Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Trump Dislikes the DOJ, the FBI, Due Process, and the Federal Prison System

Trump Follows the Putin Model: I am the only one in charge — No One Else
(You, sit down and STFU)

AKRON, OH [Reuters] – GOP nominee Donald Trump urged the DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment from the State Department when it was run by his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Trump accused former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, his opponent in this race, of turning the Clinton Foundation charity into a “pay-for-play scheme” in which wealthy donors, foreign and domestic, got favors from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as Secretary of State.

Trump then went on again to fault the DOJ and FBI both for not indicting Clinton over her use of her private email server saying FBI Director James Comey cited her careless handling of classified emails but opted not to prosecutor her. (Trump and GOPers have been furious ever since about that outcome).

Trump further said: “The Justice Department is required to appoint a special prosecutor because it has proved to be, sadly, a political arm of the White House. Nobody has ever seen anything like it before.” (I guess he forget Richard Nixon)?

This latest appeal also comes on the same day a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, released 725 pages of State Department documents, including some it said were examples of preferential treatment provided to donors at the request of former Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

Trump then continued in the speech appealing to black voter saying that Democratic politicians had not been able to stem crime and poverty in inner cities despite pledges to do every election year, adding: “I say it and I'm going to keep saying it and some people say: Wow that makes sense and some people say: That's not very nice. And I say it with such a deep-felt feeling, what do you have to lose? We’ll bring jobs back. We’ll bring spirit back. We'll get rid of the crime.”

Now I wade in: Okay, Mr. Trump, fair enough – now tell us how you would do those things and be specific not just “we’ll do this or that, etc. Fill in the blanks.”

Just simply lay out your specific policy proposals that you would try to get passed as Federal policy and then implemented across the board in the country coast to coast.

Oh, yeah, just skip the part about it being okay for Americans to be held and processed with due process justice in Gitmo just like you said recently in remarks reported on in the Miami Herald and seen in this short video.

Let’s be honest shall we. To me, and I’m sure to millions of others, Trump is certifiably nuts and continue to be a man totally out of control with his one-man show and need to be front and center all by himself. All the while he would blast everything and fire any cabinet official probably on a weekly if not daily basis while keeping only ass-kissers and family members nearby as props to explain is actions probably on Twitter and Facebook

That has been his style all his life – and he is in capable of change in any way except to benefit himself. He would be more likely to resign office if he did not get his way 100% of the time … I think that aspect is certain.

Thank for stopping by.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Trump Wants To Cut Off Internet Access to ISIS and Other Similar Groups

“Shut Down the Internet” – How Do I Know – Just a Suggestion

Very good article follows by Bree Fowler, AP Technology Writer (The Associated Press) (little changes in format to fit the blog – otherwise fully intact).

INTRODUCTION NEW YORK (AP) -- Donald Trump constantly has called for the U.S. and allies to cut off Internet access to the ISIS and other extremist organizations. Problem is, there isn't a way to do it. Trump first made the demand during a debate back in December, saying in part that the government should work with “brilliant people in Silicon Valley to keep violent extremists offline, even if that means shutting down parts of the Internet.”

But that's not possible from a technical standpoint. The U.S. can't turn off the Internet in other parts of the world. And even if could, such a move would likely hurt more than potential attackers, and it would hinder the government's ability to keep tabs on them.

Here's a look at Trump's idea and why it won't work.

More recently, in another speech Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and President Obama for the rise of ISIS and the instability in the Middle East, he pledged to pursue military operations to “crush and destroy ISIS,” adding that Internet attacks and financial warfare will be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism and concluding: “We cannot allow the Internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy. We must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.” His proposed actions wouldn't be limited to ISIS as he singled out al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah as necessary targets.

THE FIRST OBSTACLE IS THE INTERNET ITSELF: The U.S. doesn't control the Internet – no one does because the Internet is a global web of networks that are all owned by different governments, companies or individuals, no single entity has the ability to turn it off in parts of the world that it doesn't control.

