Saturday, December 16, 2017

Words that shall not be Spoken

                                        
     The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."  These are the 7 words the Trump administration has advised the CDC (Center for Disease Control) shall not be used in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.
 
     There have been other lists of forbidden words.  If you are of a certain age you will recall the seven dirty words”.  These are the seven English-language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".[1] The words are: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

     According to a former U.S. Secretary of State, “Censorship gives power to dictators and tyrants; it allows them to mask the truth, to propagate false narratives that play to their self-serving interests.”

     In the 18th century, an author known as Voltaire offered the following exposition to those who would practice censorship.  “As you have it in your power, sir, to do some service to letters, I implore you not to clip the wings of our writers so closely, nor to turn into barn-door fowls those who, allowed a start, might become eagles; reasonable liberty permits the mind to soar — slavery makes it creep.

     Had there been a literary censorship in Rome, we should have had to-day neither Horace, Juvenal, nor the philosophical works of Cicero. If Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Locke had not been free, England would have had neither poets nor philosophers; there is something positively Turkish in proscribing printing; and hampering it is proscription. Be content with severely repressing defamatory libels, for they are crimes: but so long as those infamous calottes are boldly published, and so many other unworthy and despicable productions, at least allow Bayle to circulate in France, and do not put him, who has been so great an honour to his country, among its contraband.
     You say that the magistrates who regulate the literary custom-house complain that there are too many books. That is just the same thing as if the provost of merchants complained there were too many provisions in Paris. People buy what they choose. A great library is like the City of Paris, in which there are about eight hundred thousand persons: you do not live with the whole crowd: you choose a certain society, and change it. So with books: you choose a few friends out of the many. There will be seven or eight thousand controversial books, and fifteen or sixteen thousand novels, which you will not read: a heap of pamphlets, which you will throw into the fire after you have read them. The man of taste will read only what is good; but the statesman will permit both bad and good.”
      Napoleon claimed that the censorship was based on stopping, “the manifestation of ideas which trouble the peace of the state, its interests and good order.”  Is Trump and/or his administration troubled by the words he has banned from use by the CDC?
     I hear you, let’s just pull back on the reins for a moment.  I’m only talking about words banned from use by 1 agency.  Surely this is not a particularly urgent moment in history.
     Were this the only case of censorship or attempt to intimidate and control functions of the government and public it certainly would not be noteworthy.  However, and unfortunately, that is not the case.
     He (POTUS45) has made extensive use of his bully pulpit to do just that, bully.  He wants to control the narrative in such a manner that he can control all action and reaction.  He has proclaimed the media to be the “enemy of the American people”.  Any reporting which does not reflect favorably upon POTUS and his administration favorably is proclaimed to be “fake news”.  This proclamation has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but is strictly about image.  If your inauguration crowd is not as impressive as you desire just present “alternative facts”.  “This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” according to Sean Spicer back in January of this year.  Now, once committed to the lie, he attacked the contrary reports.  Sean accused the press of “deliberately false reporting.”   Staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture were instructed to censor the terms "climate change," "reduce greenhouse gasses," "sequester carbon," and "climate change adaptation" in their work.  In March, the Department of Energy's international climate office had instructed staff not to use "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in "memos, briefings, or other written communication."  Because, if you don't say the words, the problem doesn't exist.
     If Trump is sincerely concerned about his image and legacy, I would recommend he consider banning the following; tyrant, demagogue, narcissist, defaulter, sexual predator, and adulterer.  This list is not to be considered comprehensive but merely to provide a guide. 
     When George Carlin engaged in adolescent humor by uttering “dirty” words in a public forum, that can be considered either humorous or in poor taste.  When the President of the United States engages in censorship of government offices and attacks upon a free and unfettered press, that is of much more serious consequence.

     Whaduyathink?

Saturday, December 2, 2017

The Latest LIE!!!


