Candidate Debate Conduct – Take the Microphone away from Donald Trump

Tuesday night is set for another Republican Presidential Debate on CNN. Hopefully, CNN will not repeat its cage match style debate format that it employed during the first debate it hosted. Fortunately, Wolf Blitzer and not Jake Tapper will be the main moderator. Wolf is too smart to repeat the debacle of the first CNN debate. However, due to the outrageous statements that have been made by Donald Trump, questions will need to be posed regarding the positions that he has stated.

The questions should be posed to Mr. Trump directly and not indirectly through his opposing candidates. Any “Trump” question that are asked directly to another candidate should be responded with a: “Mr. Trump’s has a right to his own position. My position is …” As much as possible, every candidate should avoid any statement that gives Donald Trump extra time to respond because he may have been attacked in another candidate’s response.

And, if the moderator gives Mr. Trump extra time merely because someone states; “Mr. Trump has a right to his own position,” the candidates should object on the basis that their response did not take issue with anything Mr. Trump has stated but rather just made a declarative statement regarding their own position on the issue.

This is a strategy to allow thoughtful people discuss the issues we are facing while minimizing the carnival barking as much as possible.

It is time to take the microphone away from Donald Trump!

Donald Trump will never become President of the United States nor will he become the Republican Party’s nominee. American is already too great to have someone as crude as Donald Trump represent it in any way. He will not run as an independent either. He is too much of a “winner” to knowingly take on a position that even he knows will have no chance of doing anything other than hurt the nation by further dividing it. Donald Trump, your best move would be to drop out of the race right now while you are still on top. That way you can forever tell people that you could have been the POTUS but did not want it. The only other alternative is that you flame out and live the rest of your life as a “loser.” It is only Mr. Trump’s repeated invocation of his being a winner and his demeaning of lesser polling candidates that will make him a loser. Other candidates that have conducted themselves with common decency towards their fellow candidates can withdraw at any time with dignity.

What I Want in My Next President

Principle. That is it, plain old principle.

The type of principle that lays out the objectives, some practical policies that could achieve the stated objectives and the expressed willingness to debate matters with both sides of the aisle in order to pass laws aimed at achieving the objectives.

Here are sample objectives: control immigration into America, repatriating the trillions of dollars American corporations have overseas, eradicating ISIS, identifying terrorists before they strike us here at home, creating more middle class jobs, assuring equal opportunities to all Americans, improving our healthcare system, assuring a habitable environment, assuring that justice is truly blind.

Other example objectives that are not as high on my priority are: eliminating income inequality, reducing greenhouse gasses, affirmative action, political correctness. These are low on my priority because they are sub-objectives of some of the objectives laid out in the paragraph above.

I want a candidate to say that my objective is to get American corporations to bring back the trillions of dollars they currently have stashed overseas because they do not want to pay taxes on that money. My plan to do this, and to prevent large American corporations from relocating their corporate headquarters overseas, is to change our tax policy to be more in-line with the rest of the developed world. Why would companies bring their money back here if we tax them more than any other country in the world? To make up for the lost revenue resulting from the lower tax rate, I propose that the following corporate tax exemptions be eliminated (enter appropriate items here). I do not expect that the elimination of these exemptions will fully offset the lost revenue from reduced tax rates. However, the status quo will result in no tax revenue as the money will stay overseas. Furthermore, these trillions of dollars when brought back to America can be used by corporations to distribute as dividends to its shareholders and/or to invest in research and development and/or infrastructure investments that the company needs to further grow its business. I plan to layout the outline of my plan for discussions with the leaders of both parties so that we can together build upon my ideas and most likely come up with a better plan. But, the underlying principle is to repatriate the money to America so it can be used to help stimulate our economy.

I would also like to hear a candidate say that my objective is to control immigration into America. This means controlling our borders once and for all, establishing controls on those who enter our nation on valid visas but never leave, and it means vetting all immigrants and visitors before they reach our soil. This will require an expenditure of $X billion and I propose that we pay for this by charging visa fees, immigration fees, and other methods (hopefully, the candidate has more ideas than I do). We will not build a wall across the Mexican border but we will construct a double fence with sensors to detect possible invaders and sufficient border patrol personnel to be able to intercept these invaders. I plan to layout the outline of my plan for discussions with the leaders of both parties so that we can together build upon my ideas and most likely come up with a better plan. But, the underlying principle is to keep America safe by stopping the flow of illegal immigration, and assuring that those we allow to enter America do not intend to harm us.

I really want to hear: I am going to eradicate ISIS and any other terrorists group that controls territory and/or assets that can be used to plan, direct or conduct strikes against American interests’ particular strikes against the homeland and our citizens.  I plan to do this with special operations forces and our Arab and NATO partners. We and our NATO partners will provide several thousand special operation forces and air support for the mission. Our Arab allies will provide infantry ground forces to establish control of the territory seized. ISIS is reported to have upwards of 40,000 soldiers and they control several hundred square miles of territory. That means that those 40,000 soldiers are spread out over a large swath of land including several towns. We will attack one town at a time and do it slowly. By progressing slowly, we will allow ISIS reinforcements from other towns to attempt to join the fight. And when they travel across open roads to get to where we are fighting, we will hit them with air strikes. We will conduct this operation one town at a time and when we move on from one town to the next, we will leave our Arab allies to establish a temporary military led government until the local country can govern themselves. Any assets we seize from ISIS during this operation such as oil fields will be used to generate revenue to pay for a portion of our continuing eradication of ISIS. I will have our generals work with our allies to develop such plans and I will hold discussions with the leaders of both parties so that we can together build upon my ideas and most likely come up with a better plan. But, the underlying principle is to eradicate ISIS.

The above three examples are what I want to see in our political discourse. Principles of what we should achieve. Discussions of both the principles and policies to achieve these principles and a stated willingness to compromise. I can accept some red lines on the objectives, but I cannot accept a politician that will not compromise on the how-to-get-there details.

I do not want pages and pages of policy wonk. I want some good ideas to gauge the candidates understanding of the issues but I do not want a fully developed pan on a specific objective. I want political discourse from both sides of America to participate so that everybody can buy-in to the plan.

This is the America I remember when I was a much younger man. It is the America I want back.

Donald Trump is Mr. Scrooge

But little Timmy will never touch his heart. I opined a few months ago that Donald Trump had disqualified himself when he criticized Carli Fiorina’s looks. I believed that personal attack was an insult too far. Now it seems that most Americans believe that the “bar all Muslims” is an insult too far. Welcome to my world view. Glad you could come along. Unfortunately, the die-hard Trump backers will not be deterred. In fact, many of them will be more fanatical in their support for Mr. Trump than ever. This is a shame. It paints a picture of an underbelly of America that has been so infuriated by the current administration’s incompetence that it will support a grotesque man just because he points out the incompetence that we all abhor.

Why do I call Mr. Trump grotesque? Because he has stated: 1) Mexicans are rapists; 2) the Mexican government deports their criminals to America; 3) Jeb Bush has to like Mexicans because he married one; 4) Carli Fiorina is ugly; 5) Megan Kelly is bleeding out of who knows where; 6) other candidates have no right to be on the debate stage because their poll numbers are too low; 7) he Tweeted incorrect statistics on racial crimes; 8) he mocked a disabled journalist, AND 9) because he is a bigot that has called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the world’s most successful melting pot. This is behavior for which most of us would scold our children. It is not the behavior of a president.

Mr. Trump’s campaign is based on his being a “winner.” He will fix everything because he is a winner and to prove it he says “just look at my poll numbers.” His poll numbers are the highest among the Republican candidates because he more clearly than any other candidate identifies the incompetence of the Obama administration and because he is a celebrity that knows “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Sometimes plain talk can subtly covey deep meaning. Sometimes plain talk can be just the babbling of someone out of their league attempting to discuss complex issues. Mr. Trump’s plain talk falls into the category of the latter. Yes, he stirs emotions regarding the issues Americans care about; the threat of terrorism, the slowness of our economic recovery, the porousness of our borders, the rise of ISIS, and the lack of our government to do anything to fix these issue. But to each of these issues, Mr. Trump has stated that he will build a wall, hire great people, be a fantastic military leader and make America great again. Beyond causing some bleeding, Mr. Trump offers no solutions.

Mr. Trump is feeling the heat from the throngs of Republicans who, up to this point, were tolerating his crudeness. I even defended him in a previous article when I took John Harwood to task for asking another candidate during a debate if, when he looks at Mr. Trump “do you see someone with the moral character to be the leader of the free world?” At that point, the question was premature and out of line. Today I believe that the question is appropriate. And, my answer is NO! Mr. Trump does not have the moral character to be the leader of the free world.

And now he will become Mr. Scrooge. Eventually, he will get tired of the harassment that will not go away. He has earned this harassment and he will receive it. Then he will leave the Republican Party, run as an Independent and take 15% of the Republican voters with him. Good riddance. I would rather lose to Hillary Clinton than have Donald Trump represent the Republican Party. Although I am a registered independent myself, I have great respect for the Republican Party. It is the only defense our country has against the craziness of the leftist, progressive movement.

The People on Our Televisions

This is just something I wrote for fun. What follows are quick, drive-by glimpses of the people that keep popping up on our TV screens and what impressions they have left on me.

Hillary Clinton:              Do I have to campaign? Can I not just move into the White House now? BTW, I was the Secretary of State for four years and never sent a classified email. Well, none of them were marked as being classified.

President Obama:        I see nothing, I hear noting, I know noting. Please let these 13 months pass quickly. Yes, Hillary, you can have this job now.

Bernie Sanders:            Whoa baby, people are really listening to me! I think this income inequality thing is going to get me somewhere.

Marco Rubio:                Demographics is destiny – so why is Ted Cruz raining on my parade? BTW, I am the son of a bartender and a maid. I am the American dream.

Jeb Bush:                     So what if nobody will vote for me; I have the most money and I’m not really as wimpy as I look. And, BTW, I was the American dream.

Donald Trump:             If it bleeds it leads. And, that is how I poll. Come to think of it, I campaign that way too.

A Trump Supporter:      Duh, isn’t the Donald cool? He talks just like me do.

Jeffrey Lord:                 Can you believe that the media allow me to speak as though I am Donald Trump’s spokesperson? I can say anything I want and people think I am speaking on behalf of the Donald. It’s great for Donald. He can disown anything I say because I am really a nobody. You have to love this whole Donald gig. The media don’t know what ethics are - do they” (Think about it CNN.)

Ted Cruz:                      I’m Cuban-American too. And, I can get the Donald Trump voters. I hope those people really go out and vote. I am the smartest guy in the room. BTW, I will crush Hillary in a head-to-head debate.

Ben Carson:                 I am a brain surgeon and I went to Turkey once in my life. That’s a better resume then a community organizer. Yawn.

Chris Christie:               I was supposed to be the tough guy. When will Donald just go away? I actually fought terrorism and was a red governor in a blue state.

All Other Candidates:   How long should I stay in the race? Have I been in long enough for the nominee to pick me as the veep? Or secretary of state, defense secretary, treasury secretary, attorney general, surgeon general, or maybe the next apprentice? (Will you all just go away, please?)

Anthony Kennedy:        The country is evenly split and the legislators cannot make a new law if they all somehow, miraculously found agreement on something. It’s good to be the king. (Okay, Anthony Kennedy does not show up on our television screens. But the Supreme Court is discussed a lot.)

Vladimir Putin:              The West fears me, my people love me. It’s good to be the Czar. Obama has 13 months, I have as long as I want. Which country should I conquer next? I guess I should do a few more while Obama is still around. Maybe I can cause some world panic to get the price of oil back up again. Maybe I’ll have the Iranians shut down the Strait of Hormuz. I have to get something out of sending my military to Syria.

Okay, fun is over. Go back to work.

The President, Terrorism, Radical Islamism, and a Dream (but it's just a dream)

It has been four days since the terrorist attack in San Bernardino and finally the President has scheduled time to address the nation. His address will be at 8PM EST tonight, Sunday, December 6, 2015. Out of pure frustration, I have dreamed up the address that I would like to hear. Here is my dream …………..

My fellow Americans, this past Wednesday our nation was brutally attacked by a couple of cowards that sought to gain glory by creating a sense of fear that our freedoms are no longer our inalienable right. They used the very freedoms they assailed to perpetrate their act of cowardness. I apologize for not speaking to you sooner. I should have made this address on Wednesday night.

Whereas many if not most Americans believed that this cowardly act was in fact terrorism right from the start, I thought it best to make sure of the facts first. I originally believed that it could just as easily have been an act of workplace violence as it could have been terrorism. I did not want to jump to conclusions and tar the reputation of the perpetrators when they very well may have just been disgruntled people. I jumped to conclusions in the past; as in the Cambridge Massachusetts case where I incorrectly stated that the police had acted stupidly; and in the Trayvon Martin case where I stated that if I had a son that he would look like Trayvon. I should not have prejudiced those cases before the facts were known and I did not want to do that again.

I have contemplated my delay in this particular case and have concluded that this was a case where my quick response was necessary and that I failed in this regard. Fourteen Americans were killed and another twenty-one were wounded. I should not have worried about the reputation of the perpetrators. Even if they were just disgruntled people, they were cold blooded murderers. To be honest, I was also afraid of tarnishing the Muslim faith but I will discuss that in a few minutes. The nation deserved to have a President similar to the French President who took quick, decisive actions to assure the French people that its government was responding with every possible resource to determine the extent of the ongoing threat and to mitigate that threat. Once I realized my failing in this regard, I contemplated other things that I am going to change in order to regain you confidence.

First I am not going to be passive aggressive towards the men and women that protect us every day, the police of our great nation. I have been silent for far too long on this and have allowed some in our society to criticize and even demonize these protectors of law and order. I do believe that people of color have suffered past injustices in our society but I also believe that our society has taken extraordinary steps to address these injustices. Today, a person of color has all the opportunities that our great nation makes available to all its citizens. We as people of color need to take advantage of the opportunities that have been made available to us. We must not point the finger of blame at anyone else if we fail to do so. Black lives do matter but that is because all lives matter; black, white, yellow, brown and blue. There are some bad policemen and we must be vigilant to identify them and remove them from their positions of authority. If necessary, we will bring them to justice. But we must stop demonizing all policemen. At this time of crisis and increased terrorism, we need our police. The very police that are now needed the most have been demoralized because of my lack of support. I hope that this statement reinforces to every man and women in blue that they have my full support and backing and they have the full support and backing of all law abiding Americans. At this time, we need you. We need you to be proactive without worrying about being second guessed.

To people of color, I am not abandoning you. I realize that there are still pockets of racism in our society. There always will be. We must deal with it while recognizing the progress we have made and the opportunities we have gained. With these opportunities, we must now achieve. The achievement of one person of color will aspire ten more. We must pursue this path of individual achievement that will grow into a community of achievement. That is how we will eliminate the inequities that some now see. In the meantime, thank your local police for keeping you safe.

Next, I have to address my obsession with the Muslim faith. I have previously related my wonderful childhood memories of the beautiful call to prayers that I experienced as a little boy in Indonesia. I have gone out of my way to be the champion of the minority and that has included people of the Muslim faith. I will continue to be such a champion, but I now realize that my engineering of the English language is not helping. Many Americans refer to the terrorist threat we are facing as radical Islamist terrorism. I have fought any such identification as I feared that it would incorrectly portray all Muslims as terrorists. Upon self-reflection, I realize that this is wrong. Every group of our society has bad elements. We all realize that one bad Christian does not equate to all Christians being bad people. Likewise we must realize that a group of bad Muslims does not equate to all Muslims being bad people. The San Bernardino female terrorist pledged her allegiance to the Islamic State.  The Islamic State is using a perverted form of the Islamic faith to recruit terrorists. If our enemy calls themselves Muslims, we must also call them Muslims – radical Muslims. To this end, from this point forward I will address the war we are now facing as a war against radical Islamism. I will also direct my entire administration to do the same. We must identify the enemy we are facing it we are to defeat it.

To people of the great Muslim faith. I am not abandoning you. I wish to eradicate the horrific violence that people perpetrate while fraudulently invoking the name of your great faith. Furthermore, I need you to stand with me and all Americans and denounce the radical Islamists as fraudulent postulators of your faith. All Americans must stand with the good people of the Muslim faith as fellow American citizens. As this is a global war, we must also stand with the good Muslims of Syria, Iraq, Libya and wherever else radical Islamists threaten and harm our fellow citizens of the world.

Finally I now realize that my delay in addressing this festering radical Islamist movement has, and will continue to cost American civilian lives. It was my hope that engaging the radical Islamist world with an olive branch rather than with a riffle would stop the radical Islamist attacks against freedom. The attacks in just the past few weeks, Paris, Turkey, San Bernardino, have proven me wrong. We are now under a full-out assault from these radical Islamist terrorists and I must inform all Americans that these attacks will become more frequent and more violent until we remove the scourge from which this terrorism stems – radical Islamism.

The San Bernardino attack is the threat we will face in the homeland. A lone wolf or a handful of lone wolves that live in despair and are somehow touched by the call to radical Islamism. These individuals must seem insignificant to themselves and they must believe that their affiliation with radical Islamism gives them eternal meaning and rewards. I have allowed the image of radical Islamism grow to the point that these lost individuals believe they are teaming up with a cause and even a state that will eventually rule the entire globe. They believe that their act of terrorism will contribute to this end goal of world domination by radical Islamism. My delay in eradicating radical Islamism from the world has allowed this aura of radical Islamism dominance to rise and to persist for far too long. Along with the rise of the Islamic State has been the rise of lone wolves around the world that are now ready to strike us.

We must eradicate radial Islamism by destroying ISIS on the battlefield, take their territory, eliminate their sources of funding, and kill them. We must show the world that goodness will prevail over evil. This will eventually stop the radicalization of lone wolves. However, in the short term, the large number of lone wolves that already exist will lash back at us. We will not only be fighting radical Islamism in Syria, we will be fighting them here at home too.

To protect Americans, I am ordering a full out military campaign to eradicate the Islamic State. I will be coordinating our military actions with our Arab and NATO allies. I am declaring a state of emergency in the homeland just as President Hollande did in France. This will allow law enforcement to more thoroughly and quickly hunt down lone wolves. I am directing the joint chiefs to develop plans for military raids into Libya, West Africa and all other hot spots of radical Islamism. America will cause the radical Islamists to run like rats and to be squashed like roaches. We will create a world where there will be nothing aspirational about radical Islamism.

My fellow Americans, you too must participate in the war against radical Islamism. If you see something say something. We cannot allow political correctness to prevent us from using our common sense that can prevent terrorists’ attacks. Unfortunately, my poor example of over-done political correctness resulted in citizens being afraid of saying something prior to the San Bernardino attack because they were afraid of being stigmatized as anti-Muslim. We are in the battle for our existence, forget about political correctness. 

Americans that are licensed and qualified to use firearms should be prepared to use them. If you are at the scene of a terrorist attack, you can respond immediately. The police will come, but never in time.

Together with our Arab and NATO allies, we will defeat radical Islamism both in their homeland and here in our homeland. We will make the world a safe place again.

Thank you and God bless America.

__________________________________________________________

Okay, it’s just a dream but I bet you’re dreaming it too. The nightmare is that the President has another thirteen months left in office. Imagine how much worse things can get in thirteen months. If the President does not recognize radical Islamism as the existential threat that it is – he should recuse himself as President. The existential threat is actually the President’s blind spot with regard to radical Islamism. With leadership we can defeat radical Islamism. Can we wait thirteen months for leadership?

Why Calling San Bernardino Terrorism is Important

Because America is frightened and we need to see decisiveness and action. Instead of action, we have the Confuser-in-Chief making a public statement that “it might be terrorism but it may also be workforce violence.” What Americans are hearing is: "this is no big deal unless we find out some more, so don’t worry about it." But we are not only worried, we are terrified.

Nobody wants to preclude the perpetrators their civil rights of finding out the truth. Maybe they will be cleared of any terrorism related activities. But they will still be cold blooded murderers. The point right now is not their involvement with terrorism, it is that terrorists are among us. The news media have stated that the perpetrators had been radicalized and that they had contact with known international terrorists. Ninety-nine point nine percent of Americans believe that this was a terrorist attack.

Political correctness can and will result in American deaths.

Rather than NOT calling this terrorism until we have fully investigated the circumstances (for who knows how long) – we need to say this is almost certainly an act of terrorism and we are acting as though it was inspired and/or directed by either ISIS or al Qaeda. As a result, we are raising the terror threat and taking all possible actions to protect the American people.

Americans need to know that their government is chasing down every possible terrorist that could be affiliated with this attack. We need to know if there are other planned attacks – or at least that our government is attempting to find out. We need to know that the NSA has traced back everyone these murderers have contacted in the last two years. We need to know that our government is taking this seriously. Confusion is not making anyone (other than the President) feel any better about this situation.

The FBI spokesperson consistently stating that we will follow the investigation where ever it leads us is not comforting. I don’t want us to be following the terrorists. I want to be out front hunting them down before they hunt us down.

Please Mr. President, be a leader and get out in front of this. Protecting the image of American Muslims is not the immediate need right now. The immediate need is the protection of American lives.
__________________________________________________________

Note: Approximately one hour after the above article was posted, the FBI made a statement noting that the investigating is now being conducted under the assumption of an act of terrorism.  However, the President of the United States, almost twenty-four hours after the FBI's announcement has yet to address the nation. We have been attacked Mr. President, where are you?

Time to Send Troops to Syria

When America was viciously attached on 9-1-2001, Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked. That invocation was a unanimous vote by all NATO members that declared the attack of 9-11 was an attack against all NATO members. As a result, several NATO members (including France) sent troops into Afghanistan to assist America in rooting out the Taliban (who gave al Qaeda a safe haven).

President Obama has stated that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that President Bush took his eye off the ball when he went to war with Iraq. President Obama made the point that the Afghanistan is where the focus should have stayed – because the 9-11 terrorists originated from Afghanistan.

Now France has been viciously attacked by a terrorist group that is headquartered in Syria. It is not only a debt that we owe to France, it is in our national interest to send troops to Syria. How long will we allow these radical Islamists to attack civilized people? In our gut, we all know there will be more. Why do we not act to prevent as much as we can - as soon as we can?

Using as many Arab armies or militiamen as possible to root out ISIS is a great idea. But I am not willing to wait for the Iraq army to be trained. Nor am I willing to wait for the President to arm the Kurds. This is an urgent mission. We have not contained ISIS, we cannot contain ISIS and they are out to get us. Even if we killed them all tomorrow, they have planted roots throughout the world that will continue to conduct atrocities. Until the image of ISIS as a powerful and inspiring caliphate is erased, they will continue to plant more roots. It is time to erase that image by erasing the ISIS army in Syria and Iraq.

Tick-Tock it is Putin’s Clock – and the World Awaits

Putin is in a world of hurt inside his homeland. The economy is in recession (near depression) and the price of oil is not going to rise for at least three years. Worse yet, America will start exporting natural gas soon. We have plenty of natural gas that can be liquefied and shipped abroad. We could put Russia out of business.

Here is a link on a Bloomberg story about terminals being built on the Gulf Coast to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG): http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-06/u-dot-s-dot-natural-gas-exports-will-fire-up-in-2015. We should be building more of these LNG shipping ports.

With the low cost of natural gas in America, more than half the rigs have stopped producing because of the economics. With foreign buyers, many of those rigs could come back online and pose a serious threat to Russia’s natural gas sales. Russia’s economy is already suffering due to low energy prices, competition from America could cause it to crater. And, we should make it crater. Couple low energy prices, more competition and the oligarchs having their foreign bank accounts frozen and I bet good old Vladimir is having a tough time with his oligarch buddies. Surprisingly though, his popularity among the Russian people has not tumbled. In fact, due to his foreign military interventions in Crimea/Ukraine, Putin is riding high. The Russians are clamoring to get their old empire back and Putin is looking like the guy to do it. How long will the Russians suffer economic depression while cheering Putin into battle?

Now comes Russia’s involvement in Syria. I have previously expressed the belief that Putin is attempting to wrestle control of the entire Middle East region. Control that region and Putin believes that he can control the price of oil and therefore improve the Russian economy. Putin did not think he would wind up on the wrong end of an ISIS airline bombing. But here he is. And what will he do now? The clock is counting down to Putin’s response to the ISIS bombing.

It is painfully obvious that the Egyptians do not want to call the airline bombing a terrorist attack. Tourism is Egypt’s largest industry. They do not want to admit that terrorists infiltrated their airport and killed tourists. They are trying their best to find something else to call it. Maybe something exploded on the plane by accident – maybe it was lithium batteries. Maybe, but nobody is believing that at this point. Too many intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad, MI5) have already stated: it was terrorism and it was ISIS.

Putin knows what happened on that plane and the stalling Egyptians are giving Putin the time he needs to plan and set in motion his strike back at ISIS. Putin has already told the Russian people that his government will do everything it can to protect the Russian people from terrorists. That means Putin will make ISIS the focus of his mission to prop up Syrian President al-Assad.  And his focus will be razor sharp. If you are a member of ISIs and living in Syria – you better run and hide. The Russians are coming to get you. Unlike the Americans, the Russians do not care if they have to kill some civilians along the way. They operate under the assumption that collateral damage is unavoidable. Also unavoidable is the mass killing of ISIS that is about to commence.

Tick-tock, it is Putin’s clock. He will tell the Egyptians when it is time to call a spade a spade. By that time, he will have his attack plans finalized and military assets in place. It will be just a matter of placing a phone call. Then all hell will break out in Syria. I just hope that there are enough diplomats in the world with enough foresight and savvy to figure out how to get the ensuing war under control. Otherwise, it could become, at the very least, a regional war. It could become a Sunni-Shia regional war that could spread beyond the Middle East. World powers could get entangled. Once world powers become entangled with no control over the little countries feuding among themselves, the table is set for big trouble.

This is a very scary moment in history. It reminds me of the BBC documentary “37 Days.” I recommend watching that documentary. It lays out the bumbled 37 days of diplomacy that ended with the start of World War I. Watch that documentary and you will realize how stupid little regional conflicts can get out of control.