The only recourse is to destroy the electric grid and other infrastructure in that region — but that's extreme, and it still might not work with the availability of power generators and such. Even within the U.S., ferreting out extremist groups and kicking them off the Internet isn't realistic, given how rapidly the Internet grows and changes. And people have a long history of finding their way around Internet restrictions, whether it's democracy activists in China or Iran, or tweens looking to circumvent their school's firewall.

THE SECOND OBSTACLE IS THE SOCIAL MEDIA: Groups such as the Islamic State have mastered social media for recruiting and spreading their message. Both Twitter and Facebook say they don't tolerate posts that promote violence and will remove such posts when reported by users. Accounts linked to such activity are shut down. Twitter said Thursday that it's suspended 235,000 accounts for the promotion of terrorism over the past six months. But there's nothing stopping banned users from opening new accounts under different names, turning such efforts into the equivalent of “Whack-a-Mole.” So far, Internet companies have resisted preemptively blocking posts, partly because that would require judgment calls about what constitutes terrorism — a definition that differs around the world.

THIRD OBSTACLE (the main one that Trump apparently does not like one bit) IS THAT PESKY FIRST AMENDMENT: Civil libertarians say any attempt to filter out the online activities of extremist groups would inevitably infringe on the free-speech rights of Americans, because it's impossible to block out that speech without blocking legitimate speech, too. While First Amendment protections don't extend to people in other countries, the law enforcement and intelligence communities have mixed feelings about shutting down terrorist chatter online. They say such chatter can help them monitor terrorist activities and prevent a future attack.

THE FOURTH OBSTACLE IS WHAT DO ABOUT CYBER WARFARE: Trump says cyber warfare is one of his key strategies for destroying extremists, but it's not an entirely novel concept.

In theory, hackers for the U.S. or its allies could mount an Internet attack to shut down a terrorist group's recruiting or communications operations, or they could just hack in to surveil the group. While they may not admit it, most countries that have spies now have state-sponsored hackers, too. Many of them see cyber warfare as a cheaper and safer alternative to traditional military action, sanctioned or otherwise. China is widely thought to be behind last year's hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. And some experts believe Russia is behind the recent breach targeting the DNC and other DEM Party entities.

Many experts say the U.S. and Israel fired the first shot of the cyber warfare age and were both behind Stuxnet (explained here and also seen in this 10-minute  video). Stuxnet was (and still is) a computer virus that disrupted an Iranian uranium-enrichment facility beginning in 2010 and set back Iran's nuclear ambitions. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has acknowledged any involvement.

My summary: Thinking and proposing things the way Trump does is one thing and encouraged by anyone running for the office, but folks, what he proposes flies in the face of logic, common sense, and any semblance of rational or proven facts about most of anything. The man is shallow when it comes to politics and government and running the country let alone our national defense. He may be good in business and even that is suspect in some circles and logically he should be nowhere near the Oval Office except maybe on a guided tour, even if that is possible, either.

Donald J. Trump is potentially a very serious menace to our entire system and processes of government, cherished freedoms, liberty, and even our basic and overall security (this from the Washington Post). That is not a narrow view from any rabid partisan standpoint, either. It is my honest assessment of Mr. Trump, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same view of millions of others. But, will find out for sure in November won’t we? Hang on tight ~ ~ ~

Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

“The Making of Donald Trump” Out in Print for the World to Read and Evaluate

A Book for Your Library or Kindle

A man that needed closer scrutiny long before now. Why wasn’t this out months ago?

Why has this information been on the “back burner?” I suppose it was timing to wait for David Cay Johnston book to come out? Well, it's out and so is his interview, seen below. It is a great investigative report and analysis as well as very excellent interview.  David Cay Johnston is a very smart man, well-informed, extremely savvy, well-spoken, and a Pulitzer Prize investigative reporter who also is an expert on taxes.

Related from here with Bill Moyers. This below interview about 15 minutes. Enjoy, and thanks for stopping by. Feel free to share the video with others.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Donald J. Trump has a Serious Medical Affliction: Foot in Mouth Disease

Trump: Size 10 Shoe Strong Possible 

Two key issues today that run in tandem about my accurate caricature of Donald J. Trump, who has become the GOP banner carrier and de factor Republican Party leader with his nomination for President:

First Issue from The Hill: Just imagine if these 50 top Republican national security officials are against Trump, how millions of others must feel or have felt all along.

Today (Monday, August 8, 2016) they penned a letter warning that Donald Trump doesn’t have the experience to serve as president and would jeopardize the country’s safety (The New York Times).

The letter, signed by aides and Cabinet members of past GOP administrations included that of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. They declared that none of them (the officials) will vote for the GOP nominee because they “are convinced that he would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our Country’s national security and well-being, saying specifically:

“Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about the belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Some of those prominent officials include:
  • Michael Hayden (former director of both the CIA and NSA,
  • Michael Chertoff (former Secretary of Homeland Security for both Mr. Bush and then President Obama),
  • John Negroponte (former director of National Intelligence under Mr. Bush,
  • Tom Ridge (former first Director of HSD under Mr. Bush and former governor of PA.

Others who had served as trade representatives, national security advisers, and ambassadors were the other signers.

Second Issue from here and other sources: This ties into the part I highlighted above (in red), with this headlines:

Trump comments about Somalis stir outrage from Minnesota to Maine


Donald Trump’s comments about Minnesota Somalis and from here have drawn outrage among Muslim Americans in those two states (MN and ME) that have large refugee populations.

For example, at a rally in Maine, Trump quoted a 2015 Washington Times article about Minnesota’s resettlement of Somali refugees, saying the state has become a “rich pool of potential recruiting targets for ISIS and other Islamic terror groups.”

Note: Since 2014, there have been at least nine Minnesota men arrested for allegedly plotting to join ISIS in Syria – punishment has to date for all nine has been swift:

In June, three: Guled Omar (21), Mohamed Farah, and Abdirahman Daud (both 22), were found guilty by a federal jury.

Six others had already pleaded guilty to the terror charges.

Trump continued his pitch: “It’s happening. It’s happening. You see it and you read about it. You see it. And you can be smart, and you can be cunning and tough, or you can be very, very dumb and not want to see what’s going on, folks.”

Minnesota’s Somali community — population estimated to be at more than 70,000 — was quick to condemn Trump’s comments and so did Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison (D), the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. He called Trump’s comments “nonsense.”

So, the caricature stands as a stark reminder of what country has to ponder and measure between now and November 8, 2016. Stay tuned, and as always thanks for stopping by.

I honestly think this is the GOP’s Trump dilemma:

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Scrabble: Pick a Word, Phrase, Definition, or Emotion to Define Trump

This Donald J. Trump: Wants to be President

I very seldom ever use the word “hate” that is directed towards any person. I hate the lousy weather, I hate the service at xyz place, I hate my Cable Company, etc.  But, right now at this point in our politics, I hate Donald J. Trump.

For all he has ever said in this campaign, all the name-calling, all the cheap childish insults, and his string of utter nonsense and outright lies and fear-mongering I make that statement. 

See this short clip that drives that point home just recently:

Definition of traitor from Cornell Law:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Trump is a nasty evil man. If he were to resemble anyone or anything in this life or the next, it would be this character hands down:

Yes, that Donald J. Trump, seeks to be our next President. That must never happen.

Thanks for stopping by. His rant about Army Sgt. Bergdahl pushed me over the line today — maybe it did you, too.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Military's Freedom of Speech vs. Political Involvement: Easy Rules of the Road

Active Duty Military: One Simple Rule
(After service like any other American)

What the Country Should Do
(including Donald Trump)

Somewhat timely subject: Is the military being dragged into the political race? If so, how, but more importantly, what is the long-term impact, if any?

For example, Chairman, JCS, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford recently reminded current senior officers (those still on active duty) to remain apolitical so that the next Commander-in-Chief (CINC) has the trust and the confidence that the military in his own words: “… is completely loyal and completely prepared to do what must be done. Importantly, as an institution, the American people cannot be looking at us as a special-interest group or a partisan organization. I will exercise my right to vote, but no one knows the lever I pull.”

(My insert: I totally agree with that statement and I believe it still applies across the board at least from my view and experience and watchful eyes and ears over the years).

Gen. Martin Dempsey (more from him here) and others, including Duke University military historian Peter Feaver, all acknowledge that political participation by retired generals and admirals is not new.

For example: Army Five-Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a Republican, is still the most-recent former General Officer to be elected president although Retired Army General Wesley Clark ran for the White House as a Democrat in 2004. Then Retired Army General Colin Powell served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, and he had been seen as a prospective presidential candidate in the past. So all that is not new.

However, (now that infamous however or but): However, the difference many critics argue is that when Generals run for office, they become politicians and are held accountable by the public.

In the current cases we see and hear today, retired officers are simply using their military status to endorse a candidate without being held accountable by the public.

My final note: I can agree with this all except the final premise about NOT being accountable to the public if they speak out after service. Retired officers or enlisted members of the Armed Forces for that matter have served the nation faithfully and loyally and speaking out after retirement should not have any restrictions. As far as being accountable to the public – not a deal breaker of an issue of great concern.

They have from my experience served the public and the nation as a whole in a bi-partisan, non-threatening political fashion while on active duty being accountable to their chain-of-command the country. That is has been and should remain so.

After their service, all bets are off. They are and should remain free to speak their minds openly anywhere and at any time just every other American exercising that right of free speech. They have protected and earned that right, but after service is the key point.

Related – FYI:

PRI - 

NPR - 

The Hill - 

Thanks for stopping by – hope you enjoyed the stay.

Monday, August 1, 2016

Trump Gives Hateful Labels — For Him: DDT: Double-Down Tweetnut Donald

How Trump Sees Himself Each Time He Passes a Mirror

Trump Team Says He is Evolving
(He sees himself)

Heavily opinionated and for good reason: It's all true.

How does Trump react when confronted with this own words and actions? Does he apologize or rephrase the original words or insults – nope he doubles down or worse, blames the person or group of persons – like he combat death of Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim-American KIA in Iraq in 2004 who was mentioned a the DNC by his father Khiz Khan.

Case in point: Eleven Gold Star Families penned a letter to Trump demanding an apology for “repugnant and personally offensive” remarks he made toward the parents of Capt. The letter was published by Vote Vets Action Fund, the progressive advocacy wing of the political action committee for Vote Vets.org.

The letter, released Sunday night, comes after Trump's response to the parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan, who made headlines at the Democratic National Convention last week. Khizr Khan gave a speech in which he called Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. unconstitutional, while making the dramatic gesture of pulling a copy of the Constitution from his pocket and asking Trump directly: “Have you even read the United States Constitution?”

Khan went on to say that Trump had “sacrificed nothing and no one,” in his scathing rebuke of Trump. Then Trump opened fire again.

This time on the on the Sunday show ABC this week with George Stephanopoulos Trump said he had made a lot of sacrifices for the country, including employing thousands of people. Trump also insinuated that Khan’s wife Ghazala, who stood beside him as he spoke, was silent during the speech because of her religion. Mrs. Khan later told ABC News she did not speak at the convention because it would have been too painful.

“Your recent comments regarding the Khan family were repugnant, and personally offensive to us,” reads the joint letter published on Vote Vets.org. “When you question a mother's pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from speaking public.”

Then adding insult the original injury Trump naturally tweeted. He said his perceived lack of respect for the family of a fallen soldier served as a distraction from issues that were more pertinent to the presidential campaign and precisely tweeted:

This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!”

Trump is not correct. It is about the Khan family and their loss / not Trump’s gain, and for sure, it not about Donald J. Trump “The Insulter-in-Chief Wannabe” who wants everything all the time to be about himself and no one or anything else except that keeps him limelight no matter how or why. He is the typical me, myself, and I PR road hog.

He also almost always says: “Wake up America.”

You know what Mr. Trump that is the first thing I can agree about what you have ever said and guess what? America is wide awake and on November 8th we will put you back where you belong – back in your Ivory, no wait, Golden Tower and not in the White House. Better in the sewer where you belong with all the nasty rats.

So, yes, we are awake and we paying attention – very close attention. You sir, are about to become a piece of junk in the landfill for waste material.


