;
By mistake mailed out same memo twice recently. Sorry. My bad.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The only way to win unwinnable and unending wars these days is to immediately go nuclear or am I missing something?
No nation can allow their population to be bombarded/pummeled with constant missile attacks as threatened by Iran.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Portland let's them eat cake. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Another view of Trump and one I am more likely to embrace. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Everyone went bananas today when Trump said he as being lynched but Justice Thomas used the same basic expression when he was seeking confirmation and Democrats were sort of silenced.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Barr has expanded the Durham investigation to include Brennan and Clapper and that will add a new dimension to Durham's investigation. (See 3 below)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) SOCIETY COMMENTARY
Why Portland’s Homeless Problem Is the Worst in the Nation
By Douglas Blair and Joel Griffith
The alleys of Portland, Oregon, are strewn with piles of garbage and used drug needles, reflecting a growing problem of homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness.
Mental illness is now more common among the homeless in Oregon than in any other state. According to a study from 2016, 35-40% of homeless adults in Oregon suffer from some form of mental illness.
The problem is apparent along the Springwater Corridor, a popular biking trail on the east side of Portland that is cherished as peaceful slice of nature hidden from the urban sprawl.
In 2016, a shantytown alongside a 2-mile stretch of the corridor was the largest homeless encampment in the nation. It contained nearly 200 tents and an estimated 500 homeless people.
The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>
In the years since, criminal activity has become a routine occurrence. For example, in August 2018, police arrested a homeless woman for attempting to kidnap a 6-year-old girl playing near the trail. Two months later, a shooting occurred.
This year, an assailant stabbed a man in the arm before fleeing back into the sea of tents.
Unfortunately, the Springwater Corridor is no exception in Portland—it is a microcosm of Oregon’s largest city.
In 2018, Portland was home to an estimated 14,000 chronically homeless people, the vast majority of whom were in Portland, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Portland Police Department has no official policy on clearing out the camps or relocating homeless individuals. Third parties now shoulder the burden of coordinating with the city and obtaining police protection in cleaning up the camps.
Local officials claim to be pursuing solutions, but the “solutions” offered thus far—affordable housing bonds and refusing to enforce prohibitions on camping on public rights of way and in city parks—do nothing to address the lack of mental health treatment and drug abuse problems at the root of this humanitarian crisis.
Nor is this a recent phenomenon. The neglect spans decades.
Oregon first opened the doors of Dammasch State Hospital in 1961 with the aim of treating those afflicted with mental illness. The facility was meant to relieve overcrowding at the larger state hospital in Salem.
More and more individuals flooded into the asylum, and by the 1980s, the newer hospital had also exceeded capacity. The overcrowding, combined with widespread abuse toward patients, worsened.
Rather than reform the mental health treatment system, the state simply closed Dammasch in 1995, releasing the patients—ill-equipped to function independently—onto the streets of Portland. Nearly 25 years later, the homeless, many of whom are addicted to drugs, remain on the streets in the same abhorrent conditions.
In 2016 alone, Portland police seized about 284 pounds of heroin and meth. But those who are afflicted by addiction often never have to confront their habit, at least not due to legal consequences.
Oregon’s drug policy is defined by leniency. Police have neither the resources, nor the backing of their superiors to arrest an individual for being on drugs in public or for having drugs on their person. In practice, heroin and meth are legal.
That isn’t humane. It’s gross governmental dereliction of duty.
Resolving the homelessness crisis requires us to acknowledge the humanity of those afflicted. They are not human refuse; they are people, albeit badly broken.
But fixing the problem requires more than just a token verbal acknowledgment. Part of recognizing their humanity is understanding that the homeless are not merely victims of circumstance. They need help taking the first steps toward reclaiming their lives.
The situation has gotten so bad that it now demands aggressive action at both the city and state levels. The police must be empowered to disperse these camps. Courts should require those in violation of drug laws to seek treatment.
Community detox centers in Portland should become core to the solution. These centers already offer the homeless training in job and social skills. These locally based organizations directly target drug and mental illness issues, but they are underutilized because the city has turned a blind eye to illicit drug use and continues to tolerate street camping.
Another key part of the solution is to give renewed focus to mental health treatment. Sometimes, that may require at least a temporary respite from independent living. Both the general population and the homeless are put at risk by the current situation.
To better serve these individuals, we must remove the stigma surrounding mental health treatment and replace it with understanding. That may be the only hope for these individuals to regain safe, productive lives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2)Sydney M. Williams 30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314 Essex, CT 06426 swtotd.blogspot.com
Thought of the Day
The Appeal of Donald J. Trump” October 13, 2019 “I can’t spare this man. He fights.” Abraham Lincoln on Ulysses Grant, after Grant was criticized for heavy losses at Shiloh, April 1862 Accusations fly furiously around corridors of power in Washington and in newsrooms across the country. Neighbor no longer speaks to neighbor; children are distanced from their parents; colleges promote ideologies rather than encourage debate. Doctors tell us we have become stressed due to harsh and unrelenting political attacks.
