a fight with another client state of Russia, which will most likely draw in Putin himself. The danger is that this will constitute the first time great powers went to war with each other since World War II.  It will change the power dynamic and could force a nuclear exchange with Putin.  President Trump does not have the mental fortitude to avoid this type of catastrophe.  Iran will engage Israel through his proxies in the region including Hezbollah.  This will force Israel to engage Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is the most powerful faction within the Iranian government, outside of the Mullahs.  America will have to defend Israel when Iranian and Russian forces retaliate.  I don't see how this conflict doesn't end without some sort of nuclear exchange of tactical nuclear weapons (nuclear bombs with a lower tonnage yield that destroys a smaller area of square mileage) with the Russians.

President Trump's advisors who are pushing this war narrative are, in my opinion, Steve Miller and Steve Bannon, two ultra-nationalists who see war as the only means to change the current state of the world.  Both of these nuts have no problem starting an unnecessary war that will provide no serious benefit to the country at large, or Western civilization.  Who in the Trump White House can challenge the two Steves?  Jared Kushner? Ivanka?  I am not so sure, especially with all the mysterious and troubling people that Trump keeps around, like Dr. Sebastian Gorka, who is a cheerleader for military solutions to almost every foreign policy issue.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but if President Trump wants war with Iran, I don't see any counter force within the White House to turn him away from this terrible idea.  Jared and Ivanka don't have the influence to overrule President Trump if his ego and pride are on the line if the only solution for the praise he covets is to send America's men and women in the service of their country to another long war with ambiguous successes.  This callous endeavor will spell the end of our military readiness, our ability to deal with difficult situations with military solutions, and the benefit for our overall economy and the American people.  This war will not end well and could lead to horrible consequences for the future of the human race and democracy in the United States.

It is a scary time indeed for all of us on planet earth.

AK

Comey Don't Play That

Former FBI Director Comey and his testimony to Congressional Intelligence Committees

June 8, 2017

James Comey, the recently fired Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation gave, from most accounts, a riveting dose of testimony regarding his conversations with President Trump investigations.  It revolved around the multiple investigations of Trump campaign staffers, and the campaign itself, interactions and alleged collusion with Vladimir Putin's government.  President Trump has been very adamant in getting Mr. Comey to provide proof to the American public that he is not under investigation.  Although in the letter President Trump wrote to fire James Comey, he wrote that Mr. Comey conveyed to him that (three times!) that Mr. Trump was not under investigation.  That did nothing to stifle assumptions, rumors, and gossip amongst the political class in Washington, D.C. watching the hearings on televisions throughout the District.

After watching the hearings, and listening to both liberal and conservative viewpoints on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, I have come to the sad realization that Comey and his testimony are the "No Man's Land" of the trench warfare that Democrats and Republicans are fighting over.  Both groups take away from his testimony what they want to hear, and get their party machinery to repeat over and over.  Democrats continue to shill for the idea that Donald Trump worked with the Russian government to subvert the democratic process to choose an American president.  The Republicans, who control all three branches of power in America, carefully parse Comey's testimony to see if they can avoid any difficult discussions about Trump's culpability.  Congressman Darrel Issa feels that the "non-issue" has been put to rest (he is referring of course, to additional and broad-reaching investigations into the Trump Administration's Russia issue).  The Democrats, to no one's surprise, want to investigate everyone and anyone associated with the Trump Administration.

Comey is just another pawn in this constant war of politics between two out-of-touch political parties. Neither the Republican party or the Democratic party have shown any real desire to work on behalf of the people who pay taxes (they do, but those are bipartisan mega-donors, who provide the lion's share of campaign cash), and those voters have watched certain industries (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc) do well, and see successful people do even better while the majority of the country has stagnated wages and many lose their jobs.

