If I Could Ask A Question

Watching the impeachment trial on CSPAN during the breaks the CSPAN announcers offer the viewers an opportunity to call in and tell the other viewers what question they would ask their Senators to put forward to the President's counsel or the House Manager.  It got me to thinking.  What question would I ask of the participants?
In what I see to be the House Managers' position's they claim the President made a decision to target Joe Biden using the Ukranian investigation based on polling data that showed Joe Biden would beat the President.  With that, I would ask the House Managers this simple question.
Has the Democratic party decided on who would be their nominee before the convention, and if so why hold a sham nomination process?  If they have not decided on who would be the nominee then what is the risk of foreign interference in understanding the role of the candidate's adult child in a corrupt business.

Mind Control to Major Tom

Later this week, okay tomorrow, the United States Senate will begin the trial to impeach the President of the United States.  I’d like to believe it will end the political divisions, which have been growing in this nation since the last impeachment trial but it won’t.  If anything, it will only exasperate the hordes of those who hate the President because he is a typical New Yorker who believes he knows more than everyone else.  Unless there is something totally unexpected in the proceedings the results of this “trial” are easily foretold.

It is true each senator has sworn to try the case fairly and impartially.  But seriously!  They are all politicians and for the most part lawyers.  Who among us believes either side will move far from their party allegiance?  I assume there are one or two on both sides that will enter this with some degree of independence, but not enough to make any clear impact in the final outcome.

In reviewing how the House of Representatives conducted their “investigation” it seems highly unlikely, despite all the chest-beating of the two committee chairs (Adam Schiff and Jerrod Nadler) who are now two of the six impeachment managers, about holding impartial investigations the outcome of those investigations was known from the start.  If you start from the time Trump defeated Clinton you see nothing but calls for his impeachment by the democratic voices in the House.  Brought to us in the nightly news by those opinion experts who had been so badly wrong about the inevitable election of Ms. Clinton. 

This outcome is the inevitable result of the 2018 election where the Democrats gained control of the house.  If they had gained a supermajority in the Senate the results of the trial would also be fairly certain.  Thankfully, they did not.

In a perfect world, the Senate would vote either to convict or acquit with a really significant margin (99-1 would be nice), but it won’t.  I anticipate we will see the votes go pretty much along party lines, which will only open the door for a continuation of this foolishness.

The victims in this political circus are, as is always the case, the average American who every two years gets to choose their representatives and then pretty much sits back and watches from the sidelines.  What we’ve seen over the past couple of years is the Congress throwing away the rules and traditions that have helped create a fairly stable government as the new members bring in extremist positions and demand the entire nation believe as their districts did when they were elected.

The other victim(s) have yet to be identified, for with the new standard of political vengeance set by the House we can expect that every succeeding President will face the same political outrage if they don’t have a majority in the House.  Impeachment will become a fact of life and as such lose its value of restraint, at least until an impeachment actually results in removal from office.

In the final analysis, I think Trump can only win in this case.  Most rational voters see this for what it is and while most partisans will vote the way they usually vote the moderates will see the Democrats as the party of radicals and unless some new candidate emerges from the backrooms of the DNC, none of the current crop (including Bloomberg) will stand a chance as long as they stick with their existing priorities.

p.s.  I find it interesting to see how our language has changed about the ideas of “Liberal” and “Conservative.”  Those who would claim to be liberal seem far more dogmatic than those who claim to be conservative.  Wasn’t it the progressive liberals who’ve brought us politically correct speech, and who’ve suppressed opposing views by mob rule?  It used to be that a liberal was open to all ideas and a conservative wasn’t.  Is that still true today?

Fractures Within the Party?

-->

This past month has brought into clarity a couple of points about the party of compassion and empathy.  The first is, for the most part, they are as racist as anyone they call out as a racist.  The second, they are starting to come apart at the seams as those millennial freshman representatives in the “Squad” demand their voices become that of the entire party, or they won’t pay their dues.

The DNC has, for at least this century, been the party of identity politics.  It is funny how that is playing out in this primary season when one by one the people of color, or the people who claim to be people of color are cast aside for the septuagenarians who are attempting to represent the socialist movement as they believe it should be represented. 

From my outsider position, it appears to be along the lines of how Lenin sold the Communist movement, or how Hugo Chavez helped the people as he nationalized all the industry of Venezuela to consolidate wealth and power for himself.  Promise the world – gain the power – then do what is necessary to maintain that power.  All the while finding ways to enrich yourself and your family.

At this past week’s Democratic Presidential Primary debate, I am told the most interesting moments came at the end when Elisabeth Warren confronted Bernie Sanders and accused him of calling her a liar on National Television.  Oh, the irony.  Of course, the political opinion folks at Fox News were all over that, and how it appears that as the media arm of the DNC (the commenters on CNN and MSNBC) seem to be working off the destroy Sanders memo, where if you can’t challenge a candidate on his policies you must destroy him as a racist/sexist/homophobe. 

I must admit to feeling a bit like Alice in Wonderland as I watch Fox pundits point out the foolishness of Warren’s attack and how Bernie was unlikely to have told Fauxahontus a woman couldn’t win the Presidency.  So, who should a reasonable person believe, the socialist Bernie, or neo-socialist Liz?  While I am sure Bernie has told a whopper or two and has probably not fully embraced the woke culture of today we have on the other side Elizabeth Warren who has been caught claiming to be a Cherokee (allegedly to get hired by Harvard Law School), submitted someone else’s receipts to a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow, claimed to have been fired as a teacher for being pregnant, claimed her son went to public school and claimed we would have universal healthcare without raising taxes on the middle class.

Meanwhile, back in Bernie Sanders' camp; Project Veritas has released a video of one of Sanders' field agents claiming if Bernie is robbed of his rightful place at the top of the ticket he and his fellow socialist minions will burn Milwaukee to the ground, bringing a whole new meaning to the term “heated debate.”

For the rest of the field, it is almost like they are there just to see who is coming off the top rope in this political cage match.  Remember these are the people who vilify Trump as being mean and dividing the nation.  Curiouser and curiouser.

And Just Like That -- Nothing

Just scant days ago the world was on the verge of total global war.  World War III was just a button push away, a mad man was at the helm, young men were trying to figure out how to avoid the coming draft and Hollywood celebrities were trying their damndest to explain the Iranians how they weren't the blame.
Of course, the media -- always fair and balanced where explaining how the entire nations of Iran and Iraq (all 122,000,000) were now unified in their hatred of the U.S. for the death of what they referred to as a "revered military leader," and the death of all the U.S. military in the region was undoubtedly only days away when Iran would launch its terrible reprisal.
Those who hate Trump made it a point to highlight that his treats were, in fact, war crimes and he should be immediately taken before the Hague and stripped of his presidency,
Then Iran launched a couple of dozen (or less) missiles into Iraq and as far as the public knows killed only a few camels.
Today the President noted the Iranians appeared to be standing down and the Stock Market hit a high of 28,866 before slipping down to the 28,745.
It appears the mainstream media, flush from their expert analysis of the middle east where they reported on how unified Iraq and Iran had become and how many American casualties we had experienced in the rocket attacks seem to be having a hard time explaining why we aren't at war today.
The bottom line:  Our Embassy was attacked, we responded to protect it, a bad dude was somewhere he shouldn't have been and is no more.  The outrage will continue, but only by the same people who saw no problem with the Obama administration's response to Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton's famous statement, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

A Few Thoughts on the News

In response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Quds Force, one commentator pointed out Iran as a kingdom/country has been around for a few thousand years to explain why this airstrike was a dangerous thing and would not alter the path the country was on.  The statement is, in my opinion, a curious one.  Rome was around for a long time, the British Empire was around for a long time, but technically modern Iran hasn’t been around all that long.  Its current history can be traced back to 1979 with the Islamic Revolution led by the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  Before that was the Pahlevi dynasty which ran from 1925 until its overthrow in 1979, and before that, we had Persia and a variety of governments dating back to about 7,000 BC.

So, while we have volumes of history, including how the Greeks dealt with the Persians, what is really relevant is how the current theocracy fits into the game.  And that remains somewhat of an unknown.

Candidly, we the United States, as we bumble through our diplomacy with what can at best be described as inconsistent expectations and promises are as much to blame for the problems as Iran is.  Every President seems to handle the tensions with Iran differently.  The Democratic Presidents believe if they are just empathetic the regime will behave as most western nations behave.  The Republicans tend to see Iran as an evil nation bent on our destruction.  Of course, the “Death to America” rhetoric of the state would seem to support that view, but for many, that’s just silly talk and surely, they don’t mean it.  The UN (led by the U.S.) has made the theocracy of Iran the subject of economic sanctions since 1979 when they thought taking over the American Embassy and holding hostage its personnel was a good way to show they were pissed at the U.S. for helping the Shah escape and providing his with end of life medical care.  Of course, the idea he may have left Iran with a planeload of gold as part of his retirement package or that we held Iranian assets, hostage, for years hoping they would come to see the error of their ways should not have been much of an issue, but it seems to have been one for the Ayatollahs who run the country.

Then, of course, we come to nuclear weapons.  How can you claim to be a world power or return to the halcyon days of the Persian Empire if you don’t have a bomb that can destroy the earth (for context see “The Mouse That Roared”)?  We have nuclear weapons, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else all have nuclear weapons, to Iran’s thinking why not them?  The fact they fund and support terrorists to attack those whose theology they disagree with shouldn’t be a concern now, should it?

All this brings us back to today when the news and social media sites are filled with tons of newly minted experts in foreign policy, international law, diplomacy, and insider knowledge of a nation-state that has remained fairly closed to outside influence for the past 40 years. We now have, thanks to Twitter, such luminaries as Rose McGowen (perhaps best known for her role in that TV classic “Charmed”)[1] speaking for what she claims to be 52% of Americans asking Iran not to kill us for the actions of our President.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of another war.  But then again, I’m not in favor of letting those who would do us harm to go around doing bad stuff without fear of suffering some dire consequence.  Keep in mind we are already engaged in a “Global War on Terror” that started on 9/11/2001.  (By the way, the war on terror actually started well before that but it was an undeclared war from when the PLO and Red Army Faction began killing people.)  As far as I know, Congress hasn’t been too terribly concerned about the War Powers Act when previous Presidents were bombing the heck out terrorist leaders, or when we invaded the sovereign space of Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden or calling in Drone strikes on guys running around in West Africa.  As the Babylon Bee® noted in its opinion section: “Trump Is Doing The Right Thing, But He’s Doing It As Trump, Which Means It’s Still Bad,” which pretty much sums up the dialogue of today. 

• For all those who see this as an act of war, but raised no concern when we killed bin Laden – just sit down. (p.s. I know one was a terrorist leader and the other an Iranian General, but the difference is lost in the middle east politics.)
• For all those who see this as a great act of the President – maybe consider the 2^nd and 3^rd order possibilities before you get too excited.
• For all those politicians who see the President's actions as unlawful -- maybe you should resign in protest and let your actions speak louder than your words.
• For all those like Rose McGowen who are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome – seek professional help before you tweet again.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_McGowan

Well That Starts the New Year Off with a Bang.

I’ve been on a Christmas road trip and only briefly paying attention to the news and Social Media while enjoying the grandchildren and catching a cold.  But I’ve apparently missed the big fireworks when Iranian backed groups in Iraq stormed the U.S. Embassy and in response, the U.S. used a drone strike to kill an Iranian General and his Iraqi counterpart at the Baghdad Airport. 

It amazes me on how predictably the commentary unfolded in the news media, and how incapable we are of moving from our polarized positions into one where people agree a military response was appropriate and correct.  Then, of course, we have the politicians weighing in with their opinions on what the President should have done, or what he failed to do to keep them in the loop.  Of course, to an outsider, my view of their concerns vanished quite a while ago as they began a non-stop campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the voter’s choice and the election.  Now every statement is viewed as just another complaint from those powerless to change the dynamic because they hate the facts before them.

The first I knew of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was a news broadcast that announced Iraqi “mourners” were storming the embassy and the staff had been evacuated and asked the administration to send help.  Some on the left, like Joy Reid, called this “Trumps Benghazi” implying the Iraqi Embassy would suffer the same fate as the Libyan Consulate.  Fortunately, for the Americans most affected by this event, the current President’s response was far more effective than that of Obama, Biden, and Clinton when it came to protecting Americans serving in the State Department in a dangerous area.

With elements of the USMC and the USA’s rapid deployment force (elements of the 82^nd Airborne Division) mobilized and deployed to the embassy it appears, at least for the immediate future the “mourners” have decided to mourn somewhere else.

Following the deployment of forces for the protection of the embassy there was a drone strike at the Baghdad Airport that killed what the Washington Post described as “Iran’s most revered military leader.”  From where I sit that was a strange way to describe a man who has been condemned for his brutality towards Americans and even his own countrymen.  It really makes me wonder about the editorial mindset of the Washington Post, and only serves to reinforce for the President’s supporters his claim they are “Fake News” or just an anti-American propaganda machine.

The ending of this little experience in international diplomacy has not yet been written, but then again real life never seems to match the neat and tidy endings of novels.  In the coming days, we will learn more about what Iran will do, and what the U.S. will do to counter them.  What I am pretty certain of is the left will continue to vilify any U.S. action, or lack of action, for their own purpose, and the right will continue to defend any response, or lack of response, to support the President. 

The bottom line from most political pundits should be, which approach plays better for the average American?  Unfortunately, we are well beyond rational thought in our politics these days.

-->