Monthly Archives: August 2015

Where have all the gentlemen gone?

“I always thought it was so very American, when we were back in the days when Americans were known to be brash and bold. But I want to point out something while I’m thinking about Shane and the Virginian—both of them had impeccable manners. It was actually pointed out in the books, not by saying it, of course, but by having someone notice it and be shown thinking about it. It was a part of each man. Polite, filled with decorum toward actions and other people. Decent. Even knowing which fork to use—I loved it. Because the books set out the best of all worlds.”

– Minta Marie Morze

My friend, Minta, serves not only as a trusted friend, she’s also part cheerleader and part muse to keep me writing.  When she sent me her critique on my blog post the other day, where I had mentioned the 1902 novel, “The Virginian”, my thoughts turned to dissecting what it is about Donald Trump that bothers me the most.  The answer has nothing to do with Trump’s political views or flip-flops.  What bothers me is not just the brashness nor the bragging, it’s about his ungentlemanly behavior.  His supporters cheer that he isn’t bowing down to PC, but here’s the truth, he isn’t offering an example of behavior that is any better.  Going on Twitter and bashing Megyn Kelly as a ‘bimbo” doesn’t come across as “presidential”, but it also shouldn’t be acceptable behavior for any man.  Yes, I mentioned the Kelly/Howard Stern interview in a previous blog post and I find her behavior questionable too.  This all leads to the much larger topic of this post:  “Where have all the gentlemen gone?”

It seems that almost daily we are assaulted by more left-wing social-engineering insanity, accepting every sort of sexual disorder and deviancy as just a lifestyle choice, the expansion of imaginary gender categories too freakish and numerous to keep track of, and on to the angry racial animus tearing at the very seams of American society.  At the center of this turbulent storm swirls a core of rage and violence.  We have a lot of angry people in America, especially young men.  Across the seas lies another culture that has promised death to America, and the one thing they have in common with America is they have a lot of angry people too, especially men.  So, here we go as I ponder the history of gentlemen.  In a 2013 blog post, I delved into, “Why America needs gentlemen…. and ladies too”, but decided it’s time to revisit this topic.

In a 2013 column, Mark Steyn wrote about the groups of young black men engaged in knock-out crimes attacking innocent white passers-by.  He wrote:

“As things stand, if white youths target a black guy it’s a hate crime, but vice versa is merely common assault. I doubt this would make very much difference. “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous,” wrote Lewis — and, likewise, no law can prevent a thug punching an old lady to the ground if the thug is minded to. “A society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions, and moral values,” wrote Professor Walter Williams a few years ago. “They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. Policemen and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct.””

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364659/knockouts-high-and-low-mark-steyn

The Islamic State nutjobs (more out-of-control young men) claim to be building a new Caliphate, as they crucify, behead, and topple every vestige of civilization, both modern and ancient.  These barbarians apparently read about as much history as the New Black Panthers, the thugs rioting in Baltimore, Dylan Roof and all these other violent young men.  Since 9/11 I’ve heard Charles Martel hailed for stopping the spread of Islam in Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.  He stopped the Moors, who had conquered Spain, but it wasn’t until the late 1400s when the Moors were driven out of Spain.  What followed was the Spanish Inquistion, where the Muslims and Jews were driven out of Spain and heretics (those who were not Christians) were rounded up, judged, then sentenced to extremely brutal punishments.

Most Americans, due to our lamentable education system, have no clue that the Moors(Muslims) in Spain had built an advanced civilization that far surpassed the rest of Europe at that time.  I came across a passage in the 1943 book, “The Discovery of Freedom”, by Rose Wilder Lane, describing where the European code of chivalry originated. It came from the Muslim world.  The Moors brought that code to Spain and during the Crusades, Lane notes the knights observed it in the  Saracens’ world  during their travels to the Holy Land. “Saracen” is an archaic term for Arabs/Muslims during the Crusades.  Lane writes:

But the returning Crusaders brought back to Europe the first idea of a gentleman that Europeans had ever had. Until they invaded the Saracens’ civilization, they had never known that a strong man need not be brutal. The Saracens were splendid fighters when they fought, but they were not cruel; they did not torture their prisoners, they did not kill the wounded. In their own country, they did not persecute the Christians. They were brave men, but they were gentle. They were honorable; they told the truth, they kept their word. This ideal of a gentleman especially impressed the English. It is still producing perhaps the finest class of human beings on earth today, the men and women of the British ruling class. It is an ideal that permeates all of American life. This is what surprises so many people in many parts of the world, when they see and meet the common American soldiers and sailors.

Lane, Rose Wilder (2012-05-02). The Discovery of Freedom (LFB) (Kindle Locations 2118-2125). Laissez Faire Books. Kindle Edition.

So, I looked for some more history to back up this notion of Muslims in the medieval world being the inspiration for European codes of chivalry and the development of the gentleman and here’s a passage from a 1900 history book, “A Short History of the Saracens: Being a concise account of the Rise and Decline of the Saracenic Power and of the Economic, Social and Intellectual Development of the Arab Nation” (a Google book page 519):

“But Cordova was not merely the abode of culture,of
learning and arts, of industry and commerce; it was
the home where chivalry received its first nourishment.

Chivalry is innate in the Arab character, but its rules
and principles, the punctilious code of honour, the
knightly polish, the courtliness, all of which were so
assiduously cultivated afterwards in the kingdom of
Granada, came into prominence under an-Nasir and his
son. “It was at this period that the chivalrous ideas
commenced to develop themselves, joined to an ex-
alted sense of honour and respect for the feeble sex.”1
Another competent writer states that chivalry with all
its institutions, such as came later into existence among
the Christian nations of the West, flourished among the
Saracens in the time of an-Nasir, Hakam, and al—Mansur.2
Here came foreign knights under guarantee of peace and
protection to break lance with Saracen cavaliers.”

Now, back to Minta’s astute observation that started off this post, well, here’s a passage from, “The Virginian”, where the Eastern visitor describes his first encounter with the Western cowboy, who happens to be the Virginian:

“As we went, I read my host’s letter–a brief hospitable message. He was very sorry not to meet me himself. He had been getting ready to drive over, when the surveyor appeared and detained him. Therefore in his stead he was sending a trustworthy man to town, who would look after me and drive me over. They were looking forward to my visit with much pleasure. This was all.

Yes, I was dazed. How did they count distance in this country? You spoke in a neighborly fashion about driving over to town, and it meant–I did not know yet how many days. And what would be meant by the term “dropping in,” I wondered. And how many miles would be considered really far? I abstained from further questioning the “trustworthy man.” My questions had not fared excessively well. He did not propose making me dance, to be sure: that would scarcely be trustworthy. But neither did he propose to have me familiar with him. Why was this? What had I done to elicit that veiled and skilful sarcasm about oddities coming in on every train? Having been sent to look after me, he would do so, would even carry my valise; but I could not be jocular with him. This handsome, ungrammatical son of the soil had set between us the bar of his cold and perfect civility. No polished person could have done it better. What was the matter? I looked at him, and suddenly it came to me. If he had tried familiarity with me the first two minutes of our acquaintance, I should have resented it; by what right, then, had I tried it with him? It smacked of patronizing: on this occasion he had come off the better gentleman of the two. Here in flesh and blood was a truth which I had long believed in words, but never met before. The creature we call a GENTLEMAN lies deep in the hearts of thousands that are born without chance to master the outward graces of the type.”

Throughout America, gentlemen still exist, although they are definitely an endangered species.  The US military used to be a bastion of fine gentlemen, but the Obama transformation marked them for extinction, under the guise of progress, where sexual orientation and progressive nostrums neuter gentlemen and turn them into parsing, mincing PC cheerleaders.  The ones who want to wear the skirts are being given top attention before being separated from the military, as it seems the Secretary of Defense spends more time working to make sure transgenders can serve openly than he does trying to make sure we defeat ISIS.

There are still glimmers of hope, like the young American men, who charged ahead unarmed to deal with an Islamist terrorist on a French train recently. so let’s hope across America, some Moms and Dads are still teaching their sons to be gentlemen, because they are sorely needed!

