text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84974622016-06-29T17:55:16.860-07:00Maine WriterIts about people and issues I care about.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-19531693503088684752016-06-29T17:55:00.001-07:002016-06-29T17:55:16.991-07:00Donald Trump international speak uses 3rd grade wordsAlthough candidate Donald Trump's incendiary rhetoric is dangerous, his third grade level language is also worrisome, because he uses simple and short words to describe concepts that are extremely complicated.

Donald Trump talks like an elemntary school student. but the concepts he communicates, like international terrorism, are far more complex than his simplton incendiary rhetoric describes.

Indeed, Trump calls the self declared "evil ISIS" caliphate "bad". Well, yes, in fact, ISIS surely is evil and that makes the self declared Caliphate state "bad".

So, Donald Trump, why tell us something that we already know!
After identifying evil ISIS as being "bad", then Trump says "water boarding" might win the war against the terrorist group. This simple language and even simpler reasoning doesn't improve our understanding about how to defeat evil- ISIS. Moreover, the idea that using "water boarding" torture will somehow magically defeat evil ISIS, is plainly stupid. In fact, the use of water boarding will do virtually and literally nothing to defeat the evil ISIS. Torture only impacts one person at a time and the victims say whatever they need to, as a way to stop their pain.

Politico reports- Donald Trump Talks Like a Third-Grader
By Jack Shafer in Politico

Trump talks like a simpleton.

If you were to market Donald Trump's vocabulary as a toy, it would resemble a small box of Lincoln Logs.

Trump resists multisyllabic words and complex sentence constructions when speaking extemporaneously in a debate, at a news conference or in an interview. He prefers to link short, blocky words into other short, blocky words to create short, blocky sentences that he then stacks into short, blocky paragraphs.

The end result of Trump's word choice is less the stripped-down prose style of Ernest Hemingway than it is a spontaneous reinvention of Ogden's Basic English, the pared-down lexicon of 850 words selected by early 20th century linguist/philosopher C.K. Ogden as the bedrock of a new world language.

In the August 6th Republican candidates debate, Trump answered the moderators' questions with linguistic austerity. (linguistic austerity?) OMG, surely, people who follow candidate Donald Trump can't continue to believe he can re-make the world with 3rd grade language? If they do, they're dangerously wrong.

Run through the Flesch-Kincaid grade-level test, his text of responses score at the 4th-grade reading level. For Trump, that's actually pretty advanced. All the other candidates rated higher, with Ted Cruz earning 9th-grade status. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker scored at the 8th-grade level. John Kasich, the next-lowest after Trump, got a 5th-grade score.

(It's time for candidate Donald Trump to explain his vision for making "his version" of America "great again". Three letter words won't make the US nation great again. Rather, simple words only makes all Americans look as stupid as Trump.)

Jack Shafer is POLITICO's senior media writer. Previously, Jack wrote a column about the press and politics for Reuters and before that worked at Slate as a columnist and as the site's deputy editor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340#ixzz4D1CF10VR
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-90655398894949569382016-06-28T18:02:00.003-07:002016-06-28T18:02:39.220-07:00Donald Trump created bombastic narrative now has to live with consequencesCongressman Trey Gowdy wasted plenty of tax payer money during the Benghazi Congressional Committee investigation.

Gowdy's investigation was a bust, just like the grueling interrogation of Secretary Clinton for 11 hours, during the inquisition conducted on an innocent American citizen, that also came up with nothing.

Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, led a witch hunt costing taxpayers over $7 million dollars and lasting longer than the Watergate hearings.

In fact, the expenses for this political witch hunt are now an extraordinary $7, 163,697 and continue to grow. This is obviously a terrible waste.

Although Gowdy's investigative expenses are, in retrospect, unjustified, the fact is, stupid Donald Trump missed a rare political opportunity as a result of the Congressional witch hunt.

Think about it! Trump could've led news shows with more of his "Big Lies", by giving his opinion to the Gowdy investigation, regardless of what the report came up with, which was essentially, nothing.

Instead, Trump created such a bombastic campaign narrative during the election primaries, laden with bigotry and misogyny, so much so, that he can't criticize Secretary Clinton, without spotlighting his own dismal credibility. He brought this incredible situation on himself! If he had behaved, been professional during the primary elections, Trump could've possibly taken center stage to consume the Benghazi narrative. Instead, Trump's irresponsible name calling during the political slam of his Republican competitors has left him with a hallow rhetorical response on Benghazi.

As a result, Trump failed on the Benghazi report, like he was reaching for another name to call the presumptive Democratic nominee. Rather than seize the moment, Trump wasted nearly as much time as Congressman Gowdy burned through money. Trump's criticism to the Benghazi report amounted to nothing more than hallow echoes that just bounced off ancient dead valley rocks.

Honestly, if Trump behaved like an adult, or had presented himself as a bona fide political leader during the primary elections, the situation with Secretary Clinton, right now, would be potentially different. (Thank goodness Trump is inept. Nevertheless, he's still dangerous.) Clearly, Secretary Clinton is the qualified presidential candidate and her illuminated resume was just given a boost. Nothing Clinton said about Benghazi was proven wrong by Gowdy.

Now, post the expensive Gowdy investigation, voters are saying, "Hey! There's no 'there there'". If Trump had been a credible primary candidate, he might've been able to influence the debate about what happened in Benghazi. by spinning a credibile narrative. Instead, Trump is churning more third grade words, like "Benghazi was 'bad'". Well, yes, tell us what we don't know.

Perhaps, Trump was playing political roulette. In my opinion, Trump believed the Republicans were going to pin all kinds of stuff on Secretary Clinton, while he ranted and raged to attract media attention and satisfied the right wing radical zealots. Well, Trump's gamble failed. In fact, Trump flopped. His right wing campaign has fizzled, while Secretary Clinton's reputation has not been damaged as much as Trump has eviscerated his own credibility.

Moreover, Congressman Gowdy can't justify his investigation. Indeed, Gowdy side stepped questions about Secretary Clinton's role in the tragedy, because there was no "there there". Here's a list of how daunting Gowdy's investigation was, when compared to real crises of the past. Rather than bring credibility to the Benghazi investigation, this chart shows just how bizarre the investment of time and money were, when compared to really serious crises:

Pear Harbor investigation- 285 days
Watergate hearings 406 days
September 11 hearings 478 days
JFK Assassination 300 days
But Benghazi? OMG! - 853 days

As for Secretary Clinton's credibility, there were no surprises in the Benghazi report. In fact, Lisa DesJardins of PBSNewsHour, says she saw National Security Advisor Susan Rice's name in Gowdy's led report, more often then Secretary Clinton.

In praise of Secretary Clinton, I can't imagine how she maintained her professional composure, while knowing she had no part in what brought about the Benghazi tragedy. She was completely composed, while Congressman Gowdy unjustly created confusion about what happened in a situation where he was not there and nobody who was there is alive.

In my lay person opinion, the only people who knew what happened in Benghazi are not alive to respond to questions.

Shame on Congressman Gowdy. In fact, he wasted millions of tax dollars to prove that Secretary Clinton wasn't involved in the tragedy.

Meanwhile, candidate Donald Trump created his own inept consequences of being unable to respond with credibility to anything at all. He must never be elected to lead the free world and should not be nominated to lead the Republican party.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-32307729861151953432016-06-27T19:07:00.002-07:002016-06-27T19:07:23.252-07:00Cleveland alert - Republican Party Ohio hoopla sounds like a bustIt's like getting an invitation to a time share sales pitch in Antarctica. Scientists notwithstanding, even with all expenses paid, who in the world wants to spend a week there?  Well, okay, there are always those dedicated few who just want to say they spent a week in Antarctica, but that's not too many people.

Well, that's sort of like what's happening with the Republican National Committee (RNC), while it's trying to spin a party for the nomination of their presumptive 2016 presidential candidate. Unfortunately, it appears that not many people want to attend this gala to crown Donald Trump to be the presidential nominee.

Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) are planning a nomination party, but many prospective speakers have the equivalent of a political "dentist appointment" on the day they are invited to speak.

Too bad for "Trumpy-Dumpty". He has waited all his life to be elected the leader of the free world. Now, when he is just about to be the pseudo king of his own political ball, it appears as though not many people want to show up for the party.

Politico Reports:
GOP Stars Show Little Interest In Trump Convention Speaking Slots in Cleveland.

The traditionally coveted gig as Republican National Convention (RNC) speaker is drumming up little interest with career-conscious politicians, wary of presumptive nominee Donald Trump, Politico reports.

The website reports it contacted more than 50 big-name governors, senators and House lawmakers about a speaking spot at the convention.

"Only a few said they were open to it, and everyone else said they weren't planning on it, didn't want to or weren't going to Cleveland at all — or simply didn't respond," Politico's Alex Isenstadt writes.

Among the firm no-shows, according to Politico, are:

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who's overseeing a House Select committee's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of the attacks on Benghazi.

South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, a former two-term governor.

Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo.

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who helped write the GOP platform at the 2012 convention.

North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson.

Utah Rep. Mia Love, who's skipping the convention to travel to Israel.

Politico reports rising stars in the party like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Oklahoma Rep. Steve Russell, a former Army lieutenant colonel who helped capture Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, say they've got no plans to speak.

Nor are there plans for rising GOP stars Utah Sen. Mike Lee or former Trump rival Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, to speak.

<img border="0" height="0px" src="http://engine.newsmaxfeednetwork.com/i.gif?e=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&s=PmWG7GNB_RjyNvhIWne2dU_ULSw" style="border: 0px; position: absolute;" width="0px" />

Even politicians from the convention host state of Ohio, Sen. Rob Portman and Gov. John Kasich, a Trump primary rival, haven't said if they'll speak.

According to Politico, "even the GOP leaders in charge of maintaining the party's congressional majorities," Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker and Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, aren't saying if they'll speak at the event, Isenstadt writes.

"Everyone has to make their own choice, but at this point, 70 percent of the American public doesn't like Donald Trump," Stuart Stevens, a GOP strategist who helped craft the 2012 convention, tells Politico.

"That's as toxic as we've seen in American politics. Normally, people want to speak at national conventions. It launched Barack Obama's political career."

A Trump spokesperson declined to comment on this year's convention plans, but there are hints the event will be heavy on non-politicians.
It's also expected that Trump's children, including daughter Ivanka and sons Eric and Donald Jr., will get prime-time spots, Politico reports. (This is puff endorsement from Trump's kids the same people who are protecting their own inheritance.)

Trump supporters like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich may be tapped for a spot on the stage, according to Politico.

And Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, a former leader of the Navy SEAL (operational word "former") team that would later kill Osama bin Laden, hopes to get a shot at the podium, a spokeswoman tells Politico. (Is he looking for a Silver Star...?)

In my experience watching these political dramas every four years, this "no show" RNC list are the people to follow during the time when the convention is happening. Maybe the "no shows" will even host their own convention. Perhaps, they can put on a program that people will find believable and present a policy platform the voters might consider supporting.

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-51199563591941659192016-06-26T17:28:00.003-07:002016-06-26T17:28:22.981-07:00Democrats must keep momentum pay little attention to improving political pollsThis period of time in an election cycle is entirely too early from voting day to start putting credibility in political polls.

Obviously, it's encouraging to read about how "stupid Donald Trump" is finally tanking in the popularity polls, due to his erratically dangerous behaviors. He has no positions on any issues of substance, but continues to spew rhetoric and then forgets what he means and seldom seems to mean what he says. (Except, of course, for the ridiculous wall wall with Mexico. "It ain't going to happen, folks!")

Nevertheless, anything can turn the electorate into an angry mob. Just witness what happened with the regrettable "Brexit" vote in Great Britain. It wasn't even 24 hours after the referendum on the European Union question was called (surprisingly) in favor of the exit, when the voters began regretting their decision. Many have even, apparently, claimed that they voted to exit from the European Union (EU), just because they felt Brexit would never pass; so, they were just casting their vote based on emotion rather than on a consideration of the reality of their collective actions. "Voters Regret Brexit" isn't going to fix the referendum question's consequences.

Nevertheless, emotions notwithstanding, American voters finally seem to be willing to, finally, say that "enough Trump is enough". Even the media is tired of his pompously erratic political behaviors. In fact, The Washington Post poll (obviously this newspaper has contributed to this political sea turn) says "Trump's Numbers Plummet". Indeed, Clinton has been propelled to the lead, 51 percent to 39 percent, in the new national survey released Sunday.

The poll found "sweeping unease" with Trump's policies. It singled out his "incendiary rhetoric and values to his handling of both foreign affairs and his own business — foreshadowing that the November election could be a referendum on Trump more than anything else."
Nearly 70 percent of Americans say they think Trump is unqualified to lead the nation. They are anxious about the idea of him as president and believe his comments about women, minorities and Muslims show an unfair bias. They also see his attacks on a federal judge because of his Mexican American heritage as racist, the Post reported.

A slimmer majority also disapprove of the way Clinton has handled questions about her use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state. Roughly 50 percent of Americans are anxious about "the prospect of a Clinton presidency, underscoring the historic unpopularity of the two major-party candidates."

Obviously, Secretary Clinton must hold steady to her campaign strategy, to convince voters to go to the polls and vote for her to be the first woman president and leader of the free world. This is no time to take any kind of victory laps or to enjoy the primordial scream, behind the bathroom door.

Instead, this is the time to prove to voters why they are right to turn their backs on the dangerously incoherent Donald Trump, the "thin skinned bully", as identified by Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Scotland's Loch Ness Monster is a good way for Donald Trump to sell his Scottish Real Estate ventures. For marketing, this seems to makes more sense than his erratic campaign as the presumptive nominee for the Republican party in the general election.

To Donald Trump, maybe he'd be better off staying in Scotland trying to sell his golf course and luxury real estate suites.

Eventually, when Trump finally gets back to the campaign for President, he may find himself to be the political equivalent of the long lost Loch Ness Monster of Scotland. In which case, Americans could even deport him as an illegal alien and send him back to his dearly departed mother's immigrant origins.
Meanwhile, Democrats must not put credibility in early political polls. Instead, we must keep our eyes on voter registration drives and remember to keep the momentum going against Donald Trump, who is a dangerously incoherent presidential candidate who cannot be elected.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-83510565432198983032016-06-26T04:58:00.001-07:002016-06-26T04:58:37.152-07:00What does being "Pro-Life" really mean?Evangelical Christians and Right To Life (RTL) groups are dedicated voters who look for "Pro-Life" candidates to support.

Unfortunately, the political litmas test for "Pro-Life" usually conceptualizes a political position where abortion is the center of the debate. This one minded approach to voting has led to the Republican party being controlled by right wing zealots who are not purely "Pro-Life", at all. Rather, oftentimes, they're single minded hypocrites. Many Pro-Life stances are "anti-life".

Abortion notwithstanding, here is my list of "Pro-life" issues:

John Wesley (1703-1791) "Do all the good you can...."

1. Supporting the lives of mothers and children by providing universal health care and with good nutrition supported by programs like "Women Infants and Children" or "WIC".

2. Opposing the sale of military style assault weapons and ammunition (or tax it out of affordability) that are killing thousands of young people who're either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or being victimized due to their race or sexual orientation. It makes no sense to be "Pro-life" but also "Pro-Assault Weapons". It's a classic oxymoron.

3. Opposition to the death penalty is a "Pro-Life" position. Although many Evangelicals and RTL supporters are, in fact, opposed to the death penalty, they don't petition and publicly demonstrate to support this decididly wrong criminal justice sentance.

4. Being pro-life means providing health care and income assistance for the poor, the frail, the elderly, the disabled, immigrants and veterans. Instead, Evangelicals and RTL groups are often the same people who oppose government expenditures for public assistance programs.

Pro-Life positions are humanitarian concepts, meaning they should be inclusive of all quality of life conditions, including the protection of the life of the unborn.

In other words, being Pro-Life is reflective in the teachings of John Wesley: ""Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can."

As a matter of fact, HillaryClinton is a Christian Methodist who believes in and extols the John Wesley humanitarian mantra. Indeed, Secretary Clinton is truely a "Pro-Life" presidential candidate. Obviously, she's a candidate the Pro-Life Evangelical and RTL voters can be proud to support.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-63634860329753102212016-06-25T16:47:00.003-07:002016-06-25T16:47:42.476-07:00Evangelical Christians are certainly confused about Donald TrumpEvangelical Christians are selling out faith for politics
"...focused on the rights and privileges of their own community, rather than the welfare of others..."

#No_Seriously!

Oh, God (writes Michael Gerson in The Washington Post) — and I mean the entreaty seriously — the Trump (quasi) evangelical summit in New York was just as bad as some of us feared. (OMG! A man who can't pronounce "Corinthians" has no business attending an Evangelical summit without a Christianity coach.)

More than 900 conservative Christian leaders, put in a susceptible mood by a "prayer guide" ("Acknowledge any personal feelings that would keep you from honoring Mr. Trump for his participation"), witnessed Donald Trump field some softball questions. This was reassuring enough to reward him with a standing ovation and positive buzz. Trump can now (accurately) assume that these clerics and activists won't be giving him much more trouble.

Many participants insist they haven't yet given Trump their endorsement. The whole event, however, was taken — by the media, public and Trump campaign itself — as an evangelical Christian stamp of approval. Seldom has a group seemed more eager to be exploited.

No one, remarkably, asked Trump to explain the moral theory that has guided his gyrations on the abortion issue — from supporter of partial-birth abortion to advocate of punishment for women who have abortions. That, presumably, would have been impolite. And few were offended when Trump used the occasion to question Hillary Clinton's faith. "She's been in the public eye for years and years," he said, "and yet there's no — there's nothing out there." It is like watching a man insult a mirror.

In the course of the event, Trump promised to nominate judges whom evangelicals would favor; to change laws that restrict church involvement in partisan politics; and to foster a cultural ethos that allows the unapologetic usage of "Merry Christmas." "You get racism, misogyny, torture and an authoritarian as commander in chief," one evangelical leader wrote me, "but you'll get to hear 'Merry Christmas' in stores. Now that's the art of the deal."

There is a case for reluctant support of Trump over Clinton — a weak one, I think, but embraced by some serious people.

Yet, this event was not the tortured search for partial truths in a fallen world. It was a sad parody of Christian political involvement, summarizing all the faults and failures of the religious right.

We were reminded, first, that many religious conservatives are a cheap political date. Chuck Colson often described how, during the Nixon administration, religious leaders (as opposed to, say, union leaders) were easily impressed and tamed by proximity to power. After Tuesday's meeting, the Christian writer Eric Metaxas, in promoting his radio show, tweeted, "I WAS RIGHT THERE!" Why such wide-eyed reactions from some in attendance? A panting desire for affirmation rooted in feelings of inferiority?

A disorienting fear of fading cultural influence?

Echoes, in embracing a billionaire, of the prosperity gospel? Whatever the motivation, the public has seen a movement content with a pat on the head and a scratch under the chin.

We are reminded, second, that much of the religious right's criticism of President Bill Clinton's character was a ploy. Franklin Graham now argues that because Abraham lied, Moses disobeyed God and David committed adultery, Trump should get a pass, not just on his personal behavior but also on his deception, cruelty and appeal to bigotry. It is a non sequitur revealing the cynical subordination of faith to politics. (These tangential correlations make no sense. In fact, Right Wing Christians often sit in moral judgement of others, regardless of what the lessons of the Bible teach us about the power of forgiveness. Frankly, Evangelicals believe in "forgiveness" only if the sinner proclaims to be "born again" and baptized in the faith. In other words, rationalizing about Abraham and Moses doesn't carry into modern Evangelical practice.)

Third, we are seeing a group focused on the rights and privileges of their own community, rather than the welfare of others — the poor, struggling and vulnerable. Many in that room do wonderful good works. But they have reduced Christian political involvement to a narrow, special interest — and a particularly angry and unattractive one. A powerful source of passion for social justice — a faith that once motivated abolitionism and various movements for civil and human rights — has been tamed and trivialized.

It is not the first time. During the civil rights movement in the 1960s, one of the main organs of white evangelical opinion, Christianity Today, defended "voluntary segregation," criticized the March on Washington as a "mob spectacle" and took the side of the University of Mississippi against James Meredith.

While that magazine is now a vocal advocate of racial reconciliation and social justice, the bad political choices of many evangelicals at a defining moral moment still damn and damage their movement.
It is happening again. Evangelical Christian leaders, motivated by political self-interest, are cozying up to a leader who has placed bigotry and malice at the center of American politics. They are defending the rights of their faith while dishonoring its essence. Genuine social influence will not come by putting Christ back into Christmas; it will come by putting Christ and his priorities back into more Christians.

Read more from Michael Gerson's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook .

To summarize- Evangelicals are confused about Donald Trump because, frankly, he's their only alternative unless,of course, they finally open their eyes to seriously look at Secretary Hillary Clinton- a devout ChristianMethodist.

"Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can."

John Wesley
TheologianJuliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-29369348311413549062016-06-24T21:01:00.001-07:002016-06-24T21:01:07.615-07:00Secretary Clinton is qualified collects cash and endorsementsNo, seriously! Donald Trump is selling real estate in Scotland! While the "Brexit" European Union (EU) fiasco is burning all around the world, Trump plays like Nero fiddled, while visiting one or his own golf courses and selling real estate. It's like Trump has developed a mental health problem. "No, seriously!"

<img alt="Image result for hank paulson" src="data:image/jpeg;base64,[encoded data, 10256 characters]" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" />

Former Secretary of the Treasury Henry "Hank" Paulson says a Donald Trump presidency is "unthinkable"

"...putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism."- Hank Paulson in The Washington Post opinion article.

Thankfully, there is hope for America's future leadership.

Senator Bernie Sanders says he will vote for Secretary Clinton in the general election! Moreover, President George Bush's Treasury Secretary wrote in The Washington Post, stating his support for Secretary Clinton's candidacy for president, as well.

Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton has opened up a lead in the political polls as Trump plays golf and sells real estate in Scotland. Thankfully, Secretary Clinton is also collecting important endorsements.

CNN reports- Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a Republican who spearheaded legislation bailing out financial firms during the 2008, Great Recession crisis under President George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton this fall.

Paulson said Republicans stand at a crossroads and must choose the country over the GOP's presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

"When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump," Paulson wrote in a The Washington Post op-ed on Friday.

"I will not cast a write-in vote. I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world," he wrote.

Paulson said that with Trump "we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States' great political parties."

"The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism."

Paulson said that with so much partisan divide in politics that the White House needs a leader who can bring people together and solve problems.

"Now is the time for a bipartisan approach to policy solutions that address our most difficult domestic problems," he wrote.

"This requires a president who exhibits an ability to compromise — and basic civility — neither of which Trump displays."

He said the next president must maintain the United States' fiscal strength by reforming entitlements, and that the U.S. can't shrink from global trade.

Trump has taken anti-trade positions during his campaign.

Paulson joins a growing list of former Republican officials who say they will vote for Clinton. Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush, earlier this week said he would back Clinton.

Paulson's support comes amid mounting concerns about Donald Trump's candidacy. Paulson, a controversial figure given President George W. Bush's handling of the 2007-08 economic downturn, said "a Trump presidency is unthinkable" and predicted that other conservatives would rally behind her.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-71795116643925499282016-06-24T13:16:00.001-07:002016-06-24T13:16:26.678-07:00Spread the word- about thin skinned bully with a disqualificatons listThere aren't any arguments for a Trump presidency that justify his taking the oath of office.

Here is a list of concrete reasons why Donald Trump in totally unqualified to be elected the leader of the free world. Even his infomercials to sell real estate in Scotland are uninteresting and may even be offensive to some Scots. But wait! There's more!

Reasons why Donald Trump is a leadership disaster, besides being a racist, belligerant, bullheaded big mouth. He's the presumptive Republican nominee for the GOP leadership position because a stupid group of supporters voted for him for all the wrong reasons.
Mario Puzo sort of summed it up when wrote a short narrative in his super-hit classic movie "The Godfather". His advice was, "Don't trust your fate in the hands of men whose only qualification is that they managed to con a block of people to vote for them."

To erase any misunderstanding, ;et's not mince words: Donald Trump will, without question, be the absolute worst President America has had to endure in the lifetimes of any living people on this planet.

Here's a few succinct reasons why:

1. He talks like a third-grader… literally!
America tried that whole "inarticulate President" thing with Bush. It didn't really work out too well for us, remember? Donald Trump speaks with a third-grade literacy level. That's not a cheap insult… it's a scientific fact. Most presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries have spoken, on average, with a 9th grade to 12th grade comprehension level. George H.W. Bush holds the record-low from a speech on January 28th of 1992, with a score of 7.2. It's a good thing for presidents to use language most Americans can comprehend, but third grade? Trump would be running a country, not a game of Pokémon.

2. He never really explains how he's going to do anything
Trump doesn't really have a treasure trove full of ideas, so much as an old musty pillowcase full of kneejerk assertions. He knows he wants to get rid of Obamacare, but what will he replace it with? "Something Terrific," he claims. No plans, no ideas, no comprehensive walkthrough of what he dislikes about Obamacare or what, if anything, could be salvaged from the historic legislation… he just wants to get rid of it and replace it. He hasn't really released comprehensive plans for any facet of his would-be presidency. He did release a "plan" on illegal immigration, if you want to call it that, consisting of just two words: mass deportation. Not the most brilliant thinker around, that Trump.

3. He has no experience
Donald Trump has never once served in a government job of any sort. Some of his supporters think this is a good thing, but trust me here folks… it's definitely not. If "President Trump" would hope to get anything done, he'd need to fully comprehend the inside-baseball of Capitol Hill, which as far as anyone can tell, he doesn't. How would Trump negotiate with Congress to see his agenda pushed forward? How would he work with both parties to get things done? You can't just walk into the room and make arrogant demands. That's not how it works.

4. He's a bully with the media
What Donald Trump said about Megyn Kelly was unforgivably atrocious. He's a two-bit misogynistic Neanderthal thug. But this isn't the only time Trump has had it out with the media. In almost every interview He's ever given, Trump has belligerently accosted his interviewers, slammed their networks, claimed bias where there rightfully wasn't any, and even sued Bill Maher in 2013 for $5 million, after Maher jokingly compared him to an orangutan. Do we really need a President who bullies and threatens the media when their dialog doesn't suit their demands?

5. He doesn't care that you disagree with him
Probably the most frightening thing about Trump is that he considers himself to be 100% correct about everything (he's specially self righteous about his lies) that crosses his mind, with no wiggle-room for constructive debate. He lives in a headspace of absolutes, where everything is exactly white or exactly black. Politics, meanwhile, is about as gray as gray can get. Progress only happens when some level of compromise is maintained. But for Trump, the word "compromise" isn't in his vocabulary, either metaphorically or, as we discussed earlier, literally.

6. He's gone bankrupt four times
On four separate occasions, Donald Trump has intentionally gone bankrupt, later claiming that those bankruptcies weren't failures on his part, but strategic business decisions to help him make more money. So at best, he's lying and bad at business, but at worst, he's intentionally manipulating the system for personal gain. Either way, what makes you think he knows how to handle an entire economy?

7. He's a terrible Christian (Indeed, Trump should write and practice saying the name "Corinthians" 100 times, like a third grader who is punished for misbehaving in class.)
I genuinely couldn't care any less what religion a person belongs to. I don't think religion has any place in politics, and certainly should not play any important role in government or politics. But America's conservatives are obsessed with religion, with these GOP candidates perpetually attempting to "out-Christian" each other. It's quite common to hear conservatives rant about Obama not being "Christian enough" for their liking. Why, then, are they all clamoring to get Trump elected? Trump has been divorced twice and married three times, and recently made some controversial remarks about his Church visits. (Let's not forget to include his admitted philandering.) It's probably difficult for Donald Trump to talk about God, though, at least when not speaking from a first-person perspective.

We could go on here, but there isn't much of a point. The simple, undeniable fact is that Donald Trump has proven consistently that he would make a terrible President. There aren't any arguments for a Trump presidency that justify his taking the oath of office. And if you still think Donald Trump would make a good President, do everyone in America a favor: stay home on election day. You simply aren't mature enough to be making these sorts of decisions.

And, to end..... hold the thought trumped by Senator Elizabeth Warren: Donald Trump is a thin skinned racist bully!

America can't elect an unqualified person to be the leader of the free world. Trump is especially dangerously incoherent, considering all that's at stake with international economies and the delicate balance with terrorism and the despot Vladimir Putin looming. In fact, the Republcian party is inept by even allowing Donald Trump's candidacy to move forward.

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-21454170889445063782016-06-24T05:22:00.001-07:002016-06-24T05:22:19.724-07:00Franco-American Nurses in Maine historyFranco-American Nurses in Maine history: Speaking at the Maine Historical Society, also home of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, was a perfect segue to speak about Franco-Americans in nursing historyJuliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-64857332579247641962016-06-23T17:04:00.003-07:002016-06-23T17:04:39.488-07:00Donald Trump laissez faire presidential campaignPerhaps, at one time, Donald Trump owned a dog who compusivley dug holes to find bones. If he did, he probably figured out, by watching this canine behavior, how the news media can be just like dogs digging for bones.

New media journalists keep asking Donald Trump to tell the truth. They're like dogs digging for bones, because they keep creating craters while giving away free political ad time.

Donald Trump built his campaign to be elected the leader of the free world on his outrageous practice of telling "The Big Lie", and then leaving the wrong minded degridation hanging while the media persues the truthful information.

In other words, he's using the marketing made infamous by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

For the media, The Big Lie amounts to yellow journalism used by Trump for political purposes, capitalizing on the free media advertising resulting from the impact.

This is how it happens. Donald Trump is interviewed and allowed unlimited free time to respond to lies that he has created! It's a cunning strategy and one the media seems intent on following, like desperate dogs digging for bones.

What's most disturbing about this wrong minded strategy is that after Donald Trump tells lies, he then calls them back without regard for his behavior. His laissez faire (ho-hum) attitude about telling lies never seems to be called into question.

Rather, the lies spin follow up calls for media intereviews. Obviously, the calls are welcome, because anytime Trump can claim the limelight, he doesn't much care what topic he must defend. So, NBCNews journalist and anchor Lester Holt hostedprime time coverage with Donald Trump. Sure, Holt asked Trump to defend the lies told during his "I'll get you, my little pretty....." lie filled speech about Secretary Hillary Clinton. But, skillful at "The Big Lie", Trump didn't answer any questions but just glossed over Holt's drilling.

In other words, Holt gets a C-or putting Trump in prime time news without getting him to tell the truth.

Trump's laissez faire response to Holt just contriubted to "The Big Lie" strategy.

It's time for the news media to stop giving away free media time to Donald Trump, especially while he continues to perpetrate lies without evidence and provides no information voters can use to determine his qualifications to lead the free world.

For example, Lester Holt never asked Donald Trump about when he will release his income tax information. Instead, Holt just allowed Trump to continue to perpetrate lies by not answering any question truthfully.

In my opinion, the news media created the Trumponian monster by giving away (by some estimates) a billion dollars in free advertising. Now, it's time to give Secreatary Hillary Clinton the same and equal amount of time.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-84820449303171293212016-06-23T04:34:00.000-07:002016-06-23T04:34:31.476-07:00Cutting political noise- Retired General Petraeus on guns & ISISDavid Petraeus: ISIS is on its way to defeat but terrorism threat persists By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

David Petraeus gave his views on national security issues in a conversation with Peter Bergen June 20 in New York City.

General David Petraeus

While Great Britian waits for the suspensful Brexit referendum results, the US Congress is paralyzed by attempts to block Democracy in the face of National Rifle Association pressure to keep guns in the public domain, but evil ISIS (the self declared Califate) is raging and millions of people are impacted.

Meanwhile, candidate Donald Trump is whining about whether or not Secretary Hillary Clinton is a Christian and complaining about her being a liar. Nevertheless, it was Donald Trump who could hardly pronounce the word "Corinthian" when trying to impress the Bible faithful. Moreover, the largest news media analysts quickly published a "lie litany" of misinformation about the content of Trump's teleprompter "I'll get you Hillary...." speech.

Yet, as news media continue to soak up ratings about the political news drama, the war against evil ISIS in Syria and the Middle East, overflowing now into Europe, is ongoing.

Hopefully, there is some progress made every day.

It's impossible to understand how the news about ISIS is somehow "Trumped", when so much is at stake in the Middle East. Here's an interview with General Petreaus, who discloses some useful informaiton.

(CNN) In a wide-ranging interview Monday, retired Gen. David Petraeus, who formerly led coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan and directed the CIA, said that ISIS is headed for military defeat in Iraq but that the terror threat it helped inspire remains significant.

In a conversation with CNN National Security Analyst and New America vice president Peter Bergen, at an event at New America's offices in New York City, Petraeus also discussed gun control, Afghanistan, Syria and a range of other national security challenges facing the next president.

(Petraeus now serves as Chairman of the KKR Global Institute, part of the New York-based private equity firm KKR. Their conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.)

Gen. David Petraeus: I fear it is a bit of a new normal. The truth is that a number of us have been saying for quite some time that it was only a matter of time until someone went to a gun show, bought a military-like semi-automatic assault weapon with a large capacity magazine and did enormous damage. I do talk to individuals still in the business of tracking individuals in the homeland and abroad. A lot of them have felt that they were hanging on by their fingernails a bit in terms of tracking all the potential threats out there. The Orlando terrorist is an example of someone who was in the sights of law enforcement, but never crossed the threshold from pre-criminal to criminal behavior and thus was not tracked adequately before this horrific act.
And I fear that there could be more of these types of attacks. I know that law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and local, state, and federal police are working very hard via every legal means possible to gather the intelligence, to fuse it, and to analyze it in order to take the pre-emptive actions that can minimize the chances of further such attacks. But, again, I fear that it's likely that we will see more horrific events like the one in Orlando.

Bergen: You and other former senior military officials are part of a group looking at the issue of the easy availability of assault weapons. What is intent of the group and why did you add your name and voice to it?

Petraeus: We are part of an advisory council for Mark Kelly's Veterans for Common Sense, a group that pursues common sense initiatives to reduce gun violence. Current areas of focus include trying to close loopholes that allow individuals who are domestic abusers or can't fly on an airplane but still are able to get a gun.
Bergen: So you would certainly endorse anybody that's on the no-fly list should not be allowed to buy a semi-automatic weapon?

Petraeus: Absolutely. There are obviously a number of different loopholes including the gun show loophole. I also believe that there's one purpose for an AK-47 and an AR-15, even if it is just on semi-automatic mode, and that is to kill another human being. And if you have a large capacity magazine you can kill even more.
Bergen: What advice would you offer the next president in terms of the big national security issues he or she will face?

Petraeus: I think the central issue is the nature of American leadership in the world, how expansive will it be, how involved will it be? Frankly, where do you draw a red line? And if you draw a red line make sure that you are going to act on it?

Bergen: On Iraq and Syria: Some have suggested carpet-bombing ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq. Is that going to work?

Petraeus:  I think carpet bombing is an absolutely tremendous idea if the enemy accommodates you by laying himself out like a carpet in the middle of the desert, without any civilians or infrastructure around him. Sadly, the Islamic State has learned that that is a losing proposition and does not accommodate us in that way. In fact, the Islamic State is very much underground now in places like Mosul and Raqqa. They are getting hammered when they pop their heads up; they get hammered if they get in a convoy.
This campaign is now going a bit quicker than a lot of people anticipated. I've been in fights, the fight to Bagdad [in March 2003], where you are fighting very fiercely and intensely and all of a sudden the enemy just collapses, and I think we'll see some of this from ISIS in Iraq in the months ahead.
I just can't imagine a force that is able to stay in the fight given how they're been pounded every day for such an extended period. Don't get me wrong, Mosul is a city of 2 million people, I know it well, my headquarters was there after the fight to Bagdad when I was commander of the great 101st Airborne Division. Mosul is a big city. And it's a very complex city in terms of the ethnic and sectarian groups and tribes. But I think the odds are now that it will be cleared before the end of the president's administration and it could, perhaps, go more quickly than we think.