Thanks for stopping by.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Trump the New GOP Standard Bearer: Leading Them Back to the Future

Trump Riding High at this Moment in History

Trump's reaction to the very successful and motivating DNC convention that just ended in Philly highlights.

The DNC National Convention in Philadelphia week was a massive success – political experts on both sides of the aisle have agreed on that. Disaffected Republicans have even openly expressed their jealousy of a convention that painted a hopeful, optimistic picture of America’s future, instead of the hell-scape that Trump and company have tried to portray America as during their gatherings and such. That convention also took in a whopping 17 million more total viewers than the RNC’s show in Cleveland the week before.

These things bothered the thin-skinned Trump so much that he actually distanced himself from his own convention, saying in part just recently: “I didn’t produce our show — I just showed up for the final speech on Thursday.” Wow – and ouch – talk about being disloyal.

There has been plenty of reporting to contradict Trump’s claim that he was hands-off with his convention, but he gets the benefit of the doubt on this one key gaff. But, this year’s DNC was so effective that it would’ve been hard to top in any scenario and most rational folks agree.

But that’s not nearly the end of Trump’s post-DNC meltdown. A bit more:

About Hillary Clinton’s historic and well-received acceptance speech last night, wherein she said: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” He retorted via tweet as expected:

He whined about Clinton’s address and the positive media coverage that followed. He also went hard after former NY City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who called Trump a “dangerous demagogue” in his speech at the DNC.  Trump referred to the former mayor as “little,” recycling a line he used on former GOP rival Marco Rubio, saying in Iowa that night later on that,  “I wanted to hit a couple of those (DNC) speakers so hard, it would make their heads spin. Especially the little guy.”

That childish outburst continued when he spoke in Colorado when he said, “After watching that performance last night, such lies, I don’t have to be so nice anymore. I’m taking the gloves off. I’m not going to be Mr. Nice Guy.”

This qualifies as the 2016 academy for the “Joke of the Year.” The envelope please. The winner, hands down, is Donald J. Trump. 

Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Pro-Russian Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Hacking, and Sanity

Birds of a Feather
(The Donald loves Vlad and Vice Versa)

Trump said during his press conference in Doral, FL when asked by NBC News reporter Katy Kur, whether this week’s leak of DNC emails, which cyber-security experts believe were obtained by Russian hackers, gave him pause, he said flatly: “It gives me no pause. If they have them, they have them. You know what gives me more pause? That a person in our government, Crooked Hillary Clinton (be quiet he told Kur as she started to follow up) – I know you want to save her. That a person in our government, Katy, would get rid of 33,000 emails — that gives me a big problem.”

Ms. Kur tried to follow up and about whether believed Russia was behind the hack and first told her “Be quiet.” Then he quickly added, in his own words, not mine or anyone else’s in his own words and now he owns them

Trump said:

Russia, if you are listening (see below clip):  “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” (that 30,000 emails he mentioned were those deleted by Hillary that all the committee already know about – personal, family and NOT State Department-related). Thus:  That one statement alone is astonishing … asking a foreign government to obtain information on a U.S. citizen, or to hack to obtain that information – in this case, emails that she deleted for whatever reason and from a presidential candidate, is amazing and that in and of itself could be construed to be a criminal action.

Short version of Trump's remarks here (1 minute or so):

To be fair, the whole Trump speech is here (over 1 hour):

Thanks for stopping. Stay tuned for more on this ... astonishing story to say the least.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Nuclear Weapons Security: The Most Pressing Critical Issue Facing Mankind

The nuclear bomb in question in this posting 
(The B61)

We must do everything possible to prevent this

The headline from the story here is damn scary and should be a major concern especially for anyone seeking to be the next president and CINC of our Armed Forces and particularly of our nuclear forces, and by extension for the safety and security of the country and free world.

Preface: I am not one for hyperbole or chest-beating or hand-wringing, but this is a very serious matter that needs immediate attention (behind the scenes I hope it is getting proper attention at the highest level possible).

| … security at the European sites varied widely – most did not meet 
U.S. nuclear weapons protection standards.

This recent event ties directly into that headlines: The recent military coup attempt in Turkey multiple organizations have raised appropriate concerns about the 50 U.S. nuclear bombs stored at a Turkish Air Base less than 70 miles away from the Syrian border.

While this new interest is warranted, the security vulnerabilities of the 131 U. S. made B-61 nuclear bombs currently deployed at military bases in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands have been a growing concern for almost a decade.

Those bombs are relics of Cold War and the perceptions of reassurance, however they are now more of a liability than a legitimate international security strategy.

Given how uncertain the security situation is in Europe, particularly in Belgium and Turkey, it’s time to consider just how useful, or not, these weapons actually are.

In 2012 and again in 2013, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) wrote letters to the Secretary of Defense questioning the military efficacy of keeping these bombs in Europe when faced with mounting costs and troubling security concerns. Although these weapons are protected by U. S. military personnel, the overall security of the sites where they’re stored is the responsibility of the host nation.

This can be dangerous if, in the case of the recent events in Turkey, there is an abrupt change in national leadership. The Washington Post reported that one of the Turkish officers detained after the coup was the commander of the base where the nukes are kept.
Plus, God forbid if ISIS or any other terrorist group ever got their hands on even one nuclear weapon… and be assured, they want to achieve that therefore security of nuclear weapons anywhere should be of paramount concern to everyone around the globe. All it would take is one nuclear bomb in the wrong hands to cause historic damage and suffering on a massive scale.

Finally, as far back as 2008, an U. S. Air Force Blue Ribbon review found that security at the European sites varied widely, and most did not meet U.S. nuclear weapons protection standards.

Some security requirements — including armored vehicles and perimeter fencing — were underfunded, leading the review to conclude: “The United States Air Force must continue to emphasize to its host nation counterparts their requirement to honor security commitments.” 

Thanks for stopping by and a big thanks to “Project On Government Oversight” (POGO) for their fine article.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Trump: Always a Thumb or Two Up — I Know Better Place for Those Thumbs

Thumbs Up: Ready to Fly or Least Take Off
(On another wild tangent)

Proposed Trump Cabinet
(One-man/one-branch: Me, Myself, and I)

Introduction to the Trump Book of Pledges and Promises: No treaties, no allies, no trade agreements, no military involvement anywhere (except here in CONUS), and basically just the U.S. going it alone in world affairs. The source: The Trump Business Playbook. Now the latest.

From this article verbatim … pretty shocking stuff from Trump – which we’ve come to expect – this however, just about take the proverbial cake (my emphasis included in RED):

Donald Trump raised doubts about whether the United States under his leadership would come to the aid of its NATO allies in Europe in the event of an attack by Russia, in an interview recently with The New York Times.

When specifically asked about his views of Russia, the newly-minted Republican nominee said that if that country attacked some of the small Baltic States, which are the most recent members of NATO, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “… have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

Note: NATO's collective defense agreement requires all member countries to come to the aid of any member state that is attacked.

Trump also said during the interview that as president he would question the security agreements the United States currently has with the 28 members of NATO, and that he'd pull back troops deployed around the world, citing economic reasons.

“We are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion. That doesn’t sound very smart to me,” Trump said to the Times.

Trump elaborated on his foreign policy plans in the interview, saying the United States has to “… fix our own mess” before trying to influence the behavior of other countries. 

“Look at what is happening in our country,” he told The Times, referring to the recent mass shooting of Dallas officers earlier this month. “How are we going to lecture when people are shooting policemen in cold blood?”

Throughout Trump's year-plus long campaign, he has advocated to “Make America Great Again,” and has bucked the Republican establishment by promising to “rip up” free trade deals with Mexico and Canada. However, he told The Times that he'd like to continue existing agreements only if U.S. allies “stopped taking advantage” of Americans.

~ End of that article

I would add in closing about his last comment:

So, the U.S. doesn’t take advantage of other countries and their citizens, right, Mr. Trump? He seems to think he could run the country like one of his business ventures – or so his words seem to prove that.

Related and a footnote for fun added from this site – just for fun, yet sadly, truthful:

A short list of some of Trump’s most obvious hypocrisies about his candidacy and his campaign.

