Five Topics

===
This memo is devoted to five topics as follows:

a) An explanation of what motivated me to love writing.

b) Commentary on Baltimore's Police Department and threat to eventually Federalize.

c)  I still remain on the sidelines but am posting my opinions about the ten participants in tomorrow's 'debate' and a few comments about two who did not make the cut.

d) I have now begun reading my friend, John Agresto's book entitled: "Rediscovering America" and will begin a running commentary .

e) Finally, commentary on Obama's defense of the Iran Deal.

See below.
===
a) My father was brilliant and a very fine lawyer.  His briefs were extremely well written, descriptive and very precise. He was also a sometime writer of LTE's and they were always published by the local paper.  One of his finest was written several days before Kennedy was assassinated, defending the young president, and I have it framed with a letter to him from Bobby Kennedy thanking him for his expressions.

My mother was also a good regular letter writer but her style was different.  I do not believe my mother graduated from high school but she was very perceptive.

As for myself, I was terrible when it came to grammar and punctuation (still am) but in my sophomore year in prep school, Col Harvey Wilkinson, my English teacher gave me my first A on a book review and from that point forward I no longer feared I could not write.

I started writing memos when I began my brokerage career in 1960.  I had a secretary and I dictated and she re-typed and mailed them to my clients, a few friends and family members.  One of my associates collected them, had them bound and gave them to me on my 65th birthday.

I have continued to write memos to this day because I love to express myself and  because I hope to challenge others to think about some of the trends and critical issues we face.

I am aware my memos are often too long  and this reduces readership.  That is why I format them in a smorgasbord fashion so you can pick and choose. You will not be tested later and, frankly, I confess I am my own audience.

Though it is not 'always' my intention to offend, I am somewhat "Trumpish" in that regard and feel free to speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may.

This Friday, I am having lunch with one of my severest critics and I always receive rebuttals by way of New York Times' articles from one of my dearest friends with whom I generally disagree.

My style of writing is to be concise and it is evident I enjoy humor, the biting kind, and am not above using satire to score a point.

My memos go to 566 at last count.  Some to those I do not know but who are there by request and often I receive my own memo because they are mailed by fellow memo readers to those on their own list. I do not know how many read what I write and always delete when requested to do so.

One of my biggest flaws is I tend to generalize and paint with a broad brush - again a"Trumpish" trait.  That said, I am always open to comments, always invite responses and always respond when I receive them.

b) I understand Baltimore is run by incompetents and the city has become a city where lawlessness abounds because the Mayor seems to prefer anarchy to peace and the district attorney has a bias against justice but I also believe the introduction of federal agents into the Baltimore Police Force can be equated with the camel's nose under the tent.

I suspect Obama would love nothing better than to federalize our police forces because that would fit neatly with the philosophy of his radical mentors and with the role of a monarch.

Will Chicago be next?
===
c) Tomorrow there will be two 'debate' sessions.  One will begin at 5 PM and will have 7 participants who failed to make the cut off and one at 9 PM featuring the top 10, polled.

As I noted above, I remain on the sideline in terms of who I am most likely to support but I do have some impressions  and they are as follows:

Trump:  His popularity is based on the angst Americans feel that we are going in the wrong direction and their future and that of their offspring is not bright.

The key he should be focusing on is getting a solid majority in the Senate because he is not a politician and will have to learn the political ropes of going along to get along, something he has not experienced.

I suspect he will not be an attack dog unless he is slighted and then he will respond.

Can he succeed as president? Yes, if he appoints solid advisers and listens to and takes sound advice.
Can he beat Clinton if she is the nominee?  I believe so.  Might be less effective against Biden who, in my opinion, is a likable bumbler.

Bush, Kasich and Walker:  All three have achieved solid accomplishments at the political executive level and Bush and Kasich should appeal to those in the center and the uncommitted. Walker may appeal more to the solid conservative core and less to centrist mainstream.  Do the three have the necessary charisma?  They have the intelligence but may play it too close to their chests and thus be seen as too establishment - particularly when compared with Trump's more open and brash style.

Can they beat Clinton should she be the nominee?  I believe so because Clinton is her own worst enemy, has a terrible personality, no record of true achievements and is justifiably deemed untrustworthy..

Cruz: Damaged goods. Bright, in fact very bright and a committed ideologue but too extreme and could not beat Clinton or Biden.

Paul: Has been successful at approaching non-white voters and is a believable ideologue but mostly has the wrong ideas and could not beat Clinton  should she be the nominee or Biden.

Rubio: Needs more seasoning.  Decent, thoughtful but would be like electing another novice.  Might be able to beat Clinton but probably not Biden.

Carson: Would make a fine Cabinet officer in the area of health and veterans but just not enough breadth and experience. You have to like him for his achievements and personal decency.  He speaks his mind and that is a very appealing attribute.  Might beat Clinton, could not beat Biden .

Huckabee: Like Carson and Cruz he speaks his mind. He has plenty of television experience, was a good governor but too narrow in his appeal to a broad voting constituency. Might be able to beat Clinton but not Biden.

Christie:  the dark horse.  He tells it up front and that is appealing. He is bright and has had some executive experience and accomplishments in a Democrat controlled Legislature.  Can he control his fly off the handle predilection?  His weight could also raise questions and be a drag in an arduous campaign. Could beat Clinton and possibly Biden.

Two who did not make the cut:

Fiorino: Would make a good campaigner against Clinton and might have female appeal as a Vice President.  Bright but the fact that she was relieved of her position at HP could raise some negatives.

Perry: I see him as a damaged dark horse because of his poor past performance.  Good governor, balanced judgement and could appeal to voters of color.  He is not a bomb thrower and is believable.

Might be able to beat both Clinton and Biden if he is allowed to be himself.

Republicans are fielding a host of qualified candidates. The Democrats are struggling with a shallow bench.  If not Clinton then Sanders and Warren who are extremes.  Biden is old, has seldom been right on any major decision or position he has taken, is likable  but, in the final analysis, is a goof ball doofus!

d) John Agresto is a thinking man's conservative.  He claims education administration is his strong suit and he has a proven record to  buttress the statement but I consider him to be a pre-imminent educator.  His academic knowledge, judgement and intellectual integrity are without peer.

John firmly believes the many problems our nation faces can best be addressed by re-familiarizing ourselves with the words and thoughts of those who drafted our Constitution.

Universities once took this obligation to heart but no longer.

In Chapter One, Agresto begins with Jefferson's " We Behold These Truths - All Men Are Created Equal" and points out that both liberals and conservatives can come together because they basically agree regarding the phrase "all men are created equal."  The problem that causes rifts is that there are an increasing number of liberals who believe equality conflicts with fairness and thus, redistribution is mandatory. On the other side, there are a large number of conservatives who fear equality undercuts and conflicts with freedom.

In the final analysis, Jefferson understood the arguments Agresto poses but being 'created equal' should be interpreted to mean all are born free and that means no one should have arbitrary power over the born to deprive them of their freedom, their property, enslave them.

The meaning of Jefferson's equality, in John's view, is  radically misunderstood in today's society.  It does not mean leveling, redistribution, equal results and/or preferential treatment.  There are those who cannot accept the fact that differences in human attributes and accomplishments are inevitable and un-evenness will occur with respect to wealth, life achievements etc. and that is the consequence of freedom.

Jefferson considered equality central to  the meaning of America. Real conservatism, in John's view,
"does everything to keep the avenues of economic and social achievement open... while opening the avenue of opportunity to rise, prosper and be our unique selves."

e) To the uniformed ear, Obama gave a remarkable, even a brilliant, total defense of  his and Kerry's Iran Deal.  In doing so he cleverly used the same partisan tactics he accused naysayers of using. He hung around the necks of those who disagree the prospect of war as the sole consequence of rejection.

In essence, Obama alleged the Iran Deal has safeguards that will prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear device and, in doing so, he responded to every argument against the deal.

He  ended by directing his pitch to Israelis, reminding them he understood their concerns, had been very responsive in providing them with an ability to defend themselves and would continue to make sure of their military edge.

As Obama spoke I could not ignore the fact that his words came from the same lips of the man who told us 'we could keep our doctors,' the same man who drew lines in the sand only to ignore them, the same man who cannot bring himself to connect terrorism to Islamist radicals, and the same man who denies the fact that his various precipitous troop withdrawals and other misguided decisions and half-measures have resulted in terrible tragedies and ineffectual consequences.

I just cannot ignore the fact that Obama is a master at twisting the truth, blaming others, ignoring his own shortcomings while being convincing.  Furthermore, I cannot ignore he is, at the very core, a liar.

One final ironic observation:  When it comes to their future, as noted above, Americans have a very dour outlook, a  very 'dark' view of their prospects.  If find this black view interesting in view of the fact Obama is the first president of color.
===
Dick