Bergen: Mosul could be out of ISIS hands by January 20, 2017?
Petraeus: I think it is possible.
Bergen: That's a big deal.
Petraeus: It is a very big deal. I've said, from the very beginning, even in the darkest days, that the Islamic State would be defeated in Iraq and that the long-term threat in Iraq had more to do with Iraqi politics -- in which the Iranian-supported Shia militias play a very prominent role.
Bergen: ISIS is clearly losing now?
Petraeus: No question ISIS is a loser in Iraq and, increasingly, Syria. I am quite certain we will also get al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. There's no way you can run a state, and an army -- which is what ISIS still is right now -- without touching something that is going to lead to your demise sooner or later. Beyond that, we should be prepared for the fact that the Islamic State army is going to be defeated in Iraq, but there will still be residual terrorist cells and insurgent groups that will continue to carry out attacks in places like Bagdad.
Bergen: You wrote in the Washington Post in May that you have become "increasingly concerned about inflammatory discourse against Muslims and Islam." What did you mean? Why did you write it?
Petraeus: Well, if you look at many of the cases in which we have achieved progress in fighting Islamic extremists, in almost every one of those cases you will find a Muslim partner. You'll find leaders of an Islamic country or their intelligence services or military leaders or others who were extremely helpful. In some cases, host nation forces are key. Right now, after all, we're supporting Muslims in various countries who are fighting the Islamic State. It's their forces that are on the front lines in many of these cases.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize that there is a serious problem within Islam, as that is obviously where Islamic extremism exists. And even if it's a tiny percentage of large numbers, this is a serious threat. But at the end of the day, this is really more of a clash within a civilization, within the Islamic world for the heart and soul of Muslims, than it is a clash between civilizations, to use Sam Huntington's terminology.

It's much more about a fight for the future of Islamic countries, an existential threat to them. This is, to be sure, a serious threat to us. It's a very serious threat in Europe. But it's an existential threat to Islamic countries.

Bergen: You mentioned Europe. Is NATO "obsolete" as some have claimed?
Petraeus: I don't think it is, and God bless Vladimir Putin because he's given NATO another reason to live. Having just been in Europe, I can assure you there is new urgency about the threat posed by Putin, and the farther east you go the greater the urgency is felt. And if you're in the Baltic states or Poland, the threat indicator is blinking red.
Bergen: Should the next president declare a red line about the Baltic States?
Petraeus: First of all, I think declaration of red lines is hazardous duty and should really be preceded by very, very careful thought. And no kidding, if you say it's a red line, you better be prepared to act on it. There are a lot of interpretations of what happened in Syria and how the ultimate outcome was reasonable and so forth, and 90% of the chemical weapons are out of there as a result of the ultimate agreement that was reached, however circuitous a path that took. But when you talk to leaders in the Gulf States, in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, all of them will say that that the failure to act when our red line was crossed was very damaging to the confidence that leaders had in the United States.

Bergen: You mentioned the Gulf. You've been in Saudi Arabia recently. Is it time for the famous classified 28 pages in the 9/11 report about the Saudis to be released publicly?
Petraeus: I guess it is. I don't think it's going to show more than that some individuals perhaps had some potential links. But I can tell you that, when I was a four star in several different positions in the Mideast and as director of the CIA, there's no country that wants to defeat the Islamic State or al Qaeda more than the country whose current crown prince was nearly blown up by an al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula terrorist with a bomb inside him that was built by Ibrahim al-Asiri, the most dangerous man in the world, still at large in Yemen.
Bergen: Why is he the most dangerous man in the world?
Petraeus: Well, he is in an extraordinarily talented, diabolically, barbarically talented bomb maker, and willing to sew bomb materials inside people, literally.
Bergen: He's still out there as far as we know?
Petraeus: He is, yes. Very worrisome.
Bergen: Brexit. Would it be a good thing for the United States, for global security, if the British left the EU?
Petraeus: No, though I think the most powerful arguments are in the economic realm. Beyond that, one of the big ideas about organizational change is that if you are going to embark on really significant change, you ought to be near certain that the results are going to be so worthwhile that you're willing to go through the enormous disruption that this is going to entail. And Brexit certainly doesn't pass that test. In fact, I think it's quite clearly established by the IMF and others that there would be significant economic downsides, in particular. And there certainly would be some downsides in the security realm as well.

Bergen: Syria: Is Raqqa going to be a harder nut to crack than Mosul, and would a no-fly zone be an effective response in Syria to much of what's going on in terms of protecting people, tamping down the violence, decreasing refugee flows?
Petraeus: Yes, and yes.If you think the politics in Iraq are diabolically difficult, Syria's situation is an order of magnitude or two or three greater. And it's gotten more and more and more difficult obviously as the opposition forces have fragmented, have atomized, as the Islamic State has stood up, as the al Qaeda affiliate has been established, as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Forces advisers began helping Bashar al Assad -- and then Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, then some Iranian forces and Shia militias, then Russian air support and special forces. This has just gotten diabolically more difficult. And, of course, our special forces are now on the ground in the north helping some of the opposition forces as well. And you'll have seen that a few days back, the Russians bombed one of the opposition groups that we have helped establish way out in eastern Syria -- a force that was not threatening the Russian air base in Latakia or the Russian naval base at Tartus. There's got to come a point in time where we caution the Russians that, "if you bomb our guys we're going to bomb your guys." And that's something we probably should have said long ago. That doesn't mean we get into it directly with Russia. I'm not one who wants to provoke. But we do have to be firm. (And we should do the same, by the way, in Ukraine in terms of providing anti-tank guided missiles, shoulder launched. You're not going to run to Moscow with those. These are not offensive weapons, but you will make the separatists pay a price.)
But back to Syria, if they are going to bomb the forces that we've established that are going to then take the fight to the Islamic State, I think then we bomb their guys, i.e. some of Bashar al Assad's regime fighters. We should have grounded Bashar's air force way back. Should have said, "You keep dropping barrel bombs on the heads of the people of Aleppo and we are going to ground your air force." And we have the capability to do that without even entering the air space.

Bergen: Enforcing a no-fly zone for the United States would be a very simple thing to do?
Petraeus: It was straightforward a couple of years ago; however, it's much more complex with the Russians in the skies now.
Bergen: Now that the Russians have at least nominally withdrawn combat forces, does it make it a little easier to enforce? The Russians have at least claimed to have withdrawn.
Petraeus: Well they haven't withdrawn their forces. They rotated some elements back to Russia and then gradually brought some others back to Syria. And the forces they took back to Russia are very easily restored. So that was really more of a shell game than anything else.
Bergen: You've spent much of your life either studying insurgencies or fighting them. Is Syria the most difficult insurgency/civil war that you've seen?
Petraeus: I think Syria is incomparably more complex than anything I've ever seen or studied. There are so many different factions now. There are so many different sides to this.
If something had been done in 2012, mid-2012, maybe it might have been different, though there were never any guarantees. But the conditions were very different than they are now. And the challenge now, I think, is that our policymakers find it very hard to articulate what the desired end state is. I think it is still policy that Bashar Assad must go, but we're not really sure now. I have also thought Assad had to go at some point. After all, he's the magnetic attraction for every would-be jihadist attracted by the Islamic State's sophisticated recruiting effort in social media. His presence is the clarion call for recruiting for the Sunni Arab side. But now, if he goes, it could actually be worse. So my view is that he does have to go, but we should know what's going to replace him before we actually give the final push.

Bergen: I know you can't comment directly on what you were recommending or suggesting when you were CIA director about arming the moderate Syrian rebels, but let's say, just sort of in an abstract sense, if that had happened early on, would it have made a difference?
Petraeus: Without getting into what I might or might not have recommended, I think there were opportunities at that time. There were opposition leaders that had greater potential and stature. Sadly, some of those were killed in the ensuing months. There was an opportunity then, and at a time when the infrastructure had not yet been damaged, the institutions were still in place, where people who observed lessons we learned from Iraq about making sure there's no looting, no extra-judicial punishment, no wholesale replacement of everyone. But, as I noted earlier, there were no guarantees.
Bergen: What are the lessons from the post Arab Spring?
Petraeus: There are five lessons, and I think they're quite straightforward. The first is that ungoverned spaces in the Islamic world will be exploited by Islamic extremists.
Second, the effects of such actions, the ramifications, will not be contained to the areas in which the extremists are located. So this is not a problem that, in Washington parlance, you can admire until it goes away. You have to deal with it. The worst example obviously is the geopolitical Chernobyl that is Syria -- spewing radioactive effects everywhere -- violence, instability, extremism, and the tsunami of refugees into the countries of our NATO allies and European partners, causing the biggest challenge in Europe in many decades. Much worse than the Euro crisis in fact.
Third, is that in dealing with these, U.S. leadership is indispensable, it's imperative. There's no substitute. First of all, the U.S. has, in terms of the assets that are most useful here, the intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance assets -- drones and manned aircraft and everything else -- we have more of that than all of our possible allies and partners put together by several factors. Beyond that, our precision strike capabilities are also vastly greater than those of all our potential partners put together. Now, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have partners and allies, especially from the Islamic world. You should have as many allies and partners as you can get. Churchill was right on this count, that "the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them."
Number four is that the effort that we lead has to be a comprehensive effort. It cannot be just a counter-terrorist campaign. It can't be just drone strikes and precision raids by our special mission units. It has to be an "all of the above" campaign, with all the elements of the comprehensive civil-military campaign that we pursued in Iraq during the surge. But, that doesn't mean that we have to provide all of the elements of such an approach. Obviously we should only do what cannot be provided by others. Iraq is an example where the ground combat forces and other components of the strategy are provided by the host nation rather than by us.
Number five is that is a generational struggle. We used to say that this is a marathon not a sprint. It's more that. It's an ultra-marathon. This is going to go on for a generation. We will defeat the Islamic State in Iraq. We ultimately will defeat it in Syria. But although you can put a stake through the heart of Baghdadi and a number of his fighting elements, you are not going to put a stake through the heart of all the extremist ideas that are out there which will still resonate with some small elements of the Muslim population around the world and in that region. And of course, ISIS will morph. In fact, we've seen it go to Libya, to Yemen, to Afghanistan, and to the Asia-Pacific region. Again, ungoverned spaces are going to be exploited by Islamic extremists.
In sum, these lessons are hugely important and I hope that they will, at some point, feature in debates as the presidential campaign gets to the point of two candidates.

Bergen: Does Putin have an end game? Is he just seizing opportunities or does he have a vision, or is it unclear?
Petraeus: I think Putin has a general desire to re-establish as much of the Soviet Union or perhaps the Russian empire as is absolutely possible. And he has pursued this objective in a variety of different ways. He has tried his own version of the EU. It hasn't gotten much traction -- the Eurasian Economic Union. He has lured certain countries away from the EU path. He invaded Georgia, took Crimea, is going to build bases in Belarus, and he still has 1,500 troops on the soil of Moldova. He's doing more in Kaliningrad, that little enclave inside the Baltics. And he's flying planes in a provocative way, sailing ships in a threatening manner. Beyond that, there are some other general principles: I think he doesn't like to see dictators around the world toppled, for fear probably that someone might get an idea of doing that to him. And he wants to hang onto his remaining sea base on the Mediterranean which is, of course, the base at Tartus in western Syria.
Bergen: Is torture an effective response to terrorism?
Petraeus: No. And I publicly stood against this. I will carve out a possible exception, and that's the ticking time bomb scenario -- and while noting that we cannot forget the context following the 9/11 attacks that some felt was a strategic ticking time bomb scenario. I think policymakers owe law enforcement officials some guidance on genuine ticking time bomb situations.
But that aside, I think there are very clear lessons of our post-9/11 experience. And that is first of all, that it's arguable whether torture actually works. Beyond that, my experience as the individual who was responsible for more detainees than anybody else in our country in recent decades (we had 27,000 in Iraq alone when I was the commander of the surge -- and several thousand more in Afghanistan when I was commander there) was that if you want information from a detainee, become his "best friend." That takes time, it takes very skilled interrogators who are good linguists and who know the terrorist organizations, who have been living this, marinating in it for years, which is what the best have been doing. And we were able to elicit information from people in line with the procedures in the Army Field Manual on human intelligence collection operations.
Again, I think it is very arguable that what you get from them through other means -- enhanced interrogation techniques -- is going to be what you want. Beyond that, we do know that the price you pay for doing that far outweighs the value of whatever information you may have got. So there may be a debate about what you might get. But I don't think there's a debate about the cost of getting information that way to the moral stature of the United States.
Bergen: What should we do in Afghanistan? The Obama administration plan has been until the recent past to draw down troops, to close to zero. Is that a sensible plan?
Petraeus: Well, it was sensible to put that plan on hold, as the President did. The bigger issue right now is that we have not been providing our close air support for the Afghan security forces, even though it's readily available in many cases, to help them against the Taliban. We are allowed to use our close air support and precision strike against the small al Qaeda elements that are still in eastern Afghanistan and the nascent Islamic State elements that have been established there. And there are some other very specific circumstances in which our close air support can be employed-- obviously if our own forces are in harm's way -- but the fact is that we are unable to provide reliable close air support for the Afghan forces confronting the Taliban. The Afghan forces are out there now without us, without our advisers and embedded forces, and all of a sudden, they're no longer getting the assistance when they're under attack by the Taliban, and that has left them in a very tough spot in a number of different situations. There's been a slight relaxation of that policy. I think that was wise, but it should go farther. And the further planned drawdown should be delayed until the next President has a chance to decide the way forward.

Bergen: When the next president comes in, he or she will have a choice, they could say, "We're going to wrap this up in Afghanistan," or they could say, "We have to be there, for really quite a long time." So what would be sensible? Is there a number of troops that's sensible, is there a time frame that's sensible?
Petraeus: I think what's sensible is that you certainly pressure our Afghan partners on the ground to continue to take over. They're now responsible by and large for the security of the country with limited assistance. We should also continue to provide funding for the Afghan security forces and for economic assistance. Afghanistan is not going to be able to do everything needed on its own for decades.
The question is, is this still an important mission? I think it is. That is where al Qaeda had its sanctuary before the 9/11 attacks, where those attacks were planned, and where the initial training for the attackers was conducted -- all while the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. We have been able to keep al Qaeda from re-establishing such a sanctuary. We have been able to develop Afghan security forces and institutions to a reasonable level that have taken over the responsibilities of securing their country, albeit with coalition assistance. And my hope is that at the upcoming NATO summit in Poland there will be a further commitment to Afghanistan by the U.S. and our coalition partners -- who I can tell you, having just been at a gathering in Europe where one of the ministers of defense, a prime minister of another country, and a handful of others in various governments -- all said that they are eager for the United States to extend that commitment in Afghanistan and, in that case, they will also extend theirs.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-64528181789856850852016-06-22T16:59:00.000-07:002016-06-22T16:59:14.329-07:00Congratulations to Immigrants drawn to the American beacon of hopeNaturalized American Citizens continue to see the US as the land of hope

For newest US citizens, America is about hope, not fear:
Christian Science Monitor

The mood of a US naturalization ceremony in New York, on World Refugee Day, stands in contrast to political and media rhetoric that has emphasized fear, frustration, and wariness of refugee

NEW YORK — Fariatou Abdoul, "a Muslim 100 percent, born and raised," is beaming on a famous stage in Central Park, wearing a traditional, pink-patterned headscarf and holding a small American flag. She's been smiling so much tonight, in fact, her cheeks hurt.

A decade ago, she fled her war-torn African homeland, Ivory Coast, finding refuge in the United States with her husband and brother before settling in the Bronx. And tonight, pregnant with her first child, she's about to say the oath to become a US citizen.

"I'm so, so happy about that, so happy to be an American citizen," says Ms. Abdoul, just before joining 18 other former refugees and asylees from around the world to be sworn in by US Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. "It's been so good for me here, and I want to do everything the right way."

The special swearing in ceremony on Monday was part of a celebration of World Refugee Day at the Delecorte Theater here in Manhattan's landmark park, an event that included a number of dramatic readings from celebrity actors and authors on the open-air stage.

The words and emotions on display here posed a sharp contrast with views on immigration that have gained publicity over the past year – notably rising concerns in the US and Europe that Islamic immigrants are a security risk, and the slogan of the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee that America needs to be made "great again."

The optimism voiced by these migrants-turned-citizens is something the country needs right now, says Sen. Tim Kaine (D) of Virginia, discussing the political climate engulfing the country.

"There's also some darker emotions, there's some negative and divisive emotions out there," Senator Kaine told the Monitor in a May interview. "The whole 'make America great again.' What, you don't think this is a great nation? Let me take you to the naturalization service, let me take you there and watch all these people trade in their passport of origin to become a citizen of the United States, and at many naturalization services, [where] they have an open mike, where people explain why."
'A better opportunity'

Indeed, Oumar Dabo was 10 years old when his family fled Conakry, Guinea, in 1999. "America is great, and I've been here so long now," he says, when asked about how he feels as he's about to become a US citizen.

"To come to America is basically for a better opportunity," says Mr. Dabo, who is just about to receive his associate's degree from Bronx Community College. He is also working now as a direct support professional at Richmond Community Services in New York, caring for people with developmental disabilities.

"That's the main reason we came, after so many problems," he continues. "Over here, you can get a better education, a better job." And he remembers, too, the corporal punishments he received as a kid in Guinea, where a wrong answer often meant a beating, he says. He's hoping to go on to get a bachelor's degree in business, though he may apply for a job with the New York Fire Department or transportation authority.

This is an evening of smiles and laughter, family hugs and head-crowding selfies.

Yes, it comes as politicians, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, are expressing the fear that Islamic extremists or would-be terrorists will slip in.

But the event organizers emphasize the resilience of immigrants like those swearing allegiance to the US Constitution this night, most who fled violence a decade ago and persevered through a years-long process to just make it here, let alone to become some of the few to become citizens.
Role of refugees

"Resettling refugees is not only the right thing to do, it's also an American success story," says David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, which co-hosted the event with The Public Theater in New York. "Those who have known the denial of freedom have a special reason to treasure it when they are able to taste it."

"Now, more than ever, in the midst of this presidential election campaign, it's important to explain who refugees are, why they are here, and why America has a very special vocation to provide an example of what it means to be a shining light, a shining city upon a hill," continues Mr. Miliband, whose humanitarian relief organization, first spearheaded by Albert Einstein in the 1940s, will help the US government resettle around 12,500 refugees this year.

Later in the evening, Kwame Kwei-Armah, a British actor and playwright, reads a selection from the 1630 sermon, preached by Puritan leader John Winthrop to a group of shivering immigrants on their cross-Atlantic voyage, about the new "shining city" they would build – a phrase made famous in the modern era by Ronald Reagan.

'God bless America'

Leke Kalaj, an immigrant who fled Albania in 2001, practically leaps from his chair when his name is called to receive his citizenship certificate. He is perhaps the most visibly moved and excited to shake Secretary Johnson's hand after the swearing in.

"Oh, my first day of my life, this first day, a very, very special day for me," says the supermarket cook and Bronx resident afterward, posing for photos with his daughters Marsela and Juli. "I am 60 years old, and I'm very, very happy. I'm with familia, and with everybody, every Albanian here, in thiscountry," he adds with emphasis. "God bless America!"

The ceremony also included the Academy Award winning actor F. Murray Abraham, who read an excerpt by William Shakespeare from "Sir Thomas More," and children from local New York public schools, who recited Emma Lazarus's famous 1883 "send me your huddled masses" poem, inscribed on bronze plaque at the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

The writer Salman Rushdie also read an excerpt from Albert Einstein's 1941 letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, which urged her to find ways to get the US State Department to take in refugees fleeing fascist terror. In 1989, Mr. Rushdie was forced to live in hiding after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran at the time, called for his assassination, deeming Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses," a blasphemy against Islam.

"I know what it is to migrate," he told the audience of about 1,000 on Monday. "I've always believed, and tried to write about it, that migration enriches the culture to which the migrants come. And I think really that's the meaning to me of New York City," his home for the past 16 years.

Afterward, Mr. Rushdie walked alone in Central Park, making his way after sunset through the park's tree-lined paths.

But the emphasis all evening was on the refugees who had come as many American immigrants before. The American actor Omar Metwally read from one of the letters other immigrants had written for the event, this one from a Somali immigrant named Muhammad, now a translator for the International Rescue Committee and living in Wichita, Kan.

"What I miss is home. I miss the environment, the people, my cousins, family and friends," Mr. Metwally read on behalf of Muhammad. "I love them, I can't take them from my heart. I miss the food, the mangos, the bananas – I really miss that…"

But Muhammad came to the US because "my home, my country, the country I was born in, it didn't give me a chance to show my ability, how I can help my people," he wrote. "But I thought America could give me a second chance in life. And it did. I came here, and I have a lot of everything. And I completely have built a home in America, right now. And this is what I call my home, right now."

Staff writer Francine Kiefer contributed to this story from Washington.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-73497399410947003202016-06-21T17:33:00.003-07:002016-06-21T17:33:21.620-07:00Donald Trump and the Great Tulip Mania of 1637Americans need to constantly be reminded about the genius attributed to showman, PT Barnum.

"There's a sucker born every minute".

Barnam built a dynasty around a bait and switch carnival game.

Perhaps the re-invention of the PTBarnum slogan has been reinvented in the person of the candidate Donald Trump. In fact, Donald Trump told his blinded followers that he would be a truly independent candidate and fund his own presidenital campaign. In fact, he's used the money raised by whatever nefarious methods he's received it to subsidize his bandrupt companies.

Now, the nearly flat broke political candidate Trump claims he'll match campaign contributions up to $2million dollars for dollar. First of all, $2million campaign dollars is peanuts, might as well be chump change. Second, the idea that candidate Trump will match contribution donations is like wondering how the Great Tulip mania of 1637, caused economic panic in 17th century Europe.

Charles MacKay (1814-1889 was a Scottish writer who authored Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. (Donald Trump's mother, Mary Anne Trump, was a Scottish immigrant to America. Perhaps MacKay is a distant relative?)

Trump's "match" is impossible to understand. In fact, the money the candidate Trump will use to match campaign contributions will, more than likely, be shifted from money raised by either the Republican National Committee (RNC) or by robbing "Peter to pay Paul". As a matter of fact, we don't know who the proverbial "Peter" is because, in fact, candidate Trump has not revealed his sources of income while his income tax returns are still secret.

Donald Trump built his populist campaign around the concept of "The Big Lie", meaning, he can tell a huge lie often enough so that the media must report it as news. Eventually, the uniformed public, who recognize the Trumponian brand, will "buy" the lie, regardless of how preposterous it is, just because it's out there. It's PTBarnham 101- "A Sucker Born Every Minute".

It's like the Tulip Bult Mania of 1637.

Tulip mania or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then suddenly collapsed.

At the peak of tulip mania, in March 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled craftsman. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble (or economic bubble).

The 1637 event was popularized in 1841 by the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written by British (or Scottish?) journalist Charles Mackay. According to Mackay, at one point 12 acres (5 ha) of land were offered for a Semper Augustus bulb. Mackay claimed that many investors were ruined by the fall in prices, and Dutch commerce suffered a severe shock.

In fact, Donald Trump doesn't have enough money to support a national campaign to run as the Republican candidate for US President. He either needs another fascimile "Tulip Mania" money campaign, or he'll have to sell some assets to fund a campaign structure that will give him credibility as a viable candidate.

Otherwise, Donald Trump is demonstrating, with a preponderence of evidence, that he's completely unqualified to be Leader of the Free World.

Thankfully, Secretary Hillary Clinton 2016, will save America from Trumponian disaster because she's an experienced political world leader. As the qualified presidential candidate, Americans must vote to support Secretary Clinton's election and, at the same time, eliminate all Republicans who have affiliations with right wing extremism.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-16678927228936651032016-06-21T07:35:00.002-07:002016-06-26T17:30:10.926-07:00International urgent help needed more than ever in Falluja IraqFallujah is the story of the world while news media is obsesssed with Trump and Brexit.