President Trump was supposed to be a sacrificial ham sandwich for Hillary Clinton to break the Glass Ceiling.  Instead, he used his savvy ability to listen to and argue for the mood of the rejected American voter, who is financially in trouble.  As a result of his shocking win, Democrats are trying to exercise their anger into proving the Trump Administration is guilty of collusion with a foreign power.  I am not defending Trump per se from any alleged act or accusation. I truly feel that a thorough investigation of the election, the hacking of the DNC, and interactions between Trump campaign staffers and the Russian government needs to be researched and presented to Congress and the American people.  Comey's experience should be part of this investigation, but sadly nothing will come of it.  Because the Republicans and Democrats and constantly using people and events to fight over control of the government, mainly to reward those aforementioned mega-donors, and their friends, there will be no great lesson learned from the 2016 election.

James Comey is a decent and dedicated public servant, whose testimony should be used to improve the methods Americans use to choose their elected officials to administer their country.  The sad part, Mr. Comey's testimony to Congress will be dissected and disseminated to the various echo chambers of the Republican and Democratic parties.  It will not be taken for what it is, a public servant's observations about a troubled year in American history regarding our elections, and how to correct mistakes and errors in cyber security.  It is another nail in the war between to extreme political ideologies, and which will eventually help the true enemy of our country, Vladimir Putin.  No wonder he smiles so often.

AK

Kathy Griffin Controversy, aka "Trump Head"

How Far Does Too Far Go?

How does the Kathy Griffin controversy stack up with other previous 1st Amendment issues concerning the President of the United States? During the Obama presidency, there were countless images of Obama in the Joker makeup, and other images of him with a bone through his nose, similar to the horrible stereotypical images of African tribespeople that racists used to show to the masses. Although I do not recall them, I think there might have been images of 'President Obama in cross-hairs, which is equally uncalled for.  Is the recent image of Kathy Griffin and the severed Donald Trump head the worst case of comics trying to get a reaction out of a shocked society?

I think Griffin's was the worst stunt that I can remember.   I know the 1st Amendment is a sacred law and right that Americans use, but I think in a divided society, with a polarizing President Trump, that image that Kathy Griffin released was both ill-advised and dumb.  It encourages similar behavior from others and will lead down a path that is unforgivable.  I know some comedians suggest that is what they do, to provoke, agitate and whip people into a frenzy.  That is fine and all, but in this day and age, it is not the kind of discussion the American people need to engage in.  

I think it started with the election/Supreme Court affirmation of the presidency of George W. Bush that started the trend of the unhinged behavior of the American electorate to publicly demean and insult the occupant of the White House through words and images that are shocking to many (I know presidents since the creation of the country and constitution have been subject to cartoon images and added ridicule, but lately it has gotten to be alarming).  Democrats and liberals started to goad each other into creating the perception of how stupid President Bush was, which led to the Will Ferrel role of a dim-witted chief executive who was in over his head and had Vice President Cheney the one who ran the country.

Then, when Barack Obama was elected to the White House, it was conservatives turn to raise the shock value of their lack of respect for the president and his family.  The media did not try to show how this type of behavior was not acceptable, rather the media showed these images to rile up the respective sides of the political divide.  It led to abhorrent behavior from some members of the Republican party, including consultants and party leaders, especially on the state and local level in conservative states.  The GOP should have taken the steps to clamp down and show of force that this derogatory behavior will never be tolerated.

For future generations, I hope that the American people will realize that one does not have to like or can even hate the President of the United States. They can make fun of him or her in a clever way, but that promoting behavior that pokes fun at, or at its worst encourages violence of any sort directed at a member of Congress or a President, is unacceptable and should never rear its ugly head again.

Jared Kushner and Rasputin...Can you make a fair comparison?

Much has been made by Trump regarding the special gifts and intellectual power of his son-in-law Jared Kushner. His White House portfolio is staggering, something HBO comedian John Oliver has said, even the smartest person on earth will find difficult. This includes "modernizing government," and delivering peace in the Middle East. It borders on absurd the power that someone who has no real qualifications to advise the Leader of the Free World on issues that will affect US citizens abroad and Americans here. How did someone so lacking in intellectual heft (see Kushner's admission to Harvard) get so close to the President of the United States, in terms of professional influence?

Jared Kushner was by all accounts a mediocre student at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, which was a school for Jewish students, a parochial institution similar to Catholic schools in New York, New Jersey, and surrounding areas. Mr. Kushner was academic, but not a stellar student. He was the scion of a wealthy and powerful real estate family in New Jersey, and whose father Charles, founded the Kushner Companies, in 1985. After Jared entered and graduated from Harvard (2003), Charles Kushner pleaded guilty in 2004 to tax violations, illegal campaign donations, and retaliating against a witness. The US Attorney who prosecuted and convicted the elder Kushner was none other than current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Because of this, the portly governor was slowly removed from the Trump campaign because of the sway and influence of the younger Kushner, Jared. This despite Christie being an effective bundler for Trump's fundraising in the tri-state area and other parts of the country. It was Kushner's revenge of sorts and showed the enormous amounts of influence he wields within President Trump's orbit.

Grigori Rasputin was a legendary and controversial figure during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II and Imperial Russia at the end of the 19th Century, and just before the 1917 October Revolution. He began his life as an unassuming poor wanderer who became deeply religious and cultivated a large following amongst the Russian Orthodox Church and its congregants. This led to some friction and eventually major conflict with opposition to the Tsar and other influential people within the church. Rasputin was believed by many to be a charlatan and a con man. However, Rasputin was eventually able to meet Tsar Nicholas II and become his advisor, and unofficial "healer" for his hemophiliac son Alexei. His influence was so resented by rivals, and some Russians in general, that I believe that he was "allowed" access to Nicholas II in the hopes that his influence would cause his own demise. When the Tsar left St. Petersburg to oversee Russian troops during World War I, Rasputin and Nicholas's wife Alexandra were left to run Russia. As Russian troops took massive losses during the war, Rasputin and his influence waned, and his unpopularity allowed conservative noblemen to arrange his assassination.

Rasputin and Jared Kushner share similarities in that both were not too spectacular in their intellectual capacities. Rather, they were able to gain access to power through proximity: Rasputin through religious sermons and his followers, Kushner through his marriage to Ivanka Trump, and her dad's successful campaign to win the White House.

What makes anyone believe that Jared has what it takes to successfully achieve what he has been assigned by President Trump? From his time at Harvard to his time working for the Kushner Companies, he has not shined at anything yet he has a seat at the table of power and access to influential political leaders around the globe. No one has ever heard him speak, or make a case as to why he advises the president to approve certain methods of governing. He seems to always be standing next to President Trump when he signs Executive Orders and with meetings with heads of state or ambassadors, but it seems weird the never speaks to anyone. Most senior staff in White House administrations at one point or another make the trek to meet on Sunday news shows or cable commentators. Kushner has done no such thing. How does someone like that have immense access and influence to a very powerful elected official?

Rasputin was similar in that he was able to parlay his religious sermons into access to the rich and powerful and eventually meeting the leader of his country. Tsar Nicholas II of the late 19th century to early 20th century is one thing, but the President of the United States during a 21st century with nuclear weapons is an entirely different parameter. It fills me with trepidation that someone who lacks qualifications in the areas of his diverse portfolio can effectively deliver on his assignments.

The year 2017 is a pivotal time in world history. The United States has had 80 years in which it has set the standard for free market capitalism and a foreign policy that protects Western-style democracies with military superiority. In this age, will someone who lacks the perspective and experience in the way Jared Kushner has, have the proper virtues to steer the Trump presidency off the ledge? His efforts will shape who controls the 21st Century in terms of dominance and influence. Because of his light resume, and growing up in privilege, I don't see him having the power he wants. The other elements of the White House brain trust (Steve Bannon, Steve Miller) will shape the direction of the country for the next four years, because of the greater influence of President Trump. Bannon and Miller share views that together are the polar opposite of Kushner, such as globalization is good, etc, and I feel will play better in the mind of President Trump.

All this is a lesson that who you know may benefit a specific person, but the greater good, for either a company or a country, will be negatively impacted by such poor peerage, and lack of meritocracy.

Scary Times: The unsettling Trump Administration and the State of our Union

The Sorry State of Our Union 

April 11, 2017

I have been reading various media outlets and online websites regarding the last few days of the ever-volatile Trump Administration. Granted, during the campaign, I thought Donald Trump was able to use his P.T. Barnum carnival barker style of campaigning to win the White House effectively.  It was a campaign that no one had ever run before and became a blitzkrieg of sound bites, bluster and a rope-a-dope methodology which defeated an astounding 17 other candidates in the Republican primaries. Additionally, Trump took on and was able to defeat the vaunted Clinton Machine (with some help from the Russians, FBI Director Comey and Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, allegedly). So, I was expecting his administration to be unconventional, to say the least.  He would govern a little differently, but with help from experienced political hands, or so I had hoped.

However, over the past few weeks, I am starting to believe that the "new era" of Trumpism and politics his supporters along with those who had an open mind (like myself) had expected is nothing more than a charade.  Mr. Trump's baffling Cabinet choices and their testimonies during confirmation hearings were nothing I have ever witnessed before. Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions answers to Senator Franken were downright head-scratching, especially his volunteering that he didn't speak with anyone from the Russian government, even though Senator Franken never asked him that specifically.  His recent recusal from any administration or congressional investigations into Russian tampering of American democracy is embarrassing to the country, and the country's allies.  Along with President Trump's nutty accusation that former President Obama had instructed the FBI to "wiretap" phone lines at Trump Tower in New York is a ridiculous assertion, even on its face to partisan observers.  Our transition of power does not allow for outgoing presidential administrations to listen in on phone calls from aides for the incoming administration since that would require the help of government agencies, who are going to be of service to the new administration.  

I personally feel that Mr. Trump is not the person who is running things in the White House. That is a shared responsibility between Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus, with the former GOP Chairman Priebus in the "Robin" role to Bannon's "Batman." Trump appears to be coasting through his job.  I don't get the impression he is a studious person, and the job requires a lot of reading (intel briefings, etc), and I feel he wants people to do the majority of heavy lifting the job comes with.  President Trump loves to sit at his desk and show the items he has just signed.  A bit juvenile, if you ask me.  Like show and tell, but an adult version.  Trump does not seem to be heavily involved in running the country.  There is no deep preparation, outside of knowing his talking points that his aides tell him to say.  His interviews consist of simple, but effective extemporaneous exchanges with the main network media. Nothing deep is said from President Trump.  The country now has to deal with a non-interested President of the United States for the next four years.  I hope those years do not suck.

While there is an apathetic president in the White House, there are dueling echo chambers in form of conservative and liberal traditional media, website and online opinion forums, and a general fraying of common decency. The latter is a result the echo chambers. Trump supporters are his supporters for a reason, and nothing the traditional media puts forth will change their opinion of him.  His support borders on worship and that can trend to a worrisome possibility.   Liberal supporters tend to have a visceral hatred of President Trump, even more than their loathsome feelings for former President Bush.

Take for instance the recent allegations, which are being investigated by the FBI, of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia, and the transfer of that information from the intelligence services and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes (R-California). The Democrats are trying to paint Mr. Nunes as a compromised member of the committee and a political stooge for the Trump Administration.  The Republicans are supporting Congressman Nunes because their angle is that Democrats are just trying to create drama where there is none.  The liberal and conservative echo chambers are taking sides and disregarding the other side's arguments.  It is a scary proposition where two groups within Congress to not accept or give the benefit of the doubt to the opinions or concerns of the other side.  This can set a dangerous precedent, which could lead to a cataclysmic and fatal division of the country for the foreseeable future.  The lead-up to the American Civil War was begun when the pro-slave states of the south and the pro-union states of the north ignored the issues and concerns of the other side and felt their own views were more important, valid and the right way to look at the business of the country.  I feel that America is still fighting those same pertinent issues.  It has been accelerated due to the explosion of cable news shows with various experts, "strategists," and politicians preaching to their constituents, rather than seeking common ground.


Recently, President Trump was on the receiving end of his first legislative defeat, with his attempt to repeal and "replace" the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), was soundly destroyed by an indifferent White House, stubborn Freedom Caucus and poor leadership from Speaker Ryan.  The Republicans spent 7 years trying to defeat, overturn and repeal the health care bill that President Obama wanted for his legacy.   What an utter waste of time.  The GOP had no credible alternative but simply threw a 7-year temper tantrum.  If behooves the GOP, that if they want to repeal a bill they don't like for a multitude of reasons, the party needed to show a good-faith replacement that would make the goal of access and secure insurance for the poor and afflicted in this country, the replacement needed to show visible improvement above and beyond the older bill. Their alternative, the American Health Care Act, was an utter disgrace and a shallow attempt to cover their loathing of a legacy project for America's first black president.


(Updated):

With this Trump Administration, there is never a shortage of news and outrageous crap that eliminates from this White House.  Recently, television images from around the world showing Syrian women and children being killed by the deadly Sarin gas.   Some in the alt-net community suggested it was a false flag operation where it was made to look like the Assad government had committed this travesty, while others said it was the Russians, and others claim that it was the opposition rebels who are creating this illusion.  Nonetheless, President Trump authorized the launching of 59 American-made Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack the airfield where the Sarin gas bombing was initiated. The Trump Administration did warn the Russians of the military operation, thereby avoiding an escalation in the situation. This attack did not create much damage, based on drone footage afterward, but the administration did specify that 20% of the aircraft that took part in the bombing had been destroyed.  Not sure I buy that.  I think it was a waste of time because it did not deter any of the parties involved in the Syrian Civil War from creating a cease-fire or cessation of combat.  I think the primary goal was for Trump to show he had "balls" and could be trusted to represent American and Western interests.  Personally, I don't think he scared Russia's Putin or the Iranian government of future engagement with the American military.

In other White House news, Sean Spicer said that Assad was worse than Hitler because he used chemical agents to attack civilians, while the Nazi leader did not do that.  Mr. Spicer conveniently left out the "chemicals" Hitler used to kill millions of Jews, including in the gas chambers.  What an idiot!  Each and every day this administration, along with the nut jobs who advise the president and speak to the media, embarrass this country to no end.  Combine that with the horrible legislation crafted by our Congress, and I feel that the American century (20th) will lead the decline of American civilization.  Maybe that is a stretch to think about, but based on the short, but tumultuous days of the Trump Administration, the behavior of North Korea, China in the Pacific and Putin's grand ambitions for Europe and the resurrection of the Russian Empire, I feel this country is off-course in its destiny to protect Western values.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Will Run for CA Governor in 2018

Why is this man running for Governor of California?

I just heard recently that the former (and infamous) mayor of Los Angeles, His Holiness Antonio Villaraigosa, is running for governor of California.  I have to just sigh.

I am baffled that the same notorious people keep running for the political offices throughout the country. Former California senate and presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is contemplating a senate run from Virginia (she lives there now, and ran her crapticious presidential campaign from that state), Rudy Guiliani ran for President twice, along with Mike Huckabee and Senator Rand Paul. Granted, many of them knew they would not win, but ran to increase exposure and to demand higher speaking fees for their red meat crowds (both liberal and conservative). Still, I am saddened that very few people outside of the old retreads (figuratively speaking) in our political class run for multiple positions. There is nothing new with those politicians or their platforms.

Mr. Villaraigosa had grand ambitions as Los Angeles mayor, where many projects fell short of their goals. Part of that I suspect is that the donor class within city limits (like the Vatican's Curia) controls much of what goes on behind the scenes, and may have pushed back when his ambition got the best of him. Still, if you have an ambitious agenda, and you talk a big game, you have to be able to deliver to your constituents. 

He had a mixed record as administrator of the nation's 2nd largest city. Antonio was a supporter of public transit in Los Angeles, and that is why Metro was able to receive sales tax increases (Measure R) due to his whipping the vote counts for passage. On the other hand, his role in trying to fix potholes, and repair the city's infrastructure was a moderate success. He wanted to break up the LAUSD, which is a great idea, into 5 or more divisions, to increase accountability. However, he was not able to get people to support him for those proposals (he also ran into school administrators, teacher's unions, and segments of concerned parents). Mr. Villaraigosa did work out a beneficial partnership that did bring in some small levels of accountability, but it was not what he wanted, and the educational goals he had hoped for did not pan out.

