Roots of Russia, U.S. distrust 2

U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS SINCE WW2 PART 2

COLD WAR YEARS

Immediately following WW2 the chess game of pushing the advantage between the expansion of Communism and self government began.  The Soviet Union under Stalin was relentless in probing for opportunities to advance the ideology of global communism. In 1946 a civil war in Greece between Communist and royalist factions began. This was followed by the Chinese communist revolution in the same year, this civil war lasted until 1949 when 600,000 Chinese Nationalist troops and 2 million civilians fled to Taiwan. An estimated 10,000,000 died in this conflict and the dispute with Taiwan is still ongoing.

 After the defeat of Japan, Korea above the 38th parallel and Vietnam above the 16th parallel were to be administered by China. When the Civil war in China came to an end, they almost immediately invaded South Korea on June 25th 1950, this war lasted until July 27, 1953. 21 UN countries participated, 88% of the troops were from the U.S. U.S. air power was the determining factor. The North Koreans were supported by China and the USSR. Many of the N. Korean aircraft were piloted by Russian airmen. Gen. Douglas MacArthur proposed using Nuclear weapons to take on the Chinese, that idea was rejected by Truman. This dispute is still ongoing.

 At the same time pressure was brought against South Vietnam which was still a French colony, this continued until 1954 when the French pulled out. It was not long before the U.S. began giving aid to the South Vietnam and escalated into the Vietnam war in which 50,000 U.S. troops were killed, the U.S. eventually pulled out and Vietnam fell to the communists.

In Europe it was much of the same, in 1948 the USSR blockaded West Berlin and the allies commenced with the Berlin airlift to supply allied areas of Berlin. East Germany put up a fence to keep the population from fleeing to the west and eventually built the Berlin Wall, many were shot while trying to flee  communist rule. Stalin proclaimed that war with the U.S. was inevitable. The USSR tested its first atomic bomb on Aug. 29, 1949. The U.S. developed a plan for the defense of Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. It was called "Operation Dropshot", and called for the saturation of the Soviet Union with Atomic bombs and a large ground invasion.

The USSR now controlled the countries of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and East Germany. Yugoslavia was an independent communist state under Tito. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were ceded to the USSR by the allies in 1940. This became know as the "Warsaw Pact". It must be noted that the USSR suffered 40,000,000 deaths in WW2, far more than any of the other combatants. WW2  put most of their major cities in ruins, it could be understood that they were obsessed with a buffer zone for their security.

It was a tense time with civil defense drills in the U.S. and western Europe with instructions in schools to protect ones self in the event of Nuclear War. Many believed that a third world war was now imminent. To counter the threat from the soviet block, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom agreed to cooperate in their mutual defense with the treaty of Brussels in 1948. This was followed with the formation of the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" on April 4, 1949. It consisted of the 5 nations of the treaty of Brussels plus, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, a total of 12 nations.  The forming of NATO and the support of the United states is probably what avoided the conflict. That and the death of Stalin in 1953.

Stalin was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev, who made many attempts at reform, he was a bit of a colorful character who is famous for his many typical Russian quotations, he was still a die hard communist who pursued the idea of global Communism, but lifted the dismal dark burden from the Russian people. His quote about Stalin is telling.

"Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his [own] viewpoint, and the correctness of his [own] position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation." — Nikita Khrushchev

Originally published 1/12/17, Part 2 of 7

World Political scene is smoking.

WILL IT SOON BURST INTO FLAMES

POLITICAL CRISIS ON EVERY CONTINENT

There are more political uprisings and crisis being reported by the day. Why is this happening in a time of relative world wide prosperity. Most of these conflicts are not about quality of life but about political unrest. These conflicts in themselves increase the possibility of economic collapse and a serious decline in quality of life. 

South America, is now having riots in Colombia, Chile, an overthrow of the government in Bolivia and Venezuela. There is the possibility of problems erupting in Argentina and Brazil.

In Africa there is political unrest in Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Burundi, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan and South Africa. I am sure I may of missed other conflicts on this continent.

The middle east has ongoing riots or conflict in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Syria and Yemen. Israel the most stable government in the region cannot form a government after 3 elections.

We see the Hong Kong riots going on for months. There is still the ongoing problems with North Korea, the possible annexation of Taiwan and the expansion of Chinese influence world wide.

In Europe we see riots for over a year in France and Spain, Germany having protests concerning numerous issues, also unrest concerning immigration in most of the EU countries. There is also the  ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The United Kingdom, after 3 years, has not yet been able to implement Brexit due to opposition from those who do not want to obey the referendums results.

In central America we see failed states in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Mexico has seemingly become a Narco State. Any attempt to change direction may result in civil war.

Finally in the United States we see the worst division since the civil war. The rejection of the results of elections, not only in the presidency, but in many other races. The politicization of many parts of the government and the judiciary. The continued attempt to overthrow the results of the last election. There does not seem to be any resolution in sight.

Many of these conflicts are rooted in the ongoing spread of Islamic fundamentalism, but there also  many uprisings supported by outside influences. Much of this seems to be a worldwide push to embrace socialism and Global government. It appears many are being supported by foreign states and organizations. Election are no longer respected and the overthrow of existing governments is becoming an acceptable political strategy.

It is situation where the risk of conflagration is rising in many parts of the world. It is possible that an incident or case of bad judgement may ignite this smoldering global fire at any time.

Bloomberg says he is "All In"

DEMOCRAT CONSULTANTS, DNC AND MEDIA ECSTATIC OVER BLOOMBERG'S CAMPAIGN

MAY SPEND 2 BILLION IF NOMINATED

Democrat consultants lined up on all the major media stations yesterday to spout what a great candidate Mike Bloomberg will be. He is a problem solver, moderate and knows how to beat Donald Trump. They spent most of their time on MSNBC and CNN but made the rounds of all the media. They are all praying they can get a piece of the action.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton spent 1.5 billion, she was the favorite of the consulting class as they all had a great 2016. The media also took in a needed boost in campaign cash.

Donald Trump on the other hand spent a measly $600,000, did not use the usual Republican consultants but used non professional campaign staff. It was no wonder many Republican Consultants bad mouthed him all through the campaign.

In 2016 Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were the favorites because there was a lot of money to be spread around.

The DNC is sighing relief that Bloomberg may be able to bail out the committee which is near broke. The big donors will keep their wallets closed for a Warren or Sanders candidacy.

The Democratic favoring media is also happy to anticipate millions of dollars in campaign ads. Bloomberg kicked off his campaign with a $30 million ad buy.

You can bet the word will come down to media opinion people to praise Bloomberg as his money could translate into a bonus later in the year. The DNC, who was bailed out by Clinton in 2016, will be more than fair in their treatment of Bloomberg. You will continue to watch the consultants pander to Bloomberg in the coming months.

It appears his democratic opposition are ready to bring out the long knives, it will be interesting to see how they maneuver in this environment.

Bloomberg and his supporters may not be able to buy the nomination in the present Democratic primary, but it will be entertaining watching them try.

Roots of Russian,U.S. distrust Part 1

U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS SINCE WW2 PART 1

DISTRUST IS ROOTED IN THE PAST

The relationship between Russia and the United States is an extension of the deals made after WW2 between the United States, Great Britain and The Soviet Union. These decisions were made at a series of conferences held and decisions made by Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.

The first was the Cairo Conference, Nov. 22 to 26 1943, followed closely by the Tehran conference held at the Soviet embassy in Iran. These early conferences dealt with the plan to win the war in Europe. From the record it is evident that Stalin was the dominate figure in these talks. While it was agreed to coordinate their attacks on Germany, Stalin was already making good on taking advantage of a crisis. Stalin already in 1943 won agreement on the support for the communist partisans in Yugoslavia and the USSR moving the border of eastern Poland in their favor. While Churchill would have liked to resist these decisions, he was in the weakest position, Stalin already had troops in much of eastern Europe, the U.S. was the main producer of war equipment which all were dependent, Britain was hanging on for their survival.

The conferences held in Yalta in Crimea Feb 4 to 11,1945 had mostly to do with the partition of Germany and the transition of Europe from war to peace. It also guaranteed the self determination of the countries of eastern Europe, this included Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria and other countries already occupied by the Soviet Union and the allies. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were strongly criticized for these arrangements, many knowing that Stalin would not hold up his side of the bargain.  Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. He explained that "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man," and reasoned, "I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, 'noblesse oblige,' he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace" One must take note in the book the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn , he made mention that when Eleanor Roosevelt visited the Soviet Union in 1957, she mentioned the improvements in education, medical care and sanitation, but neglected to discuss that some of worst atrocities in human history had been perpetrated. Whether she knew about this or not is not clear, but the Roosevelt's had an affinity for Socialism and at the time the Soviet Union was the idol of many advocates of this form of government.

