Update no.867

Update from the Sunland

No.867

13.8.18 – 19.8.18

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Following yet another White House termination and departure, we have been treated to a continuation of the episodic Peyton Place soap opera that is this White House.  In this particular episode, the question of whether a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) for White House employees is enforceable under the law? The question has not been tested in the Judiciary, but we seem to be moving closer to that test.  My opinion, for whatever that is worth, NDAs are not enforceable.  White House employees are federal employees . . . employees of We, the People, not the president.  The NDA at issue is not intended for the protection of the White House, or the government, or the government’s business; it is only intended for the protection of an individual, namely the BIC, and collaterally for his family and his businesses (which he should not have in the first place).  I hope one of several potential challenges makes it through judicial review all the way to the Supreme Court, so that we can end this question once and for all.

            In yet another round of retribution, the BIC revoked the security clearance of James Owen Brennan—not all former government employees, or even just former Obama administration employees—just Brennan.  The BIC also publicly disclosed a list of other citizens he has targeted for similar action:

-- Lieutenant General James Robert Clapper Jr., USAF (Ret.)

-- James Brien Comey Jr.

-- General Michael Vincent Hayden, USAF (Ret.)

-- Andrew George McCabe

-- Bruce Genesoke Ohr

-- Lisa Page

-- Susan Elizabeth Rice

-- Peter Paul Strzok II

-- Sally Caroline Yates née Quillian

What do all these citizens have in common?  They have publicly criticized the BIC.  How dare they?

            In the wake of the BIC’s unilateral, retributive action, Admiral William Henry ‘Bill’ McRaven, USN (Ret.), an accomplished special operations leader, wrote a scathing open letter to the BIC in protest of his action against Brennan.  McRaven said, “Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”  In addition, a growing list of former top intelligence officials and public servants (far too long for this humble forum) have joined McRaven in their direct protest of the president’s foolish move.  Even the most diehard supporters of the BIC must ask themselves, what is wrong with this picture?

            The BIC believes he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants, because he is all-powerful.  He can spout off with any falsehood and nonsense he wishes, and conducts himself in public like a common, schoolyard bully, because he is all-powerful [thus, my ascribed moniker—Bully In Chief (BIC)]. But, lo’ be it for any other citizen to speak against him, to call him out on his falsehoods and mistakes, or to criticize him, anyone around him, or anything he does.  Of course, he is free to call people juvenile names, denigrate anyone and any organization he chooses, ignore history and established facts, and malign long established institutions; but, no other person can object, protest or disagree with him.

            Yes, the Brennan action is retribution for being critical of the BIC—plain and simple.

            As recommended by a contributor in last week’s Update [866], I went to see Dinesh D’Souza’s latest movie “Death of a Nation.”  I confess to spending eight of our precious American dollars [I got a senior discount ;-) ], and thus contributed to D’Souza’s income. He produced, wrote, directed and narrated the two-hour political commentary (documentary) movie.

            Regardless of your political affiliation or affinity, every citizen should watch this movie in its entirety.  It is perhaps the best piece of political propaganda I have seen, heard, or I am aware of in my lifetime, and we need to understand and appreciate how these instruments work.  Again, regardless of our politics, we must give D’Souza credit for his accomplishment.

            The movie poster sets the tone—a split image of Lincoln and the BIC with an American flag and red background.  The poster symbolically equates the BIC with Abraham Lincoln—a central theme of the movie.

            Side note: The movie trailer advertising before the feature presentation began also intrigued me—“On the Basis of Sex” and “The Hate U Give,” among others—quite the contrast.

            One more preface comment is necessary. Normally, on a review like this, I prefer video, DVR recording, or Netflix offering, so that I can stop & start the movie, and write my notes as I go.  I was relegated to my terrible handwriting in the dark of the theater.  I try very hard to get things accurately recorded—facts and falsehoods.  In this instance, I felt timeliness was important since the movie was recommended as part of the continuing public debate that is this humble forum.  Since I did not use my normal process for such tasks, please accept my proviso that I did the best I could to accurately reflect the complete movie.

            Let us start this little review with a common definition.  Propaganda is (or can be defined as) the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, and such).  “Death of a Nation” is a masterful example of political propaganda; Joseph Goebbels would be proud.  The movie is replete with facts, and I agree that his presentation of those facts is accurate and appropriate.  I do not dispute the facts.  What matters and is of particular interest to me is what is between the facts.

            The movie opens with a re-creation of the final days of the war in Europe—the end of Thousand Year Empire—meaning Das Reichonly lasted 12 years (with generous accounting); and, like other empires, they disappeared by being corroded from within.  He wants the audience to believe the United States is on the same path.  Beyond his valiant effort to interpret history as he chooses and make us believe his rendition, there is a deeper theme.

            If you boil down the entire two-hour movie to its basest element, the residual is this:

Democrats bad;

Republicans good.

D’Souza weaves an elaborate propaganda story at multiple levels to directly and indirectly validate that simple residual message.  Stacked on top of the bitter, crusty crunch is an icing of:

Democrats destroyed America,

Republicans will save America.

D’Souza falls a few steps short of openly declaring the BIC to be the modern day messiah, and he does imply that only he is going to save America from certain disintegration or destruction.  There is also a subtle undercurrent that an essential element of America’s salvation is Christianity—a symbolic inclusion in a number of subtext scenes.  Of course, in D’Souza’s rendition of history, the messiah speaks:

“I am your voice. . . . I’m with you, and I will fight for you, and I will win for you.”

21.July.2016

The ‘you’ in his proclamation sounds inclusive of all of us, does it not?  We have a plethora of evidence since his proclamation that document the meaning the BIC intended was ‘you’ means those who support, follow, worship and praise him.  He will ignore, marginalize or destroy all others who stand in his way or interfere with his objectives.

            Certainly, D’Souza is entitled to voice his opinion, and he has done so in magnificent form.  What bothers me most is not his propaganda message, but his selective choice of facts to feed his parochial objective.  For example, D’Souza stated the Democrats supported slavery, the division of the union, white supremacy and the rise of fascism in the 20’s & 30’s.  Were his statements factual?  In a very limited sense, yes, there were Democrats who did all those vile things.  What D’Souza refused to add was they were a minority of Democrats, the so-called Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats (who have now all become Republicans, I must say).  It was FDR who fired Ambassador ‘Joe’ Kennedy, Sr., for his overt support of Hitler and National Socialism; it was FDR who defied Democrats and Republicans in Congress to provide material support to England a year and a half before the U.S. entered the war, and it was FDR who hired two prominent Republican politicians for key defense positions (and who served throughout the war or until death).  An interesting factoid: President Roosevelt’s choice to serve as his critical Secretary of the Navy was William Franklin ‘Frank’ Knox of Illinois, the 1936 Republican vice presidential candidate.  FDR did not care what his political party affiliation was.  Roosevelt like Lincoln famously chose his political opponents to serve in key cabinet positions.

            If a citizen is so inclined to believe this partisan political propaganda, then this movie is red meat wrapped boldly in the American flag.  An impartial student of history will see through the rousing political hub-bub to the inaccuracies by omission of key factual details that offer a substantially different picture.  While I laud the propaganda mastery of D’Souza’s latest movie, I see it for what it is—propaganda intended to stimulate, fortify and inspire the believers, and seduce those citizens who do not care to test his rendition of history.  To that end, I am certain this movie will achieve its aim; however, as a student of history, I must condemn this latest example of partisan political propaganda—not historical documentation.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            Comments and contributions from Update no.866:

Comment to the Blog:

“I put less and less energy into Trump.  When the likes of Jeff Sessions can claim the moral high ground over the President, there's not much left to say.

“Mrs. Clinton and her part of the Democratic Party could have demonstrated their ‘virtue’ by publicly rejecting aid from Russia.  They don't need it because they have Wall Street and most of the corporate sector paying them.

“I will note that your discussion with the other commenter has some value to other readers.  As a one-on-one debate, it constitutes a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

“As a topic much more worthy of debate, I will send you an article (and include a link here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/business/china-influence-europe-czech-republic.html

[The referenced article:

“China Seeks Influence in Europe, One Business Deal at a Time”

by David Barboza, Marc Santora and Alexandra Stevenson

New York Times

Published: Aug. 12, 2018]

concerning Chinese efforts to take over the Czech Republic via its economy.  We have discussed that approach, neocolonialism, before.  So far, the Czech Republic has been a success story for the Chinese government, although their ‘point man’ for the project may be in deep trouble.  I see that extension of Chinese power as a stronger sign of what the future holds than the fact that the USA has an aggressively ignorant President.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: the BIC & AG, so you say, and I will agree.

            Re: Hillary & DNC, so you say, again, and I will agree.

            Re: other commenter [866].  No argument there.

            Re: PRC ambitions.  Well, we have got to hand it to the Chinese, they are using the tools of international trade to achieve their ambitions of world domination.  I see an intriguing diplomatic question.  Since the Czech Republic is a member of the EU and NATO, would the PRC gain a seat at the EU and NATO table, if they achieve their economic mastery of the Czech Republic?  The Czechs are selling, which is their right to do, and the Chinese are buying, which is their right to do.  I wonder how this is going to turn out?

 . . . follow-up comment:

“The Chinese have gained control of the Czech government. For their purposes, they already have a seat at NATO and something of a membership in the EU. There's no particular reason to make that statutory. That's neocolonialism at work. If we take a broader view, the same process is at work elsewhere, and not only by the Chinese. Chinese actions in Africa show up briefly in the article, and it's public but not marketed that the USA has troops there and a long-term involvement in Nigeria's oil industry.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Quite so and good points.  It is important to remember, the Chinese are doing this via legal, non-violent means.  If people are willing to sell, they are able and willing to buy. We have limited protections against such legal intrusion.  There are several U.S. laws that could be used to prevent such legal acquisition of public companies and defense related industries.  However, there is little or no protection for private companies and property.  It may be too late for the Czech Republic, but it is not too late for us. I anxiously await the first overt initiative to affect EU or NATO action on behalf of the PRC.  It is hard to predict how this will play out, but we do need to be observant and critical.

Another contribution:

[Administrative NOTE: this contribution was inserted and imbedded in the abridged text of last week’s Blog {866}.  I have inserted markers [in brackets] to related back to the Blog and left the contribution as received.  Please excuse the CAPS; I do not believe they were intended as a shouted response in Internet parlance.]

[Re:... " His words should be neutral and above the fray.  "]

“SAYS WHO ??  YOU ???  LIKE NO OTHER PRESIDENT OR PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE HAS EVER OR SHOULD EVER SPEAK THEIR MIND/OPINION?? IF YOU WOULD LIKE I WILL EASILY DRAG UP PLENTY OF VIDEOS OF OBAMA AND PRIOR PRESIDENTS DOING JUST THAT AND YOU KNOW THEY HAVE !!”

[Re: " The BIC could learn a lot from the conduct of Robert Mueller. "]

“GAG ME ... YOU MUST BE KIDDING ...”

“SO YOU REALLY ARE A SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT CAP .. YOU'VE TRIED TO SAY YOU AREN'T BUT YOU ARE ... START SEARCHING YOUTUBE FOR CLIPS ON VENEZUELA OR EVEN GERMANY TO SEE WHERE THIS COUNTRY WAS HEADED.  DON'T WATCH CNN .... IT DOESN'T SHOW THE DIRE SITUATION THAT TRUELY EXISTS THERE.”

[Re:what if Hillary Clinton had been the beneficiary rather than the target of the Russian cyber-warfare?]

“THAT'S WHY HILLARY WAS SO SHOCKED WHEN SHE LOST!  AND WHY SHE PUT SUCH A HALF ASS EFFORT INTO HER CAMPAIGN ! SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY ... THAT SHE HAD PAID OFF PUTIN WELL !! :) :) :) :)

“PUTIN DIDN'T HELP EITHER CANDIDATE ... TRUMP WON BECAUSE AT LEAST HALF OF AMERICA WANTED HIM !  AND HILLARY LOST BECAUSE SHE ... IS... HIGHLY CROOKED!!! 

“WE WANTED TO STOP THE INEVITABLE DECLINE OF AMERICA IF ANYONE LIKE OBAMA GOT INTO OFFICE.  I HAVE TALKED TO WAY MORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS WHEN I GO TO PUBLIC PLACES THAN I HAVE SEEN TRUMP HATERS !”

“WHAT LAW EXACTLY DID D'SOUZA VIOLATE CAP THAT WOULD MAKE HIM A FEDERAL FELON ? WASN'T IT MORE LIKE THE EVIL OBAMA HAD HIM ARRESTED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE THE TRUTH ABOUT HIM PUBLICIZED?”

“PROPAGANDA ???

“YOU THOUGHT OF JESUS ? SURPRISING CONSIDERING YOU ARE A SELF PROCLAIMED ATHEIST !

“OBAMA WAS NOT RESPECTFUL OF THIS "GRAND REPUBLIC " ... SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS WHEN HE VISITED OTHER COUNTRIES AND BERATED OUR COUNTRY.  ALL HE WANTED TO DO WAS BRING THIS COUNTRY DOWN !!  JUST LIKE ANGELA MERKEL IS DOING TO GERMANY!! 

[Re:LBGTQ citizens]

“NAME ONE THING TRUMP HAS DONE TO BE UNFAIR TO ANY OF THEM?? MAYBE HE'S JUST NOT PUTTING THEM ON A PEDESTAL LIKE OBAMA DID..”

My response:

            Thank you for sharing your perspective on things.

            You have offered your personal opinions about my opinions and about me personally.  Once again, I must ask, do you wish to read my opinions to your opinions?

The contributor’s reply:

“Sure we can go back and forth for an eternity.. 

“So tired of the left and the President bashers who just cant accept Hillary lost ..

“I like this about the firing of Strozk..  He obviously was not doing his job ..”

My response to the whole:

            Alrighty then . . . off we go.  LIFO.

            Isn’t “back and forth” the essence of public debate?

            I’m very tired of intellectual laziness and the paucity of scholarly inquiry.  Blind obedience and loyalty are misguided, and so easily abused.

            While there are elements of truth and appropriateness in Rich Hoffman’s opinion, I do not share his conclusion.  What Strozk did was wrong on multiple levels, not least of which was using USG communications media for personal communications.  He certainly deserves to be reprimanded and penalized for his transgressions of USG neutrality. He did not deserve to be fired. Further, the similarities between Strozk and the BIC are striking.  It was wrong for Strozh to voice his personal opinion in quasi-private communications on public media, but it oh-so-great for the BIC to voice his personal opinion in the glaring light of the public domain.  What is wrong with that picture?

            Now, to your original contribution . . . 

            Are you suggesting or trying to convince me that the BIC is simply doing what every other president has done?  I have listened to and read the words of presidents going back to every president since Franklin Roosevelt, and a little spottier for presidents prior to FDR.  No president has said the outrageous things the current president has said—not even the deepest paranoia of Richard Nixon—ran at the mouth like the current fellow does.  There is a monumental difference between offering opinions as a private citizen and as POTUS.  There are very few moments the president is able to speak as a private citizen.  Every utterance of the president in the public domain is the United States of America speaking, NOT an individual citizen.  So, yes, he has no right to speak as he does in the public domain; he is NOT a private citizen!

            No, I am NOT kidding.  I rarely kid about serious issues.  How many ridiculous tweets, public statements and other pronouncements have you heard Robert Mueller make?  He has conducted himself as a respectful, dignified, professional prosecutor investigating a very serious issue should act; I cannot say that about the BIC.  The BIC has ignored the issue.  Who is more responsible and professional?

            Clearly, you do not know much about me, my political opinions, my religious beliefs, or my personal conduct.  That is your choice.

            Oh my, I am truly impressed by how much insight you have into the thoughts and minds of me and so many other people. Perhaps that is precisely what gives you strength to ignore all of the public drivel from the BIC and his cronies.  Impressive indeed!

            I do not share your opinion regarding the status and future of this Grand Republic.  You suggest the situation in Venezuela, Germany and the United States are dire (meaning: causing or involving great fear or suffering; dreadful; terrible).  I would agree with you on the situation in Venezuela; it is dire by any definition.  Germany has seen, endured and grown from far worse situations, and so has the United States. While I do not like what is happening in this Grand Republic at present, I think we have seen far worse times, and we will survive the current predicament and become stronger for the trauma.  This Grand Republic is far stronger, more resilient and enduring than the BIC; he is just a human being (despite his public persona) who will pass away and be gone; this Grand Republic will endure beyond his abuse.

            D’Souza violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(FECA) [PL 92-225; 86 Stat. 3; 7.2.1972], and he pled guilty to the charges in federal court, i.e., he made no attempt to contest or deny the charges; that makes him a federal felon.  “Evil Obama” had him arrested?  Really?  The law has been in existence since 1972 (the Nixon administration; Obama was 10 years old), and in force in every administration from Nixon to present (at least for now). Obama did not violate the law; D’Souza did.  And worse, the BIC publicly condoned D’Souza’s violation of federal law.  In essence, he publicly proclaimed that the law only applies to you and me, not to D’Souza or the BIC.  Is that really how you believe laws should be applied? BTW, FECA may be one of the laws the BIC and Cohen violated, as well, which may have been one of the reasons the BIC chose to pardon D’Souza.

            For the purpose of this debate, propaganda is defined as the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.  Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, and such).  Propaganda has been a political tool for nearly a century since the days of Albert Lasker and Edward Bernays, and was elevated to a primary state instrument by Joseph Goebbels.  The only defense we have against the effects of propaganda is a diverse and vigorous Press, which is precisely why dictators attack, suppress and eliminate the Press . . . to make their propaganda more effective. Even with an aggressive, free Press in a free society, if citizens ignore information they do not like, they are playing directly to the dictator’s objectives—only he is the speaker of truth, quite like Big Brother of Oceania infamy.  Sound familiar?  FAKE NEWS, “the Press is the enemy of the people,” only the BIC speaks the truth, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. Why do you think I listen (read) the BIC’s words?

            President Obama valiantly attempted to soften the Ugly American syndrome, as he tried to take on a more cooperative, collaborative, collegial relationship with other nations.  Many people have seen that effort as weakness or berating his country.  I do not agree. I have never been a fan of and have persistently condemned the Ugly American syndrome wherever and whenever I see it.  We are NOT superior to anyone or any other country.  We are just human beings.  You and I have been blessed by fate to be citizens of this Grand Republic; that does not make us better than someone who happened to be born in Somalia or Yemen.  That does NOT give us any right to dictate how other people choose to live their lives.  For too many years, we operated under the seriously misguided notion that our way is the only way; such thinking has gotten us in a lot of trouble with a lot of countries.  And now, the BIC has chosen to become the ultimate Ugly American, far worse than any example I can think of in history.  I condemn his conduct, period, full stop!

            It was your LBGTQ statement that set me off. OK, I’ll bite.  My example: the BIC signed two memoranda (25.August.2017 and 23.March.2018) banning the service of transgender citizens in the military including the Coast Guard.  He has appointed a large majority of judges with a decidedly anti-LBGTQ bent. I could go on.  I have self-identified as a feminist since the days of the Equal Rights Amendment, although it took me a few years to recognize equality in all aspects of American life.  The BIC is wrong.  Military service, like any other service within this Grand Republic, should be based on performance without regard to any of the social factors (they have no bearing on performance).  Like gender, sexual orientation has no bearing on job performance, just like whether a citizen decided to sit or stand to urinate has any bearing on a person’s rights as a citizen.  It is well past time for us to recognize, acknowledge, accept and support equal rights for all citizens under the law, with no regard to the social factors.

 . . . along with a follow-up comment:

“WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE SHOWING THAT OUR COUNTRY IS IN BETTER SHAPE THAN ITS BEEN IN OVER 20 YEARS .. YET THE LEFT AND THE HATERS OF TRUMP THE MAN REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS AND CONTINUE TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY HEAR ON CNN AND OTHER LEFT CONTROLLED MEDIA OUTLETS .. I CONSIDER THOSE THAT ONLY TUNE INTO AND BELIEVE THESE OUTLETS AS INTELLECTUALLY LAZY WITH NO SCHOLARLY INQUIRY.

“THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENCY CONTAINED NOTHING BUT LIP SERVICE/LIES AND NO ACTION, NO IMPROVEMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE (YET HE'S BUILDING AN OBAMA LIBRARY AND TEARING DOWN TREES TO DO SO AFTER PROMISING CHICAGO CITIZENS HE WOULDNT), 150 BILLION TO IRAN DOUBLING OUR DEFICIT (SHRINK WRAPPED PALLETS OF MONEY - US DOLLARS CONVERTED TO OTHER FOREIGN CURRENCY TO AVOID THE LAW),  ATTEMPTING TO BRING IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS TO "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" THIS COUNTRY AS EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY GERMANY, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DONE AT THE DISMAY OF THEIR PEOPLE.

“THE LIST GOES ON .. I CAN COME UP WITH LOTS MORE IF YOU REQUEST .. I HAVE RESEARCHED HIM THOROUGHLY.  THE REASON I CONTRAST THE TWO PRESIDENTS IS BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT.  TRUMP IS DOING EVERYTHING HE STATED HE WOULD .. AND NOT MAKING SECRET MONEY TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES .. AND NOT GOING AROUND CONGRESS AS OBAMA DID.  I DONT CALL THIS BLIND OBEDIENCE .. I CALL IT RESPECT.”

 . . . and my follow-up response:

            My Mother taught me as a boy that the end does not justify the means.  How we achieve things is as important as the achievement itself. President Obama endured considerable abuse for the slow pace of the recovery from the Great Recession, and yet his policies established a steady growth rate—not too fast, not too slow. The BIC is certainly the beneficiary of the Obama economic policies.  Whether the BIC has over-stimulated the economy is yet to be determined—the jury is still out.  If we maintain a good steady growth rate, then the BIC will get the credit regardless of his chest-beating pronouncements.

            OK.  I get it.  You do not like anything about President Obama—not his appearance, not his name, not his citizenship, not his performance as president, not anything he ever said or did.  That is your choice for whatever reasons you may have to do so.  Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go dig up the facts that I believe would show you wrong.  While I do not agree with everything Obama did as president, I believe he did a lot more than offer lip service and I am not aware of any falsehoods or untruths on his part.  Obama was always very careful with his words and statements in quite the stark contrast to the current fellow.  I also get it that you worship the current fellow for whatever reasons you may have; again, that is your choice entirely.  Unfortunately, I cannot ignore his or your statements.

            I do agree with you.  The BIC is doing everything he said he would do . . . of that there is little debate.  I thought and wrote that those things he said during the campaign were wrong, and I still believe they are wrong now that he is doing them.  I will dispute your statement that he is “NOT MAKING SECRET MONEY TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.”  We, none of us, have any way to establish the veracity of your statement.  He has specifically, intentionally and aggressively hidden his actions from his tax returns to disallowing witnesses to his discussions (agreements) with dictators.  I find your statement is quite likely to be false, given the BIC’s personality traits and specific actions, e.g., not divesting himself of his international businesses, and hiding his actions as best he can.  He is attempting to run the federal government like it was his private company.  Yes, Obama used executive orders to get some things done, when Congress obstructed virtually everything he attempted to do.  The BIC has done precisely the same thing, even with a Republican dominated Congress.  The BIC does respect dictators, seems to find considerable affinity for those dictators, and he could not care less about anyone else.  The reality that we are making money is consequential.  True, I am grateful for the improving economy.  I am grateful that Obama took steps to provide measured growth, setting the foundation for the recovery from the Great Recession of 2009, and I do give the BIC credit for creating a business positive environment that Wall Street appreciates; however, I worry that it may be over-stimulation than may lead to rampant inflation, which will negate the gains.  We shall see.

A different contribution:

“Your POTUS, although I know he does go by other less affectionate titles, continues to dominate your work. I admit, as I have before, I do feel somewhat awkward writing about your leader as it really isn’t a concern of us over here, but is that entirely true?

“The effects he is having on international trade are of great concern. His up and down relationship with Russia continues to cause apprehension especially after our nerve agent incident. Which I might add is still under investigation.

“What surprises me more than anything is he seems to have expansive executive powers and makes decisions seemingly without the approval of your House of Representatives.  Is that acceptable?  Such moves here would be passed through Parliament and if rejected the motion would fail and rightly so-are we not both democracies?  I must admit of the contacts I have he does have a very poor name, especially when he walked in front of Her Majesty on the inspection of soldiers.  Dear Oh Dear, that caused uproar.  Well Cap I’ve said enough from this side-I look forward to seeing your next observations.”

My response:

            Unfortunately and regrettably, yes, the BIC (as I irreverently call him these days) dominates the news.  Regardless of what any of us think of him or his actions, he occupies a position of history and cannot be ignored; and, We, the People, elected him and put him in that position.  Any attempt to do so would be turning our back on history.  I cannot do that.  He dominates the Press for better or worse.  You certainly have more insulation from his shenanigans, but that insulation is not absolute, given the BIC’s assault on every friend and ally, and his overt, public embrace of the world’s dictators in the fallacious name of peace.

            His effect on international trade is almost a dichotomy.  I applaud his effort to make international trade fair and equitable, all too often the United States pays penalty; however, I have and will condemn his methods of correcting past practices.  This trade action should be a concern to everyone, including those who are making money on short sales.

            Russia is yet another dichotomy.  If I thought his embrace of Putin and his cronies would yield better relations and peace on earth, I would be the first to praise his efforts.  Unfortunately, history is not on his side, and I think he seriously underestimates Putin and the Russian dictator’s objectives.  His ignoring the Russian chemical warfare attack on your country is but one of many examples.  This is not going to turn out well.

            Re: “expansive executive powers.”  The reality is the Constitution granted the president extraordinary executive power from the outset (1789).  What makes this particular president so bloody different and appears to be expansive in his wielding of that power is the paucity of any sense of restraint, discretion or moderation on his part.  Every president since George Washington has possessed the same power, but none have chosen to exercise that power in such a parochial, self-serving and partisan manner—not even Richard Nixon, who was the only criminal president (not tried or convicted).  The House of Representatives has not approved of the BIC’s actions; they have condoned those actions by their silence, complacency and omission.  This is a public and historic demonstration of what happens when the constitutional checks and balances are diluted by partisan political blindness, and history will so record. The mid-term fall elections give us the opportunity to reestablish the intended checks and balances, but elections are never a forgone conclusive event, until they are done—signed, sealed and delivered.  Democracy will correct the BIC’s transgressions and solidify his infamous place in history.  As I have written and still believe to this moment, the BIC is the ultimate and consummate Ugly American.  I despise and condemn ugly americans—always have and always will; they are festering boils on our standing in the world community, and the BIC is the worst of the bunch.  On behalf of all good and decent American citizens, I apologize for the BIC’s conduct, but the bottom line is, this too shall pass. 

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)