Biggest Tax Bill and Tax Cuts in history just passed in the Senate. Now these great Republicans will be going for final passage. Thank you to House and Senate Republicans for your hard work and commitment!
POTUS made this claim via Twitter at approximately 645 a.m. CDT today December 2, 2017. He has made this claim several times this year. It is still not true. However, such claims by POTUS are consistent with his view that facts are malleable. 
This is not my opinion. POTUS has explicitly made this claim. In The Art of the Deal he says " People want to believe something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion." 
 This quote is a variation of "the big lie", also known as "Goebbels’ principle".   The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

It is also not my opinion that POTUS' claim of the biggest tax bill and tax cut in history is not true.  A 2013 Treasury Department report assessed the size of major tax bills either as a percentage of the economy, by the reduction in federal revenue or in inflation-adjusted dollars. The 1981 Reagan tax cut is the largest under the first two metrics. It was equivalent to 2.9 percent of gross domestic product and reduced federal revenue by 13.3 percent. The 2012 Obama tax cut amounted to the largest cut in inflation-adjusted dollars: $321 billion a year. For Mr. Trump’s tax cut to exceed the Reagan cuts as a share of G.D.P., the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would need to cost roughly $6.8 trillion over 10 years. To have a larger effect on revenue, it would need to cost $5.7 trillion. No version of the current tax cut plan meets those benchmarks. The budget blueprint that Republicans released in mid-October, the bill passed in the House in November and the bill currently being considered in the Senate all amount to a tax cut of about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. This would place as the 12th-largest as a share of the economy. If this data is available to me and you, it is certainly available to POTUS.

Whaduyathink?







Tuesday, November 14, 2017

White House promotes hate, offers legitimacy to recognized hate group

November 14, 2017 WhiteHouse.gov/the-press-office released the following: Immigration Reform Law Institute's Brian Lonergan: "America has seen enough tragedies result from its open boarders".  You may ask, how does this in any way promote hate or legitimize any hate group.

The Office of the Press Secretary evidently felt it was prudent to provide an op-ed piece from The Hill to U.S. citizens via an official executive office platform.  WhiteHouse.gov is not a venue for the promulgation of intolerance and bigotry via the views of a person not a member of the U.S. government.  WhiteHouse.gov is supposed to be a venue to publish official government views and documents.  The list of documents and views it espouses to provide are
This is the list according to the Briefing Room section of WhiteHouse.gov.  There are additional sections of WhiteHouse.gov not germane to this piece.

Here is where the promotion of hate and legitimizing of recognized hate groups comes into play.  The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is the affiliated legal organization for the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR).  FAIR is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPCL) for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and described as  xenophobic, publishing racist propaganda, and/or confronting or harassing immigrants and their supporters.[

Does the Office of the Press Secretary actually mean to endorse and facilitate the dissemination of unashamedly bigoted and hateful speech and actions?  Is this to be considered the official stance of the United States Government or at least the Executive branch?

And just who the hell is Brian Lonergan.  According to IRLI.org/legal-team Mr. Lonergan joined IRLI in 2017 as Director of Communications. He is a veteran of corporate communications in the Washington, D.C. market and has worked at several trade associations in and around the nation’s capital. Mr. Lonergan has worked in television, print media, podcasting and digital marketing. Most recently he directed communications at the Media Research Center, one of the nation’s premier media watchdog organizations. He started his career as a journalist and has interviewed a long list of public figures from the world of business and politics.

Great, so, at the least, Sarah Huckabee Sanders thinks the views of a media hack/lobbyist are the basis for a sound immigration policy.

Whaduyathink?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

TrumpTax Plan for Idiots


Hey, glad to be back with you. 

I've been paying attention to the reform President Trump wants to apply to the current tax code, both personal and corporate.  This has been a major theme of his since he began campaigning.  In fact, he has repeatedly promised to lower the corporate tax rate to 15%.  In fact, let's do the corporate thing first.

“When it comes to the business tax we are dead last, …"  This is technically true.  The statutory corporate tax rate in the U.S.A. is 35%, the highest in the world.  If any corporation paid that it would certainly stifle growth.  However, in perusing the taxes paid by the 10 largest corporations in the Unit4ed States for the past several years I was unable to find any that paid more than 20%.  Most were around 15% and some as low as 5%.  All this information is available in the corporate annual reports.  Let's ignore the POTUS' disingenuous statement and work with 35% as actual accurate and applied number.

So, the 35% is currently proposed to be cut to 20%.  Stop, wait, you say, the President said he would cut the rate to 15%.  He did say that, however, like so many things he has said or promised it has not come to fruition. 

Trump long ago promised to decrease the tax rate to 15% for corporations.  Here's what he said on Wednesday September 27, 2017, "

"In fact, I wanted to start at 15 so that we got to 20,…"

"Twenty is my number, so I'm not negotiating that number," Trump said. "I'm not going to negotiate."

Trump also claimed that 20% was his goal all along, despite advocating for 15% as late as Tuesday.

"That's the number I wanted to get to," the president said. "I wanted to start at 15 to get there. We really had to start there because of the complexity of the numbers, but 20 is a perfect number."

According to the President's own statements he never had any intention of cutting the corporate tax rate 15% although he repeatedly assured America that was his intent.  Oh well, live and learn.

So, we're going to cut 35% to 20% , excellent.  That's a 15% point cut in the statutory rate.  This should result in a reduction of revenue of about 43%.  Just a minute there, how can we have a 43% reduction in revenue when the tax rate was only cut by 15%?  Excellent question young Jedi.  Here's the deal, you were theoretically collecting taxes at a rate of 35%, you will now collect at a rate of 20%, that 15% cut represents 42.85%, let's call it 43% of the rate at which you were collecting.  Here's an example;  35% of $100 is $35.  20% of $100 is $20.  You collected $20 rather than $35, so you collected 20/35 or 57% of your previous collection.  There is your 43% reduction in revenue. 

If I'm a corporation I love this.  I wasn't paying 35% to start with and I'm not any more likely to pay a statutory rate of 20%.  

On to individuals.  Ok, the rates for individuals are a little more diverse.  Here's a table for you:

                               2017                                                     Proposed

10%                $0-$9,325                                            12%   Income not specified

15%                $9326-$37,950                                   12%          "         "         "

______________________________________________________________

25%                $37,951-$91,900                                25%  Income not specified

28%                $91,901-$191,650                              25%        "         "          "

33%                $191,651-$416,700                            25%        "         "          "

______________________________________________________________

 35%               $416,701-$418,400                             35%  Income not specified

39.6%             $418,401 or more                               35%         "        "          "

______________________________________________________________

Standard deduction              $6,350                          $12,000

Personal exemption              $4,050                            Eliminated



Let us review.
If you are the poorest of the poor who are required to pay taxes your are subject to a 20% rate increase.  No doubt this will go far to help make up for the decrease in corporate tax revenue.
The people at the next level will receive a 20% rate decrease.
Folks currently paying 25% get no benefit.  Good, these folks are bearing the majority of the tax burden for the United States now and I see no reason why they should not continue to do so. 
The taxpayers at 28% and 33% will receive a rate reduction of 11% and 24% respectively.  Why shouldn't they?  Their incomes are considerably higher than the median or average for the U.S. 
The people at 35% get nothing and the "elite" earners see a 12% decrease.

The above numbers are for single filers.  For joint filers the percentages remain the same but the income levels differ.

So, the big winners are corporate America and individuals who make the most money.
Be not disheartened.  "And we will make taxes simple, and easy, and fair for all Americans."  DJT. 
Corporate America gets a 43% tax cut, followed by those who make substantially more than the median income, because they deserve it.

Once again the "little guy" gets screwed.  So, if you make $91,901 or more annually, good for you.  If you make less or are poor, fuck you.  What could be more fair than that?
I have to admit, it is simple and easy.  It always has been simpler and easier to tread on the backs of the weakest and poorest.
No doubt, Jesus is proud.

Whaduyathink?

Friday, August 18, 2017

Maybe you want a higher standard?

So, Kellyanne Conway tweeted, as she is wont to do. 
Kellyanne Conway‏
Verified account 
@KellyannePolls
Kellyanne Conway
#poll watchers: give a holler when @POTUS approval descends to that of media or Congress.

Let's consider this. I use Gallup polling numbers for consistency.
Trump Job Approval Rating Now at 34%
Congress         "             "                   16%
Media             "              "                   30%

This is what I hear.  We suck, but we don't suck as bad as these other guys.  
Kellyanne, your Twitter account makes the claim you are a Counselor to the President.  You may actually want to provide some counseling rather than massaging his already bloated ego.  

If he won't accept your counseling why do you remain?  Have you considered offering him advice on how to improve his performance and thereby his poll numbers or are you merely employed to show how he is not as bad as others?  When a ship is taking on water, you may want to considering bailing or engaging the bilge pumps instead of noting the other ships in the fleet only have their smokestacks showing.  Obviously the point of view is misdirected.  

Since you have an annual salary of $179,700 according to whitehouse.gov and are therefore on the public dole, I would like to see you take a more proactive approach instead of responding to every slight regardless of how minor, perceived by POTUS.  Your title is Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor.  If your duties consist solely of spinning the comments of others I can do that for $93,215 per year.  

I realize working in the current White House administration is difficult.  I do not covet your position nor environment.  I do think that should you make the development of the country and its citizens your primary concern, rather than stroking Donnie.   You would make for a much more pleasant environment for all.

There will be a legacy of this administration and you will be a part of it.  What part will you choose to play?

Whaduyathink?


Wednesday, August 16, 2017

He said it

"What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society."  Donald J.Trump

Ok, according to the constitution, you are the chief law enforcement officer of the country.  What are you doing to restore law and order and protect those innocent lives?  Do you consider your encouragement of police brutality to be an action which promotes the restoration of law and protection of the innocent.  I just wondered since you said, "I said, please don’t be too nice.    Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over?  Like, don’t hit their head and they've just killed somebody -- don't hit their head.  I said, you can take the hand away, okay? "  I understand that completely.  I mean, why would you want your conduct to be superior of that of a criminal?  Go ahead, rough 'em up.  The bar of conduct for law enforcement is obviously too high.   "And I have to tell you, you know, the laws are so horrendously stacked against us, because for years and years they've been made to protect the criminal.  Totally made to protect the criminal, not the officers.  If you do something wrong, you're in more jeopardy than they are.  These laws are stacked against you.  We're changing those laws.  But in the meantime, we need judges for the simplest thing -- things that you should be able to do without a judge.  But we have to have those judges quickly.  In the meantime, we're trying to change the laws."  I hope you understand that laws are not "stacked" against anyone.  Criminal or victim, each are subject to a thing called the Equal Protection Clause.  You may not be familiar with this.  It is a part of section 1 of the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. Just as a reminder here's what it says:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What kind of changes to law are you advocating?  Perhaps you feel Section 1983 within Title 43 of the USC is an unreasonable impediment to effective policing.  This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan.  Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law.  Do you think false arrest, malicious prosecution, and use of excessive force are inconsequential or possibly do not actually occur?  These are the most common claims brought against police officers.

"Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!"  Donald J. Trump
"They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," Donald J. Trump
Fire and fury like the world has never seen?  What can you possibly be contemplating?  Here are a few examples of the fire and fury with which the world is already familiar.  There was the use of poison gas in WWI.  I assume you have at least a passing familiarity of the "final solution" proffered by Germany in WWII.  You may want to ask some of "your" Generals about the historicity of the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII.  For our part, we are the only nation to have actually utilized nuclear weapons.  They were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Possibly you are of a more classic bent.  Are you considering razing cities or even the entire nation of N. Korea?  Keep in mind, razing a city is not just burning it to the ground - the entire population is massacred and/or driven into the wilderness.  The world has seen a lot of fire and fury.  However, to be honest, I think you were just engaging in hyperbole.  I don't think you are actually capable of imagining such an event, much less providing the leadership it would require to enact it.

"Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides."  Donald J. Trump
Wow, I think wearing swastika armbands, carrying swastika flags, and giving Nazi salutes kinda renders how they filled out the permit a bit irrelevant.  Here's the deal, Donnie.  ALL Nazi's are bad.  There are no good Nazi's.  The KKK, resplendent in their robes and hoods is not a stronghold of "very fine people" either.  The group believes that America should be a nation that is free from drugs, homosexuality and immigration.  Claiming to have extreme pride in their nation, they say that they are building a better society for everyone.  According to Frank Ancona, a former self-described Imperial Wizard the KKK’s mission was to “preserve white culture and heritage” .  Why this would require out nation to be free from homosexuality and immigration eludes me.

Whaduyathink?


Saturday, August 12, 2017

Back from a Break

Came back from Florida today.  Here's what's going on.

According to President Trump, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides."

This was a comment he made during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.  Not really anything one may disagree with there.  Hatred, bigotry, and violence on ANY side should be condemned.  However, let's just try to identify the "many sides" engaged in these activities to which POTUS is referring..

1 person was killed after being struck by a car driven into a crown of protesters who opposed the views of the KKK, neo-nazis, skinheads and white supremacists.  The car was driven by James Alex Fields.  James is from Ohio.  He killed a 32 year old woman who was crossing the street.  19 others were injured, 5 of them critically.  “James Alex Fields Jr.... is charged with one count of 2nd degree murder, 3 counts of malicious wounding and one count of failing to stop at an accident resulting in a death,” Col. Martin Kumer, the superintendent of Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, 

James was attending an event right-wing blogger Jason Kessler had planned what he called a "pro-white" rally to protest Charlottesville's decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a city park.  I am not particularly familiar with Jason Kessler, but if he considers being white in the U.S. to be a condition which requires the advocacy of a rally, he obviously has a very loose grip on reality.

It is 152 years since the Civil War ended.  This period does need to be remembered in its historical context.  A bunch of rich white guys wanted to preserve and protect there investment.  Their primary labor force (slaves) was at risk.  Fearing the imminent loss of this asset they proclaimed themselves to be above the law and seceded, thereby threatening the existence of the union.  Those who proclaimed their allegiance to the Confederate States of America became rebels and were engaged in treasonous behavior.  The worst of these offenders were Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy and Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Confederate Army of North Virginia.

So James showed up at an event to protest the removal of a statue celebrating the life and actions of one of the worst Americans in history.  As an aside, please do not feel compelled to inform me the rebels who died and the leaders who survived are recognized as U.S. veterans and citizens.  I am well aware of this.  They are so only by the generous auspices of the United States of America government.  That very same government which they sought to sunder.

Apparently James felt so strongly about supporting the memory of an American traitor it seemed reasonable to him to kill someone with a motor vehicle.  He was from Ohio, a state which overwhelmingly supported Trump in the Presidential election.   It would seem James and POTUS share at least 1 attribute.  James was participating in a right wing nationalist activity and, according to Steve Bannon,  “Trump is a product of a seething populism and nationalism that is the driving political force.”

However, to be fair, how many people did the counter-protestors kill or send to the hospital?  That would be 0.  For me, this makes it rather difficult to identify the "many Sides" that need to be condemned.

The side that concerns me is the people who feel it is necessary to arm themselves to be protected from the sign wielding opposition.  The side that kills people with cars.  The side that call Jews "kikes".  I am more concerned that the U.S. has a President who lacks either the courage or moral compass to call out these actual Nazis, racists, and terrorists.  It seems they constitute too significant a portion of his base to risk providing such leadership.

I am not surprised this is the action of a gutless, draft dodging, foul mouthed, entitled, dishonest, bully.

Whaduyathink?




Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Compelled to lie

To whom do we lie?  We lie to out enemies because they're our enemies.  We lie to our allies because we desire to protect our own interest first.  We lie to strangers because we want to seem more than we are.

Many lies are inconsequential.  You look great in that.  I'd be thrilled to.  Please, you go first.  No harm, no foul.

Then there are lies that that cause damage.  Wells Fargo creating insurance policies for uninformed customers and damaging credit and repossessing vehicles due to that act.  ExxonMobil denying climate change while their CEO, Rex Tillerson, uses a pseudonym to exchange emails concerning dealing with climate change. 

There are also lies which seem to have no purpose other than self-aggrandizement.  The result of any category of lies is a loss of trust.  This may not mean a lot amongst those with a limited relationship or common interests.  However, as the magnitude of influence, authority, and power increases so do the consequences of lying and the resulting lack of trust.

When the liar is the President of the United States I find that to be a basis for concern.  I am not talking about spin or policies I perceive to be contrary to the interest of the U.S. and the world.  He tells lies that seem to have no other purpose than to be identified as such.  I acknowledge I will be lied to and it's not even that disturbing, generally.  The thing that chaps my hide is to be told a lie that requires I be an idiot to believe. 

Here's a few for you to peruse.  On Monday, just 2 days ago,  President Trump said Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto had called him to praise his migration policy.  The foreign ministry of Mexico, however, denied the claim of a phone call.  President Donald Trump told the Wall Street Journal that after his controversial speech at the Boy Scouts National Jamboree in West Virginia, the head of the Boy Scouts called him and told him it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them.  The Chief Scout Executive of the BSA actually said  "I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree,".   “We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world.” (We're not, we're about 19th on individuals)

These are lies because they are willfully spoken untruths.  Their only purpose is to mislead you and promote him.  Evidently, the President of the United States thinks you are stupid AND that his position is actually that of a television host whose purpose is to garner ratings.

We are a nation at risk (Russia, N. Korea, ISIS) and the current President is incapable of being honest.  Our enemies will exploit this character trait and our allies will be unable to counter it.

Even if lying as President is not a high crime nor misdemeanor, which could be addressed by impeachment, it can and should be subject to the 25th amendment, section 4,  Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

You may ask why would I be so upset over 3 little lies?  I have 115 examples of this compulsion and rebuttals to his statements since his inauguration.   These are not random acts of misspeaking.  He lied about the freakin' Boy Scouts of America. 

Whaduyathink?





Sunday, July 30, 2017

D-Rex make a move, more foreign affairs


POTUS has nominated a new Ambassador for the Netherlands.  This would usually not be a newsworthy event.  However, in this administration, the most secondary of acts can provide insight into the lack of cohesion currently occurring in the Whitehouse.

According to www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm, the purpose of the State Department is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere. This mission is shared with the USAID, ensuring we have a common path forward in partnership as we invest in the shared security and prosperity that will ultimately better prepare us for the challenges of tomorrow.

Now, first and foremost the State Department is to act to the benefit of U.S. citizens.  That is absolutely as it should be.  The purpose of an Ambassador is to represent you and me, U.S. citizens in foreign countries.  An Ambassador should also engender mutual goodwill.  An Ambassador should be culturally sensitive.

The nominee for Ambassador to the Netherlands is Pete Hoekstra.  He was born in the Netherlands but immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 3.  He is a U.S. citizen.  He has served as a Congressman in the U.S. house.  These are all characteristics which would tend to confirm his choice.  However, I find the following to be pertinent as well.

Netherlands:  Pro gay marriage, 1st nation to legalize same sex marriage.

Hoekstra:        Co-sponsored 9 anti-LGBT bills.

Netherlands:  No death penalty.

Hoekstra:        Capital punishment advocate.

Netherlands:  On demand abortions with 5 day waiting period.

Hoekstra:        "I have continuously fought to protect the lives of the unborn throughout my tenure in Congress and will continue to do so as long as I am able to," Hoekstra said. "It is absolutely inexcusable to subsidize the abortion industry, especially when so many taxpayers, like me, are so opposed to it."

Netherlands:  The political system of the Netherlands is characterized by a large number of political parties, many of whom are represented in government. Traditionally, the dominant political parties have included the Labour Party (PvdA), the Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Liberals (VVD).

Hoekstra:         Traditionally the political system of the U.S. is characterized by Republicans and Democrats.  Hoekstra is a member of the Tea Party.

Whaduyathink?

Saturday, July 29, 2017

U.S. Foreign Affairs methodology

I have here an example of our President conducting foreign affairs.

Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
"I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!"

Other than POTUS, who reading this believes and can explain how this problem could be easily solved? 

Here are some possible difficulties.  N. Korea shares a border with China.  The Chinese have no interest in a unified Korea allied with the United States.  This is particularly so if that unified state allows a U.S. military presence.  The Kim's are the only ruling family N. Korea has ever known since it's founding.  No opposition is allowed or tolerated.  The most pragmatic approach would probably necessitate regime change.  The Chinese have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  N. Korea and it's potential offensive capabilities, conventional and nuclear, require an investment of U.S. capital and personnel that could otherwise be utilized elsewhere.  This would possibly be to the detriment of Chinese interest.  Regime change would result in an immediate flood of refugees to China and S. Korea.  The citizens of N. Korea have been malnourished and oppressed for decades.  The current population of N. Korea is approximately 25 million.  There would be masses flooding across borders.  If you think Syrian refugees pose a threat, imagine a 38% larger population needing to be fed and housed.  Furthermore, unlike Saddam Hussein and  his supposed weapons of mass destruction, we know N. Korea possesses fissile material.  Even if the entire regime could be promptly and thoroughly removed, the security of these materials cannot be assured. 

Also, the President of the United States is not a merchant.  Regardless of what China makes in trade your job is to represent the civilian power as Commander in Chief, to grant pardons and reprieves for offenses against the U.S., and to enter into treaties with foreign powers.  If you are unsure of the veracity of the preceding, refer to U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.   The U.S. is China's largest trading partner.  They have no national interest in endangering this relationship.  Let the Captains of Industry engage in Mercantilism.  You are required to be a statesman. Since you have proclaimed you will no longer allow this to continue, I assume you are going to present and act upon your first coherent foreign policy plan.

You have a Secretary of State.  Rather than employing social media to espouse your views, you may want to considering allowing him to present those via diplomatic channels.  Of course, since you have emasculated the Department of State, his job will be considerably more difficult.  Regardless, there is a reason nation states deploy diplomats.

Good luck to you and Rex.

Whaduyathink?