California and the battle over Federal Authority and Power

March 12, 2018

How the battle over California, sanctuary cities, and the power of the United States government is the new battle between two Americas (liberal and conservative).

_________________________

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has initiated legal proceedings against the state of California over the state protecting undocumented immigrants.  This is the new battle over undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities.  Governor Jerry Brown and members of the state legislature have chosen to ignore federal policy regarding undocumented immigrants and will defy the federal government in terms of cooperating with ICE to remove and deport predominately Hispanic aliens who reside within the state.  While I empathize with those who want to remain in the United States, and I don't support separating families, there needs to be a better way than defy the U.S. government.  This was the essential reason the Civil War started and was the same reasoning the Southern slave states fought for independence from the United States.  This sets a dangerous precedent and will be the focal point for the ongoing war between Democrats and Republicans over the direction of our great country.  I do believe the government needs a proper and humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, but ignoring federal policy through challenging of a president's official directive is not going to be the best way to defend those who live in fear of deportation.  The best way to fight the federal government is through the courts, and the ballot box.  

It is painfully obvious that the Democratic party is doing this to cultivate Hispanic votes for the long-term viability of the party.  Those who remember how Republican governor Pete Wilson in the 1990s, with the help of the California GOP, passed a proposition known as 187, which denied taxpayer public services to illegal immigrants.  This was done with public sentiment within conservative circles to punish those who were illegal, the ability to use public services.  While I understand the anger of non-citizens who see their tax dollars being used by those who came to the United States illegally, the racial undertones and perception were not productive.  As a result of this proposition (which was eventually judged unconstitutional), it produced a negative backlash towards the California GOP and produced heavily Democratic legislatures over the past 20 years.

By Governor Jerry Brown ignoring federal policy, it sets a horrible battle for the United States as a nation of laws.  The Civil War was fought precisely over this issue.  The slave states of the South did not want to adhere to the federal government and its position on slavery.  As a result, the South directly challenged the federal law and ignored the position of the President.  This is what California is attempting to do.  States can pass laws for the benefit of its residents, but any state law that contradicts the U.S. Constitution will be overturned in the courts because federal law supersedes any state law.  This was determined and approved by the states after the Civil War as part of the reconciliation of the union.  I understand that Republicans do this as well, especially when a Democratic administration is in control of the White House (see the Affordable Care Act).  That does not make it right.  We as a country cannot pick and choose which federal law and presidential authority we as citizens want to follow.  That is not how a country functions.  It sets a pattern for the destruction of the Constitution and the future of our democratic republic.

This defiance by the Democratic party in California is a shameless attempt to be political.  It is not productive and effective in the long term.  What is the benefit that Jerry Brown finds in this method?  Does he think that Republicans will not do the same thing when a Democrat wins the White House in the future?  How can the Democrats complain when that happens?  I know that Americans have a short memory, but this is getting to be ridiculous.  California is the most populous state in the union, and it has three of the largest industries in the world (tech, agribusiness, and the entertainment industry).  The state is the 6th largest economy in the world, and the world looks to California in admiration and with tremendous respect.  So, how does an influential state like California make decisions like this, and what is the end game?  The federal courts will reject this defiance and support President Trump and the federal government's prerogatives.  It is a wasted endeavor.  While I do not generally support the Republican party orthodoxy, they are right when they claim that the Democratic party is shamelessly attempting to curry votes with the state's large Hispanic population, and across the country as a whole.

I do not support the mass deportation of the millions of undocumented immigrants, and I do feel that Congress must get its act together and pass legislation that takes into consideration of the humane treatment of those who are here without proper documentation.  I agree wholeheartedly that many of the undocumented immigrants work hard and play a part in the nation's economic engine. Those who have obeyed the laws and play by the rules should be allowed to stay, with certain stipulations.  These include a delay in being eligible for a green card, provided they have no criminal history, learn English (so we can all communicate with each other) and assimilate into our communities.  Protecting and promoting their cultures is great, and makes our country better, but we all need to live under the same set of rules and way of life.  What the Democratic party in California is attempting to promote does not bode well for Americans to get along and live in harmony. Instead of grandstanding for Hispanic votes, the Democrats and Republicans must pass effective immigration reform instead of pandering to voters within their political parties and work to make this country a great place to live.