5 Comments

Filed under American Character, Culture Wars, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

Top State Department Staff Used Personal Email to Send ‘Sensitive’ Data

Senior State Department officials at the U.S. Embassy in Japan have been caught sending “sensitive

Source: Top State Department Staff Used Personal Email to Send ‘Sensitive’ Data

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics

Wikileaks is a Front for Russian Intelligence

Very interesting article!

20committee's avatarThe XX Committee

The part played by Wikileaks in the Edward Snowden saga is an important one. The pivotal role of Julian Assange and other leading members of Wikileaks in getting Snowden from Hawaii to Moscow, from NSA employment to FSB protection, in the late spring of 2013 is a matter of record.

For years there have been questions about just what Wikileaks actually is. I know because I’ve been among those asking. Over two years ago, little more than two weeks after Snowden landed in Moscow, I explained my concerns about Wikileaks based on my background in counterintelligence. Specifically, the role of the Russian anti-Semite weirdo Israel Shamir, a close friend of Assange, in the Wikileaks circle merited attention, and to anyone trained in the right clues, the Assange group gave the impression of having a relationship with Russian intelligence. As I summed up my position in July 2013, based on what…

View original post 635 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics

Ex-Army Chief in Britain declares Cameron lacked “balls” to defeat ISIS

Ex-Army head: PM is to blame for rise of ISIS: Damning accusation by Chief of Staff in explosive new Cameron biography

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html#ixzz3kGiblyqg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

“He never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right”

“My son,” said the Norman Baron, “I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for my share
When we conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:
“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.”

—RUDYARD KIPLING, 1911

Hannan, Daniel (2013-11-19). Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World (p. 91). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Coming from a blue-collar background, I do understand the rise of populist icons, like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, among working class Americans, who aren’t going to assiduously study issues, read history or pay any attention to renowned pundits like George Will, with his use of words most of these people have never even heard, let alone know their meaning.  These are the people I grew up around and as one of my sons, as a precocious12 year-old informed me, many years ago while on a visit to the backwoods of PA, “Mom, your family is kind of like Northern rednecks.”  There you have your explanation for the rise of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin before him.

In my many years online, I have been banned two times from posting comments on two blogs, The American Thinker and The Last Refuge Blog, one years ago and one just recently.  After my experiences posting on the Excite message boards way back during the Clinton impeachment, these days I don’t venture to other sites very often to post comments, preferring to stay here at my own backwoods blog, to ramble to my heart’s content.  The past few days, I spent some time at National Review posting under my long-time user name, mhere (my little inside joke on the Russian word for peace) and at The American Thinker under the name, susanholly.  I was observing the comments from the devoted Trump supporters and thinking about the Trump supporters’ views.

This Trump phenomenon hearkened back to the Sarah Palin flirtation with a 2012 run for President and that is where I got banned from The American Thinker, for commenting on Sarah Palin wallowing (and making big money) in the reality TV trash culture, while bashing the decline in American culture.  I hadn’t written any cuss words or called any other posters names, just expressed my opinion, that she is a populist, self-promoter more than she is a staunch conservative standard-bearer.

Often Palin lands on the right side of conservative issues, but she can’t offer more than trite slogans and appeals to emotion to support her views.  Her supporters adore her and any venue where she ends up looking stupid, gets turned on the reporter asking the question, like Katie Couric asking Palin what  newspapers and periodicals she reads to stay informed, in that famous interview before the 2008 election.  Palin couldn’t even list any and to this day she insists that was a gotcha question, when in fact it’s a fair and very pertinent question.  Instead of learning from that failure, Palin doubled down on her attacks against the “lamestream” media and her supporters do the same.  Charles Krauthammer fell prey to vicious attacks from Palin supporters for his comments in a Dec 2010 appearance on Bill O’Reilly (at minute 2:50), for suggesting that Palin should have spent the past two years acquiring policy expertise.  Krauthammer committed the ultimate sacrilege for insisting the Couric interview questions during the 2008 election were not gotcha questions :

Daniel Hannan, in his book, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World explains this gap between the elites and ordinary people perfectly:

On July 3, 1940, Admiral Sir James Somerville issued the saddest order of his career. France had been occupied by the Nazis and was required under the armistice terms to transfer its Mediterranean fleet to German command. The British couldn’t allow such a development: Italy had entered the war on Hitler’s side, and control of the Mediterranean was at stake.

Winston Churchill ordered a larger British force to confront the French fleet off the Algerian naval base of Oran. The French admiral, Marcel-Bruno Gensoul, was given three options: to take his ships to British waters and carry on the struggle; to remove them from the theater of operations and keep them in the West Indies for the duration of the war; or to scuttle them.

All three options were turned down and, as the sultry day wore on, a final ultimatum was issued and rejected. At last, Admiral Somerville ordered his ships to shell the French fleet, the only occasion the British and French navies have exchanged hostile fire since Trafalgar. For ten minutes, great geysers of water shot into the sky, soon joined by black smoke from the battleship Bretagne, which was badly hit. No fewer than 1,297 Frenchmen were killed and 351 injured, by far the worst naval losses suffered by France during the war. There were no British casualties.

Somerville was sickened by what he later called “the most unnatural and painful decision” of his life. He passed a grim and silent evening in the mess, where many of his officers had tears in their eyes. But he couldn’t help noticing that, on the lower decks, a very different attitude prevailed, most sailors cheerfully declaring that they “never ’ad no use for them French bastards.”

It was an extreme illustration of an age-old social divide. The English (and later British) upper classes tended to be Francophone and Francophile. Yet theirs was a minority tendency, one that opened them down the centuries to accusations of being effete and unpatriotic.

That class division can be traced right back to the Norman Conquest, which placed England under a French-speaking aristocracy. It was to be more than three centuries before English again became the language of Parliament, the law courts, the monarchy, and the episcopacy. Certain parliamentary procedures are still, a millennium after the Conquest, conducted in Norman-French. The Queen’s approval of legislative bills, for example, is announced with the phrase “La Reine le veult.”

The native English, disinherited and resentful, projected their resentment onto French-speakers in general. The popular stereotype of the Frenchman closely resembled the radicals’ stereotype of the aristocrat: mincing, epicene, sly.

Even today, most Britons suspect (with good reason) that their elites are more Europhile in general, and more Francophile in particular, than the country at large. By “Europhile,” they don’t simply mean readier to accept EU jurisdiction, though that belief is demonstrably accurate. “Europhile” has wider connotations: of snobbery, of contempt for majority opinion, of the smugness of a remote political caste.

The extraordinary thing is that we can find no period in the past nine hundred years when such a sense was absent. The linkage between French manners and upper-class decadence has been made in England (then Britain, then the Anglosphere as a whole) by every generation.

Hannan, Daniel (2013-11-19). Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World (pp. 92-93). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Yesterday, at The American Thinker, I commented a good bit on an article, “The New Jacksonian Rebellion (and Trump, too)”, by J. Robert Smith. He writes:

In the day, weren’t Old Hickory and the Jacksonians “mad as hell?” Jacksonian Democracy was fueled by a righteous indignation — as is today’s liberty rebellion.

When we consider the struggle for freedom (and it’s been ongoing since the Revolution), we need to consider how past movements are amalgamated, synthesized. Today’s liberty rebellion resembles the Jacksonian but has many fathers. Expressions for liberty change, somewhat, to fit the times, but the core principles remain. Liberty is still man’s natural state. Humanity’s direction (as epitomized in the American experience) struggles toward achieving this birthright. It’s nearly instinct.

Though the focus is on Trump, some conservatives — and more Republicans — are unsettled by the liberty rebellion. It’s too Jacksonian in profile for whiggish conservatives — it’s raw, coarse, and full of the frontier; it discounts government more than they’d care. They are the George Wills of the world.

History.com explains Jacksonian Democracy in terms that do show this same sort of the elites vs the ordinary man class struggle:

By the 1820s, these tensions fed into a many-sided crisis of political faith. To the frustration of both self-made men and plebeians, certain eighteenth-century elitist republican assumptions remained strong, especially in the seaboard states, mandating that government be left to a natural aristocracy of virtuous, propertied gentlemen. Simultaneously, some of the looming shapes of nineteenth-century capitalism—chartered corporations, commercial banks, and other private institutions—presaged the consolidation of a new kind of moneyed aristocracy. And increasingly after the War of 1812, government policy seemed to combine the worst of both old and new, favoring the kinds of centralized, broad constructionist, top-down forms of economic development that many thought would aid men of established means while deepening inequalities among whites. Numerous events during and after the misnamed Era of Good Feelings—among them the neo-Federalist rulings of John Marshall’s Supreme Court, the devastating effects of the panic of 1819, the launching of John Quincy Adams’s and Henry Clay’s American System—confirmed a growing impression that power was steadily flowing into the hands of a small, self-confident minority.

Daniel Hannan and J. Robert Smith clearly lay out this common man vs the moneyed elite sentiment, which transcends centuries in American society as surely as in British society. At the turn of the 20th century novelist  Owen Wister, dedicated his popular novel, “The Virginian”, to his close friend, President Theodore Roosevelt.  “The Virginian” introduced America to the iconic cowboy, bold, brave, unfettered by Eastern elite snobbery.  This is one of my favorite American novels and I often cite a quote from it too: “When a man ain’t got no ideas of his own, he’d ought to be kind of o’ careful who he borrows ’em from.”  Wister perfectly describes the class gap between the self-made Western cowboy as he prepares to go East to meet the family of his new bride, a New England schoolmarm from a blue-blood family:

“Why, I have been noticing. I used to despise an Eastern man because his clothes were not Western. I was very young then, or maybe not so very young, as very–as what you saw I was when you first came to Bear Creek. A Western man is a good thing. And he generally knows that. But he has a heap to learn. And he generally don’t know that. So I took to watching the Judge’s Eastern visitors. There was that Mr. Ogden especially, from New Yawk–the gentleman that was there the time when I had to sit up all night with the missionary, yu’ know. His clothes pleased me best of all. Fit him so well, and nothing flash. I got my ideas, and when I knew I was going to marry you, I sent my measure East–and I and the tailor are old enemies now.”

Bennington probably was disappointed. To see get out of the train merely a tall man with a usual straw hat, and Scotch homespun suit of a rather better cut than most in Bennington–this was dull. And his conversation–when he indulged in any–seemed fit to come inside the house.

Mrs. Flynt took her revenge by sowing broadcast her thankfulness that poor Sam Bannett had been Molly’s rejected suitor. He had done so much better for himself. Sam had married a rich Miss Van Scootzer, of the second families of Troy; and with their combined riches this happy couple still inhabit the most expensive residence in Hoosic Falls.

But most of Bennington soon began to say that Molly s cow-boy could be invited anywhere and hold his own. The time came when they ceased to speak of him as a cow-boy, and declared that she had shown remarkable sense. But this was not quite yet.

Donald Trump, part and parcel, a creature of that wealthy, elite class that his supporters loathe, has managed to transcend his personal history and take on an outsider personna, carefully-crafted to tap into this populist sentiment of his supporters, many who like Palin, rail against the Washington elites, big-money interests, mainstream media and most especially those they deem RINOs.  I was called a pinkie wagger a couple times yesterday while commenting, for holding a different view of Trump.  Most of these people will not be swayed by smart punditry, as Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg are finding out, nor will they bother with George Will or Charles Krauthammer, because what is happening is they are closing ranks and it is very much a class struggle.  The more information you provide to show Trump flip-flopped or discredit his vague policy ideas, the more they will hunker down, fuming about “pinkie-waggers” and elitists.  In fact, here’s Sarah Palin’s interview, commiserating still over those unfair media gotcha questions, with Trump.  He, being asked what his favorite Bible verse is, fits her definition of a gotcha question… Truly, he said his favorite book after the Bible was his own book, “The Art of the Deal”, so asking him what his favorite Bible verse was an attempt at a gotcha question???.  You can watch the entire Palin interview of Trump, replete with their mutual adoration society, but very slim on policy or insights on anything more than how they understand how ordinary people feel: Video here.

Partisan political ideology aside, America remains torn apart by factions and this Trump phenomenon must be forcefully exposed as just that – a populist movement centered on a personality more than firm American founding principles.  They may rally under “freedom and liberty” slogans, but there is no firm principled core to the Trump campaign, because his campaign centers on emotion and ginning up a mob tactics.  In every other breath he spouts his polls numbers as vindication that he is right.  Poll numbers don’t make you right. He should hone his arguments in well-thought out, clear sentences.

America needs to hold all of its presidential candidates’ feet to the fire.  Expecting intelligent, well-reasoned arguments and explanations for their policies and ideas, should be the standard we demand. We need leaders who read extensively, who will study issues carefully and at the heart, being President is the highest political office in the land, so demanding a president who has mastered government policy issues is a must.  Expecting that all of our elected officials, both in Congress and the President possess an in-depth understanding of The Constitution, a breadth of knowledge on US history and a strong foundation on foreign policy issues should be our minimum expectation.

Education is free in America!  Accept no excuses!  I possess no college degree, but I devoted my life to reading as much as I can in my spare time.  I have signed out books from Army post libraries, public libraries, purchased many books and even borrowed books from friends.  The ability to access information and learn is limitless in our internet age.   Assuredly, there are gaps in my education, as my blog will surely affirm, but if someone points out something they think I need to read or points out an issue where what I have written is totally misguided or ill-informed, I don’t get angry.  I get reading and try to learn more.  We must all start demanding excellence, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves as well.  America should be admired for it’s educated citizens, not  considered as the home of ignorant, loudmouth, vulgar slobs!

Trump is a smart man, who has been fabulously successful.  He can afford the best speech coaches, writers and political advisers.  Showing up for a debate unprepared is not to be cheered, it’s a show of arrogance and self-conceit.  Ronald Reagan wrote his speeches out on index cards.  A poster yesterday told me I was supposed to infer what Trump was saying in his ramblings .  Absolutely, dead wrong!!!  The President represents all of us to the entire world and he/she must be a person with clear ideas, excellent public-speaking ability and our American message must reverberate, clear, concise and leave no doubts!  Perhaps, Trump will devote the energy to study policy and perfect presenting his vision for America, and prove that he is the best candidate to represent all of us.  And that’s the key, the President of the United States is not just the President of his partisan followers; he is the President of ALL Americans.

To put America on the right track, every American should read President George Washington’s Farewell Address and understand that railing about partisan political views is fine, but to “make America great again” we need to unite as one nation, bond by common values, and that remains the challenge none of the Presidential candidates has spoken to. Factions will destroy our Republic and President Washington warned that it is the “duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”  

13 Comments

Filed under American History, Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Politics, The Constitution, The Media

The Obama Narrative continues

IG Looking Into Allegations that Obama Admin Pressured Intel Analysts to Downplay ISIS

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

Hillary shirks responsibility again

Here’s a quick lesson on judging moral character.  Yesterday, Hillary Clinton came out and repeated the same lies and parsing as previously, while admitting her private server wasn’t a good idea in retrospect.  She cloaked this as “taking full responsibility”, which amounts to another huge LIE.  Not admitting that classified information was passed on her private server, possibly both sent and received, shirks ALL responsibility.  It’s at best a clumsy attempt to deflect, because she will now come out and repeat, “I already took full responsibility”, in hopes of burying this email server scandal.  Her shills in the media will dutifully repeat, “But, she’s taken full responsibility for her private server.”  Taking responsibility requires owning up to ALL the repercussions of her private server – admitting that classified information was passed on her server and she did not stop it.  That’s called being an honorable leader, you take full responsibility for the bad decisions you made by telling the truth and facing the consequences.  She’s doing everything in her power to bury the truth and avoid any consequences, moving 180 degrees from taking full responsibility

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics

The rule of law in America?

JK posted this link in a comment today, but this opinion piece, “The long, slow death of the rule of law in America”, by Troy Senik truly lays out what is at stake in America and should be a must-read link:

“That’s the organizing precept of this era in American politics: The rules apply until they put those in power at a disadvantage. Because we’ve arrived at this point incrementally, perhaps we’re not conscious of how sweeping the transformation is. So let’s be clear about what’s at stake: This is a wholesale abandonment of the foundational American principle of the rule of law.

There are only two options available here: Either the country returns to a form of government bound by the strictures of the Constitution and its subordinate laws or we give up the ghost and accept the fact that our politics are now entirely about power rather than principle – that we live in a nation where the president, whether his name is Obama or Trump, is limited only by the boundaries of imagination.

There are a lot of ways to describe that form of government. “Constitutional republic” isn’t one of them.”

Definitely read the entire piece and ponder where this road leads.

Leave a comment

Filed under General Interest, Politics, The Constitution

Someone please explain ex post facto laws to Trump

FOX News moved to hypothetical situation to drill down on Trump’s illegal immigration plan this week.  Bill O’Reilly asked Donald Trump about a hypothetical illegal immigrant couple with two children who are American citizens and whether Trump would deport them (at minute 7:34 in this YouTube video).  Trump insists he will deport them and then bring them back in an expedited fashion.

Megyn Kelly hit Ted Cruz with this same kind of question and he didn’t answer it, but instead laid out a rather comprehensive list of measures to take to secure the border and deal with illegal immigration.

Trump’s fans will cheer that he stayed tough on illegal immigration, but the truth is Trump does not seem to know anything about The Constitution and frankly every American should have learned this in junior high civics class.  Trump has NO authority to deport American citizens!  NONE!  And even if he thinks he can get the 14th Amendment repealed or Congress to write a new law, the FACT is every anchor baby currently in the US is now, and forevermore, will remain a US citizen.  A fundamental founding principle in The Constitution is we will not have any ex post facto laws.  Cruz, being a brilliant constitutional scholar knows this, but Trump and his angry followers don’t really care about The Constitution, it seems – only on and on spewing about Mexicans and other foreigners.

To make America great again, I suggest, every Trump supporter start learning about America’s founding principles.  We are a Republic, not a banana republic.

11 Comments

Filed under American History, General Interest, Politics, The Constitution

What a tangled web we weave

Fudging the intelligence information led to endless rage from the political left, screaming that President Bush lied about the intelligence information on Iraq’s WMD prior to the US invasion in 2003.  This anger  fueled what some call Bush derangement syndrome, as lefties foam at the mouth, spewing about, “Bush lied, people died!”.

McClatchy DC ran a story on August 13, 2015, “Warnings of jihadists among Syria’s rebels came early, were ignored”, delving into how the Obama administration ignored intelligence about the radicals in Syria, while Secretary of State Kerry tried to promote the Syrian moderates narrative.  At the time Secretary Kerry was spouting this “Syrian moderate” line, open source information was available for anyone with a bent toward researching, to raise doubts about the Obama administration narrative.  I wrote a blog post, “Oh, those pesky” facts”. in the Fall of 2013 pointing to a UK Telegraph article citing IHS Jane’s, a highly regarded defense publication, stating that nearly half of the rebels in Syria were hardline Islamists/jihadis.  The mainstream press and punditry class, by and large, went along with the Syrian moderates narrative

Today the NY Times, “Inquiry Weighs Whether Data on ISIS Was Distorted”, reports on an IG investigation into whether military officers have distorted intelligence on ISIS to promote a political narrative that’s more positive and optimistic about President Obama’s ISIS strategy in Iraq. The report states:

“The prospect of skewed intelligence raises new questions about the direction of the government’s war with the Islamic State, and could help explain why pronouncements about the progress of the campaign have varied widely.

Legitimate differences of opinion are common and encouraged among national security officials, so the inspector general’s investigation is an unusual move and suggests that the allegations go beyond typical intelligence disputes. Government rules state that intelligence assessments “must not be distorted” by agency agendas or policy views. Analysts are required to cite the sources that back up their conclusions and to acknowledge differing viewpoints.

Under federal law, intelligence officials can bring claims of wrongdoing to the intelligence community’s inspector general, a position created in 2011. If officials find the claims credible, they are required to advise the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. That occurred in the past several weeks, the officials said, and the Pentagon’s inspector general decided to open an investigation into the matter.”

Stay tuned!

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics