When Republicans criticize the Democrat opponents, they generally talk about what their opponent actually did. When Democrats criticize their Republican opponents they talk about how they feel about what their opponents are supposed to have done. Donald Trump is an ‘abusive braggart’ unfit to lead our Armed Forces by Barry R. McCaffrey is a case in point.
McCaffrey is a retired 4-star, no small matter. Anyone with who earns four stars is worthy of respect. Nevertheless, four stars or a hundred he is still human.
McCaffrey does the usual thing. He makes sure we realize that he is an expert, an unbiased expert. He is not registered with either political party. Thus, he tries to pose as an authority on what are strictly emotional issues.
Let’s consider several of McCaffrey’s assertions of fact.
Trump said something shameful about the mother and father of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan. The father of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan brutally insulted Donald Trump character on national TV at the Democratic National Convention. When asked about the matter, Trump had a few words. McCaffrey ASSUMES Trump said something awful. Did Trump say something awful? In the video above, we have the interview with George Stephanopoulos (unquestionably a partisan Democrat). I suggest you listen to the whole thing. It is not that long, however, Stephanopoulos asks about Khizer Khan’s charges at 14 minutes and 30 seconds into the interview.
He has questioned whether the U.S. should actually fulfill our defense obligations under the NATO pact. This is actually a rather stupid charge. Our NATO obligations are a treaty obligation. Trump has pointed out that some of our NATO allies are not paying their fair share for their own defense, a treaty obligation. If our allies are not willing to defend themselves, why should we bother going to their defense? Trump, by the way, answers Stephanopoulos’ question about this five minutes into the video above.
Trump has publicly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin. This criticism, especially coming from the Democrats, is sort of puzzling. Did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State H. Clinton ever stop Russia from doing anything? China? Iran? What is it they fear Donald Trump will give up that they are not already giving up? Trump thinks Putin is a stronger leader than Obama or H. Clinton. Duh? Trump thinks he Putin will respect each other. Trump comments on Putin 2 minutes into interview.
We all have biases, even (tongue in cheek) 4 star generals. McCaffrey works as a military analyst. His clients? Entirely and completely professionally objective news organizations (sarcasm intended), NBC and MSNBC. He also has connections to the Clinton’s.
Barry McCaffrey was director of Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) under President Bill Clinton from 1996 to 2001. He was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate on February 29, 1996. As director of ONDCP, McCaffrey sat in President Clinton’s Cabinet. (from here)
In spite of his pretensions to objectivity, McCaffrey has reasons to be biased. Bias, however, is no excuse for intentionally twisting another man’s words, and that is what such as McCaffrey are doing in the news media.
Note also the nature of the interview with Stephanopoulos. Trump answered Stephanopoulos’ questions frankly, but the questions were all about criticisms of Trump. To talk about what he wants to do or about his fitness for office, Trump had to work to get pass what were essentially badgering questions. Yet Trump is willing to do that work. H. Clinton? She scrupulously avoids hostile media (Hillary Clinton holds a halfway press conference (www.usatoday.com)). That’s about the only thing she seems to be scrupulous about.
To Be Continued:
What is to come? We will consider how someone objectively review a Democrat’s record.
Donald Trump FULL SPEECH – Rally in Ashburn, Virginia – August 2, 2016
Here of late we have had several commenters visiting CITIZENTOM.COM to tell us what an awful person Donald Trump is. Is Trump so awful? Filtered through the news media, I guess he is. Do you trust the news media? Then listen to him talk. Look at the video above. Go to his web site. Care enough about our country to find out for yourself.
What is below? That’s my reply to Novademocrat (See his comment here).
😉
@Novademocrat
There is not much point in taking you too seriously. You don’t want to be taken too seriously. So I went to http://www.urbandictionary.com to find a definition of multiculturalism for you.
Multiculturalism is a marxist ideology designed to ethnically cleanse European derived peoples by promoting the massive 3rd world invasion of Europe, United States, Canada, and Australia.
Multiculturalism leads to racial tension and may erupt into a racial conflict once the racial spoils system breaks down. For example – multiculturalism is in full swing in California. Blacks and Hispanics are engaged in a violent racial struggle in Los Angeles (from here)
Here is a more serious definition from dictionary.com.
The view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest. It became a significant force in American society in the 1970s and 1980s as African-Americans, Latinos, and other ethnic groups explored their own history. (from here)
The notion that all the various cultures in society merit equal respect is nonsense. People merit respect, but some of the things we believe?
Our Constitution is worthy of respect is worthy of respect because of the ideas upon which it is based. Freedom of religion is still not commonplace. Even where it is allowed, freedom of religion is always in peril. Most people don’t believe in freedom of religion. They believe in their religion. That’s why freedom of religion is in peril in this country.
Here is the latest problem in our country. If someone says Christianity is better, Multiculturalists will call them bigoted. That is silly, but Multiculturalism is both silly and dangerously serious. Multiculturalists believe all religious beliefs deserve equal respect. The only way for that to be true is to believe we all worship the same God. That is an absurd religious belief. Unfortunately, because of our education system and our mass media, quite a few people in the United States think everyone worships the same God, somehow, some way.
As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and the Bible is His Word. Why would a Christian have any reason to respect another religion as much as he respects Christianity? That would not be reasonable or logical.
What Christianity teaches us to do is to love our neighbors and give them the Good News. Christians are not suppose to respect other people’s religions. We are suppose to respect other people. If we don’t agree with the beliefs of other people, we don’t make fun of them or hate them. We just hope our devotion to Jesus sets a good example.
Why mention Communism, Nazism, Libertarianism, or even Secularism as religious ideologies? Every form of government is based upon a religious belief. That is why we all make certain assumptions about the religious beliefs of Communists, Nazis, Libertarians, Secularists, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, and so forth. Are those assumptions always correct? Every individual varies from the mean, some more so than others. Nevertheless, people decide how they will live based upon their notions about the purpose of life, that is, their beliefs about God. Any government that exists in conflict with the religious beliefs of the people it rules is inherently unstable. That’s why every government, including our own, seeks to indoctrinate the People via the education system and the mass media. Rather than adapt to the desires of those they rule, the rulers would much rather change the desires of the people.
Trump has challenged those who rule us. So those who rule us are using the mass media to condemn him. Naturally, they are employing the state religion, Multiculturalism, to label him as politically incorrect. To survive the assault and win the election, Trump must convince us that unlike his opponent, H. Clinton, he is willing adapt his rule to the beliefs of the people. He has to convince us he want to lead us, not manipulate us.
Can Trump convince us? I don’t know. I just think we need to make certain we check out the man for ourselves. He is certainly right about one thing. We cannot trust the news media. We have to check him out for ourselves.
Sputnik? Aside from the fact the news content was atrociously anti-American, I was suspicious of the name. What does sputnik mean?
sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
“artificial satellite,” extended from the name of the one launched by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik “satellite,” literally “traveling companion” (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi, “traveling companion of the Earth”) from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku, from Russian so-, s- “with, together” + put’ “path, way,” from Old Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- “to tread, go” (see find (v.)) + agent suffix -nik. (continued here)
The name “sputnik news” is ironic. The word “sputnik” first gained familiarity in the West when the USSR launched a series of satellites named Sputnik. Since artificial satellites generally orbit the earth, most satellites are in fact a “traveling companion of the Earth”. oxforddictionaries.com, however, describes a slightly different origin for term “sputnik” which adds a bit of perspective.
fellow traveler noun
1. a person who supports or sympathizes with a political party, especially the Communist Party, but is not an enrolled member.
2. anyone who, although not a member, supports or sympathizes with some organization, movement, or the like.
Read The Night Wind’s comments defending (here and here) sputniknews.com. The Night Wind is something of a fan of Vladimir Putin. Thus, the Night Wind’s comments suggest that that old KGB agent’s propaganda is having some success.
Are The Night Wind’s complaints about the Western news media legitimate? Sadly, the answer is yes, but reading Russian propaganda hardly constitutes a solution.
What makes us so vulnerable to such propaganda in this country? We need to think about that, and we need to formulate a solution. So let’s consider the nature of the problem. What factors make it more difficult than it once was to discern the truth in the news?
The mechanics of our government have changed drastically. When it originated, the Federal Government had little power. Except for a few items, those actually enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, most government operations — what little there were — in the United States were state and local. Then we could see for ourselves what was going on and speak to our leaders face-to-face. Yet the Federal Government now spends nearly twice what our state and local governments spend.
Why has local government diminished? To make local government work, we must be engaged in our local communities, but power-grabbing politicians have nearly torn our local communities apart. Unlike previous generations of Americans, we are not skilled in the art of community organizing. We would not even use such a phrase the same way. Our forbears would have thought of organizing to perform a charitable work. We think of community organizing getting the government to spend other people’s money.
Our forebears spent most of their day engaged within their local communities. They worked, educated their children, went to church, and played (even the adults) with their immediate neighbors. Today not many of us do that. We spend our days tens of miles from home at our jobs, and we waste hours traveling on government-run roads that don’t work. Then we compound the damage. We educate our children in poorly managed government-run schools that discourage parental involvement. We may not go to church, and most of us spend hours a day escaping our “problems”. We “play” on a TV or Internet, or we just commiserate with each other by boozing it up with friends.
What do I think we should do? Well, turning sputniknews.com or rt.com for information is not going to help us. We know these people are trying to deceive us. Instead, we need to decrease the power and importance of government. We need to diminish the vast wealth our government controls. We need to make lying to us less attractive and less profitable; we need to bring government closer to home where we can keep an eye on it.
We need to stop giving politicians OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to pay for public infrastructure. The worst kind of politicians sell access to OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. When we pay for our roads, for example, with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, in return for campaign donations and various “favors”, politicians put the roads where developers want them. Then, in return for more for campaign donations and “favors”, politicians strangle what they had the gall to call a parkway with stoplights. If we want decent transportation system, then we have to pay with our own money. We have to pay tolls. Then, developers will have to pay for their own roads.
We need to stop giving politicians power to redistribute the wealth. Politicians use the power redistribute the wealth to buy our votes. That has nothing to do with true charity; such charity is just stealing. Yet we have based our education system, our retirement systems, and our health care system upon such notions of charity. Because true charity is based upon love, government cannot effectively provide charity. Whenever government tries to provide charity, larceny will result. Human nature is such that any government system that spends OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE must become corrupt, too costly, and eventually useless.
We need to put the kibosh on the identity politics. What just happened in Florida illustrates the gravity of the problem. Because of the fact they tend to vote Democrat, some of our glorious leaders want to import all the poor, dark skin people they can into this country. That includes Muslims. Yet as events keep demonstrating, our leaders have no way whatsoever of screening out Islamic terrorists from a peaceful Muslims. So why then is the LBGTQ crowd voting for Democrats? Consider their choice, our choice. Is it more important to force our views on others or to be left in peace to pursue our own definition of happiness?
Why do we have to drive so far and spend so much time traveling to work? Everybody wants to live in the country in a big house with a big yard. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (so-called parkways), and they have protected big yards with zoning laws.
Why do we have expensive schools that don’t work? Everybody wants a fabulous education for their children. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They have built costly schools and staffed those schools with expensive teachers and administrators, members of public employee’s unions who kindly contributed to and worked for their reelection. Therefore, since those schools must be run by the government and secularized, we have created socialist institutions promoting the glories of Big Government.
Why don’t local communities provide charity, and why is our country going broke? Everybody wants a fail-safe financial safety net. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Thus, we have food stamps, Social Security, Obamacare, and dozens of other programs that cost too much.
Why do politicians keep insisting that it is a small world and diversity means everyone must be politically correct? Everybody wants the assurance that everyone else likes them just as they are. We want everyone to think like us, and we don’t want anyone better or worse off than we are. That is, because every little community would be different, we cannot get by with local government. Otherwise, we actually would have diversity. So we have to nationalize every problem and make everyone think about everything and do everything the same way.
Therefore, as the result of too much government, we don’t have time to spend in our local neighborhoods, we don’t have much reason to talk to our neighbors, and we have trouble believing anything the news media wants to tell us.
You don’t believe me? Then please explain why we have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for president.
On Friday I got this email from my congressman, Rob Wittman. It left me a bit confused. Wittman is not a bad congressman, and I suppose he should have voted for the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699). I just wonder why it was necessary.
You know that email you’ve been saving? The one from your dad … or co-worker … or best friend … or daughter? The one they thought only you would see? The one YOU thought only you would see? Well, as the law stands now, law enforcement officials could have legal access to that email without so much as a warrant.
Maybe that surprises you, or maybe it doesn’t. But the fact is that as technology has expanded, the law hasn’t. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the primary law governing email privacy, was passed in 1986—before most of us even knew that email existed. Since then, only minimal reforms have been made to the ECPA, and vulnerabilities in the law have raised significant digital privacy concerns for the public.
It’s not hard to see that the world is evolving around us. We have access to technology that didn’t exist 10 or 5 or even 2 years ago, and that’s a great thing. Technology gives us the opportunity to better ourselves and the world around us. It helps us to connect with people all around the globe in ways we never could have imagined were possible. But tech developments shouldn’t come at the cost of individual privacy and security. The way we protect information should be reflective of the way that we store and share information.
Last week, the House voted 419 to 0, with my support, in favor of the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699), a bill that would revise the ECPA to require law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants before gaining access to personal messages and files stored by companies like Google, Yahoo, and Dropbox. Right now, agencies can gain access to emails and other digital files more than 90 days old by issuing subpoenas to technology companies—a very low standard for gaining access to information. This legislation would require law enforcement officers to secure a judge-issued warrant before gaining access to digital information stored in the cloud.
The Email Privacy Act represents the first major update to our digital privacy laws in three decades, and it’s past time for us to make a change. The choice between privacy and technology is a false one. The Fourth Amendment, the Constitutional provision that guarantees privacy and designates it as a fundamental liberty, is strong enough to safeguard our rights in every situation. We have to make sure that our laws conform to that standard, and I believe that the Email Privacy Act takes positive steps in that direction.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I am no legal scholar, but is there such a big a difference between snail mail and email that judges think snooping into our snail mail requires a warrant, but an email doesn’t? Don’t our presidents nominate these judges? Doesn’t our Senate consent to their appointment? Then why do we need this law?
Technology should free us to do things our ancestors never even imagined. Today we can fly. We have visited the moon. Perhaps our grandchildren will settle other planets in our solar system. Who knows? Is it possible that some day Americans will journey to distant stars? Maybe not. Some of those who rule us care about us, but we also have many perverse leaders, and we have the people who vote for them. Instead of protecting our rights and furthering our dreams, too many of those who rule us seek to spend every cent we have, and then they spy on us. They have to make certain they have us under control. How can we dream of reaching the stars when our own rulers seek to bind and enslave us?
You have a congressmen or a senator who is more interested in spending your money than he is in protecting your rights? Have you considered voting for someone else?
The Night Wind