Maybe the diplomats will find other ways to help Russia improve its economy (other than its planned Syrian war and Middle East takeover). If it will prevent WWIII then I am for it. However, if we do not get to that point, then I revert back to my position of putting Russia out of business. If we can get the Russian people to realize that Putin is not going to provide them with the basic necessities of life, maybe they will vote him out of office. Okay, I am a dreamer, but it is worth a chance.

The Intersection of Income Inequality and Obamacare

If you work for the government, work for a large corporation, or are on Medicare, Obamacare does not impact you very much.  If you work for a living at a place that does not offer healthcare benefits, Obamacare is center-stage in your life. Obamacare was supposed to help these people. It has not. Obamacare was supposed to bring the cost of healthcare down. It has not. Obamacare was supposed to allow people to keep their doctors and their health plans: “If you like them, you can keep them.” It has not.

Obamacare was the theme of the 2008 hope and change campaign. Now we are getting ready for the 2016 election cycle and the Democrats’ campaign theme has already been laid out by the three potential Party nominees: income inequality.

President Obama started the income inequality discussion back in 2008 and has dropped the phrase a few times since, but he has not done anything about it. Now Senator Sanders has made it the Democrat Party platform and Secretary Clinton and Governor O’Malley have joined Senator Sanders in taking up the cause.

The thing is, Obamacare is one of the causes of income inequality. With all the good intentions that Obamacare started with, it has resulted in the cost of health care being more expensive; and out of reach for the little guy. Yes, if you do not make a lot of money you can get a government subsidy to help you purchase health care, but it is not enough. Many Americans cannot afford the health care premiums even with government subsidies. If you do not qualify for a subsidy you are now paying at least 50% more than you used to and your out-of-pocket deductible has tripled.  Health care for my wife and me this year will cost about $20K. Before Obamacare it was $6K. But, I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it. Many people cannot.

Obamacare cannot be fixed. It has a flawed structure. The structure of health care in America is broken. Tweaking this broken system will do nothing but prolong our pain.

I am a conservative – not a socialist. But, I believe we need socialized health care just as we need social security. If you are one of the lucky people that work for the government or work for a large “self-insured” employer that does not have to meet all the Obamacare requirements, you rightly should disagree with me. My proposed solution will disrupt your high-quality health care benefits for which you pay pennies on the dollar (your employer is picking up most of the tab). I know people are complaining about companies forcing them to pay more of the share – the complainers know nothing of the self-insured’s nightmare. Members of Congress know even less.

Our society has gone too far down the greed path. Yes, I am a conservative and I am stating that we need regulation to protect our society from greed. Regulation is not a dirty word. In fact, dirt is one of the things we regulate so that greed does not cause us to pollute the air we breathe. I think that is a good thing. If you disagree, go live in an industrial area in China for a month. When you come back, let me know if you still disagree.

Many workers toil a long work week but do not get paid enough to rise above poverty. They do not receive health care benefits and they cannot afford to purchase it on their own. And, if they do not purchase it, the government levies a tax on them. That cannot be America. It is not the America I want.

Big companies provide good wages and health care benefits to their employees. But, for the work they consider not to be their “core competency” they outsource. They hire a subcontractor based on the lowest bid. That lowest bid is based on a low wage and no benefits: no paid sick pay, no paid vacation, no retirement plan, and no health care. These are all jobs that large corporations used to do with their own employees: cleaning, landscaping, security, answering the phone, technical support, and on and on. They are middle class jobs that no longer provide a middle class income and benefits. Some of them are now done in India. Fortunately, cleaning and landscaping cannot be performed remotely.

Greed has led to rampant bad outsourcing. Outsourcing would not be bad if the company doing the outsourcing required the subcontractor to provide a living wage and the same level benefits that the company provides to its direct employees. I do not blame companies for bad outsourcing. If company A can save money by outsourcing, then company B has to do the same to remain competitive. That is why you need regulation. So all companies are forced to compete on a level playing field. It is the same principal for regulating clean air. Without regulation, even good companies have to engage in socially harmful practices just to be able to compete.

Many jobs that cannot be outsourced have been reduced to part-time jobs. Obamacare does not require an employer to provide health care benefits to workers that work less than 29 hours per week. 

When I look at the two issues of health care and income inequality I see a solution. A socialistic solution. We need to have socialized healthcare that provides very basic health care – not the Cadillac health plan, the VW beetle health plan (not a diesel).  This socialized health care should be paid for through a flat employee payroll tax that everyone pays on income above $36K for an individual ($36K is a placeholder for the actuaries to amend as needed). If you can afford it, you can purchase add-on health care benefits in the free market. Your high-cost plan would eliminate the wait time at the local clinic that most Americans will get under my socialized health care. My socialized health care plan would have the death panel that sounded so horrible during the Obamacare battle. Yes, we need to make the basic health care something that we can afford. That is what “Affordable” is supposed to mean. I am talking about the bare-bones minimum health care that is required to sustain human dignity. Affordable enough to provide it to all.

All the subcontracted employees would have the same benefits as those that are lucky enough to receive their paycheck from the large corporation. Even members of Congress would be on the same plan. This is a proposal to regulate greed (then again, aren't all regulations?). It is wealth redistribution and I believe it is American. As a subcontractor I was once surprised and impressed by a catholic university that sent me an RFP (request for proposal) requiring the bids to include the cost of healthcare. Surprise is a mild term, I was shocked. I have only seen it occur that one time. That was an example of good outsourcing. Unfortunately it was the only example.

I know that someone will say: why don’t those subcontracted employees just go to night school, get a college education and get a good job with benefits at a large corporation? I agree, people should do all they can to make a better living. But, when they get a seat in the corner office, someone is still going to come in their office after hours and clean the place. Shouldn’t that person have basic health care?

Obamacare is broken. We can fix it and get a bonus of leveling the field for the working poor. Senator Sanders, go for it. To those Republicans that I have angered with this discussion, think about it. It could do wonders for your image. While you are at it, think about the minimum wage too.

Questions for the Next Democratic Presidential Debate

If you are interested in reading the entirety of the CNBC, October 28, 2015 Republican debate you can find the transcript here:

http://time.com/4091301/republican-debate-transcript-cnbc-boulder/

The following questions are suggested for the next Democratic Presidential debate. The questions are patterned off of the questions used by CNBC during the last Republican Presidential debate.

1.    (To all the candidates as the opening question): What is your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

a.     Verbatim of the Republicans’ opening question. It should be noted that CNBC agreed to open the debate with a question on economic or financial matters. They did not.

2.    (To Bernie Sanders): Mr. Sanders you have stated that Americans should become socialists. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

a.     Same as a question directed at Donald Trump for proposing to build a wall across the Mexican border.

3.    (To all the candidates) You have all spoken of increasing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and providing a free college education to all Americans. I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as much a chance of increasing government spending that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.

a.     Same as a question directed at Donald Trump except instead of increased spending, the context was tax reduction. Seriously, “flapping your arms” was used.

4.    (To any of the candidates) Your increased spending on social programs and the creation of new social programs will require you to cut other government programs. What will they be? (ignore whatever  the candidate responds then state) That won’t make up the difference for all the spending you are adding. If the candidate states that your facts are not true, just respond with: That is true, I’ve looked at the numbers.

a.     Same as a question directed at Dr. Carson except it was in the context of his flat tax rate proposal.

b.    The unfairness of this question was that the moderator stated that Dr. Carson’s 10% flat tax would cause a $1.1 trillion deficit. After Dr. Carlson stated that his flat tax would not be 10% it would need to be closer to 15%, the moderator then stated that to close the $1.1 trillion gap you would have to cut government by 40%. When Dr. Carlson said “That’s not true.” The moderator said “That is true, I’ve looked at the numbers.” Obviously she looked at numbers based on a 10% tax – NOT a 15% tax.

c.     This reeks of Candy Crowly taking sides with President Obama during the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney (“President Obama did call Benghazi a terrorist attack” – which he did not). If the moderator had done the math with a 10% tax and calculated a 40% government reduction equivalent to $1.1 trillion, how did the number not change in the follow up accusation? Clearly if a 10% tax equates to a $1.1 trillion deficit or 40% of government spending, a 15% tax would equate to a lesser deficit (and maybe no deficit).

This line of questioning not only reveals the moderator’s bias but also her lack of intellect. If you can't think quickly enough on your feet to realize that a 50% increase in taxes would more than offset a 40% deficit, you should not be moderating a presidential debate.

5.    (To Governor O’Malley): Governor, your poll numbers are extremely low. Shouldn’t you pull out of the race?

a.     Same as the question asked of Governor Bush. Of course the Democrats cannot afford to lose anymore pretenders. They have to maintain the appearance of a contest before the coronation of Mrs. Clinton. Of course if the FBI uncovers too many "personal" emails that were not really personal, or too many emails that contained classified information, the Democrats will immediately pivot to Plan B - Vice President Biden. If the FBI does find something untoward, do not expect the information to be used in a debate question.

6.    (To Secretary Clinton): Mrs. Clinton, you made a personal promise to the families of the four Americans that lost their loved ones in Benghazi that you would “get the people responsible for the video.” Did you keep that promise or have you given the families a personal update on what the government really knew at the time? If you have not, why should voters believe the promises you are making now?

a.     Patterned after this question: “Mr. Trump, let’s talk a little bit about bankruptcies. Your Atlantic City casinos filed for bankruptcy four times...  Bankruptcy is a broken promise. Why should the voters believe the promises that you’re telling them right now?”

7.    (To Secretary Clinton): You stated that when you and your husband left the White House, you were broke. You were both in your mid-fifties at that time. In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?

a.     The “In terms of all that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?” is the exact question posed to Senator Rubio. The lead into Senator Rubio’s question was his financial mishandling of campaign money and his unfortunate financial condition.

8.    (To Secretary Clinton): Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation has received large donations from foreign government officials and from American companies doing business abroad while you were Secretary of State. Is this indicative of the fact that you were selling favors?

a.     This question equates to the question that Dr. Carson was asked with regard to his Christian faith and his board participation with a company that is gay friendly.

9.    (To all the candidates): Would you require your secret service guards to leave their guns in their vehicles when they accompany you into a gun free zone?

a.     This is a silly question, but no sillier than the question of Mr. Trump having a permit to carry his own gun.

10. (To Governor O’Malley): Governor O’Malley, Mrs. Clinton has been associated with numerous scandals through her and her husband’s careers. Most recently there was the question of what and when she knew about Benghazi; her personal decision as to which emails were personal and which were the people’s business; the fact that she maintained her own server to host her email. Further back there was White Water; Travelgate; and her Tammy Wynette act of standing by her man through her husband’s many extramarital affairs that she claimed were untrue (until Ms. Lewinsky). Considering all of Mrs. Clinton’s scandals; when you look at her, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?

a.     Exact question posed to Governor Huckabee with regard to Donald Trump. The only difference was the moderator did not think there was a need to make a case before just bluntly asking: “do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?” The moderator assumed that all Americans are grounded in the fact that Donald Trump has no morals. Really?

11. (To all the candidates): Now that we have made fun of the Republicans, will each of you tell me who is more handsome and why? (Thank you Senator Cruz, that was a great line.)

As sad as this reads, this is exactly how the debate was conducted by CNBC. I did not mention the moderators by name because they deserve no free publicity. All I can say is that Fox has a business channel and CNBC will not be on my television ever again. Also, the PBS show Washington Week (which I used to watch every Friday night) will no longer be displayed on any of my screens. During this week’s Washington Week, one of the perpetrators of the CNBC debacle actually summarized the tragedy of the debate as a result of all the anger within the Republican Party; the participants were just taking out their internal anger with themselves on the media. That analysis is so wrong. Worse, nobody challenged him. I used to respect Gwen Ifill, but she lost that respect this week. Bye-bye CNBC and Washington Week.

The correct analysis is that the line of questioning was demeaning, it served the American people poorly in that it did not shine light on the candidates’ positions and demonstrated that Senator Rubio’s comments were dead-on; the media is the ultimate Super-PAC of the Democratic Party. Had Fox News Channel used the above listed questions in a Democratic Presidential debate, the news media would have gone crazy. How much noise have you heard from the main stream media about the Republican debate?

Does anyone care to join me in my ban of CNVC and Washington Week?

Retraction of President Obama's Congratulations – An Uncertain World Order Remains

The previous blog entry is hereby retracted (although I am leaving it posted). The reason for the retraction is that further information released by the White House disclosed that President Obama is not authorizing any combat by the special operation forces that have been dispatched to Syria. Furthermore, it appears as though there are no plans to do anything more than send a few advisers into Syria.

I am leaving the previous blog entry posted as advice that the President may want to heed. Following the President’s present plan of inaction will continue to leave America and the world at grave danger from terrorist groups and terrorist nations.

Congratulations President Obama – Taking a Stand in Syria is a Great Start

The breaking news today is that President Obama is sending special operation troops into Syria to train and assist Kurdish and some Syrian insurgents in their fight against ISIS. Finally, the United States is taking the fight to an organization that is now capable of global terror and is no doubt planning attacks against the American homeland. In addition to fighting ISIS, this move also puts Arab countries on notice that America is not relinquishing its influence in the Middle East. Moscow should take notice.

Until this time, President Obama has projected American weakness that has shaken the world order. Just as financial markets falter during times of uncertainty, civilization also falters when it is uncertain as to whether or not the good guys will defend freedom and human rights. That is how Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorists grow in power and territory. Well, assuming this is just a start, President Obama is providing some certainty for global affairs. Terror groups should take note.

It is a real possibility that Russia will test President Obama’s resolve by bombing very close to the American forces in Syria; even targeting the Kurds and Syrian rebels we will be working with. We should be ready for this and immediately have a jet fighter on the tail of the Russian bomber with a signal to let the pilot know he has been targeted. If it happens a second time, more drastic measures will be required. Let us hope we never get to that point; but we must let the Russians know we mean business.

Initial reports are that the number of troops is very small. It can only be assumed that this is a start and that more and more troops will enter Syria as each preceding deployment clears a path for the safe arrival of the next. The other action that we should be simultaneously taking is wiping out ISIS in Iraq. Keep it up Mr. President, it is not just Syria and ISIS at stake but the defense of our homeland and America’s role as the world power of goodness. It is about the certainty of civilization.

Trey Gowdy - Please Turn Off the Cameras

Dear Representative Gowdy,

Let me introduce myself. I am a center-right leaning, independent American. Many people read my blog and believe that I am very conservative. I seldom agree with the Democrats’ view, but often with the Republicans’. If you read a sample of my previous postings you will see how I think on most issues. Today, I am proud to not be a member of either political Party. I am a registered Independent. Now that you know me, here is my request:

Please turn the cameras off in your Benghazi hearings with Hilary Clinton. I ask this as a service to you and your fellow Republicans. You probably are not aware of the fact that you are embarrassing yourself. The country has suffered greatly from the Benghazi attack and Americans mourn the loss of four of our fellow citizens. The country would like to know that our leaders are taking the necessary actions to avoid re-making the mistakes of Benghazi. You are not doing this.

What we Americans want to know is: Why were there any Americans in Benghazi at that time? We also want to know if we got the terrorists that committed the horrible acts in Benghazi (we are aware of the capture of Ahmed Abu Khatalla but not of any others). Answer those questions and turn the lights off.

The ridiculous questioning of Secretary Clinton with regard to emails she received from Sid Blumenthal are meaningless to us. Worse than that, we find it appalling that our taxes are funding such ridiculous lines of questioning.  The political nature of these hearings are so obvious that it is embarrassing to all Americans.

Secretary Clinton provided the most profound “new” information today when she stated that America has suffered numerous terrorist attacks in the past with loss of American life – but there was no partisan driven witch hunts (I am paraphrasing).  Secretary Clinton noted that both parties came together after such attacks to heal and to strengthen our defenses. You are not doing this.

It is not your committees charge to submarine Secretary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.  And, unless I am living on another planet that is what it appears that you and all the Republican members of your committee are doing today.

Sincerely,

Fairway Frank