Serious debate is ignored, yet issues remain: What kind of government do we want? A state whose tentacles reach deep into our lives, or one based on self-rule that values individual independence? Should we tilt toward socialism or rely on free-market capitalism? For almost a century, the nation has moved away from small government and citizen representatives, toward big government and professional politicians, bureaucrats and administrators – toward a “deep state,” defined by Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, as “consisting of career civil servants who have growing power in the administrative state but work in the shadows.”
Both political parties have perpetuated this trend. Even under Reagan, for example, Washington bureaucracy continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace. But the Left has always been more aggressive. Think of FDR and the New Deal, LBJ and the Great Society and Barack Obama “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” As to when and where it began – the trust-busting policies of regulatory reformers in the late 19th Century, the appointment of J. Edgar Hoover as director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, or the Alphabet Agencies of Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen-year reign – is less important than recognition that an unfortunate consequence has been the expanding influence and power of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and administrators. It has been cozy, tacit arrangements that allowed both political parties to accommodate their special interests. It has permitted political and personal loyalty to germinate and expand within agencies – loyalty toward those who encourage the growth of their responsibilities and treachery toward those who challenge their positions.
Mr. Trump came to Washington to challenge the status quo. He promised to sweep out corruption and cronyism. From the get-go, his actions created resistance, which has blossomed. The ‘Resistance’ was founded on the belief that Mr. Trump had been illegally elected President, and that he had put democracy at risk. Whereas reality was that cozy, federal jobs were at risk – jobs that on average pay fifty percent more than equivalent private sector jobs, with better benefits and greater job security. Tools of the ‘Resistance’ includes defiance, leaks to the media and intimidation of Trump appointees. They have been abetted by reporters consumed with hatred toward a man who had the gall to question their objectivity. In no part of government has this been truer than in the intelligence community. On January 3, 2017, newly elected President Trump expressed criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies. That same day Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community – they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
History suggests Senator Schumer’s forecast to be accurate. The backlash against Mr. Trump has been relentless, notably by biased, ethically challenged men like John Brennan, James Comey and James Clapper. In fact, Mr. Comey, the former (and fired) Director of the FBI, told Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times last Saturday that he “pledged to spend the next 13 months working to drive Mr. Trump from power” – not words one would expect from a member of the federal bureaucracy. These are men who claim to have the interests of Country, but are, in fact, seeking to line their own pockets, while doing their utmost to destroy a duly elected President. None of this has deterred Donald Trump.
He ran (and won), at least in part, on his promise to “drain the swamp.” Like an energizer bunny, he went to work. He increased employment while decreasing unemployment. He put through a tax bill that hurt the wealthy in high-income states, while lowering taxes for low-and-middle-income people. He moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and made NATO nations pay a higher percentage of their own defense. He took on China for its unfair trade practices and for stealing our technology, and he abandoned the Paris Peace Treaty whose only purpose was to make signatories feel good about themselves. He re-fashioned NAFTA, while bringing home thousands of manufacturing jobs. He helped make the U.S. energy independent for the first time in decades. And he has told no foreign leader that he “will have more flexibility after the next election.”
Mr. Trump does not speak in the sophisticated, euphonious tones of his predecessor. He doesn’t exhibit the gentlemanly, effete attitude of so many of his fellow Republicans. He is crude and uncouth; he exaggerates. His words clash, and his metaphors get mixed; he uses too many adverbs and adjectives and, at times, appears incoherent. He does not always seem to think through what he is saying or doing. Referring to his decision to leave Syria, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that his foreign policy is “tactical,” not “strategic.” I am not so sure. After being criticized by all sides for announcing the withdrawal of the remaining 1000 U.S. troops in Syria, consider his explanation at a rally in Minneapolis – after eighteen years, with 4,400 dead and almost eight trillion U.S. tax dollars spent, the Middle East is “less safe, less stable and less secure than it was.” He might also have mentioned the flood of refugees that inundated Europe.
So, whose policy displayed the better strategy – his, or that of the two previous Administrations? Perhaps because of his successes and despite the constant battering he receives, Mr. Trump retains one trait his supporters admire: He does not give up. Like Ulysses S. Grant, he fights. He is not part of the establishment and his loyalty is not to the elite; it is to the people who elected him. Until he became President, he had never been a politician. He has no embedded, loyal bureaucrats to protect, or to protect him. Unlike most of his predecessors, but like most of his constituents, he did not build a career in public service.
Amidst a pack of professional politicians, he is a citizen President. He does not use identity politics to separate voters into segregated camps. Like most of his supporters, he looks upon people as individuals. He believes in old fashioned concepts, like aspiration, ability, diligence, hard work, meritocracy, independence and family. He shuns dependency, sloth and excuses. He understands that success and failure are natural aspects of life, and he recognizes that luck plays a critical goal. A good character is always preferable to a bad one. Not knowing Mr. Trump, I cannot vouch for his, but I suspect it does not fit my ideal.
But elections are not about discovering perfection but seeking the best alternative. I have seen nothing in any of the candidates now campaigning for their Party’s nomination that suggests a more honest, forthright individual. Certainly, we did not have that in 2016. With Mr. Trump, there is no hidden agenda. That truth was expressed by none other than Hillary Clinton on a recent PBS News Hour: “I said during the campaign, there was no other Donald Trump. What you saw was what you were going to get.” Mrs. Clinton inadvertently touched on another reason for Mr. Trump’s appeal. He is without deceit, a quality one could not apply to Mrs. Clinton. With Mr. Trump you do get what you pay for. Most important, though, he fights. He fights for all those forgotten, working, “deplorable” Americans, those who live apart from the coasts and the elite denizens who inhabit their murky waters. Love him or hate him, that is the appeal of Donald J. Trump
2a) Here is the CNN Headline:
US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden
And here is the major summary introduction to the article:
The Top US diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor testified Tuesday that he had been told President Donald Trump would withhold military aid to the country until it publicly declared investigations would be launched that could help his reelection chances — including into former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Taylor's opening statement obtained by CNN.
And here is the quote from the testimony:
"During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election," according to the testimony.
What is it that I am missing here? The headline trumpets as fact that Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine would investigate Biden. The summary states as fact that aid would be withheld until Ukraine publicly declared it would launch an investigation that could help his reelection chances. But the quoted statement that leads the article says that Trump wanted Ukraine to publicly state it would investigate Burisma and Ukrainian influence in the 2016 US election.
What a blatant example of the press presenting opinion as fact. And the opinion seems a stretch. Burisma was under investigation when Joe Biden asked that the prosecutor be fired. Why is it OK for the Obama Administration to investigate Russian influence in the 2016, but the Trump Administration cannot investigate Ukrainian influence in the same election?
It seems pretty clear to me that the Democrats have no intention of impeaching Trump. Their strategy is to continue this stream of classified interviews and release misrepresentations as fact in order to create the impression that Trump is impeachable. As long as they stay on their current mode, Republicans cannot get the opportunity to cross examine and call other witnesses. This is perhaps the worst example of abuse of power since the McCarthy hearings.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
NBC News: AG Barr Approved Expansion of Durham Probe to Include Scrutiny of Brennan, Clapper
By Guy Benson
investigation had been expanded. NBC News has added more details
as former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-Director of National
intelligence figures, such as former CIA Director John Brennan and
ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:
A review launched by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of
the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid concerns
about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis, multiple current
and former officials told NBC News. The prosecutor conducting the
review, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, has expressed his
intent to interview a number of current and former intelligence officials
involved in examining Russia’s effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former
director of national intelligence James Clapper, Brennan told NBC News.
Brennan and Clapper, each of whom has serious issues with the truth, have been active partisan combatants in the Trump era, as have several of their law enforcement counterparts -- including the former FBI director, who was reprimanded for misconduct on leaks, and his top deputy, who was fired for repeatedly lying under oath. Brennan went so far as to describe some of President Trump's (admittedly weak and embarrassing) conduct as "treasonous." The extent to which Brennan and Clapper et al were involved in any potential wrongdoing or envelope-pushing is an interesting and valid subject for exploration. And as Ed Morrissey points out, NBC's revelation that some intelligence officials are reportedly obtaining legal counsel amid Durham's inquiry is intriguing:
Barr almost certainly approved this expansion and direction
because of what Durham has already found. And what Durham
has already found, NBC notes, has intelligence operatives lawyering
up...The DoJ made sure to note at the beginning that Durham
was conducting an internal review, not a criminal investigation,
although there was nothing to prevent it from developing into one.
The DoJ does not comment on the existence of criminal
investigations until they either close one or get an indictment —
with a couple of notable James Comey-related exceptions — and
they’re not talking now, either. These developments, however, make
it look like Durham has turned the corner from review to full-blown
criminal investigation. At least that’s the impression that some of
the people involved must have.
There's no timeline on when Durham's Barr-backed investigation will
wrap up, or when the public may get access to its findings. The fact
that Brennan and Clapper are apparently slated to be interviewed does
not necessarily mean that they're in any legal or ethical peril
themselves, but it does suggest that Durham's (fully justified and
appropriate) review is going to be comprehensive. More from Ed:
...the interest in Clapper and Brennan seems pretty noteworthy.
Durham will need to have his ducks in a row before deposing both
men, who have been pretty slippery in public comments on a wide
range of issues. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate
are still angry over Clapper’s flat-out lies in testimony about
domestic surveillance, which cost Clapper absolutely nothing in
that instance. If either of the two men think Durham will let them
get away with that in their “interviews,” however, maybe they’d
better lawyer up too.
Meanwhile, less comprehensive -- but still highly anticipated -- is the
Justice Department Inspector General's report on possible FISA or
other investigative abuses over the course of the Trump/Russia probe.
There were rumors that IG Michael Horowitz's determinations were
going to drop late last week, but the redaction process is still reportedly
underway. The more recent buzz is that the redacted document will
emerge around the end of October:
Horowitz announced the completion of his inquiry approximately five
weeks ago. Tick tock
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment