First Blog

It is clearly possible that the President is using the FBI investigation of Secretary Clinton to keep her vocal views in check.   If this is correct, she really cannot make any substantial critique of Obama policy while the investigation is pending.   She has commented or responded, clearly limiting her comments about or against the President on all international issues, particularly those of ISIS.  She is very careful.  She will not claim or support the nature of Islamic terrorists, preferring a stance that "We do not war against the Muslims."  This is a stretch in the minds of many Americans.  She will not comment on alliances with the Russians, preferring the softer language of "separate but equal in a common cause."   She will not comment on arming the Kurds or supplying the Jordanians or Syrian moderates, preferring to indicate there is not even an issue of discussion.  The world is now a difficult place for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I think

Who to support???? We see the Democrats performing a type of surgery upon the actions of the President, carefully distinguishing themselves from current policy only on particular matters.   They seem to live in fear of a insider condemnation.   Or they believe the President is essentially correct but for these particular exceptions. Overall, they are mostly united upon social programs.   Overall, they minimize international events, preferring to emphasize domestic issues, upon which there is merit, owing to a world view that every country is an independent agency.   If you so believe, this is your expression of what needs to be achieved.   If you believe climate change is paramount and more importantly anthropomorphic, these folks are your people.    The Democrats are more-or-less unified in their support for Secretary Clinton.   None of her established blemishes seem to matter.    Bernie is not  viable no matter how many/few like his honest but detached approach.  This is

Make no doubt about the dubious vetting of Syrian nationals.  If the President concedes to critics and delays or cancels the admission of Syrian refugees on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate vetting, he opens to door to the same vetting argument for particularly Latin American illegal immigrants on the same basis.  This is a profound problem for the Administration, given they believe in this type of domino theory. This creates a paradox for both the vetting process and the admission of immigrants for any reason that abrogates full security and identity protocols.  In short, many if not most agree: "Yes, we should accept refugees, but no, we wish no more uncertainty about our safety." If his party or opposition could give the Administration a pathway around this, it could help, however doubtful the reality his acceptance of such a plan.  Why?  There are always pathways around the pathways - all perfectly logical and reasonable. I truly hope for us all t

I watched just a portion of the movie "Purple Heart" from 1944 starring Dana Andrews and there was one line that struck me.  When the captured aviator, portrayed by Andrews, what threatened by the Japanese official, he responded, "If you do anything to us, our government will not forget it."  This, of course, was a counter threat.  He meant it. He believed it. It occurred to me that I don't feel that way at all.  When I was in Italy just a few weeks ago, I understood there might be some risk of kidnapping by extremists, but I understood there would be no help forthcoming from my government.  This is why the comment was so striking.  How many of us feel the USA will do everything possible to get us back if we fall into the hands of an enemy, terrorist or criminal?  At most, my release will become a minor political matter, expendable, lamentable, sad, but nothing close to important, much less urgent.

We are looking at the next 2016 Presidential candidates to jump into the political toaster - or waiting on line. In this, Chapter III, of politics and toast, we note the toaster is busy, or will be busy soon.  In the recent GOP debate, we saw on the early show, only New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made an impact.  former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was in there but on the margin.  Former Pennsylvania Senator from  Rick Santorum and Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal were disappointing. Two orders of toast coming up. Three candidates, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. Former Governor of New York George Pataki, and Former Governor of Virginia Jim Gilmore  were eliminated from the debates altogether.  They are toast-men walking.  Though Graham markets himself as a super-hawk, there are few listeners.  Americans don't want another heavy war.  A sanitized war, airplanes only, is would be fine.  Difficult it is to understand why the other two remain in it

If you are following the presidential primary circus, you may be asking by Ben Carson’s trust numbers are so high and why Trump’s or Hillary’s numbers are not.   It is a puzzlement because Carson has done little beyond pediatric neurosurgery in his previous life. So, why then are Carson's trust numbers so high?  In my view, it’s because he is a doctor, and most Americans trust their doctor.  This trust transfers to Carson, who has the same manner as their doctor or the manner they wish their doctor had.   Most people suppose and believe their doctor has THEIR interests and health at heart, first and foremost.   In fact, any candidate on either side has little chance of obtaining such numbers unless the trust is conferred by association.   If the same Ben Carson was an accountant, professor, lawyer, engineer or anything else, identical in all other respects,   this trust would not be conferred. I suggest that Carson as a VP candidate would serve well to the Presidenti

Every single day we hear of the "new normal."  It is a salute to the old adage that, "Times, they are 'a changin.'    I long for the "old normal," where teachers were capable and respected, where the USA was mostly a force for good in the world, where folks felt a sense of duty to their family-employers-country, where parents understood their role, where kids went to school because it would help them in life, where songs of love were about emotion and not copulation, where an opinion could be freely expressed, where police were respected,  where politicians represented their constituents, and where the pastor had wisdom.    Am I wrong to want this, or is this a fiction that never was?  I do believe I'm not quite ready for our new world of equivocation and unmitigated consumption, where common talk is replaced by newspeak, and where everything is reduced to class struggle. I'm not quite ready for a world of competing and conflicting valu