Democrats Suffering From Political Menopause. My Thoughts Why The 2018 Mid -Term Election Is Critical. My Conservatism Vs Liberalism. Bolton Strikes!

So I hear all about the divided Republicans from the mass media who cannot look inward at the party they favor which is going through serious political menopause. (See 1 below.)

And

Meanwhile, keep the Sanders' dynasty going. (See 1a below.)

And Finally:

The latest telephone poll taken by the California Governor's office, asked whether people who live in California think illegal immigration is a serious problem:

29% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."  

71% of respondents answered: "No es una problema seriosa."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have noted many times before, I am a conservative not necessarily a Republican though, I tend to vote Republican more than Democrat. However, I did, in the past, consistently vot for Sam Nunn, and voted for Kennedy and even  Carter,in his first election, not in his second.

Statewide I have voted for some Democrat Governors and did as well for a Democrat running for the State House.

I consider all elections important and try to be informed and often, when I feel I know little, I do not vote for a particular candidate regardless of party affiliation

That said, I believe the 2018 Mid-Term is extremely important for a variety of reasons.

From a market standpoint, when Congress is divided and unable to pass legislation, the markets generally do well so I do not fear, in terms of the stock market, Democrats capturing The House.

Politically speaking, however, Democrats capturing the House is another matter altogether because:

a) I have no doubt extremists will seek to impeach Trump and the basis for their attempt will be they do not like him and it is pay back time for Bill Clinton.

b) Democrat obstruction is also based on hatred of Trump and has no basis in judgment or logic.

c) Specific Issues where I part ways with extreme liberal thinking:

Liberals, all too often, decide and come together because they are emotional . Their attack on the 2d Amendment and gun ownership is not based on sound and compelling reasoning. Once again, hatred of The NRA is their primary motivation.  The recent attack in Florida was due to bureaucratic failure. There were plenty of laws that allowed the authorities to apprehend this mentally sick person before the act.  The authorities failed, plain and simple.

I also disagree with most liberals when it comes to an unwillingness to adhere to and enforce the rule of law.  It appears, based on their fervent support of sanctuary cities, creation of wedge issues based on heat not light regarding illegal immigration, it  is simply beyond my comprehension.

Their unwillingness to support funding our military and holding such funding hostage to more transfer payments goes against my grain because the first priority of government is to protect the citizenry not create dependency on, often, specious handouts.

I believe capitalism has faults but has created more wealth for more people than any other economic system and certainly the far left's flirtation with socialism is personally anathema. I daresay few liberals have ever read "The Road To Serfdom."

Liberals believe in big, bigger and ever more bigger government when , empirically speaking, most government programs fail to accomplish their expressed goals, exceed all cost predictions and have actually resulted in  lessening public support for government. We need government, we must support government but government needs to be effective. Small and local trumps big and distant nearly every time

Liberals constantly seek legislation that chokes the private sector which decreases productivity and reduces GDP growth.  Bureaucracies essentially produce paper not jobs.

Liberals use the wedge issue of Voter ID to create and heighten passions when we all know you must produce identification for a host of personal activities like checking a library book out, to entering a building, to getting on a plane etc. This suggests to me their attitude toward something sacred , like voting, is simply meaningless. Their support for allowing illegal immigrants to vote is incomprehensible.

So many of the policies of liberals have had counter productive results.  Johnson's "War on Poverty" was a reaction to the denying of civil rights but the consequences were disastrous and Professor Moynihan warned those on his side of the aisle. They attacked him for being wrong headed and even heartless. Fifty two years later Pat's predictions proved essentially correct.

Consequently, statistics reflect more fatherless families, an increase in children born out of wedlock, more unemployment, less church attendance, a declining ability to qualify for work in an increasing technological work environment, for food stamp numbers etc.


Liberal support for union controlled education flies in the face of their expressed desire to help the lower socio economic class out of their societal misery. How can anyone be against freedom of choice, a rigorous curriculum, learning history and being able to reason in an independent manner?

A nation that cannot, will not protect and defend its border and allows illegals to enter at will undercuts those who want to come to America legally, follow our laws  and learn our language.

A nation that does not demand its citizens have a common language will not prevail. A common language builds social solidarity, engenders positive economic results and serves to unite.

How does multi-language cacophony benefit our nation other than to serve as a wedge issue?

To the extent we remain a nation of mostly law abiding citizens, I cannot accord with liberal judges who place their own views above  that of legislators and who supplant their view of outcomes over the interpretation of our "founding fathers."  The practice of judge shopping is dangerous and divisive. It is also unethical in my opinion.

Finally, and here I put a plague on both parties, we must balance our budget or our debt will become  our economic undoing.  History is replete with evidence that the consequence of exploding debt results in inflation, and, eventually,  the destruction of a society, Germany and now Venezuela, are two prime recent examples.

I understand and am sympathetic to the emotional desire to do what one believes is both right, addresses what has been wrong and tolerated for too long but it must result in betterment at an affordable cost.  Laws that offend the masses eventually lead to extreme over-reactions as a way of seeking re-balance and this simply results in one extreme begetting another. This is terribly unhealthy.

I could go on but  I have attempted to cover the most egregious violations liberals employ to rationalize their, all to often, hysterical/emotional based efforts and demands.

This is why I believe the 2018 election is critical because the far left of the Democrat Party, led by Pelosi,will resort to extreme measures to undo Trump's efforts to repair the destructive accomplishments of his predecessor who told us his goal was to transform America. In doing so, I submit, the consequences proved  awful, at best.

As for the black community, Trump asked them what have you got to lose and he was correct.  For the country as a whole, Trump has instituted legislation that has put our nation on the road to betterment and it is reflected statistically in employment figures, the level of the stock market, a more vibrant economy as reduced taxes return the fruits of labor to those who produce.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++









Dick
_______________________________________
1)

Civil War in the Democratic Party

Bernie Sanders was a portent of the populist left’s rise. Now even Dianne Feinstein looks vulnerable.

By Ted Rall

The rise of Donald Trump has prompted endless analysis about the populist right, what it is and what it wants. Now it’s time to consider a neglected segment of the electorate—the populist left.

Progressive populists scored an upset this past weekend, when California Democrats at their annual convention declined to endorse liberal stalwart Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is seeking a fifth full term. “The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder to shoulder against a complacent status quo,” crowed her progressive opponent, state Senate leader Kevin de León, who along with Ms. Feinstein will face voters in June.

A civil war rages among Democrats in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Mainstreamers are coming under attack from their left flank, with the sharpest broadsides emanating from the postindustrial Midwest. “We need to unite the agenda and unite the Democrats right now around a strong economic agenda,” Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried in 2016 to depose Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader, said in February. The left has growing numbers, enthusiasm and a potent small-contribution fundraising model. As they pull the party away from the center, the perpetually lamented polarization of America will continue.

Excluded from both parties, left populists are a significant slice of the 37% of Americans who prefer socialism or even communism over capitalism, according to a 2017 YouGov survey. Like their counterparts on the right, left populists resent political, cultural and economic elites. They distrust big business, academia, the major political parties and corporate media outlets that prop up a self-interested establishment. They believe the system exploits hardworking Americans to fatten 

Left populism is distinguished from the left centrism that currently dominates the Democratic Party. Left centrists seek reform, not revolution. President Obama wanted to regulate Wall Street, not replace it. The Clintons cashed checks from Goldman Sachs ; last year Mr. Obama accepted one from Cantor Fitzgerald.

Left populists focus on class-based perspectives. What matters to them most is the struggle between the 1% and the 99%, especially over globalization. Working-class lives matter; banks are evil. Identity politics—race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.—don’t excite left populists much.

These were the voters who supported Bernie Sanders. Team Hillary never understood them. “What happened” was that the history-making potential of the first female president left almost half the party, not only white males, unmoved.

One point of disagreement is a question that also divides Republicans: immigration. During this year’s budget talks, Democratic leaders were determined to prevent deportations of “Dreamers,” whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally when they were children. Populists sympathize with Dreamers, but they don’t see a hill worth dying on. Budgetary brinkmanship on behalf of illegal aliens risks alienating a growing left-populist base, whose members worry more about their own long-suffering bank balances.

As Mrs. Pelosi garnered liberal accolades for her eight-hour pseudo-filibuster over Dreamers—when did she showboat over, say, distressed homeowners during the housing crisis?— Mr. Ryan fumed that the stunt’s identity-politics-oriented optics, featuring female congressmen standing behind her, could alienate left populists. “If you’re going into a budget battle like this, you can’t go in with just a million Dreamers,” Mr. Ryan said. “You need the retired coal miners, the retired Teamsters.”

Until a few years ago, the potential of the populist left manifested itself primarily in spasmodic street demonstrations such as the antiglobalization “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 and the ragtag Occupy encampments in 2011. Mr. Sanders capitalized on it, transforming from a rumpled fringe candidate into the most popular politician in America. He rocketed from around 6% in the polls among Democrats in 2015 to a 53% favorability rating among all voters last year.

And left-populist voters were decisive in November 2016. Some 12% of those who supported Mr. Sanders in the primaries cast their votes for Mr. Trump, according to political scientist Brian Schaffner. “I’m with her,” Mrs. Clinton’s bumper stickers proclaimed. But populists wanted a candidate who was with them. From her decision not to consider Mr. Sanders for the ticket to her failure to pick up his call for a $15 minimum wage, from her focus on identity politics over pocketbook issues to her campaign’s outreach to anti- Trump Republicans in the suburbs, Bernie voters got the Big Snub.

They snubbed back. Many Sanders supporters stayed home on Election Day. “Donald Trump probably would have lost to Hillary Clinton had Republican- and Democratic-leaning registered voters cast ballots at equal rates,” wrote Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.

Mr. Trump owes his presidency to the populist left. But he’s not respecting them either. He brags about stripping away regulations and a $1.5 trillion tax cut whose benefits mostly go to the wealthy and big corporations, not to mention a stock market whose gains are leaving many Americans behind. It all tells Bernie America that Hillary America was right about the Republicans and Mr. Trump.

Fortunately for the GOP, the national Democrats are as clueless about the populist left as they were in 2016. The choice of Clintonite Tom Perez to run the Democratic National Committee broadcasts the Democrats’ determination to nominate another identitarian left-centrist standard-bearer— Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, maybe even Oprah Winfrey. Anyone but Bernie!

DNC-approved “mainstream” presidential prospects have adopted left-leaning positions on a variety of issues. Yet the populist left doesn’t trust them, and for good reason. Ms. Harris was caught fundraising in the Hamptons; Mr. Booker is too close to bankers; Ms. Gillibrand may have vested too much in #MeToo; Ms. Winfrey is a billionaire arriviste. They’re all silent on the working class.

The populist left won’t flip to the GOP again in 2020. But they won’t turn out for another regular Democrat either. This November? They’ll probably stay home with Netflix .

Mr. Rall is co-author, with Harmon Leon, of “Meet the Deplorables: Infiltrating Trump America,” and author of “Francis: The People’s Pope,” forthcoming in March.

1a) Bernie Sanders' son announces run for Congress.

Levi Sanders, 48, becomes the eighth in a crowded field of Democrats to announce for the empty seat in the 1st District.

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Bernie-Sanderss-son-announces-run-for-Congress-543757

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First

Does the necessity of self-defense leave ‘no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation’?

By John Bolton

The Winter Olympics’ closing ceremonies also concluded North Korea’s propaganda effort to divert attention from its nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. And although President Trump announced more economic sanctions against Pyongyang last week, he also bluntly presaged “Phase Two” of U.S. action against the Kim regime, which “may be a very rough thing.”

CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in January that Pyongyang was within “a handful of months” of being able to deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. How long must America wait before it acts to eliminate that threat?

Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an “imminent threat.” They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.

In assessing the timing of pre-emptive attacks, the classic formulation is Daniel Webster’s test of “necessity.” British forces in 1837 invaded U.S. territory to destroy the steamboat Caroline, which Canadian rebels had used to transport weapons into Ontario.

Webster asserted that Britain failed to show that “the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Pre-emption opponents would argue that Britain should have waited until the Caroline reached Canada before attacking.

Would an American strike today against North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program violate Webster’s necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic-missile age is simply different than in the age of steam. What was once remote is now, as a practical matter, near; what was previously time-consuming to deliver can now arrive in minutes; and the level of destructiveness of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is infinitely greater than that of the steamship Caroline’s weapons cargo.

Timing and distance have long been recognized as surrogate measures defining the seriousness of military threats, thereby serving as criteria to justify pre-emptive political or military actions. In the days of sail, maritime states were recognized as controlling territorial waters (above and below the surface) for three nautical miles out to sea. In the early 18th century, that was the farthest distance cannonballs could reach, hence defining a state’s outer defense perimeter. While some states asserted broader maritime claims, the three-mile limit was widely accepted in Europe.

Technological developments inevitably challenged maritime-state defenses. Over time, many nations extended their territorial claims, but the U.S. adhered to the three-mile limit until World War II. After proclaiming U.S. neutrality in 1939, in large measure to limit the activities of belligerent-power warships and submarines in our waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly realized the three-mile limit was an invitation for aggression. German submarines were sinking ships off the coast within sight of Boston and New York.

In May 1941, Roosevelt told the Pan-American Union that “if the Axis Powers fail to gain control of the seas, then they are certainly defeated.” He explained that our defenses had “to relate . . . to the lightning speed of modern warfare.” He scoffed at those waiting “until bombs actually drop in the streets” of U.S. cities: “Our Bunker Hill of tomorrow may be several thousand miles from Boston.” Accordingly, over time, Roosevelt vastly extended America’s “waters of self defense” to include Greenland, Iceland and even parts of West Africa.

Similarly in 1988, President Reagan unilaterally extended U.S. territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Reagan’s executive order cited U.S. national security and other significant interests in this expansion, and administration officials underlined that a major rationale was making it harder for Soviet spy ships to gather information.

In short, both Roosevelt and Reagan acted unilaterally to adjust to new realities. They did not reify time and distance, or confuse the concrete for the existential. They adjusted the measures to reality, not the reverse.

Although the Caroline criteria are often cited in pre-emption debates, they are merely customary international law, which is interpreted and modified in light of changing state practice. In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007.

This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive “fire and fury” against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current “necessity” posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++