What is the true relationship between President Trump, Vladimir Putin and Russia Intelligence?

The Helsinki Summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent alarm bells in Washington and throughout the country. This meeting has started a troubling discussion of the alleged relationship between Russian intelligence, the Kremlin, and the American President's inner circle.

July 20, 2018

________________________

After a troubling press conference during the Russian and American Summit in Helsinki, Finland, alarm bells went off in Washington, D.C, and parts of the country. First and foremost was President Trump's disavowing of information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and assets regarding Russian influence in the past presidential election, and President Trump's public support of Russian President, Vladimir Putin.  Donald Trump essentially said that despite what American intelligence has gleaned about Russia's alleged interference in the prior election, President Trump affirmed the honor and integrity of Mr. Putin.  It is, to many observers, the first time an American president promoted a view that the leader of a nuclear power, and antagonist for American foreign policy goals, was vouched for by the occupant of the Oval Office. It made the matter worse when Trump denied the veracity of American intelligence.   It was so glaring that many in the media, including conservative talking heads, publicly rebuked the American president and stated that Trump did a favor for his critics who view him now as a bonafide Russian asset, with Putin as his handler.  In fact, a recent article by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine makes a case that President Trump could, in fact, be doing Putin's bidding in his quest to dismantle Western Democracies and their alliance against his country, both militarily and economically.

Mr. Chait goes on to write that Donald Trump has worked with Russian oligarchs and others who purchase condos and other real estate assets throughout Trump's vast global portfolio.  In fact, many oligarchs overpay for space in Trump Tower, and most of those remain empty.  The articles make an astonishing implication that Trump has laundered money through his real estate holdings going back decades, beginning around 1987.  This was the year that Donald Trump became a public figure, first with the publishing success of his book, "The Art of the Deal," and public comments regarding immense Japanese investment in the United States, through real estate, Wall Street, and purchasing of American name brands.  Additionally,  he was against Japan's reliance on the United States military to protect and defend Japanese territorial sovereignty.  The year is also noteworthy in that it was the year that Donald Trump and his then-wife Ivana visited the Soviet Union, staying in Moscow's prominent hotel, the National Hotel, even staying in the Lenin Suite, which Mr. Chait believes was most certainly bugged.  After his return, Donald Trump began a decades-long flirtation with the Oval Office, which culminated with an aborted run for president in 2011, and ended with his shock win in 2016.  Until his win, Trump had opined through newspaper Op-Eds that America was being taken advantage of by countries (Western Europe and other Asian nations besides Japan) who required American military support. However, he neglected to mention whom the United States was protecting these countries from (Russia), according to Jonathan Chait.

The New York Magazine details how Russian intelligence cultivates their assets, through years of flattery, while making copious notes regarding those individual proclivities relating to ego, money, sexual appetite, stupidity, and greed, all of which Mr. Chait believes Trump has in large supply.  It further makes a case that Donald Trump during his long career in business, felt comfortable working with less-than-stellar segments of the New York business scene, including La Cosa Nostra (organized crime, which controlled cement production in greater New York), and a close associate named Felix Sater, who many believe has close ties to Putin's inner circle of business and intelligence friends, including the Russian Mafia.  One of the most damaging claims in the New York Magazine article is that Trump has received numerous financial loans from Russian banks due to his obsessive desire to litigate against anyone who he feels has wronged him.  American and European banks avoid working with him because of his large volume of litigation against those businesses when he was loaned money for his real estate ventures.  As a result, the vast majority of his recent loans involved Russian origins, and one of his sons, Donald Jr., stated as such, in 2008.  

Other journalists (Michael Isikoff and David Corn) feel that part of what drives President Trump in his policy decisions is his virulent hatred of anything President Obama did, mostly as a result of public humiliation during the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, where Obama had a field day with Donald Trump and his behavior towards him.  In fact, anything that President Obama approved, Trump goes against it.  That is partly why he does things, in my opinion, to spite a black former President, from the current one who many assume is racist and has negative impressions of black Americans.

The article by Mr. Chait provides names of many close Trump associates, including Paul Manafort, a consultant and lobbyist who has worked for Pro Russian Ukrainian politico Viktor Yanukovych, Roger Stone, known GOP operative, and others who have close ties to Russian businessmen and oligarchs, many of whom stayed in contact even after Paul Manafort left the Trump campaign during the summer when the election was not in doubt, and it appeared Trump would lose convincingly to Hillary Clinton.  Robert Mueller has indicted Manafort, whose bail was denied, and remains in jail awaiting trial for money laundering (there's that theme again).  The piece does lay out a convincing case that there could be more than meets the eye regarding the awkwardly weird relationship between the American president and Russia's leader.  

In this frenzied political climate, where both parties want to win national elections and access the power that comes with controlling the federal government, the breathless speculation only amplifies America's deep class, political and economic divisions between citizens of all stripes.  I am not refuting the salient points in the New York Magazine article presented by Mr. Chait, but it would be better for everyone to wait and see what the findings of the Mueller probe are.  If the final report shows that President Trump is overwhelmingly beholden to the leader of a foreign nuclear power, it will be the end of the Trump Administration.  Even if he does not want to leave the Oval Office, if Republicans turn on him after the evidence presented shows massive compromising information, Trump will be impeached.  Whether after all that he still refuses to leave, even attempting to drum up his base, it will cause a conflagration of the American way of life, the status of the Constitution, and whether the United States remains a vibrant democracy.  What compounds the problem is that both the Democratic and Republican parties increase the distrust of government institutions, the rule of law, and the art of compromise because of their desire to win elections at the expense of the opposition. The parties are helped by media conglomerates (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN) who prey on this partisanship.  It would be better for the country if Americans are patient and wait to hear and read what is in the final report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

I do not know if America can recover if the Leader of the Free World is an asset of Vladimir Putin, or at least heavily leveraged in debt to the same person; it will forever damage the credibility of the American President's position in world affairs.  

Supreme Court Confirmation Armageddon

July 3, 2018

The upcoming and explosive confirmation fight will divide the country even more as the new Supreme Court justice will determine the ideological direction of American jurisprudence and affect the future of the interpretation of the Constitution.

________________________________________

The recent announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he will retire from the Supreme Court after the court's term which ends in May of this year has sent shocked court observers, Republicans, Democrats and prominent members of the media and internet bloggers. 

On July 9th, President Trump nominated D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative legal mind, to fill the Kennedy position on the nation's highest court.  This was applauded by various conservative online publications (National Review), but he was not the first choice for other conservatives.  That choice was Notre Dame graduate Amy Cony Barret, who is a staunch Catholic, law school professor, and current judge.  She is favored by religious activists, for her strong advocacy for faith and living with a moral compass.  I think President Trump chose Mr. Kavanaugh for his extensive paper trail and vociferous positions regarding originalist Constitutional interpretation of the laws.  It helps that he is 53 years old, relatively "young" for a justice so that he can serve for a significant amount of time.

While his confirmation fight will be contentious for a multitude of reasons, many of his positions have broad support amongst Republican members of Congress and members of the D.C. Establishment. Some of them include: (provided by the National Review;www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-trump-supreme-court-nominee)

1) Taming the Administrative State: Kavanaugh has an extensive track record with rulings that put a limit on what the Federal Government can and cannot do in terms of forcing states to comply with specific provisions that go against the type of intrusive government power on state's rights.  Judge Kavanaugh disagrees with the Chevron principle; where there is a disagreement with a state and a government agency, the government agency has final say on behalf of the United States government.  Many states (conservatives) do not feel this type of governance is Constitutional.

2) Enforcing the 2nd Amendment:  As a D.C. Appeals court ruling, he dissented against Washington, D.C.'s prohibition against the owning of semi-automatic weapons.  He will be a strong defender of those who want to own most types of guns.

3) The American Worker:  Judge Kavanaugh is against allowing undocumented immigrants from voting in union elections, and that certain instances companies cannot choose lower wage employees over American workers.  He also sides with domestic farmers and agriculture interests over foreign competitors.

4) Abortion:  Judge Kavanaugh is a devout Catholic, and his personal views go with Catholic dogma.  In a case against the Department of Health and Human Services, he objected to a court case involving granting the right of a female undocumented minor to seek an abortion while she was under government detention.  It is safe to say that any abortion case that comes across the Supreme Court's docket involving any abortion rights, he will provide a vote towards any conservative opinion and majority.  Democrats are going to make this issue the central component of their vociferous opposition to his sitting on the nation's highest court.

Judge Kavanaugh has over 300 court opinions from which Democratic Senate staff will pore over to find flaws in his beliefs that could damage his ascendancy to the Supreme Court. I feel his nomination will not run through too much obstruction when the U.S. Senate gets to vote.  Because of Senate rules that were changed under previous Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, where a simple majority vote in the Senate allowed President Obama's nominees to win confirmation, Republicans now control the Senate.  Democrats will make for great theater in opposing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination unless the judge cannot remove himself from certain positions that might proof fatal, he will soon sit on the Supreme Court.   With two Republican Senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who are staunch Pro-Choice Republicans, I don't see those two Senators will vote against Judge Kavanaugh unless he provides any reason why he will not seek to overturn settled law (Roe v. Wade) and precedent regarding future abortion cases.

What the Democrats can best hope for with the remaining liberal judges who are older, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  is to pray she remains in good health until the Democrats can regain the upper chamber in the U.S. Congress.   They should also have a good set of judges who a Democratic President, once sworn in January of 2021, can nominate someone who will protect legal issues that the Democrats hold dear.

This is a fight between the ideologies of both parties. The Republicans support judicial originalism, which focuses on any rulings that damage the "original" Constitutional intent of the Founders. In other words, if American voters want something changed with the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or legal precedent, they should use voting and the legislative process to enact change.  The Democrats want proactive judges to use the power of the Supreme Court to overturn policies that will benefit the country (or more truthfully) members of their largest constituent groups (women and minorities).

That is why this Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh will be full of grand theater in a highly partisan political environment.  It will determine the course of how we live, and whether we stray from Constitutional intent or treat the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document which will usher the country into the modern era.

Exciting times.

Immigration is an important problem that the United States needs to solve...but not the Trump Way

June 20, 2018

The recent images of children of undocumented immigrants being put into "immigration centers" without their parents cast a dark shadow on the benevolent ideals of the American story.  How President Trump handles this issue will shape how the world views the United States for years to come.

_______________________________

When Donald Trump campaigned for the Oval Office, one of his pledges was to enforce a strict immigration policy, one that deports undesirable immigrants, while building a large wall to keep out new, unwanted immigrants.  Those who voted for him support this new policy, and those that hate President Trump view this policy as racist, xenophobic and downright hostile to "brown and black" immigrants who are in the United States.

In a highly politicized America, these images have caused a lot of anger and shame for those who are liberal.  It has given the Democrats a huge campaign issue, one that could be used to give the Democrats back power in the lower house, (the U.S. Senate notwithstanding).  I agree that the Trump Administration, by releasing the images of the children in cages in these centers, does not look good around the world.   So, what was his purpose in releasing this information?  I am guessing that it was for those who support and voted for President Trump.  Whichever aid in the White House suggested he release those images should be fired, for the sole reason that aides in the White House have jobs whose sole purpose is to protect the president's policies and his first term so that he gets re-elected.  Unless Trump feels that his support is so strong that he can do no wrong and that he will get positive reviews from Republican members of Congress and the GOP Establishment.  

From what I have seen, a few prominent Republican senators are against what the administration is doing, at least in terms of separating children from their parents.  These include Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. Many Democrats who are angling for the White House in 2020, such as Senators Kamala Harris, feel that this does not look good for the United States, and propose ending this policy, while trying to find common ground with Republicans.  Ms. Harris is in agreement that undocumented immigrants who are felons should be deported, but the rest can find a place in the United States and provide for their families.

Immigration has been something that has been talked about by previous administrations, but nothing new and concrete has been able to pass the United States Congress.  The Republican hard right doesn't want an immigration policy that provides so-called "amnesty" to any "undocumented immigrant," but rather deport all undocumented immigrants.  This to me sounds like they want to remove a significant percentage of non-white (Hispanic, primarily Mexican) immigrants from the United States.  That seems unreasonable, along with appearing to be quite racist.  The better solution would be to grant Green Cards to those who show a desire to live peacefully and productively in the United States.  Since they came over the border illegally, a probational period of three years (instead of the usual two) once they register with the federal government, is a fair and acceptable compromise, I feel.  This is something most Democrats can support because it does not require payment of a large fee, self-deportations, which sound ridiculous and delayed entry into the United States. This separates families for years and causes economic hardship for lower-income families. 

However, nothing will move the needle to effective make progress.  Not because there are those members of Congress who want to see a significant law or policy dealing with how America handles immigrants who wish to come to the United States.  Rather, the bigger issues that no one talks about aloud are that undocumented immigrants allow for the depressed wages that small businesses and large corporations covet to in order to turn a profit, even handsomely.  Additionally, workers without legal or labor protections do not force those businesses from providing health and pension benefits (which is another serious, and growing problem, regardless), thereby adding to encumbrances and lowering much-desired profit margins. Liberals want to see this issue resolved because as whites leave the Democrats in large numbers, they need a new constituency that votes as an ethnic bloc like the African-American community to provide them electoral victories.

Even with this issue front and center, I doubt legislative measures will be passed.  Democrats want to see a new constituency to their broad, identity-based political tent. Those entrenched conservatives who want the status quo are afraid of changing racial demographics, a significant increase in Democratic votes, and fear of losing profits for businesses mean that TV images alone will not change what is turning into another contentious issue for the divided American people.

Trump, North Korea and Iran...Savvy manuvering or clumsy behavior toward War?

May 12, 2018


What is President Donald Trump's end game with North Korea and Iran?  Could he make the world a safer place, or could his actions lead to a horrible third World War?


___________________

President Trump's Summit with North Korean dictator Kim-Jong Un was great for the cameras, but what was the end result?  Kim got what he wanted, a much-hyped meeting with the Leader of the Free World, but what did President Trump get?  No serious policy questions got answered, nor was any headway made towards the North Korean regime's stockpile of nuclear weapons, and their disposal.   Both leaders just signed a non-binding "meh" agreement that said they would meet on a regular basis to continue their initial dialogue.  For those Americans who support Trump, their leader provided a huge foreign policy victory, but what was it?  For those who hate Donald Trump, they claimed that the whole summit was a charade, and nothing was gained by it.  If anything was promoted, it was the President himself, for vanity's sake.

Now, if President Trump's presidency gets the North Korean regime to open their borders to trade, economic support, medical services for the starving population, and gets the regime to end the Korean War officially, along with a drawdown of forces close to the border, then things could be seen in a positive light.  However, North Korea's "trump" card if you will, IS their nukes.  Why would they want to give them up? It gives them leverage with the outside world. Additionally, China does not want a pro-West unified Korean peninsula on China's border.  One thing Kim-Jong Un wants is an arms agreement where there would be no Western (United States) military personnel on the peninsula.  I doubt the Pentagon will allow or acquiesce to Trump's potential decision on this.  The military has too much investment in personnel and material, along with ground, air, and naval power situated in South Korea.  Also, I do not feel that the South Korean government would want the United States military to leave the peninsula, leaving the South Korean military to protect one of the world's largest economies.

I believe President Trump wants a huge foreign policy victory, but not for the betterment of US relations with its allies, or peace.  What Donald Trump wants is something that he can say HE engineered, and HE alone is the reason peace on the Korean peninsula was achieved.  His motivations are not for the country as a whole, but for him personally, and his potential business dealings with the new North Korea.  When he first took office, I was worried about a serious, world-altering conflict between the United States, South Korea and North Korea (with China and Russia covertly involved).  Now, I am waiting to see if Donald Trump can bring about at least a de-escalation of tension in that part of the world.  If that happens, then the much-maligned Leader of the Free World will have something to crow about.   That would require him to be smart, savvy and careful to not give the North Korean regime too much without getting anything significant in return.

The world anxiously awaits if this administration can do anything right.  

Girls can now join the Boy Scouts?

May 2, 2018

The recent announcement that girls can join the Boy Scouts, and that the organization will remove the word "Boy" from its title is a troubling sign that boys can no longer have places to congregate amongst themselves.

Is this good for the country at large?

______________________________

I was shocked and saddened to hear the recent news that the venerable Boy Scouts of America (BSA), of which I spent during my formative years, and had become an Eagle Scout, has now made the announcement that girls can join the historic organization.  While I am supportive of inclusion in certain instances, I strongly believe that having organizations for young boys and men to have a place to meet, learn from each other, acquire life skills, is a good thing. That the organization is no longer a haven for those individuals to grow together makes me sad.   I started as a Cub Scout with my friends from elementary school, and many of our fathers volunteered their time. It was a wonderful period for me.  I looked forward to Cub Scout meetings because I got to hang out with my friends and learn new skills, and ways to improve myself.  Some of those friends followed me into the Boy Scouts, and I had similar experiences, which included hiking 25 miles in the Sierra Nevada mountains, sleeping under the stars, and attending cookouts, canoeing down the Colorado River, and camping on Catalina Island's Cherry Valley.  I loved those times, precisely because I bonded with my friends and father.  Even though many of my friends eventually stopping going to meetings and traveling, I stuck it out, because I learned so much and gained skills with various merit badges (such as Aviation, Emergency Preparedness, and Archery to name a few), some of whom were taught by dedicated Scout leaders.

I am confused as to why the organization would do this, especially since there is already a healthy place for girls who want similar experiences called, wait for it...The Girl Scouts!  Young girls an women can enjoy the same types of camping, traveling and hiking that the boys have, and they sell delicious cookies to boot!  The Girl Scouts even put out an official statement of opposition to this measure and provided their own reasoning for the Boy Scouts to open such a decision.  The Girl Scouts do not believe that this will help the BSA but hurt itself and the Girl Scouts themselves. 

So, what was the primary reason?  It could be social media pressure, due to years of controversial decisions such as banning gay scout leaders and transgender individuals, which led to reversing those bans. This led to churches to stop sponsoring scout troops, including the Church of Latter Day Saints, which provides a large share of buildings for scout troops to use.  The Mormons have a significant percentage of Scouting participants, and this was a major blow to the Boy Scouts of America.  In fact, just recently, the Church of Latter Day Saints has made it official, that after December 31, 2019, the LDS church will remove itself from the Boy Scouts of America and create their own Mormon-centered organization for its members.

I think the reason that the organization opened the movement to girls is that with a large number of churches removing themselves from participating in the Boy Scouts, the organization had no choice but to find new members and entities that would be open to sponsoring scout troops.  Over 90% of young boys do not participate in the scouting experience so this measure could be a desperate attempt to stay relevant and keep the movement going.

This move by the BSA has been met with howls of anger, opposition and disgust by conservative commentators such as Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld of Fox News, and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA.  Others, such as myself, are saddened by this decision. I feel that boys and young men are losing opportunities to spend time with their peers and older adult role models.  There are ample times for boys and young men to spend time with girls, including at school events and social organizations.  I don't know why the BSA chose to do this.  Perhaps there was enormous pressure from women's groups, plus various social media platforms, which did their best over the years to bully and pressure the organization to include girls.  I am perplexed by their efforts since the Girl Scouts provide the same opportunities for young girls who get to engage their peers in the same learning environments.  It could be the part of the methods of the feminist movement which seeks to engage in conflict with organizations that cater to solely boys and young men and force these organizations to remove obstacles to any girls who want to participate.  Even though there is a similar organization for young women, I think the greater prize was forcing an organization that caters to young boys and men to finally allow girls to participate.  Especially when feminists have created places for women only to meet, network and engage in women-specific activism.  

So, what feminists label as "inclusivity" is actually access to anything they envy, while at the same time, protecting women-only organizations for "safe spaces" for females to congregate and spend time with each other. That is not inclusivity, but hypocrisy.  I do not support the decision of the Boy Scouts of America on this.  It is a sad day indeed.

In addition to Syria, there is another looming crisis, a financial one, this one coming from Asia.

April 12, 2018

If war breaks out in Syria, another type of war, a financial one, will open in the Pacific and Asia.

What is Trump doing?

___________________________________

With the temperamental and at times juvenile behavior in his first term as president, Americans are bracing for the worst with President Trump's decision as to what should be done for Syria.  As is American custom, military options are always the first choice, and cheerleading from corporate-owned media is part of the main course of the televised bombing.  Americans seem to be ok with this practice, but at some point, the citizens of the United States should ask serious questions about whether this policy will yield the type of results that will benefit the country in the long-term.  The fact that a volatile President Trump has access to sensitive information, and tends to show-off that information (for instance, when Israeli intelligence gave vital data regarding Syrian defenses before a prior bombing, and Trump bragged to a Russian delegation in the Oval Office, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about it) is not a good sign for other countries' intelligence services, who are rightfully doubtful about sharing future information with President Trump.  He lacks the respect and deep understanding that is required when American intelligence assets provide important information, and the dangerous conditions from which the information was gathered for decisions that affect the world.  If Trump is to coordinate an allied response to Russian aggression in the region, he needs to have NATO and other allies on the same page to work out what actions are prudent to support American foreign policy. To his critics, Donald Trump possesses the behavior of a teenager, and they rightfully question whether he truly understands the immense consideration these foreign policy decisions have on the United States and the men and women who serve our great country.

It begs the question of whether this president can handle another more serious issue that is developing in the Pacific region around China, Japan, and other prominent economies.  With his recent boast of enacting trade tariffs, I doubt the president understands that many countries possess American debt, and President Trump pursues reactionary policies that are intended to please his base will cause those countries who own our debt to make their own retaliatory actions that will seriously affect the American economy. 

In an article in Politico, author William Pesek wrote at length that President Trump may not understand the effects of what he says regarding trade with our Asian friends, and China especially.  Those leaders have political considerations of their own.  Perhaps he does not fully comprehend what can happen if he becomes too bellicose in trying to appease his reactionary base when those countries force counteractions to his own, and what it can lead to.  If China, Japan, and other powerful economies decide to dump American debt into the market, those sell-offs can have catastrophic consequences for international markets and the American economy.  Mr. Pesek states in the Politico article that if Trump follows through on his threats, China may decide to scale back their government purchases of US debt, and that will have massive spillover into the global economy.  I doubt Trump himself understands how the markets are so intertwined.  Not to mention his standing with his own party, wealthy donor base and how his re-election will be affected.  Personally, I am in the camp that despite his wealth, he lacks a basic understanding of economics, and the precarious position foreign governments are contemplating in terms of what to do with the dangerous idea of adding more debt to our way of life here.  President Trump seems to think his boasts will scare other countries into cowering in agreement with his ignorant stances on American government spending.  It is not 1945 (when the United States had the most influence by producing 50% of the world's GDP), which is the beginning position of so many American conservatives use when negotiating with foreign governments.

Mr. Pesek explains that China's leader, Xi Jinping, thinks in decades, and now that he has total control of the Chinese Premiership, can outlast any measures Trump uses to please his equally ignorant base of what could happen to the American economy.  The Chinese leader needs to have increased growth of approximately 6% and plans to have China be a worldwide leader in Aerospace technology, electric vehicles, biotechnology and high-speed rail.  If that aspiration comes to fruition, America could be in a position where its global perch would be challenged and eventually surpassed by China's wealthy economy.  The Politico piece provides a discussion that with a trade war, China would possess less American debt, and that will have scary consequences for American jobs and future rosy economic prospects, of which export-heavy China is dependent on.  Xi may react accordingly to protect his own position with his own base. There is a no win-win situation for this economic conflict, and President Trump would be wise to think twice about what he is doing.

President Trump may think military operations may be cut and dry, and to some extent (in terms of mission goals, successes and after effects) they are.  A conflict between countries, which focus on economic impacts, and be equally devastating and have negative outcomes for all countries in the Pacific.  The US removal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which pleased Democratic grassroots and America labor unions, was not received well by those countries that worked hard to sign on for the trade policy.   China will take advantage of that, since Trump's base may not understand how this plays into China's plan to win friends in the Pacific region, especially close to its borders and strengthen its position in conflict zones, such as the South China Sea. Those nations (Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan) will have to make important decisions (economic and military) and vigorously contest Beijing's claims to that mineral-rich area.

I hope the way President Trump handles the Middle East is not damaging to American goals in the Pacific.  The economic dangers can be far worse (outside of nuclear confrontation with Russia notwithstanding) and will put into question whether his administration, and the military and economic hawks who advise him, are capable of steering the next generation of American influence in a region of the world that China wants to own for its own future.

The new CIA Director: Proponent of Torture or Effective Spook?

March 18, 2018

Is the proposed appointment of Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA good for the country, or will it open new wounds that many around the country thought had healed?

_________________________

With the recent news that President Trump has plans to appoint career CIA official Gina Haspel to the directorship of the CIA, I wonder whether this a good move. Is she the right person for the job?  Many Democrats are against her appointment because it is rumored that she was part of the agency's notorious and controversial rendition program (approved by the Bush Administration), in which the spy agency worked with nefarious governments to transport suspected terrorists for interrogation and sometimes, alleged torture. It is illegal under current US and international law.  The Guardian newspaper, in a March 16th post, stated that she specifically ran a controversial "black" site in Thailand, and who believed the program was successful and should've been in use.  Democrats, who are desperately hoping to regain control of at least one or possibly both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections, are very upset about this possible appointment.  Some lawmakers feel that her appointment would signal to the world community that the United States government accepts torture again and would alienate allies who are against this practice.

Former intelligence officials, including Michael Hayden (former NSA and CIA Director under Bush and Obama, respectively), have supported her for the agency's leadership, saying she had done whatever her government and country have asked, according to The Guardian article.  The newspaper article's author, Vincent Warren, worked for a human rights organization wants those who torture prosecuted under the law.  Mr. Warren believes that the United States having a CIA Director who participated in alleged torture and working for President Trump is not a good symbol for the world to acknowledge.  It would make cooperation with those countries who do not see the value in torture to work collaboratively with American intelligence sources challenging. In addition, President Trump appears to admire and align his beliefs with known authoritarian leaders and dictators like Vladimir Putin, President Duterte of the Philippines and President Erdogan of Turkey.  Having Ms. Gaspel as CIA Director, who works on behalf of a president who fires those who do not comply with his policies and contradicts Trump's tweets, will anger allies who are trying to defend their own democracies and government transparency.  The Nobel Committee gave President Obama the Peace Prize his first year in office simply because he was the total opposite of President Bush, who approved "non-traditional" interrogation methods and gave his European allies immense fits for his behavior.  

I will admit that the image of President Trump standing next to his incoming CIA Director, one who is alleged to have run a torture site in a foreign country, accepting his recommendation for the top intelligence post in the national security apparatus does nothing for America's international standing.  Those who support the president, and his controversial policy positions (the so-called "Muslim ban, building a wall on the southern border with Mexico) do not see the negative and contradictory image of the United States perception as the "Arsenal of Democracy" and the "Leader of the Free World" and having a controversial CIA Director in charge of intelligence gathering.  I hope President Trump just considers her but chooses some once else. There are many other competent former spooks who could handle the job and the political dexterity that comes with the prominent position.  However, I think unless Democrats regain control of the House, and bring Ms. Haspel to testify before a powerful House committee, her position as Director of the CIA will be secure under the time under Trump Administration.

The Danger of John Bolton as President Trump's new National Security Advisor

March 14, 2018

Reports of President Trump considering Republican operative John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor is a scary idea

____________________________

With rumors of President Trump's current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster's impending dismissal, reports have stated that the president is considering GOP hack John Bolton to fill that role in the near future.  This troubles me.  Bolton is a neocon in the mold of those including himself, who argued for and supported the horrible foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq.  He is of the variety that feels that any foreign policy issue is easily solved by military invasion or combat operations.  Bolton has argued for the pre-emptive bombing of North Korea's nuclear facilities, regardless of the horrible consequences of a retaliatory response from that country and the catastrophic effects it will have on South Korea and its population.  No sane person will see this as productive that can have positive outcomes.  In addition, John Bolton wants Israel to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear reactors and force the United States, in conjunction with Israel, to engage in war with Iran.  If Americans think Iraq was a horrible foreign policy blunder, war with Iran will be worse.  Iraq has always been a divided country of various people, with a Sunni Muslim minority, a Shia Muslim majority and a large Kurdish population.  Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, who provided stability, albeit with crimes against its ethnic minorities, which included using chemical weapons to kill those citizens.

The Bush administration did not anticipate the tinderbox of rage that would envelop the country once the dictator was overthrown and the chaos that followed.  The Sunni minority through the Ba'ath party controlled all levers of government had the majority of jobs and was shown favoritism by Saddam himself.  The resentment of the Shia majority for those years under his rule exploded and caused needless casualties of American servicemen as a result.  Even the Kurdish population had visions of independence once Saddam was captured, tried by a puppet court and executed.  This made life difficult for the Iraqi population, who had to live with frequent bombings by the Sunni minority (many of whom were Iraqi Army officers and enlisted soldiers), who became a shadow army of terrorists and enemies of U.S. Army and Marines fighting in the country.  It has taken years of constant fighting to bring about a tenuous peace, which is frequently interrupted by chaos and bombings that kill hundreds of Iraqis each year.  I would venture to guess that if you took a poll of people who live in Iraq, many would prefer the stability of Saddam Hussein rather than the shallow peace that the American invasion has brought.  Even the billions of taxpayer-funded training of the new Iraqi Army, with military hardware given to the Iraqi military, have not brought about a better future for the country.

John Bolton was a strong supporter of this fruitless endeavour by the Bush Administration.  He foolishly believed that American military intervention would make for a sound foreign policy decision.  Bolton argues to this day that it was a good idea to invade Iraq and that the so-called "surge" during the last year of the Bush Administration was a success, even though all it really did was provide a false respite in terms of peace and stability.  It essentially bought off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting American forces, but that was never going to be a long-term solution.

Iran is a completely different beast.  Even though a large segment of the population does not like the religious orthodoxy of the controlling Mullahs, Iranians are largely supportive of the nuclear program and generally love their country.  The population does not share the divided nature of Iraq, which is smaller in size and population. The young Iranian population has positive opinions of the United States (but not its government) and is open to rapprochement with the United States.  However, invading Iran would dramatically change that image of the American people.  Iranians do not want to change their government through military force by an outside power.  It will turn the population against invading forces and become an even worse quagmire than what Iraq turned out to be.

I think Bolton is part of the belief that relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis in the American embassy shortly before President Reagan took office.  That shame that the American public felt was the catalyst for a hard line position from the American government since that time. However, that crisis was the culmination of years of oppressive rule by the Shah Pahlavi, who was installed as a puppet leader after the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was head of government from 1951-53. His overthrow was a result of Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize Iranian oil fields, which scared Western oil companies because of damaging monetary losses in the international markets. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, using the Savaak, a brutal secret police force to jail, execute and punish Iranians who did not approve of his rule.  This created an opening for religious mullahs, of which the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first and a fiery leader to boot. He had a passionate support from large swaths of the Iranian people.  His exile by the Shah gave him immense power, and once the Shah was overthrown, culminated in the hostage crisis of American embassy staff.

John Bolton foolishly believes that the presence of American military personnel will give the Iranian people a reason to support an American-installed government.  Has he not learned about the history of prior American involvement?  I cannot believe President Trump wants to have this dunderhead as his chief national security advisor for American foreign policy. What makes him believe that war with Iran will have a positive outcome?  Bolton has never served in combat (during Vietnam he served in the Maryland National Guard, which did not deploy to Southeast Asia at that time), but he seems to have the ear of prominent Republican establishment individuals.  That is what makes me so discouraged regarding the future of our country.  Another war, in addition to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, will break our military.  The Department of Defense cannot bear the burden of another costly war, not to mention the successive and debilitating deployments of our military personnel, many of whom are veterans who are just now transitioning back to civilian life.

In addition to the stupid idea of war with Iran, John Bolton wants military action against the regime of North Korea.  This will be even worse because the casualties of the South Korean population will be tragic.  Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery, and the deaths relating to that barrage will pale in comparison to the civilian deaths in Iraq.  American combat deaths will be far larger than those who gave their lives in Iraq.  Conquering North Korea through ground forces will take at least a decade of constant fighting, and I dare say that we might have another stalemate since Russia and China could, in theory, provide covert support.  I hope Bolton does not think we can fight both Iran and North Korea at the same time.  North Korea could even launch untested ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which could reach Japan and the west coast of the United States.  Who in their right mind outside of neocons thinks these military endeavours will be successful?  And beneficial for the American people?

If President Trump does appoint John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, I am concerned for America and the future of the country.  Mr. Bolton is an irresponsible war hawk and lacks any foresight into what is sound advice to give to the American president. It will show that Trump does not have any idea of what good governance is, nor what type of American foreign policy will be good for the country. John Bolton is a fool, who has no business having the ear of the Leader of the Free World. If America is in a constant state of war, with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and many Americans close to the poverty line, the great experiment that is the American idea will end in ignominy.  John Bolton, through President Trump, will be the architect of that demise.

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.