The city at the time did not have a large police force to deal with the problems of a young 21st Century metropolis. Mayor Villaraigosa did grow the LAPD to a force numbering over 8,500 officers, although his goal was to increase the police force by 1,500 officers to over 10,000, but that did not happen. In fact, he padded some of those numbers with the city agency that provides protection for the city's buildings and other notable locations. Crime reduction was another positive in his favor, and those gains in terms of increased public safety have remained relatively constant.

Additionally, he did have an impact as an environmentalist, including exceeding the Kyoto Protocol levels of water consumption, conservation and carbon emission reduction in certain areas of the city. Mr. Villaraigosa mentioned once that he wanted to plant 1 million trees in the city, and that goal was not achieved either (he "only" managed to put around 350,000 trees, which is still pretty impressive, though).

Additionally, he wanted to eradicate the city's growing budget deficit, which had reached $530 million around the time he wanted to run for Governor the first time, in 2010. That embarrassment was a dent in his political ambitions, and he has now waited patiently for another chance once Jerry Brown rides off into the sunset (and his Moonbeams). At this current time the budget shortfall is hovering around $150 million, so he did make some progress in lowering it, but part of that credit does go to the current mayor, Eric Garcetti as well. Another problem is that Villaraigosa worked out an agreement to raise city employee salaries by 5% per year, and this was before the economy collapsed in 2009. A 25% increase is too much for most cities to effectively deal with and balance future budgets with this type of expenditure. It will lead to more deficit spending, something Los Angeles does not need in this time period.

His first state of the city address, back in 2006, was given by a more ambitious and telegenic mayor that the old, grizzled vet 8 years later in 2013. While he does get credit for some things, he did not accomplish many other items on his agenda. A Los Angeles Times poll showed that roughly 20% of city residents felt he was a good mayor, and delivered on his proposals. The article's author felt that reflected more on his lack of more accomplishments, than his general failures.

I think he would be a similar type of first term governor. He will make grandiose pledges and promises, deliver on some of them, pad his numbers for others, and make the shallow case that Mr. Villaraigosa does deserve a second term. Personally, I think California needs someone more dynamic, in touch with younger voters (who will make up the workforce) and can deliver on doable, but major campaign promises. The state will have a large increase in expenditures due to absorbing health costs for new immigrants, and the loss of some tax revenue with people leaving the state for greener pastures in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. In order to revive the state's economic fortunes (I know California has the world's 6th largest economy, but the economy benefits corporations and wealthy residents more) for most residents who are middle and lower income. The state needs a politician who will change the way California runs itself, and Antonio Villaraigosa is a politician cut from a previous generation's cloth. The state needs a new type of 21st-century politician, one that will usher the state into the new century as well, and make California "Great Again!"

Sorry, Antonio, you are just not that person our state needs.

Sources: Los Angeles Daily News (February 4, 2009)

               http://www.dailynews.com/article/ZZ/20090224/NEWS/902249875

               Los Angeles Times (April 15, 2013)

             http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/15/opinion/la-oe-newton-column-villaraigosa-20130415

The first two weeks of the Trump Administration have been what people thought it would be.

February 8, 2017

E Pluribus LOCO!

"MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!...OR NOT"

The bats**t crazy modus operandi of the Trump Administration has lived up to its billing, and people's fears.

As soon as President Trump was sworn in, he made a furious attempt to sign as many Executive Orders as possible.  Trump signed an order to halt the acceptance of foreign travelers from countries designated "dangerous" by the State Department and the foreign policy establishment.  President Trump created a firestorm of protests from the Democrats and those in the Republican establishment, due to a perception of poor handling of the powers of the president.  The rumors of confontational conversations with some of the United States's longest and greatest allies (Mexico, in terms of trade, Australia, whom we fought in the Pacific theater with in World War II). Trump had an awkward meeting with the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.  Who could forget the creepy hand-holding between Trump and May? It made the "special relationship" seem a bit forced and phony.  Hopefully that relationship with Britain wont be ruined by President Trump's boorish behavior and arrogance. Not to mention his rampant insecurity.

The "Muslim Travel ban" does not speak well of President Trump's understanding of the nuance of foreign policy and the impression it creates around the world.  The repuation of the United States hangs in the balance.  If America continues to treat its allies poorly, then some other ambitous nation (China, Russia or India) will attemp to provide millitary and diplomatic security that America has taken a back seat to.  Trump does not posses the subtlety of the power of the bully pulpit.  The president has the "bully" part down cold, but he needs to understand the power of the presidency has around the world, and must use it carefully and when needed.  The ban is primarily for seven specific countries in the Middle East, but it does not include countries that have serious jihadi fundamentalist and terrorism epicenters (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc).  I believe this Executive Order was planned and excecuted poorly.  It does appear that Trump's Svengali, Steve Bannon, is running the show.  It shows that someone with no experience in federal government service, specifcially for the Executive Branch, can ruin the power of the office itself through poorly thought out policies, in my opinion. Not to mention, that any negative perception in the Muslim world of President Trump's intentions toward Muslims, will inflame anti-American sentiment, and increase the recruitment of Islamic terrorists who will plot to attach the United States.  Trump must be careful, or he will open a Pandora's Box of worldwide conflict, one in which no one wins.  He must be cautious, and remove any sense of bellicose behavior.

Speaking of dangerous and aggressive behavior, President Trump must not give in to the neocons within the Republican party who want to see America fight another dumb war in the Middle East, in this case against the Islamic Republic of Iran. He will be goaded and supported by the Israeli government of Benjamin Netenyahu, who would prefer the world's pre-eminent superpower do their dirty work in fighting Israel's most hated enemy.  I sincerely believe that the Netenyahu's government wants the United States to fight all of Israel's traditional enemies, in order to allow Israel to wield enormous influence within the Middle East and around the world, to some small extent.  It is shameful, in my opinion, that America is so easily bamboozled into war by numerous countries.  While I share a strong desire to see Israel strong, prosperous and able to provid its citizens a peaceful co-existence with the world community, the current right-wing government in Te Aviv is not going to ensure that for a long time. Its policies regarding settlements in the long run will backfire and not bring the desired result its people want, which is peace with its neighbors.

In fact, there are discussions that one of the main reasons for an aggresive American policy towards Syria is that the country is a focal point for a conflict based not on Assad, but a natural gas pipeline. Currently, Russia supplies a vast amount of natural gas to the European Union, and Putin does not want any alternate options for Europe.  Many of the gulf states, UAE, want to have a rival pipeline that goes through the Arabian Peninsula and provides an alternate power source for the European states.  Assad does not want that alternate pipleline to run throug Syria, partly due to Syria being a client of the Russian Federation.  The Gulf States want the United States to fight the Syrian government (and Russia too), and offer to pay for this stupid endeavor.  

I sincerely hope that Trump has the right support within his inner circle to avoid another aggresive war in the most volatile part of the world.  It angers me that the Gulf States simply are offering to pay for this idiotic idea, and that America would have to sacrifice its soldiers, sailor, airmen and Marines for another most likely protracted war that will yield no real benefits.   Most of the American people are tired of conflict in the Middle East, so I hope Trump and his staff are careful to avoid war.  Even though I think President Trump is nuts on many levels, during the 2016 campaign, he seemed inclined to avoid expensive and financially draining conflicts with no certain, and swift outcomes.

After the first two weeks, I am under the belief that the next four years of President Trump is never going to be boring.  I hope he has the strength to avoid using any sort of nuclear weapons (tactical nukes) even thoug he is goaded to do so.  While I do have some hope that Trump is not a fool, I am not certain that his insecurity and thin skin will force him to do something stupid that will have no tangible benefit for the reputation of the United States, or its citizens.

Every week is a roller coaster.  I hope for America's sake, none of its citizens are forced to vomit, like I am scared of doing.

" Our Father, Who Art in Heaven...."

Donald Trump Inaugurated! Now what?

President Donald J. Trump Inauguration: Sign of the impending Apocalypse? Or Much Ado About Nothing?

For those of us who watched a rather celebrity-less Presidential Inauguration, and the WTF aftermath (Sean Spicer press conference, anyone?), it remains to be seen if this administration can reach a level of competence that will assuage the anxiety and fear of certain segments of the American population. First, there was hardly anybody of entertainment value that was willing to perform.  Even though that does not portend whether an administration will be scandal-free, or if they can accomplish anything, perception does matter.  It was partially due to immense public pressure (bullying, in my opinion), which caused some artists and entertainers to "pull out due to other conflicts" from performing for the new administration.  IF artists and entertainers were forced to not play for presidents who committed adultery, or said things they regret, inaugurations would have no celebrities present.  I think in order to protect and honor the dignified and peaceful transfer of power between administrations, artists should play even if they loathe or dislike the new President.  Be above partisan fighting.

Too many artists and entertainers give in to the bullying committed by the online community.  In addition, the level of political correctness that is prevalent in our society, along with the threat of boycotts has forced people to make decisions based on fear and calcuation of loss of income, which is sad.  It is not a sign of a great society where small but influential group of bloggers, online trolls, etc. can force people to make a choice between income and being decent people.

President Trump's Inuagural speech was not too uplifting or aspirational.  Instead, he painted a bleak picture of a dystopian America, one in which he alone can make better, and atone for past Presidents' mistakes.  I believe that America is doing very well, but for  the 1% of Americans primarily, who are high earners and who do not struggle to make ends meet, or worry if they will have the money to feed their kids.  When he states "Make America Great Again," I feel he is targeting those Americans who are not part of the success that benefits others, i.e. the 1%.  He has the right message for those who feel they are being left behind by a globalized economic model, but I am not sure he has the right solutions for those individuals.  Tax cuts for the wealthy, decreased government spending, except for the Department of Defense, is not the way I would go.  Personally, if I were President, I would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class and lower income earners, place a moratoriam on government spending, and ease certain regulations for businesses so that they can improve local economies.    

However, Congress is controlled by the supply-side Republican party.  They are not interested in increased government spending, but essentially use a "one-size fits all" legislative model of tax cuts for the wealthy, decreased entitlement (social security, etc) and massive defense spending.  That usually is a recipe for large increments to our national debt, but that has not stopped Republicans before.  They seem to care about deficit spending and the troubling debt when Democrats control the White House, and or one branch of Congress.  I do not see President Trump making the lives of people better.  I think he is essentially a puppet of the GOP donor class, and does whatever Chief of Staff Reince Priebus tells him to do. The rumors of Trump spending most of his time watching tv to retaliate against those who make fun of him, or are critical of him, is disconcerting to say the least.

The area of the new Trump Administration that worries me the most is foreign policy.  He seems to be way too cozy with Russian Presient Vladimir Putin, and add the fact that he has not released his tax returns is very troubling.  Those Americans who feel that not releasing his returns means he is hiding something from the country is a serious issue.  Is he compromised?  Are most of the loans he receives from foreign investors primarily Russian in origin?  Media reports have said that many banks are reluctant or outright against loaning money to the Trump organization, mainly due to the fact that Mr. Trump is very litigious.  He makes Scientology, which has a reputation of intimidation through massive and frequent litigation, seem benign in nature.

I sincerely hope that President Trump does not given in the the Neocons in his administration who are angling for war with Iran.  I believe the American people are exhausted from the last two wars that endured for over 15 years.  The electorate will not stand for another stupid invasion of a Middle Eastern country. Since Russia is a protector of Syria and Iran, and Trump is friendly with Putin, perhaps one of the benefits of this shady friendship will be an aversion to armed conflict in the most volatile region of the country.  One can hope anyway.

Inauguations are symbolic of something new.    Will President Trump usher in a new era for prosperity for all?  Will he avoid the shameful foreign policy of President Bush?  Will he be an faithful steward of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

No one knows how the next four years are going to turn out.  The world prays that it will not be a disaster.  Terrorism can only be defeated by being smart, and building trust and cooperation between those Western nations and the Islamic community around the world. President Trump is now the Leader of the Free World.  

Now what?