Monday, July 11, 2016

Is America Worth Saving and Is The Kristol Recipe Worth Following? Go Vote And Think About The Supreme Court When You Do!

The Socialist Do Gooders!
Will Obama press forward with his his demonic desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons even if it makes it more unsafe. Stick around and see. (See 1 below.)
Obama cannot escape the fact that much of the racial discord can be laid at the door of The Obama White House and Obama Justice Department. (See 2 below.)
Dowd dumps on Hillary.  Even Dowd seems resigned to Bonnie and Clyde.  How sad.

Meanwhile Bill Kristol continues to plead for Romney and Kasich to stop Trump at The Convention, rather than climb aboard the Donald Caboose and really get behind the most logical way to derail the Clinton's, considering the two available choices.

Kristol is a bright man but his advice is impractical and that is the problem with the ingrained in The Republican Party. Too many bright people live in their own world, and cannot relate to those who live in the real world, want to win and know you cannot have it all. Kristol and his ilk remind me of the playground  kids who did not like the game so they picked up their marbles and went home.

The Electoral College construct favors Democrats, Obama's obsession with filling border red states with undocumented aliens and stuffing them with goodies, at tax payer expense, further insures a Democrat victory and the fact that Democrats want to win more than Republicans favors Democrats.

However, that is no reason to shoot yourself in the foot. Those bullets should be directed at the opposition and if that does not work then perhaps the nation Democrats, liberals and progressives helped us become is not worth saving.

Living in a European failed state or, even worse, a future South American corrupt disaster is not my idea of what The Founding Fathers sought for us as we broke from England.  But if that is where we are headed and we are too blind to care about freedom, about private ownership, about the right to worship and adhere to the law and curb the power of an all consuming central government, so be it,

America has always been a concept that fostered the belief man inherited his inalienable rights from God and this was preferable.  If we believe we are better for our rights to be derived from Democrats, liberals and progressives and  we will improve more by following their laws, their rules, their dictum's then , perhaps, we have become a nation not worth saving.

It has taken us 240 years to move far enough away from our Constitutional moorings so further drift seems inevitable.

The story goes, Ben Franklin responded to the scullery maid's question saying: "We have a Republic if we can keep it." I do not know why we have decided our imperfect Republic is not preferable to what the Democrats, liberals and progressives offer.  So much of what they have tried has proven fallible because it defied simple logic.  We have traded pipe dreams for brilliance, we have vacated reason for the impractical , We have traded the substantive for the ephemeral and we seem to relish the embrace of stupidity.

Why? I guess man is restless, never satisfied and believes change is preferable to status quo. Certainly progress is beneficial and man has accomplished great changes and betterment through science, technology, the encouragement of ethical pursuit.  But even betterment can be carried too far when it involves an exchange with what has been the basis of allowing for so much betterment, ie. freedom to think and pursue, to own and to trade in free markets, to be independent, to have earned self-respect, to work and provide etc.

Democrats, liberals and progressives have a more radical view.  They prefer socialism and believe centralized government, rule by bureaucrats distant from the governed is preferable.  They believe people are entitled to what they want and need and these wants and needs should be paid for by those who have more wealth because wealth can only be ill gotten, They believe in equal outcomes and have little tolerance for disparity. They believe collective wisdom preferable to individualism.

Frankly, their's is a dull world of enslaved humanized robots trapped by insecurity and jealousy. Their story has been  told by many past contemporary authors such as Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Frederick Hayek etc.

Socialist do gooders appeal to the weak , the uneducated and the desperate.  America was not founded by the likes of those possessing such temperament and character but the dependent, the discontented, the weak, the less reasoning have grown in numbers and power and now seem to prevail. Thus. the appeal of the Obama's, Clinton's and all the other political charlatans selling their mysterious, beguiling brew.

Hillary can be stopped but the person one must vote for, to stop her, is not appealing. I understand this completely but if one just focuses on the prospective appointments to The Supreme Court chosen by Hillary or Trump, it is a non issue for me.  Nothing can drive more nails in the coffin of our union than more liberals on and in control of  The Supreme Court, who are more interested in rowing away from our Constitution than enforcing its intent.

So go vote and think about this when you do.(See 3 below.)

Obama plans major nuclear policy changes in his final months


The Obama administration is determined to use its final six months in office to take a series of executive actions to advance the nuclear agenda the president has advocated since his college days. It’s part of Obama’s late push to polish a foreign policy legacy that is plagued by challenges on several other fronts.

President Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them in his first major foreign policy speech, in Prague in 2009. In his first years, he achieved some successes, such as the New START treaty with Russia, the Nuclear Security Summits and the controversial Iran deal. But progress waned in the past year as more pressing crises commanded the White House’s attention. Now, the president is considering using the freedom afforded a departing administration to cross off several remaining items on his nuclear wish list.

In recent weeks, the national security Cabinet members known as the Principals Committee held two meetings to review options for executive actions on nuclear policy. Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval. No final decisions have been made, but Obama is expected to weigh in personally soon.

“As we enter the homestretch of the Obama presidency, it’s worth remembering that he came into office with a personal commitment to pursuing diplomacy and arms control,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told the Arms Control Association on June 6. “I can promise you today that President Obama is continuing to review a number of ways he can advance the Prague agenda over the course of the next seven months. Put simply, our work is not finished on these issues.”

Several U.S. officials briefed on the options told me they include declaring a “no first use” policy for the United States’ nuclear arsenal, which would be a landmark change in the country’s nuclear posture. Another option under consideration is seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution affirming a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. This would be a way to enshrine the United States’ pledge not to test without having to seek unlikely Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The administration is also considering offering Russia a five-year extension of the New START treaty’s limits on deployed nuclear weapons, even though those limits don’t expire until 2021. This way, Obama could ensure that the next administration doesn’t let the treaty lapse. Some administration officials want to cancel or delay development of a new nuclear cruise missile, called the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon, because it is designed for a limited nuclear strike, a capability Obama doesn’t believe the United States needs. Some officials want to take most deployed nukes off of “hair trigger” alert.

The administration also wants to cut back long-term plans for modernizing the nation’s nuclear arsenal, which the Congressional Budget Office reports will cost about $350 billion over the next decade. Obama may establish a blue-ribbon panel of experts to examine the long-term budget for these efforts and find ways to scale it back.
Republican congressional leaders are already warning the administration not to use its final months to take actions they say would betray promises to Congress and weaken the United States’ nuclear deterrent. On June 17, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) wrote to Obama to warn him not to unravel their deal on nuclear modernization, which they said persuaded Congress to ratify New START. They acknowledged that the current plan may be fiscally unsustainable but pledged to work with the administration to address the shortfalls.

Opponents in Congress also believe the administration is not taking into consideration how big changes in U.S. nuclear policy would affect allies that live under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, especially in Europe and Northeast Asia. But arms control advocates, Democratic lawmakers and former officials are pressing the administration to announce as many new policies as possible. For them, Obama has one last chance to make good on his nuclear promises.

“It’s pretty clear the Prague agenda has stalled,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports groups advocating for nuclear nonproliferation. “There isn’t anything that the president does that isn’t criticized by his opponents, so he might as well do what he wants. He’s relishing his last days in office.”

By focusing on nuclear weapons, Obama sees an opportunity to cement a foreign policy legacy despite setbacks and incomplete efforts in several other areas. But by doing it unilaterally, without congressional buy-in, and in a hurried way, he risks launching policies that might not last much longer than his presidency.  

Unraveling Obama’s False Narratives

No comments: