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