The final conference was held in Potsdam, occupied Germany, July 17 to Aug. 2 1945. This was attended by Stalin, Truman, and Atlee for Great Britain. This finalized the partition of Germany and Austria, a share given to France that was to be taken out of the U.S. and British partitions. This also decided the division of Vietnam at the 16th parallel and granted some Japanese Islands to the Soviet Union even though they didn't participate in war with Japan. Truman tried to take a tougher stance, but the Soviet Union occupied these countries with a very large experienced army. It was not long until Stalin installed Communist governments in all these countries. There were some, including George Patton, who advocated the invasion of the Soviet Union and the freeing of these countries, while it was not a viable plan while Roosevelt was president, Truman, after acquiring the Atomic bomb,  could have used it as leverage to negotiate freedom and free elections in eastern Europe. Most everyone had their fill of war and it was not possible to win support for such a plan. The cold war had begun. Anti-Communist fear and resistance, with good cause, became the policy of the U.S and the democratic countries of the west.


This was originally published 1/9/17. It is the first of 7 parts.

Impeachment Inquiry impressions

HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY COMPLETE, NOW MOVES TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

WHITE HOUSE AND SENATE PREPARE FOR TRIAL

It is expected that the House Impeachment inquiry phase is now concluded, but don't be surprised that like the Kavanaugh hearing, there may be more to come. The next step is a hearing in the Judiciary committee and a vote there, then move to a vote in the house on impeachment. It will then move to the Senate, controlled by Republicans, who will set the rules for the trial.

The conclusion of these hearings did establish that there was an effort to tie a white house meeting to a public statement from Zelensky that he would investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and corruption in Burmisa the Ukrainian Gas co.

While the democrats assume that this request had to do with interfering in the 2020 election to taint Joe Biden, the republican position is that Trump wanted to insure that those that were involved in the 2016 election were no longer in positions in Ukraine. He, as was the general consensus, was also concerned about corruption in general. Burmisa was accused of funneling huge amounts of money out of the country, some supposedly U.S. aid money. Joe Biden's son sits on the board of this co. so this is the Biden connection.

There did not seem to be any proof that the delay in conveying aid to Ukraine was tied to this public statement. Much was made that it was a national security issue, that Ukraine was in a war and needed the aid quickly.

There was one problem with all this, everyone admitted the Ukraine was one of the most corrupt governments in the world. This included the former President Porshenko and many in the cabinet. Zelensky did not take his office until May. 20, 2019. There then was the election of the Parliament. 70% of the parliament was replaced. The parliament did not take their seats until Aug. 29, 2019. They then held an all night session in which they passed a series of anti-corruption measures, including removing the immunity from prosecution of members of Parliament. There was also many members of the prosecutors office replaced. Vice-President Mike Pence met with Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland on Sept. 1., and the aid was released on Sept. 11. I don't understand why this was not more fully explained.

There was never a public statement about any investigations.

This hearing was really irrelevant, it was a show to garner support against the President. There has not been any doubt that the democrats wanted to impeach this president even before the Inauguration. There is no doubt they will produce enough votes to impeach. 

As for the last witnesses in the hearing Fiona Hall and David Holmes, both of the NSC, were of one mind. Their contempt for civilian control of policy was clear. They visibly showed that they knew what foreign policy should be fostered by the United States. Holmes bristled when asked by a U.S. Representative if he thought it was appropriate to relay to others what he heard in a private conversation, in a casual setting, in an effort to embarrass the Ambassador and the President.

The demeanor of both these witnesses and Lt.Col. Vindman reminded me of political officers in the former Soviet Union or Gestapo in Nazi Germany. They conveyed the impression that you did not want to reveal anything or allow these people to know anything about you, as it would surely be noted somewhere and possibly reported. I expect it is also used as a weapon to those who they disagree. There was also the feeling of protecting their turf and resenting not being informed of all details of agendas or plans. I can see why some would avoid conveying any information to these people.

As for Holmes overhearing a cell phone conversation in a crowded restaurant from across the table. I don't buy it. It seems all communications of this president are monitored and if embarrassing promptly leaked to the press or in this case used to enhance an impeachment process.

I suspect they hoped that Sondland would dispute the contents of the call, but he wisely said he did not recall and he did not dispute anything that Homes said. You can bet it was a perjury trap that they hoped to use to squeeze and punish Sondland for stepping on their Turf.

I hope the Senate and other civilian members of our government take a long look at the culture of this agency.

Sondland testifies Quid pro quo, then maybe not

GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFIES, EVERYONE KNEW THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO 

THEN THE RIDE ON TRUMPWORLD ROLLER COASTER

In his opening statement at yesterdays impeachment sequel Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to the EU, stated that everyone knew that a public statement was required by Ukrainian president Zelensky concerning investigations of the 2016 election meddling and Burmisa the Ukrainian gas Co. He contended that it not only was needed to have a white house meeting but also release the aid to Ukraine. It appeared to be a shocking admission that you could see by the reaction of the committee members. 

Adam Schiff was visibly moved, it appeared that he did all that he could to restrain himself from having an orgasmic moment on national TV. The Republican members looked very discouraged.

Schiff soon called for a 5 minute recess, not to go to the men's room or consult with his crew, but to rush to the hall outside and hold a press conference in which he could taut his final triumph over Trump.

I admit after the initial interrogation from the lawyers I needed to take care of some serious business and did not watch.  When I returned everything seemed to have changed. It was then that I heard that Sondland admitted under questioning that no one had conveyed this information to him. He could not name anyone who had verbally or written about this connection. He admitted that it was just his perception. Under further questioning he recollected his last phone conversation with the President on this subject. This conversation was verified with emails.

Sondland frustrated by the delay of funds to Ukraine asked the president straight out,"What do you want from Ukraine and Zelensky", Trump answered "I dont want anything, no quid pro quo, just tell Zelensky to do the right thing"  It seems this account let a lot of steam out of the Democrats and encouraged the Republicans. Then there was the fact that there was no public announcement that ever happened, so no "Quid pro Quo" ever happened.

Welcome to the Trumpworld roller coaster that has been running for over 4 years now.

In the evening session, Davis Hale, undersecretary of State for politics, could not really add anything to the debate. 

Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Ukraine was questioned concerning when Ukraine knew that there was a hold on aid to Ukraine. She stated that she knew that they became aware in early September. That there were calls to her Department from Ukrainians several time concerning the aid, but  neither she or her staff had actually engaged in conversations that indicated that they knew, it seemed they just wanted to know the status.

It appears this evening sessions was delayed to push the hearing into prime time, the best part of the show was watching Laura Cooper deflect the leading questions, and stick to answering only facts and things that she knew first hand. It appears she may have watched earlier sequels and learned to not get involved with feelings, presumptions and hearsay. 

Overall it seems that the witnesses believe there was a condition for a public statement concerning investigations linked to a white house meeting but eventually it did not happen. It does not seem to have ever been a link concerning aid.

Just one other point, it seems that investigations into Burmisa are ongoing, that indictments are expected, and that there is a connection to money-laundering with a U.S. investment co. Some of this has been revealed by official Ukrainian releases and some is considered just leaks at this time. 

Highlights; Tuesdays impeachment hearing

VINDMAN IS LEAKER, SCHIFF AND VINDMAN MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS

VASTLY DIFFERENT TAKE BY MEDIA

After 10 hours of hearings concerning President Trump's July 25th phone call there were a few revelations and also some clarification in the timeline of events in Ukraine.

Not much was learned from Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, who was on the phone call. She did not find the call to be extraordinary and did not really add anything to what was already known. She did clarify that it was almost impossible for the Vice-President to attend the inauguration of President Zelensky due to the fact that they only had 3 days notice of the date and that the President was out of the country at that time. It is the custom that both do not leave the country at the same time. The Democrats have been making an issue as to why the Vice-President's trip was cancelled.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, under questioning, revealed that he had immediately notified the NSC lawyers about the phone call that he found inappropriate. He also seemed miffed that the President did not use the talking points he had prepared for the phone call. When asked who else he talked to about the call he answered that he had talked to Secretary Kent, his brother, and a intelligence agency officer. When asked who the intelligence agency officer was, Schiff stopped the hearing and stated that they would not reveal who the whistle blower was. When asked what agency this person was with, Schiff again interjected and stated the whistle blower identity could not be revealed. Both Schiff and Vindman have stated that they do not know who the whistle blower is, but this exchange proved they do know who the whistle blower is and also that Vindman leaked the information to this security officer who is either the whistle blower or someone who passed information to the whistle blower.

Vindman also refereed several times that Trump had demanded that Zelensky conduct investigations. It was pointed out that Trump had asked, and used other phrases but that there was never a demand. The whistle blower in his exaggerated reference to the call had also used the word demand.

It was also revealed by Tim Morrison,Vindman's superior or boss, that Vindman did not report his interpretation of the call to him but went to the NSC lawyers. He also admitted that several people warned him about Vindman when he took over, that they suspected Vindman as a leaker.

Vindman, although denying it , seemed to believe that foreign policy should be determined by the NSC. He also seemed to be unhappy that he was not included in the trips to Ukraine.

No one in any of the questioning could relate that they ever heard that the security money was held up in exchange for investigations. This seems to be how they are attempting to make this now a bribery allegation.

Volker was aware that Zelensky was expected to make a public statement concerning investigations into 2016 activities and Burisma. This was early on in the summer, but there never was such a statement made.

Kurt Volker the U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, who was really the person in charge of Ukrainian negotiations, stated that he understood there was a concern by the president, with good reason, with the history of corruption in Ukraine. He also explained that while this hold on transferring this money was going on there was an effort to evaluate if the new government was really a reform government.

He also stated the Inauguration of Zelensky took place on May. 15., The election of the Parliament took place on July 21, The Parliament was inaugurated August 29. The Parliament then went into session and passed many anti-corruption laws. The present state prosecutor was replaced.

Volker also stated that there was then a meeting in Warsaw Poland on Sept. 1, with Zelensky and Mike Pence and they were all confident that Zelensky was indeed focused on reforming the country.

It was only on Aug 28 that the Ukrainians were aware of the hold on the aid. This was learned from a U.S. news article. Zelensky asked Pence about it and was reassured it was forthcoming. There never was any mention of investigations during this visit. The aid was released on Sept. 11.. This was 12 days after the new government was in place.

I sadly admit to watching the whole thing, I switched to CNN and other media during the breaks. Their big takeaway was that Volker changed his story, which is fake news. Volker stated in his questioning that he never associated the Burisma investigation as a Biden investigation. He understood it as a Ukrainian corruption investigation. He then stated that after listening to the other witnesses he understood that they perceived it differently and stated in hindsight he saw that it was considered by many as a Biden investigation.

Is the Ukrainian Barisma investigation still ongoing?

THREAT OF BARISMA INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED IMPEACHMENT

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM HEARINGS

After watching the impeachment hearings last week it became clear that the threat of an investigation into Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company, created a crisis and a desperate situation in the State department. One has to wonder why?  

Ambassador Taylor testified that he tried to influence the new President Zelensky not to get involved in U.S. politics. He also warned that aid to Ukraine was a bi-partisan effort and if he stepped over the line it could jeopardize future aid. Sound like quid pro quo to me, but not initiated by the Trump administration, but just a subtle threat from the State department. If the Biden's were all above board, if they could demonstrate what Hunter Biden was doing to earn this large monthly stipend, if he could demonstrate that he had attended a board meeting etc, wouldn't it be to his and his fathers benefit.

We also hear that the intensity of the crisis increased when Zelensky planned to hold a press conference in New York, while at the U.N. meeting, confirming that there were investigations going on. Contrary to the media spin, investigation into Barisma has been going on for months, along with other corrupt events in Ukraine. This investigation may very well still be ongoing. Zelensky ran on being a corruption fighter and won with 73% of the vote. He is a non-politician, it seems even Ukraine is tired of the same old good boy network that seems to run most governments these days. The same kind of good boy network that the Biden boys milked in the Ukraine for the younger Biden's co, to the tune of $166,000 a month. I suspect this is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

It looks more and more like this whistle-blower complaint was initiated to bury the Biden's actual corrupt dealing, to claim it is all a Trump delusion. That Trumps phone conversation was much more serious than actually taking money from a foreign co for influence or having a prosecutor fired to stop an investigation. Amazing.

It is just fascinating to watch the hypocrisy of the all the Democrats and media who just poo-poo any question into the Biden's behavior. No wonder their credibility has evaporated.

We also heard from Marie Yovanovitch, who claimed she was undermined by the Trump administration and recalled shortly after the election in Ukraine. There was no mention of Zelensky referencing her in his conversation with Trump, where he stated that she had worked hard for Porshenko, his election opponent and  the favorite candidate of the U.S. State department. That she had treated him as not worthy of holding office. Sounds familiar.

Much of this State department concern is that Zelensky wants to normalize relations with the Russian federation and desires to end the revolt in eastern Ukraine. This would be a good thing for Ukraine and we should assist them in negotiating a good arrangement. Problem is, it seems the U.S. does not want an end to the situation in Ukraine it is more focused on squeezing Russia and hoping to facilitate regime change in Russia.

Yovanovitch's testimony was all immaterial, she had not been in Ukraine for 6 months, had no knowledge of the question at hand, it was just another emotional appeal rather than a fact finding endeavor.

So, the show will go on again this week, I suspect the ratings will continue to decline and the democrats will need to energize this process or try something new. It is very unlikely that they will be rid of Trump in the near future.

Schiff show starts today

PARTISAN POLITICAL REALITY SHOW OPENS

YOU CAN BET IT WILL GET MIXED REVIEWS

So, today is the the opening day of the long anticipated Democratic impeachment inquiry. The dark performances have been going on for some time, all in an attempt to produce a well rehearsed and orchestrated show for the public. No expense has been spared in keeping a tight controlled presentation. All the hoopla and discussion have yet to reveal any listed statutes that have been violated. No matter, the show must go on.

This show is all about the hope of influencing public opinion and persuading the public that Trump is such a terrible person that he would dare to inquire about the possibility that there were acts of corruption in the Ukraine that were engaged in by U.S. citizens.

I cannot help but smell a faint odor of, "We better make sure that nothing is ever exposed about political deals and maneuvering by the past administration in the Ukraine."  the old adage of "The best defense is a strong offense", seems to be the plot for the story.

This Schiff produced show is well orchestrated. Only those performers who will enhance and validate the plot are allowed to perform. There cannot be anyone allowed who may put a strong doubt about the validity of the show.

You can expect, after having seen other productions from these democratic producers, there will be shocking new revelations somewhere before the climax of the show. We have watched,"The great Mueller investigation" and the wonderful attempted "Kavanaugh Assassination" which as expected got very mixed reviews by even the political operatives. Worst of all the general public mostly felt it was all a big yawn.

Now today may be the last attempt to resurrect their reputations as first class showmen. You can expect the standing ovation they will get from the partisan supporters. You can also expect the boo birds will be out in full force from the opposition. It is all about the show for the audience, which is the American electorate.

The final revue will eventually be put on by the Senate which will be another show entirely.

Dems love Bloomberg's money, Bloomberg not so much.

BLOOMBERG WILL NEVER WIN DEMOCRAT NOMINATION

NO BILLIONAIRE CAN WIN IN DEMOCRAT PARTY

Michael Bloomberg has announced he is running for President. Whether he is serious about this or just hopes to move the other candidates to the center, only time will tell. If he is serious, he is in for a rude awakening. He can never be successful in the Democratic party and not likely in the Republican party.

Bloomberg has supported the Dems with loads of money. His pet peeves are gun control, climate change, Donald Trump and over sized soft drinks. He has touched all the bases on the Democratic wish list. He has backed up his mouth with millions in contributions, but sorry Mike, you are not one of the boys from DC. Like Donald Trump, they all loved your money, but you are not to be trusted. You have not proved you will be a team player. You would unlikely agree to be a figure head president.

I am sure he can finance a serious campaign and has the organizational skills to put together a professional campaign. The problem is, besides not being that connected to the bureaucracy he is too short, white, Jewish, a former Republican, a billionaire who made his money in the private sector, from New York and can never connect with working Americans or with the elite academic bureaucrats. You would do no better in the republican party.

So Mr. Bloomberg you will not really fit in anywhere, so just keep pumping out the money, that is your value to both parties and they will continue to love and praise you.

What is our foreign policy?

WHAT  IS  OUR  FOREIGN  POLICY?

THIS QUESTION IS NOW 4 YEARS OLD, BUT STILL RELEVANT TODAY

If asked, what are the essential elements of our long term foreign policy?.... I would have to say, I really have no idea.  Since the break-up of the Soviet Union we have floundered around without a coherent foreign policy, moving from a war on drug cartels in the late 80's and early 90's to an activist foreign policy in the Mideast. This all started with the liberation of Kuwait followed by the permanent stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. Our former ally Osama Ben Laudin, who we backed in the opposition to the soviets in Afghanistan, became our enemy due to permanently stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. Then came the 911 attack, followed by our invasion of Afghanistan, which was supported by most Americans. This is were we seemed to go off the rails.

Following 911, we apparently decided that we would introduce democracy to the Mideast.  While there was no official policy stated, there was talk of a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, similar to the plan that established order and democracy in Germany after WW2.  There was no clear-cut and agreed upon plan from the Congress or even from the President.  The Reagan doctrine, which stated that we enter no conflict without a clear plan and exit strategy, was dead. Next it was the toppling of Sadam Hussein and the government of Iraq.  While Sadam was a bad man, he held a Sunni-Shiite country together, something we have not been able to do. This was not a country like Christian Germany and we were immediately the new enemy.

Barak Obama's foreign policy has really been a continuation of the same... remove secular dictators in the Mideast and let chaos reign.  In Egypt, Mubarak was on peaceful terms with Israel and kept peace in his country, with rights for Christians; without Egypt, the more radical Muslim elements could not make war on Israel.  Obama endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood, which should be pointed out now has ties in the White House, who set about trying to establish an Islamic fundamentalist government. The military stepped in to restore peace and ensure rights of minorities. Obama objected, but could not succeed. Obama and Hillary then focused on Libya, were Kaddafi, who was old and semi-senile was overturned with the help of US and European air power. Both Kaddafi and his much more moderate son were killed and chaos reigns.  The same plan in Syria, Tunisia, and other parts of the Mideast.

Watching the debate the other night, I see Bush and Rubio are willing to escalate military involvement and confront the Russians in Syria. This is the same policy endorsed by Hillary Clinton. To what end? What is the End Game? If we send in 50,000 troops and annihilate Isis, what then? When do we come home? Overthrow Assad, and then what?  I don't see anyone answering these questions.

We were able to win WW2 in four and half years. We fought to win; we fire bombed civilian populations in Germany; we dropped nuclear weapons on civilians in Japan. We were feared and respected around the world. Since that time, we have not allowed our military to successfully fight a war - Korea and Viet-Nam were so called police actions.  It was common knowledge that during the Viet-Nam war French and British ships were in Haipong harbor supplying the enemy, they were off limits to our military. We sent our young men to fight, without a plan to win. We could have won both those wars in a short time if we had the will to engage in all-out war. If we are not willing to do that, then we should stay home.

Again, what is our Mideast policy?  What is our objective there?  What are we willing to spend in treasure and in the lives of our sons and daughters?  What is our end goal?  Does anyone know? Are we ready to conduct all-out war, no rules of engagement, death to every bit of opposition, till there may not be anyone left to oppose us? This is what war has been for centuries. Read the bible...there was no one left to be a terrorist.  I don't think we have the will to do that.

If we are not willing to engage in all out war, then we should get out completely and permanently. We could bar all immigration to and from the Mideast. All non citizens should be returned to their original state. No arms or industrial equipment or technology to the area. A complete embargo of everything except food and medical supplies. Then let these people settle their differences.  They are hellbent on lots of bloodletting. Are we able to stop it? Where are the troops of the Saudis' and other wealthy gulf countries that have been playing both sides for years? How many Muslim refugees are they willing to take? Are we fools?

Egypt and Israel and Jordan, would be supplied and given air support.  Counties who think they need to supply these warring countries with arms or equipment can do so, but they will no longer have access to our markets - deal with them and you no longer deal with the USA. That goes for China, Russia, France, Germany, Great Britain, etc. 

I have little doubt this type of policy will be judged too harsh and that politicians would rather have a slow bleeding of blood and treasure and win praise as being nice people - but they are nice people who can be manipulated by our enemies.  What is our foreign policy? Does anyone know?



originally published 11/14/15

Planning underway for,"Trial of the Century"

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL LIKELY RUN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2020

CLARENCE THOMAS MAY BE PRESIDING JUDGE

Mitch McConnell is expecting to hold an impeachment trial of President Trump commencing in February and could last 2 months. The trial will be in session 6 days a week. 

The Democrats in the house are unlikely to be able to take their impeachment vote until late December at the earliest. It will take at least a month to do the preparation before a trial can commence. 

It seems the decision to hold an actual trial has been decided. Many believed that they would put up a motion to dismiss and that would be the end of the matter. This would have just been used as a political weapon against Republican Senators.

There could be delays if witnesses who are subpoenaed resist and attempt to not testify. This trial could actually last longer depending on delays or any other unforeseen events like national emergencies etc. 

It has been rumored that Chief Justice John Roberts may be inclined to recuse himself, due to some past disagreements with the President. If that should be the case, Justice Clarence Thomas would be the next in line. 

You can bet that Adam Schiff and the so called whistle blower will be questioned under oath. It is not clear how many witnesses will be called or where this trial will lead. It is unlikely that they will ever get 67 senators to vote to remove Trump from office.

There are 6 Democratic Senators running for President who will be required to be in constant attendance. Those that have strong financial backing will be able to be most effective. This will provide a huge advantage to those candidates who will be free to campaign in this critical time. It may also open an opportunity for Democrat candidates who have not yet announced.