1. He built a campaign centered on how terrible trade deals are, even though many of his company’s products are made in Bangladesh, China and other nations.
2. He’s the candidate for the party that claims it stands for “Christian values” and for “preserving the sanctity of marriage,” despite the fact he’s on his third marriage and has had at least one affair.
3. He claims politicians are corrupt, unethical and cannot be trusted, then admits to trying to buy politicians in the past so they would unethically help him with his business dealings.
4. He brags about how he’s such a successful businessman, yet refuses to show his tax returns to prove his success.
5. He calls Hillary Clinton a liar, when he’s the most dishonest person we’ve ever seen run for public office.
6. He often calls other people “stupid,” yet frequently speaks with the vocabulary of a spoiled 5th grader.
7. He says America isn’t great anymore, while he almost constantly brags about how successful he’s become in this country.
8. He boasts about how many votes he received during the GOP primary, but never mentions that he got less than half the vote and had more people vote against him than for him.
 9. He calls Hillary Clinton “crooked,” yet was found guilty of creating a fake anti-gambling front organization with the sole purpose of slandering the Mohawk Native Americans in an attempt to prevent them from getting approval to build a casino that would compete with his.
10. He calls President Obama divisive, while he vilifies Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, women and has managed to divide his own party.
11. He talks about how much respect he has for our military and our veterans, yet mocked the thousands of American POWs who’ve served in our military when he said he doesn’t consider Sen. John McCain a “hero” because he doesn’t like people who were captured.
12. He claims he isn’t a racist or a bigot, yet has shared blatantly racist memes; has based a lot of his campaign on vilifying minorities; and he once said, “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”
13. During the 2012 election he said that Mitt Romney should release his tax returns; four years later as he’s become the GOP presidential nominee, Trump refuses to release his.
14. He says he’s going to be the “law and order president,” however, on numerous occasions, he’s said he wants to commit war crimes.
5. He claims he’s a great negotiator and a master at making great deals, yet couldn’t convince any big-name Republicans to become his running mate, ultimately settling for no-name Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

There are much more – do the research for yourself … interesting stuff. Shows how dumbed down those who support Trump really have lowered themselves. Amazing in that regard, too.

As for me, I have great concern about how Trump could win, and make no mistake he could under certain precise conditions. Consider the condition of scared angry voters coming out, believing him, and voting out of fear like we saw in 2010 with the so-called TEA “party” movement.

Remember what the result wrought on Congress ... the worst and most-divisive in our history. For anyone who stays home and does not vote this cycle, somehow thinking, “Oh, he can't win,” well let me say: Yes, he can. People cannot stay home and not vote; not this time. 

All the cards are on the table and Trump is about to deal off the bottom of the deck. He wants to win, but mostly for himself and not much else despite his slick slogans. 

I say we can get a better deal and better hand without him shuffling the cards (a weak analogy, but somewhat apropos, too, right?).

Thanks for stopping by.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Major Issue Facing the Country: Open Carry Gun Laws and Court Protection

Right on Target (No pun intended)

Picture of the Utter Insanity All Across America 

CLEVELAND — The open-carry activists who brought handguns to an afternoon rally for the new Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had more than firearms in common.

All of the armed activists who talked to Yahoo News at the event, which was held just outside the security perimeter for the Republican National Convention, cited similar reasons for having pistols on display. They expressed fear about the state of the country, eroding personal freedoms and concerns about violence from the jihadist group the Islamic State and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The debate over open carrying of firearms has gained prominence in recent years, in the aftermath of a series of high-profile mass shootings. And for the activists at the Trump rally, carrying weapons was both protection and a political statement.

Jim Peterson was wearing a tight T-shirt with an American flag and a visible bulge from the body armor he was wearing underneath. The holster on his hip held a .357 magnum revolver.

“It’s strong enough. It’ll do the job,” Peterson said as showed off the gun.
Peterson explained that he was carrying the firearm to express support for the Second Amendment and to guard against potential dangers at the convention.

Story continues here … whew boy… what a load of horseshit … the question has been posed before and is a famous line from the Eddie Murphy movie: The Distinguished Gentleman spoken by Olaf Andersen: (a lobbyist on the take) who says: “Now the question is, can we get the shit back into the horse?”

My view is simple, but not likely to happen: The USSC should revisit and then reverse this crazy “right to open carry” ruling they made that has generated this “Wild, Wild West” mentality, which is utter insanity. Someday (soon, but probably not), we will see it play out. 

That will be good guys with guns mowing down other good guys with guns – then saying oops won’t suffice. Fear and panic and worry about “losing our guns and our rights and freedoms” are the basis for this men and women to open carry guns in public like the 1800’s. Utter insanity and it is recipe for disaster on the horizon that I see here.

Stay tuned as usual… I predict the high-court will move to reverse that “open carry policy” position. We shall see.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Trump vs. Ginsburg: Round 2 — She Apologizes, He Issues Threat and Insult

She is lady-like. He opens yap (Trump fashion) like a spoiled child
(I will never apologize to him until he does. Hell in deed will freeze over)

Consider this vis-à-vis Justice Ginsburg remarks about Trump from this source: 

What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander comes to mind. But that does change the fact that Donald J. Trump is a nasty, insulting, despicable man while being extremely skilled as clever and at his silly-ass name-calling PR stunt.

Now he issues this threat to Justice Ginsburg – not personal threat but one aimed squarely at the entire Supreme Court, and naturally he did on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump

If I win the Presidency, we will swamp Justice Ginsburg with real judges and real legal opinions!"

By that post he implies in no uncertain terms that she and others on high court bench are not “real judges who issue real legal opinions.”  

So, I ask, Mr. and Mrs. Trump Supporters: Where is the outrage about that kind of ugliness? Oh, I see, it appeals to you because that is how you believe and think – check, got it. Carry on.

Overall: If what Justice Ginsburg said is a disgrace that so many are saying and that she “crossed the ethical line” then she’s in illustrious company.  To wit: Supreme Court justices have been messing in politics, including active campaign politics even while the ink was still wet on the Constitution.

A few examples: 
  1.  In 1800, just a short decade after the high court was founded, so many of its justices at the time were out campaigning for John Adams that the opening of the court term had to be delayed.
  2.  Now some 200 years later, it’s more taboo what she said than that? Or for a justice to openly endorse a particular candidate? None of that has stopped the country’s top legal jurists on the court from taking sides.
  3.  As recently as election night, 2000, when NBC declared for Democratic candidate Al Gore, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the guests at an election party that the Democrat’s election victory was “terrible.” 
  4.  She then went on to participate in making sure nothing so terrible would happen, casting the crucial fifth vote in Bush v. Gore without blinking an eye.
  5.  Justice O’Connor had a long history of rooting for the Bushes in presidential elections. For example, in 1988, she wrote to longtime political ally Sen. Barry Goldwater (also from AZ), in a letter now in his public archives, that she “would be thankful if George B wins. It is vital for the Court and the nation that he does.”

Like so many times before following a string of floor speeches, posturing, appearances on the many 24/7 news shows (namely Fox), after issuing this or that finding (with little evidence like Benghazi or Clinton email flap) all across GOP Talk Radio la-la land, the GOP once again overreacts and usually ends up the same way, or as they say: “There ain’t no there, there.” That is the case here. Get political mileage not matter how or whom it damages.

Justice Ginsburg was lady-like and apologized to Trump, and I support her brave decision … but folks, she still has 1st Amendment rights just like you and I – we must never forget that.

So, when was the last time Trump ever apologized to anyone for anything since he has been in this race to be President?  

I refer to his trademark name calling and insulting labels, like: (1) “Crooked" Hillary Clinton, (2) “Lying” Ted Cruz, (3) “Low-Energy” Jeb Bush, (4) “Little” Marco Rubio, (5) “Disgusting He Can't Stop Stuffing His Face” John Kasich,  (6) “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, (7) “Goofy” Elizabeth Warren, and (8) “Blood Coming Out of Her Whatever” Megyn Kelly (Fox GOP debate moderator), and anyone else who disagrees with him or vice versa. 

So, I ask again, when did Trump last apologize to anyone for any insult? Yeah, right – boy, that's a long time (like never).

Thanks for stopping by.