The Political Fire Bomb Regarding the FBI

February 25, 2018

How the dangerous game between Republicans, Democrats, and corporate media regarding the FBI will lay the groundwork for the destruction of the American Republic

_____________________________

The ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats and their allies in the media regarding the legitimacy of the Donald Trump presidency has reached dangerous levels for our democracy, government institutions and the future of our republic.  Democrats have been pushing the alleged collusion between members of the Trump Administration and the Russian government through Vladimir Putin's associates.  Democratic members of Congress have tried to paint Hillary Clinton's shock loss in November 2016 as a result of collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump's inner circle of friends and close associates.

The gist of their argument is that President Trump used his sons and others like Paul Manafort as background intermediaries to work to ensure Trump won.  I have yet to see any evidence from any member of Congress to prove that there is anything factual or newsworthy.  They are using a dossier compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to show that Trump has committed treason to win a democratic election in the United States. This dossier was promoted by a pro-Hillary organization called Fusion GPS. According to Ben Shapiro, in an article which appeared in the National Review, the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant based on the language of the Steele dossier, which was filled with unverified information.  Fusion GPS allegedly worked with Obama appointees in the upper echelon of the FBI to promote this idea and get the FISA warrant approved to investigate the Trump transition team staffers. The investigation did not begin with former Trump aide Carter Page, but instead with George Papadopoulos, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI recently.  Mr. Shapiro stated that Carter Page was being monitored over a long period of time because of his close ties to elements with the Russian government. There may be suspicion of a crime, but that does not constitute an actual crime once thoroughly investigated. President Trump is not known to have people of integrity on his campaign and White House staff, but unless the proof is irrefutable that there was collusion, I think it best that the country is allowed to move on from this episode and focus on protecting future elections from outside interference.

At some point, Democrats either need to reveal what they allege or they must move on to more productive things, such as trying to win back one or both houses of Congress.  If they don't, it will appear that they are sore losers and instead want to litigate the 2016 election they felt entitled to win. In fact, after watching Tucker Carlson on Fox News, he believes that if this investigation does not prove any malfeasance on the part of President Trump, the GOP will use the antagonist (and hoped career advancement as a result of this crusade) Congressman Adam Schiff as a campaign theme target so that the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2018 Midterms.  If the Democrats take back the House and use their new majority to impeach President Trump on charges that will not hold up in court, or the Senate, it is bad news.  It will trigger worse reactions from Trump supporters and begin a period of hostile confrontation between the two major parties. This will be exploited on the international stage of foreign policy by the Chinese and to some extent, the Russians themselves I believe.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to paint the prior Obama Administration as culpable in trying to derail President Trump's victory by using government institutions to thwart his win.  The GOP is attempting to show that Democrats wanted to stop at nothing to prove that President Trump is an illegitimate Leader of the Free World.  They allege that President Obama used political friends in the FBI to attempt to paint Trump as working to collude with a foreign government to help him win.  They may have something to cling to since there is recent evidence provided through emails from President Obama, that he did not notify the American public of alleged interference from the Russian intelligence community.

According to the Washington Post's Phillip Bump, in an article dated February 21st, members of President Obama's White House staff wrote to their Kremlin contacts in early 2016 to warn them about interference in the upcoming American election. It was hoped that Russia would get the hint, and avoid any perception that it had a hand in determining a winner in November of 2016.  CIA Director John Brennan informed leaders of both parties and members of the intelligence community wanted President Obama to notify the American people.  However, without a consensus within the intelligence community, Obama did not act on those recommendations. Once it appeared that Donald Trump was going to win the White House, the stories of "collusion" started to begin in effect from the Hillary campaign, and senior members of the Democratic Establishment and other lawmakers of influence joined in the chorus.  It has now reached a crescendo.

The Mueller investigation may paint a few stupid and careless Trump associates as guilty of various things, but if collusion with a foreign government by President Trump himself is not one of them, this will have serious consequences for the United States to function as a constitutional republic.  It has been discussed on various online sites that the FBI allegedly used flimsy evidence from the Steele Dossier, which was put together by Fusion GPS, to secure the FISA warrant.  If this is proven true, and the Mueller investigation does not bear the fruit that the Democrats hopes for, then President Trump will use this "fake investigation" to solidify his base in time for the 2018 Midterms.  Even FBI Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein stated that he believes any allegations into the conduct of the charges against Trump's associates did not affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

As mentioned earlier, if nothing comes out of this investigation by Mueller, then an already divided country and hyper-partisan Congress will change the dynamics of how our country operates as a vibrant democracy.  One of the few government institutions that the American people hold in high regard (outside of the military) is the FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency in the world.  If partisanship infects this great agency, it will eventually be used by both Congress and future presidents as a secret police force that investigates political opponents and use it to paint members of the president's opposition as enemies of the state.  This is the first step in getting admired and respected members of the FBI, Department of Defense and overall law enforcement as non-partisan, unbiased people who took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic.  A strong democracy cannot effectively protect the American people and provide a service that makes our country one of the greatest democracies on earth.

What is the solution to this partisan mess?  First, Republicans and Democrats must show temperance and patience, and let this investigation by Robert Mueller play out, and make determinations based on the rule of law, rather than a promoted outcome by either party.  This will respect the process of proper legal investigations, and provide the American people with the way to conduct thorough investigations before anyone projects a biased outcome.  It will also ensure that investigations are just that, to research any allegations against anyone, and make a determination if charges are warranted.  Furthermore, members of Congress must leave the FBI rank and file agents out of the political sphere.  Even though there are extreme partisan feelings regarding Trump and his administration's policies, it is best to alleviate the nation's law enforcement agencies out of defending their work to political witch hunts on both sides.  The nation's institutions and democratic future are at stake.

What is the solution to having more women in Tech (Silicon Valley)?

February 1, 2018

Silicon Valley's Women Problem: Is there a fair solution?

____________________________

This past January, the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, along with Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, was interviewed by Kara Swisher of Recode (silicon Valley tech magazine) about the lack of women in the technology sector, specifically in the computer sciences.  This was a joint interview with MSNBC, who was represented by Ari Melber.  Other topics discussed included how Silicon Valley will adapt to new technologies in the 21st Century, gender equality and immigration and workplace diversity.

Ms. Swisher asked both Ms. Wojcicki and Mr. Pichai about the lack of women engineers and computer scientists in Silicon Valley.  Ms. Wojcicki stated that the computer sciences and other tech fields have a 'male-geek' reputation and that this does not encourage women to enroll in university programs that offer coursework in the computer sciences.  This did not sit well with Kara Swisher or the majority-female audience, who did not like the response from either of them.

I know that the tech industry is a coveted career, but in order for more women to be in its ranks, women need to pursue majors and coursework that will qualify them to work for admired companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Uber.  I believe that roughly 20% of computer sciences majors are women, which means men make up the vast majority of graduates that Silicon Valley recruits and retains for their workforce.  There is a United States law that states no company or organization can discriminate against anyone based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or political views, and this law has been in effect since the 1970s.

If Kara Swisher wants more women in tech, they need to pursue degrees in the fields of their choice and must be able to enroll in colleges in similar numbers to men, so those tech companies have an evenly split talent pool from which to offer positions.  Otherwise, critics like Ms. Swisher are openly advocating that tech companies discriminate against men so that the percentage of women within these companies are close to the mean for both sexes.  If these companies did this, they would be open to multiple lawsuits from men who are rejected simply because of their gender.  I doubt many of the senior executives of these companies would want that type of negative publicity or payouts that will affect their bottom line, not to mention anger from shareholders who would see their stock prices drop due to the negative attention.

Recently, a software engineer, Susan Fowler, wrote a blog post about how there was a toxic work environment at her previous employer, Uber. She stated she was propositioned for sex from a supervisor, ignored by Human Resources and that the company was more supportive of those senior executive managers she complained about.  As a result, she quit and pursued other offers other tech companies made.  It was widely read and made a huge impression on the Board of Uber, which removed founder and CEO Travis Kalanick, along with a few other Board members.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder became a consultant who reviewed the work environment and made recommendations to how it operates.  Democratic fundraiser and founder of the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, became an advisor to the company as well, and also made suggestions as to how it needs to function to support its female employees.  These were drastic measures to save the reputation of the company, and a new CEO was chosen as well.

The combination of these two large problems does play a part in the lack of women in tech.  Will the situation improve?  I cannot say for sure.  What can be done?  Well, part of the issue is the type of majors women choose.  Many enroll in the humanities, along with the social services, in addition to the legal and medical fields.  I think that women make up close to 50% of medical school students and that they are the majority of law school students.  Because of this, law firms and health insurance organizations hire a lot of women, and those fields are represented well.  Fields that women do not choose or lack a large representation include the computer sciences, engineering (all classifications) and business schools.

If critics of the lack of women in glamorous fields like tech want to see better representation, they need to put a plan in place for universities to recruit harder and intensively women so they can see what their careers will be like.  Schools cannot force women to pursue fields that they are not interested in.  What more can they do?  Perhaps go into high schools and introduce successful women who have thrived?  Sheryl Sandberg comes to mind, but the book she wrote ("Lean In") focused more on the selective type of partners women need to choose to succeed in those fields, which places an emphasis that a women's career should be first and foremost than the marriage she enters into.  I tend to not support her ideas.  She wants to place men as a second priority, and the women I know want a work-life balance that has rewards for both a woman and her family.  Tech companies do make an effort to support this idea, but everyone's life is different, and women have a choice as to what they value and prioritize.  Nothing can be forced, it needs to be what women want to do with their lives.

In regards to the toxic environment that Susan Fowler described, perhaps now is the time for tech companies to be aggressive in how they treat their employees.  With the recent allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and other prominent men in the entertainment, media, and political fields, now is time to make serious changes to the workplace.  I would recommend that companies force their HR departments to have a written record of complaints and that those women who file grievances can be interviewed and find positive solutions to make the workplace better. Companies must also show those who complained that people who made them uncomfortable were dealt with. New male and female employees must attend sexual harassment workshops and prove written documentation that men (especially) understand what is acceptable behavior and what type of negative behavior will be held against them, and that all who file complaints will be heard and taken seriously.

Hopefully, these measures will be looked into, and whatever percentage of women seek success in these fields, they can be assured that they will be valued and every opportunity for upward mobility will be afforded to them.

The dangerous cartel that is the US Soccer Federation & Major League Soccer

The US Soccer Federation (USSF) is an unhealthy cartel that works in collaboration with Major League Soccer (MLS) to stunt the growth of the men's game in the United States.

January 25, 2018

_________________________________

Soccer over the past twenty-five years has made tremendous gains in terms of viability, partial financial success, and popularity.  Certain players have become household names (Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey) from their play on the world stage (FIFA Confederations Cup, FIFA World Cup), but all of that came to a crashing halt (at least temporarily) with the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) missing the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia this summer. This epic disaster has caused a lot of soul-searching in the United States, on the men's side, and forced current USSF President Sunil Gulati to not seek another unpaid term as its president. The election for a new president is one that for the first time has national interest from the American media.  Former women's national team goalkeeper Hope Solo is a candidate, as is former men's national team players Eric Wynalda and Paul Caligiuri.  There are a few other unknown candidates but they do have work experience involving soccer as a whole, including Kathy Carter, the current head of Soccer United Marketing (SUM) which is a promotional and business endeavor amongst the owners of MLS teams.  SUM owns the television rights to all US national teams, plus the lucrative rights to the Mexican national team telecasts in North America.  It allows MLS owners to collect necessary revenue for a sport that does not have the financial heft of other men's leagues in the United States have (NFL, NBA, NHL, and motor sports-NASCAR, Indy Racing League).

The sudden soul-searching by the soccer community as a whole has forced me to look into the sport I am so passionate about.  [Full disclosure: I am a die-hard supporter of MLS as a whole, along with my favorite professional sports team, the Los Angeles Galaxy].  I attend games regularly, and hope to see the league ascend the lofty heights I dream about before I die.  The bedrock of the league's business model is something called "single entity," which is that the league is a single monolith that owns all player contracts and teams and generally controls where certain national team players can ply their trade, and attempts to improve the fortunes of smaller clubs. "Owners" are considered investor/operators and get to control the team they pay a fee for. It is designed to protect less wealthy owners by having all owners share losses and split profits according to whatever monies they collect from gate receipts, television contracts, and merchandise sales.

The goal is to make sure that no one team has a monopoly on talent and big names from the USMNT and focus more on slow and steady growth. At times this works, and other times, it causes fans to question the league's motives.  For instance, Jermaine Jones, who starred in the 2014 FIFA World Cup by scoring a goal against Portugal for the United States, wanted to come stateside and play for the LA Galaxy, since he has a home in Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley, to be precise).  However, with a rule that most fans did not know of, he was assigned to the New England Revolution, the MLS team based in Boston, and plays in the home of the NFL's New England Patriots.  That was not even his second choice, but he nonetheless played there for two seasons before finally playing the last few years of his career in Los Angeles.  In most other leagues, this would never have happened.  Jermaine Jones would get to play wherever he chose.  MLS does this to protect teams that generally are not a draw for elite players, since New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the preferred destinations, in most cases.

I believe this was a good strategy in the beginning years when MLS was struggling to gain a foothold in the American sports landscape.  The last 20 years have proven that was acceptable, since the league allegedly was losing money, and needed a format that would share those losses with owners who did not have the finances to make their teams better.  Most of these teams are in small markets, such as Colorado, San Jose, Columbus and Salt Lake City.  I understand this was needed because most teams are dependent still on gate receipts, and the teams mentioned above really need those to have that necessary revenue streams.  

The USSF comes into play in helping the league by assigning MLS "First Division" status, which gets an advantage for talent coming into the league, as opposed to lower division soccer.  Part of the reason that the Federation and MLS work together is that lower division soccer, like the National American Soccer League (NASL), does not have a salary cap.  This could threaten MLS if someone with deep pockets provides a massive infusion of new revenue.  This would put MLS in a precarious position of being the first division for soccer, but trail a lower division in terms of financial power to attract top male talent.  It is a problem because MLS gets to control competition, and ensures that the business model it uses, single entity, does not lose any competitive advantage against another league.  MLS does this to protect the parity it promotes to potential owners and current ownership, in that they can move as slowly as possible on their own terms, to the detriment of the sport, in my opinion.

This cartel hurts soccer in the long term.  For US Soccer and the national team to be able to compete on the world stage, it needs to work to cultivate talent.  Part of this responsibility falls on MLS teams, but since they have no motivation or urgency to develop young talent, takes its sweet time in seeking out top soccer players throughout the country.  Critics say that this includes not searching for talent in minority communities and especially in the urban centers and inner cities. Additionally, a critical element of how soccer provides talent is that is it a sport for primarily white families since they are the ones who have money to send their kids on travel teams and receive good coaching.  Most minorities do not have the time or money to provide their kids the access to succeed. It is why I feel that soccer will plod along at its own convenient pace, and that does not bode well for international success.

How does one change this?  Well, since there is a new election for the President of the USSF, I hope that the new person in charge will force MLS to modify its ways.  This would include promoting and supporting lower division soccer, and allow those who want those leagues to succeed can do so.  Lower division soccer needs to have more financial support, and the Federation needs to seek wealthy individuals to provide a necessary cash flow that will allow it to compete on some level to MLS.  This can motivate MLS to either buy those players, and give much-needed financial help to those leagues, or provide MLS with another pipeline of talent with which to cultivate.  The Federation should also on its own develop talent that MLS does not find, and either send them to MLS clubs or allow them to ply their trade in Europe or South America.

These are some steps that soccer can do to promote the sport as a whole and provide a new foundation to succeed on the international level.  I sincerely hope that this happens for the sport I love to move in a more positive direction.

Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea

January 5, 2017


President Trump's idea to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a bad idea.

________________________

There was a shock, surprise, and anger that the United States, at the urging of Israel and its allies in Congress, moved the official US embassy to Jerusalem.  President Trump signed the documents on his desk and then released that order throughout the world.  Since then, there have been small riots in Arab cities, and diplomatic anger as well.  The United Nations and many members of the European Union are against it since many leaders within the U.N. feel that accepted reconciliation by both parties for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Jerusalem shall be part divided into two capitals for two states.

I don't believe President Trump really took the time to figure this out and made this decision based solely on his gut and the "help" of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Sheldon Adelson, and certain Republicans in Congress, all of whom are against a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

There are many Jews throughout the world who want a peaceful end to the Palestinean conflict and want a two-state solution. Not because they see the Palestineans as their true friends, but that in order for Israel to have a safe and secure future, the Palestinean issue must be addressed.  In fact, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is in agreement with this argument (disclosure: I heard Mr. Barak echo these sentiments in a speech I heard in Redondo Beach in 2016).  However, Israeli society has changed over the years, from the group of early founding Zionists who had a shared sense of destiny with each other, and saw the solution to end Palestinean suffering as part of that shared destiny.  The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist, and settler who believed Israel was given to the Jews by God, changed all that.  Over time, those Israelis were replaced with new immigrants to the country by Aliyah (right of emigration to Israel) and the population that had some sympathy toward Palestinians was eroded.  Losing those older Israelis has hurt the peace process considerably.

I cannot believe President Trump did not consider all this before making his order official to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  While rioting in Arab capitals may soon start up again, there is a pause now because Islam's Shia and Sunni communities are beginning a global war against each other.  Saudi Arabia (supported by Israel and the United States) is on one side, and Iran, Yemen, and other affiliated countries on the other side. That may save the Trump Administration some fallout for now over his embassy decision, but over the long haul, this decision will hurt American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.  It will go down as one of the dumbest decisions by an American president and affect the Middle East in a negative direction (that might be irreversible) for last peace.

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.