It is expected that there will be a strong defense made on the Presidents behalf. This may be a confrontation with many casualties on both sides.

It is unlikely that this trial will bring about any reconciliation to the divisions in the country.

Are Sanctuary cities part of drug cartels business plan?

WHY WOULD BIG CITIES PREFER TO PROTECT CRIMINAL ALIENS?

IS IT PROFITABLE TO BE A SANCTUARY CITY?

After watching a few documentary's on the drug cartels south of our border, one thing is consistent, pay off the bureaucrats and politicians. Offer them a choice of a stick or a carrot and the carrot is often very enticing. Pablo Escobar literally had the whole area around Medellin, Columbia on his payroll, he had so much money pouring in that it just made sense to give money away to the cooperative. Some low level bureaucrats were receiving $200,000 and up, mayors and judges were much more discreet but it was very profitable to be cooperative with the cartel. Escobar, born into a poor farm family, started in the smuggling business, he found that it was good to spread the profits around to border guards and customs agents. When the Cocaine craze started in the 1970's Escobar teamed up with suppliers in Peru and provided transportation and distribution, he would soon take over all aspects of the business and was eventually able to earn $20 billion  in business a year. When asked as to what were the basics of his business, he answered, "bribe people here and bribe people there, the rest is easy". He had a interesting life, was involved with the death of 10's of thousands including over 600 policemen. He was killed in 1993. Part of his distribution network into the U.S. was run by the Mexican cartels. Joquin "El Chapo" Guzman was part of the Sinoloa cartel, he eventually took full control of the cartel and became the major source of drugs into the U.S.. His main distribution point is Chicago, and they distributed, marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. When they saw the increased legalization of marijuana they moved more heavily into heroin. The Sinoloa Cartel is the major source of Heroin into the United States. El Chapo was arrested and imprisoned earlier this year, but the cartel is still in business.

So, one has to wonder, why the mayors of many large cities say they will resist the arrest and deportation of criminal illegal aliens from their cities? If you look at the business model of all the drug cartels it is the same, bribe politicians, bureaucrats and police. If they take the money, you have leverage on them, if they don't take the money, punish them or their families . We see 4 or 5 dozen shootings in Chicago every weekend, with usually around a dozen deaths. It is acknowledged that this is drug business feuding. I am sure the violence in many other cities is also part of this business. We can only assume that, just as in the 1930's prohibition era, political corruption is widespread. These problems probably cannot be solved by city and state government. If a hard crack-down is initiated, the violence will most likely get worse before it gets better.


originally published 12/2/2016

New voting system, a step backward

NOT QUICKER, NOT EASIER, NOT MORE SECURE

STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING WILL BECOME PREFERRED OPTION

Well, yesterday was our first experience with our new voting system.

I was not positively impressed nor were the local poll workers.

If this operation works like it did yesterday it will take days to allow everyone to vote. It will be particularly hard for the elderly who will need to bring their reading glasses, a portable chair and possibly lunch. They will need an army of volunteer poll workers to keep things moving in an efficient way.

It is true that no one trusted the integrity of the electronic machines. Paper ballots are the oldest and can be the most secure if properly handled.

Ok, it is not going to be changed for the 2020 elections so what can be done to make it better and not discourage voting.

1. There needs to be an education of the public by the media and the election authorities.

2. Cross filing should no longer be allowed, the vast majority of people, particularity having possibly waited in lines for hours, will be inclined to mark a straight party vote, this will at least speed up the whole process, but without a doubt will become more prevalent.

3. For security, each ballet should have the number of the voter placed in the corner. When I voted there was a stack of ballots and I was instructed to just take one. In an overloaded and chaotic day, no one will know who has verified their registration and who has just walked in and took a ballot. Also if there is a number placed on the ballot that coincides with a registered voter the whole vote can be resurrected if the ballots are lost or destroyed. So, when a new voter comes and checks registration a number should be placed on the ballot, then the ballot is handed to the voter. Ballots should be kept secure, 1 person 1 ballot. This has been the policy forever first voter in is #1.

4. You now need a larger group of  trained volunteer poll workers, to instruct, to verify proper voting and make an orderly and efficient process.

5. I saw no second or back-up scanner, they better have some back-up.

This whole voting machine debacle is just another symptom of throwing out the proven, working and secure functioning system for something new that is costing the taxpayers millions every year. It is also helping to lose faith in our election system. The old mechanical machines did it all, but that is now water over the dam. This system can be made to work and will be very cost efficient if perfected.