Evil ISIS conflict: Falluja 'humanitarian disaster' warning
"One newly opened camp, Amriyat al-Falluja, has only one latrine for 1,800 women, the NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council) said."

How will the history of the world evaluate our international paralysis when we are asked to be accountable for this horrific human carnage? BBCNews report

World history will evalute our inept international response to the humanitarian crises, our paralysis to deal with evil while the innocent victims list grows by the tens of thousands.

What is wrong with our human condition? We are helpless! Obviously, we learned virtually nothing from the experiences of recorded history.

We cannot let evil ISIS continue. It was once a movement that was wrongly pereceived too small to notice, or an offstoot from the Taliban. In fact, the evil ISIS hardly made a blip on our political radar screens, but now terrorizes the entire world by acts of terror and by causes carnage among millions of innocent victims.

Evil groups are  a small blot for a only a little while, but their influence is insidious and they eventually cause humanitarian carnage. This is what we're witnessing now, like the audiences who attended the ancient Roman Colosseum gladiator events, and obviously, as bystanders we've chosen not to act when evil prevails. We need a universal thumbs down on the evil roots or terrorism and elimination of puppet leaders who garner zealots, jus"tt because they can.

BBC reports- A humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Falluja (Iraq) following a civilian exodus from the Iraqi city, aid workers warn.

Some 80,000 people have fled during a four-week government offensive to drive back so-called Islamic State fighters, says the UN. A further 25,000 civilians are likely on the move, the organisation adds.

Aid workers are struggling to provide food, water and medicine to people who are sleeping in the open in hopelessly overcrowded camps outside the city.

"The overwhelming number of people that have come out of Falluja has actually overwhelmed our ability to respond to the people in need," said Nasr Muflahi from the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).

"We implore the Iraqi government to take charge of this humanitarian disaster unfolding on our watch," he added.

Iraqi government forces have succeeded in retaking most of Falluja, but fighting continues in some parts of the city, which is just 50km (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

We drove into Falluja on a road that snaked through what was once a wealthy suburb but is now deserted. Many homes have been destroyed.

By the side of the road, unexploded shells showed how dangerous these streets remain for civilians if they are allowed to return.

Many tell harrowing escape stories. Some have been caught in crossfire, others drowned in the Euphrates as they tried to swim to safety.

We heard the sound of artillery and gunfire wherever we went.
Many of those who fleeing the fighting have been forced to sleep in the open, and spend their days under the sun in temperatures set to reach 47C (117F) in the next few days.

Aid supplies are running dangerously low in overcrowded conditions. One newly opened camp, Amriyat al-Falluja, has only one latrine for 1,800 women, the NRC said.

The government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is already struggling to meet the needs of more than 3.4 million people across the country who have been displaced by conflict.

The IS group's self-styled Amaq news agency reported on Sunday that about 50 Iraqi troops had been killed and four army vehicles destroyed in "fierce fighting" with IS fighters near Falluja General Hospital in the north-east of the city.

Several civilians have been killed by militants while attempting to escape, including, on Monday, a two-year-old boy who was being carried by his mother.

Some residents were reportedly used as human shields by evil ISIS to slow the advance of government forces, who are being backed by air strikes from the US-led coalition.

Moreover, evil ISIS militants had captured the northern city in January 2014, and held it for longer than any other city in Iraq or Syria - before the Iraqi army launched an operation to retake it.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-86254871264826757092016-06-20T05:35:00.001-07:002016-06-20T05:35:32.089-07:00John McCain is wrong minded yet againRather than defend the US Constitution, like he has sworn to do with his hand on a Bible, Senator John McCain made the wrong minded decision to criticize the Obama administration for domestic terrorism. This is the seond wrong minded decision Senator John McCain has made in recent US history. As we know, the first one was in 2007, picking Governor (not a full term) Sarah Palin, of Alaska. She turned out to be the proverbial Pandora's box of right wing American politics.

Senator John McCain must recall his wrong minded accusation about the root cause of the June 12, 2016 massacre in Orlando Florida.

As it turned out, Governor Palin was absolutely unqualified to be Vice-President of the United States. Now, Senator McCain is making mind deficit claims that somehow President Obama had a connection to the Orlando massacre by a lone wolf gunman who had access to an assault weapon. In fact, Senator McCain said the Orlando murderer was motivated by the US withdrawal from Iraq and somehow correlated with the American policy in Syria.

Yet, it was Republicans that supported the illegal invastion of Iraq. Moreover, it was Republicans that negotiated the American withdrawal from Iraq. Thirdly, it was Republicans that blocked President Obama's call for an agressive campaign against the evil President Assad in Syria.

It's impossible to understand how Senator McCain can make unsubtatiated claims about President Obama, when General Ray Odierno clearly provided evidence to the contrary about the American withdawal from Iraq.

Top Army General Ray Odierno: Jeb Bush Is Wrong About Iraq War. "I remind everybody that us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration."

"I remind everybody that us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. That was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty," Odierno said during his final press conference at the Pentagon, reported in August 15, 2015 in The Huffington Post.

When Senator John McCain makes more wrong minded statements, he reinforces the decision made by American voters in 2007, when he was defeated and, rightly, prevented from being President of the United States.

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-14476847136904275422016-06-19T14:56:00.003-07:002016-06-19T14:56:40.635-07:00Medal of Honor Michael Monsoor PO2 USN- now USS Michael Monsoor

"Michael Monsoor made the ultimate sacrifice, and he did it for love. But he was not a hero. He is a hero. Because the inspiration he provided to all of us -- the guidance he provided to us -- as to how we should live our lives is still alive. And it's going to live as long as this ship sails the seas of the world," Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said during his remarks.

Navy SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor
"May God bless this ship, and all who sail within her," said Sally Monsoor, Michael's mother, before smashing a bottle against the ship as some 2,000 people looked on. Monsoor described her son as a quiet, loyal person and recalled how he once made a Christmas tree out of a sapling in their family's yard.

Sally Monsoor, mother of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, speaks during the christening ceremony for the Zumwalt Class Destroyer Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), June 18, 2016 at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.

(Photo: Joel Page/Portland Press Herald via AP)

(CNN) Standing before a crowd of nearly 2,000 in Bath, Maine, Sally Monsoor, the mother of fallen Navy SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, honored her son Saturday by christening the ship that will bear his name.

The 610-foot, 15,000-ton USS Michael Monsoor is the U.S. Navy's second Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer, named in tribute of Monsoor, who was killed in 2006 during the Battle for Ramadi when he leaped on a grenade to protect his comrades.

President George W. Bush posthumously awarded Petty Officer Monsoor the Medal of Honor in 2008, making him the first SEAL to receive the award for actions in Iraq.

The christening served as another tribute to Monsoor, whose "legacy will live on as this great ship conducts its mission in defense of our nation," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who spoke during the ceremony.

"Michael Monsoor made the ultimate sacrifice, and he did it for love. But he was not a hero. He is a hero. Because the inspiration he provided to all of us -- the guidance he provided to us -- as to how we should live our lives is still alive. And it's going to live as long as this ship sails the seas of the world," Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said during his remarks.

Construction on the Monsoor began in 2010.

The USS Monsoor is the U.S.'s largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer, touting stealth capabilities and two advanced gun systems that fire "long-range, land-attack projectiles that reach up to 63 nautical miles," according to the Navy.

This "is an extremely capable and versatile ship with an incredible namesake," Janine Davidson, undersecretary of the Navy, said in a news release.

"I have every confidence that the ship and crew will both live up to and honor Petty Officer Monsoor's legacy as the ship's motto implies -- You Never Quit," she said.

Senator Collins called the ship "the most advanced naval destroyer the world has ever seen."

On September 29, 2006, Monsoor was part of a major clearing and isolating operation to root out enemy fighters holding parts of Ramadi, the Sunni insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad.

Monsoor was in a sniper position on a rooftop along with two other SEALs when a grenade flew into his location from out of nowhere. It bounced off his chest and landed in an area where it probably would have killed or seriously wounded all three of them.

Petty Officer Monsoor was in a position to escape before the explosion but instead leaped on the grenade to save his fellow SEALs.

During the 2008 Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House, Bush quoted one of the SEALS saved by Monsoor as saying, "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"

The Navy took ownership of the first Zumwalt-class destroyer last month, and the third, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is under construction in Maine.

The cost of the three ships is expected to total about $22.5 billion.
The high price tag per ship stems from the fact that the Navy will now only build three of the Zumwalt class, down from 32 originally envisioned. That means the Pentagon can't spread research and development costs out over a large fleet.

The Navy is now focusing on an updated version of the current -- and more conventional -- Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

God bless the USS Michael Monsoor.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-62452297301630957842016-06-18T16:51:00.001-07:002016-06-18T16:51:20.375-07:00Hillary Clinton can win all 50 states for Democrats and she shouldA 50 state strategy - Huffngton Post Reports
Hillary Clinton Is On A Mission To Rebuild The Democratic Party

In my opinion, Democrats likely lost their way after President Barack Obama's two term election, when the opportunity to maximize the "hope and change" momentum, was missed.

A 50 state strategy has been tried before.
Her staff think they can do it right this time.

Secretary Clinton has the opportunity to raise Democrats to the party of Franklin and Eleanore Roosevelt. You go Hillary!

"This is something that needs to happen every presidential cycle. It needs to be sustained. And I think if we continue to do that, we will help build the party long-term," said Marlon Marshall, the Clinton team's director of state campaigns and political engagement.

"I truly believe we have a historic candidacy with Secretary Clinton, and we can use this opportunity to bring more people into the party."

Democrats have long been divided over the efficacy of a 50-state strategy. When he took over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) following the 2004 election, Howard Dean implemented an across-the-map approach to rebuilding the party, arguing that Democrats could only regain a foothold in lost territory if they put people there.

Congressional leadership bristled, arguing that resources were better spent on toss-up races and not unwinnable contests in Mississippi or Alaska.

Amid the celebratory mood following the party's gains in the 2006 election, thosetensions spilled out in public. Dean was accused of "Rumsfeldian" incompetence for not capturing even more congressional seats. He and his defenders noted that the party had just taken back the Senate and the House.

Dean stayed on at the DNC. Two years later, he found the ideal vessel for his vision. The presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) brought voter excitement, greater turnout and tangible investments in states that aren't traditionally Democratic strongholds. Obama not only won big over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), but Democrats expanded their control of both chambers of Congress.

But that proved to be a high-water mark. Since then, the party has lost control of the House and Senate, 12 governorships and more than 900 state legislative seats. Privately, Democratic officials have grumbled that the only elections Obama concerned himself with were his own. Obama's allies have countered that his grassroots organizing efforts helped produce legislative wins.

Clinton has a different mindset on these matters than the man she's hoping to succeed. It is, in some respects, an extension of her lengthy history in the party, from her time in state government (as first lady of Arkansas) to her role at the White House and her tenure in the Senate. Aides say she recognizes how much thinner the Democratic bench has become over the last seven years — having seen longtime allies lose their seats — and wants the trend reversed.

"I think it is important to lay a foundation for the future," said Marshall, who has worked in the Obama administration and pushed Dean's 50-state strategy as an organizing staff member in Kansas in 2005. "State House members are going to be your next folks running for Congress or running for governor, and one of them may be your next president of the United States."

Clinton's approach is also born from a belief that institutions, more than personalities, form the basis for political progress — that even the most moving rhetoric runs up against the procedural rules of the House and Senate.

"The 50-state strategy worked. It gave us the majorities in the House and the Senate, and then it was abandoned because Obama chose to go with OFA [Organizing For Action], which did not work, and the DNC scaled way back on it," Dean, a supporter of and consultant to Clinton's campaign, told HuffPost. "But I'm very pleased it is going to be rebuilt. I think they totally get that her legacy depends on having a Democratic Congress and that she has to start now."

Obviously, the Clinton campaign isn't Pollyannaish about how a 50-state strategy will work (or not?). No one expects Oklahoma to be overrun with Democrats by November.

But as her team and others see it, the benefits to having an expansive staff network are more immediate than flipping control of local chambers.

"From a tactical perspective, this is going to be enormous for the Clinton campaign," said Mitch Stewart, founding partner of 270 Strategies and the battleground states director for the 2012 Obama campaign. He noted that an organizer in a traditionally Republican state could generate a network of volunteers who could be used to get out the vote in critical swing states.

"You are generating capacity," Stewart said. "Even if you have one person in Mississippi, voter contact ramps up the closer you get to the election, like a hockey stick. Let's say that one person has organized 10 phone banks. They will be generating phone calls all day. It won't turn that state blue because one person is there. But that volume will have an impact elsewhere."

Already, Clinton has made moves to put her plan into action. Her campaign has begun overhauling the DNC, with a lingering question of whether she will keep its current chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), in place.

Her approach has the notable side effect of placating Sanders, who argued this past week that the party "had turned its back on dozens of states in this country," allowing "right-wing politicians to win elections in some states with virtually no opposition."(In this statement, I agree with Senator Sanders.)

Clinton enjoys the benefit of having to add relatively few personnel for the general election. Many in-state staffers simply remained in place after their primary or caucus concluded. Their focus will now shift slightly toward organizing general election volunteers, hosting events, mobilizing turnout and registering voters. In time, the hope is, that work will provide the foundation for a President Clinton's governing agenda.

"It can definitely be difficult in a state like Oklahoma to engage in a general election," Nicole McAfee, Clinton's Oklahoma organizer, told HuffPost. "In the primary, it was a little different. But we have some really good volunteers. I want to see Oklahoma and Oklahoma Democrats feel stronger and more engaged in every election. It's a long-term project, but it is an incredibly important one."
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-42931091190725677952016-06-18T07:11:00.000-07:002016-06-18T07:11:07.451-07:00Secretary Clinton finally receiving overdue press support about emailAlthough I strongly support Secretary Clinton for president, the non-resolution about "forget the damn emails" should've been handled long ago. Finally, an article to support this truth.

In my opinion, the news media only reported on the Clinton email story to counter 24/7 (stupid) Trump coverage.

As far as I know, there was no journalist who tried to print the truth about the emal story. In fact, the NBC reporter Kristen Welker seemed to create a personal cottage industry by reporting about Secretary Clinton's emails, without regard for the bottom line issue being "harm". There was none.

Secretary Clinton ideally should've put this email issue to rest long ago, but the news media were like the junk yard dog in persuit of a non-story.

In fact, the emails on Mrs. Clinton's server did no harm, contained nothing of importance and virtually no one was incrimiated. Obviously, the email server shouldn't have been in Mrs. Clinton's home but having it there did not break any law or violate any policy she was working under at the time it was installed. Otherwise, if there were anything of substance to the email story, this news would have been revealed by now. Kristen Welker needs to find another obsession. My advice to Welker is this, "If you're going to persue a person about one issue, then find out what harm was done before stalking your subject."
USA Today opinion column:
Given longstanding weaknesses in the State Department system, she made a rational decision.

NBC and MSNBC television journalist Kristen Welker was like the proverbial "junk yard dog" in her relentless pursuit of the non-email story and Secretary Clinton's home computer server. In fact, Ms. Welker rarely reported on what was found in the emails, because there was no "there there".

The pseudo-scandal over Hillary Clinton's emails bubbled up again with the recent release of the State Department Inspector General's report. Notwithstanding the usual hype, a close reading of the 42-page report (plus timely recommendations and appendices) reveals that the State Department system was susceptible to cyberattacks both before and after Secretary Clinton's tenure. Some experts have suggested that Clinton's server was as secure, and maybe even more secure, than the department's system.

The subject of the investigation was Secretary Clinton's personal email system, which she elected to utilize rather than the State Department's existing unclassified system. The State Department system has a decades long history of failures, includingsuccessful intrusions by unauthorized personnel. Across our government, foreign hackers have gained access to millions of U.S. private records and pieces of sensitive information in recent years. It is no wonder that Secretary Clinton was not the first to choose to use a personal email account instead of the sub-optimal State Department option.

The report notes that former Secretary of State Colin Powell used a personal email, and staff of both Secretaries Powell and Condoleezza Rice periodically used personal accounts. Tellingly, the report makes no recommendation that Secretary Clinton or any other former Secretaries be investigated or punished.

Moreover, as a senior State Department official admitted, the department did not do a good job of making sure employees understood or implemented proper regulations. In fact, some of the most useful guidance was not issued until 2013, four years after Clinton became secretary.

What is clear from the IG report is that the department as a whole, and the Office of the Secretary in particular, not only have outstanding flaws related to their servers and cybersecurity, but they also have been slow to make the necessary changes.

The office tasked with ensuring compliance of the rules was underfunded, understaffed and ineffective for several years, beginning long before Clinton assumed her role.

Also clear is that the secretary's use of her private email account and server was no secret to department officials. To the contrary, there were extensive communications, documented by the IG, between operations officials at State and the technicians in charge of maintaining security on the secretary's private server. And when there was a perceived threat of a hacker probing her system, the security folks shut it down until the threat was addressed.

The IG reported that "longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State." Given that finding, can it be considered anything other than a rational decision by Secretary Clinton to continue the use of a system for unclassified emails that had proved secure and functionally sound during her service as a United States senator, rather than risk using the State Department system?

The popular appetite for branding every controversy or disagreement as a scandal — and accepting the notion of "equivalency" as precept of objective journalism — enables partisan mischief-makers to ply their trade. Those interested in truth and fairness will take the time to examine the facts.

Or, as Bernie Sanders succinctly put it eight long months ago, "Enough of the emails!"

Richard Ben-Veniste was a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The views expressed reflect his personal opinion.

(Although Mrs. Clinton should've put this email issue into the "trash" folder long ago, the news media was responsible for preventing it from being permanently deleted.)

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns, go to the Opinion front page, follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion and sign up for our daily Opinion newsletter.

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-91264203369682031882016-06-18T03:20:00.001-07:002016-06-18T03:20:22.163-07:00Trump lies like people breath- Eugene Robinson"Trump lies the way other people breathe."

This is what Trump deserves for trampling on First Amendment rights. Thank you Eugene Robinson.

Donald Trump must be the biggest liar in the history of American politics, and that's saying something.

It's the responsibility of the news media and journalists to report on Trump's incendiary rhetoric and reveal

"The Big Lie".

Trump lies the way other people breathe. We're used to politicians who stretch the truth, who waffle or dissemble, who emphasize some facts while omitting others. But I can't think of any other political figure who so brazenly tells lie after lie, spraying audiences with such a fusillade of untruths that it is almost impossible to keep track. Perhaps he hopes the media and the nation will become numb to his constant lying. We must not.

Trump lies when citing specifics. He claimed that a "tremendous flow of Syrian refugees" has been entering the country; the total between 2012 and 2015 was around 2,000, barely a trickle.

He claimed that "we have no idea" who those refugees are; they undergo up to two years of careful vetting before being admitted.

Trump lies when speaking in generalities. He claimed that President Obama has "damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law enforcement." Obama actually expanded domestic intelligence operations and dialed them back only because of bipartisan pressure after the Edward Snowden revelations.

Trump lies by sweeping calumny. "For some reason, the Muslim community does not report people like this," he said of Omar Mateen, the shooter in the Orlando massacre. But according to law enforcement officials, including FBI Director James B. Comey, numerous potential plots have been foiled precisely because concerned Muslims reported seeing signs of self-radicalization.

Trump lies by smarmy insinuation.

"We're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind," he said of Obama. "There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on." He also said of Obama: "He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it's one or the other and either one is unacceptable."

You read that right. The presumptive Republican nominee implies that the president of the United States is somehow disloyal. There is no other way to read "he gets it better than anybody understands."

Trump claims that Hillary Clinton, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, "wants to take away Americans' guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us." Clinton has made clear that she doesn't want to take anyone's guns away, nor does she want to eliminate the Second Amendment, as Trump also claims. And the idea that Clinton actually wants to admit would-be slaughterers is grotesque.

I write not to defend Obama or Clinton, who can speak for themselves — and have done so. My aim is to defend the truth.

Political discourse can be civil or rowdy, gracious or mean. But to have any meaning, it has to be grounded in fact. Trump presents a novel challenge for both the media and the voting public. There is no playbook for evaluating a candidate who so constantly says things that objectively are not true.

All of the above examples come from just five days' worth of Trump's lies, from Sunday to Thursday of this week. By the time you read this, surely there will have been more.

How are we in the media supposed to cover such a man? The traditional approach, which seeks fairness through nonjudgmental balance, seems inadequate.

It does not seem fair to write "Trump claimed the sky is maroon while Clinton claimed it is blue" without noting that the sky is, in fact, blue. It does not seem fair to even present this as a "question" worthy of debate, as if honest people could disagree. One assertion is objectively false and one objectively true.

It goes against all journalistic instinct to write in a news article, as The Post did Monday, that Trump's national security address was "a speech laden with falsehoods and exaggeration." But I don't think we're doing our job if we simply report assertions of fact without evaluating whether they are factual.

Trump's lies also present a challenge for voters. The normal assumption is that politicians will bend the truth to fit their ideology — not that they will invent fake "truth" out of whole cloth. Trump is not just an unorthodox candidate. He is an inveterate liar — maybe pathological, maybe purposeful. He doesn't distort facts, he makes them up.

Trump has a right to his anger*, his xenophobia and his bigotry. He also has a right to lie — but we all have a duty to call him on it.

Read more from Eugene Robinson's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

* Respectively disagree with Mr. Robinson here. In my opinion, Trump has no right to spread his anger, xenophobia and bigotry on others who are clearly ready to drink his kool-aid. Rather, he has a responsibility to act like a statesman, by rising above those low life and degrading feelings.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-60523603365022363512016-06-17T16:57:00.002-07:002016-06-18T02:57:36.113-07:00Republicams invited the Trump "kiss of death" now shocked by the poison Donald Trump will have to do what he says he will and that is to run for election by doing it "alone".

Trump Offers Republicans the Kiss of Death Francis Wilkinson writes editorials on politics and domestic policy. He was previously executive editor of the Week. He was also national affairs writer for Rolling Stone, a communications consultant and a political media strategist.June 15, 2016 4:17 PM EDT
By Francis Wilkinson

Trumponians, be careful what you ask for the "kiss of death" to Republicans
Donald Trump's demagogic performance in the days after the Orlando mass shooting has prompted more awkward silence and equivocations from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
The Washington Post:

But most Republicans on Capitol Hill tried to distance themselves from Trump's comments following the terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, that killed at least 49 people.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) refused to respond to questions about Trump at his weekly news conference.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) denounced Trump for trying to rally support for his anti-Muslim policies, while others castigated Trump for the accusations he has lobbed at Obama.

McConnell and many, though far from all, of his co-partisans deserve every bit of their discomfort, of course. Having shamefully partnered with birthers, bigots and cranks -- Trump included -- in an effort to chase Barack Obama from the White House, they now find themselves unable to call off the increasingly wild dogs.Ryan never tainted himself by playing cute with birthers and the like. But he badly miscalculated with Trump. Expressing qualms, Ryan made a show of withholding support from Trump. When he at last agreed to support his party's presumptive nominee, it was widely understood that Ryan expected better behavior in turn.

Instead, Trump has gotten worse. If Ryan had qualms before, he can only be horrified now as Trump uses his enhanced public platform -- and the credibility of the Republican brand -- to continue to wallow in conspiracy theory, delusion and scapegoating.

Republican leaders seem to have concluded that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. This is a misperception. On one side is indeed a rock -- the political difficulty of renouncing the party's all-but-certain presidential nominee while simultaneously trying to bolster its other candidates. But the other side is not a mere "hard place"; it's a moral and political calamity. It could jeopardize the party for years.

It would be better to distance themselves from Trump and treat him as a freak accident (even if he is not). Because his campaign is only going to get uglier.

As Trump continues down his reckless path -- there is no Trump general-election pivot toward responsible politics or policy -- he is highly likely to lose support. The RealClearPolitics polling average already shows the beginning of such a trend, though it may largely reflect Hillary Clinton's consolidation of support as her primary contest ends.

Still, a CBS poll found respondents had a dismal view of Trump's reaction to the Orlando shooting; only 25 percent approved of his response while 51 percent disapproved. That's not the result of a typical partisan breakdown in which Republicans support the Republican candidate and Democrats don't. Only 50 percent of Republicans approved of Trump's response.

Trump spoke last night in Greensboro, North Carolina. According to one report, some members of the audience were as offensive as their candidate, yelling obscenities at the mention of Hillary Clinton's name, shoving and punching and chanting, "Build that wall!"

There is real dissatisfaction in the U.S., but the majority of American voters do not appear poised to join a mob. Large numbers do not share the anxieties animating Trump's most fervent supporters.

In the likely event that resistance to Trump solidifies, his poll numbers, which he deems almost sacred, will no longer prop up his besieged ego. To soothe his hurt, he will inevitably summon more of what wins him the mob's cheers -- demagogy.

Republicans are experiencing karma on a scale that politics only rarely affords. With Ryan, McConnell and their party tethered to Trump's destructive course, he will drag them down with him, and the association will linger long past 2016. Denying him the nomination may be impossible, perhaps even pointless, given that Trump's supporters would not accept a substitute.

Yet self-respecting politicians will be forced to ditch Trump sooner or later. There will be no way to reach an acceptable compromise with the political catastrophe that he both embodies and advances. There's more dignity, and less pain, to be had in walking away -- now.

To contact the author of this story:
 Francis Wilkinson at firstname.lastname@example.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
 Katy Roberts at firstname.lastname@example.com

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-61843534924858759382016-06-17T06:56:00.000-07:002016-06-17T06:56:26.410-07:00"Dangerously incoherent" explained by psychologist Dan McAdams
This article in "The Week" (June 10) sums up the risk of giving Donald Trump any political leadership. As Hillary Clinton says, he's "dangerously incoherent".

Who is Donald Trump, really, and "how does his mind work?" asked psychologist Dan McAdams in The Atlantic.

How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president". Now that the bombastic businessman is one election away from moving into the White House, questions about his "unique psychological makeup" have taken on greater urgency. In fact, Trump's combination of grandiose narcissism, sky high extroversion, and deeply rooted anger- coupled with his view of life as a series of "Darwinian" struggles between winners and losers- suggest a presidency "that could be highly combustible."

If elected to our country's most powerful position, Trump will probably be "a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker" who doesn't worry about unforeseen consequences.

He's likely to be "tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive." Trump's "abject inability to tolerate criticism is a telltale sign of a narcissistic personality," said Jennifer Rubin in WashingtonPost.com. The real estate mogul should be taking a gracious victory lap after securing last week the last of the 1,237 delegates required to lock up the Republican presidential nomination.

Instead, he went on a senseless grudge tour against anyone who had ever slighted him—"infuriated that they will not bow to kiss the ring." He turned on the GOP's only female Hispanic governor, New Mexico's Susana Martinez, after she failed to show up for his rally there.

Then he launched into an ugly tirade against a federal judge presiding over a civil lawsuit against Trump University.

The judge "happens to be, we believe, Mexican," Trump said, pointedly. "We have had presidents before who nursed grudges or sought to punish their enemies," said Paul Waldman in TheWeek.com, but Trump is so vindictive that it's "positively pathological." This is a guy who once mailed a columnist a copy of a negative article she'd written about him, with her picture circled and the words "The face of a dog!" written alongside. "Now think about having a president who acts that way." When a foreign despot, such as North Korea's Kim Jong Un, "rattles his saber at President Trump, will he be able to resist the urge to strike back?"

It's Trump's shameless lying that really boggles the mind, said The Washington Post in an editorial. Trump made a huge show of raising what he said was $6 million for veterans' groups, "including a $1 million donation from himself." When this newspaper found no evidence of that donation, Trump hurriedly wrote a $1 million check and claimed he had never said he raised $6 million, "despite video proof." All politicians lie and flip-flop, of course, but Trump "has created a powerful reality-distortion field" in which truth is entirely irrelevant, said Jack Shafer in Politico.com. He insists he opposed the Iraq War, when recorded interviews prove he didn't; he claimed Ted Cruz's father was photographed with Lee Harvey Oswald before the Kennedy assassination, then said, "Of course, I don't believe that." He's taken conflicting positions on abortion, immigration, healthcare and ISIS- often contradicting himself in the same interview.

So why do his supporters put up with it? asked Juan Williams in TheHill.com. Trump, they say, "is the Great Disruptor!" He's not afraid to call out Washington politicians, President Obama, and the Republican establishment they loathe. If their hero "kicks out the bums," the die-hard Trumpists say, who cares if he says some crazy things? Besides, Americans are used to politicians who lie out of political convenience, said Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed gay marriage in 2012, only to "evolve" on the subject, no one was surprised; the Left "always assumed the position to be dishonest in the first place." Trump has taken this "political doublespeak" and turned it into performance art—a "wink-and-nod routine" that delights his supporters. "He's out-Clintoning the Clintons.''

All politicians may lie, said Jonathan Chait in NYMag.com, but Trump doesn't even concede that "objective truth" exists. In Trump's Orwellian world, "the only measure of truth he accepts is what he claims at any given moment." When critics mocked his many failed companies, Trump piled steaks on a table and insisted that Trump Steaks was still a going concern—even though it's out of business and the steaks bore telltale labels from a local meat store. He has admitted posing as his own public relations spokesman in talking to reporters, but now denies it.

Like all authoritarians, Trump bends the rules to his own will and demands that "his and demands that "his supporters place undying faith in him"—the truth be damned. It's "a display of dominance" reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, or Vladimir Putin's Russia, and it makes Trump "uniquely dangerous."

THE WEEKJune 10, 2016

WEEK

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-34504382188819566422016-06-16T18:00:00.001-07:002016-06-16T18:00:26.746-07:00John McCain hits rock bottom - shame on the creater of Sarah PalinSenator John McCain was mocked by Republican candidate Donald Trump, yet the same man who stood up to the intimidation by the North Vietnamese, is kow-towing to the man who disdained his days as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam.

Senator John McCain has become a lock-step political clone. Rather than lead the Republican party to overcome right wing bigotry and destructive anger, McCain made the wrong decision to build on stupid conspiracy theories about President Obama. Remember the Senator McCain who stood up to a woman in a town hall meeting, when she accused the President (then candidate) Obama of being a Muslim, when he wasn't?

Where is that man today? He's running for re-election in Arizona and, therefore, finds himself saying anything to avoid another lost election, especially one at the end of his political career.
Shame on him.

Senator John McCain remained a leader of the Republican party following his presidential defeat in 2008, but he has now caved to right wing extremism, rather than stand against candidate Donald Trump.

Governor Mitt Romney (left), on the other hand, is opposing Donald Trump, because he doesn't risk loosing any political office.

McCain should show leadership by supporting President Obama during times of grief and moruning, especially during the aftermath off preventable mass gun massacres, most recently the devastation in Orlando.

Incredulously, McCain has accused President Obama of somehow being responsible for the Orlando massacre. Why? Because, he says, of the war in Iraq? OMG. It's conspiracy theory paranoia.

John McCain is showing symptons of short term political memory loss. He forgets how the failed Operaton Iraqi Feedom led to the rise of Middle East religious extremism because the invasion of the soverign nation of Iraq pulled the scab off of decades of simmering ethnic misrust.

Some linear thinking people feel like it was a town hall questioner who asked about President Obama's ethnicity that led the path to Senator McCain's 2008 presidential defeat. Yet, the fact is, it was his Vice-Presidential nominee, the Governor (who did not finish her term) Sarah Palin who lost the 2008 presidential election, rather than any encounter in a Town Hall meeting.

What Senator John McCain said about President Obama somehow being responsible for any mass killings, especially the murders in Orlando, is reprehensible. Surely, Senator McCain is showing signs of short term memory loss. He's forgotten who caused the War in Iraq, in the first place. Furthermore, Senator McCain has also forgotten the candidate he was when he led the Republican party in 2008, against now President Barack Obama. Although Senator McCain lost the election, he retained his dignity as a patriotic American. Now, by building on weird conspiracy theories, Senator McCain is loosing his political moral compass.

In fact, the enablers of evil ISIS, the terrorist Islamic State, are those who fuel the movement by feeding the hate they use for energy.

Shame on you, Senator John McCain. At the end of your political career, you have hit rock bottom.Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-84684031625178706292016-06-16T06:56:00.001-07:002016-06-16T06:56:14.751-07:00Consoler in Chief- President Obama eulogizes 15 horrific mass murdersToo many euologies - not the legacy President Obama envisioned.

It's a sad legacy but, in fact, President Obama has become our nation's consoler in chief. This blog has a link to a few of the 15 times President Obama has spoken about the preventable tragedies caused by gun violence in America.

It's impossible to understand how or why Republicans will not repond, to fix this preventable public health hazard. In fact, the Republican hero President Abraham Lincoln was among the litany of political leaders who were among gun violence victims.

We continue to seek President Obama to be the eulogist who expresses unimaginable grief at too many memorial
serives for victims of preventable mass murders. Yet, the US Congress won't do anything to end this difficult oratory task.

President Obama's Speech on the Charleston Church Shooting
June 18, 2015
Obama spoke in the White House about the South Carolina massacre in which nine people lost their lives.
President Obama sang the hymn "Amazing Grace" at the euology for the victims of the Chraleston Church tragic shooting.

President Obama at Sandy Hook mass shooting of innocent children. President Obama's speech at the interfaith vigil in Newtown, Conn., Dec. 16, 2012, in honor of the victims of the shootings at Sandy Hill Elementary.

President Obama speaks about the frequency of mass murders perpetrated by preventable gun violence.

"We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world," Obama told CBS News following the shooting that left at least 14 dead and at least 17 wounded inside a San Bernardino CA social services office.

"There's some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen as frequently; common sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks," he said. "And for those who are concerned about terrorism, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes. But those same people we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there's nothing we can do to stop them."

Obama's passionate plea came almost exactly two months after President Obama addressed the nation, following a shooting at an Oregon community college, that left nine people dead.

Republicans are obstructionts. Their dangerous narrow mindedness will cause their political party to dissolve into a sea of right wing "kook-aid" drinkers (that's not a typo-error, either.) They are headed for group think suicide.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-78442055539210718902016-06-15T17:04:00.002-07:002016-06-15T17:04:33.929-07:00Democrats are clearly gaining on Donald Trump's incoherence campaign
This optimistic report from The Daily Beast overlooks one compelling piece of information called "political overconfidence".

Hopefully, Democarts will continue to fight for evey vote in the November election, regardless of how Republicans appear to be circling the drain with candidate Donald Trump's incoherent leadership.

Republicans are creating a toxic kettle of political fish

Repblicans created the pot they're now frantically stirring and their political kettle is simmering, while the party's brand is turning toxic.

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is seizing the political brass ring, to "clean Donald Trump's clock" reports The Daily Beast.

The very early scorecard looks awfully good for Team Blue—Clinton 358, Trump 180.

Pundits try to be careful about predictions, because the future comes, eventually, and they might be wrong. Predictions are always careful to add the conditions—if this, assuming that.

So let's not call this a prediction, but an observation: it is entirely possible that this election could—could—be a blowout.

A humiliation. A decapitation. A world-historical debacle for one party. And I bet you can guess which one.

This observation is occasioned by the appearance this week of the first full-blown general-election Electoral College forecast, from frontloadingHQ.com.

The folks at FHQ looked at polls and recent electoral history and voting trends to take a stab at what the Electoral College might look like on the night of Nov. 8 if things don't change much from today. So, if you're a fan of the candidate who's a person of color—orange—it isn't pretty.

They have it at Clinton 358, Trump 180. And if anything, they're being a little conservative.

How could the spread be that big, when, in most polls, Secretary Clinton may still be just a few points ahead?

But, now a recent Bloomberg poll dropped Tuesday evening has Clinton up 12 points, 49-37. A staggering 63 percent of women say that they could never vote for him. And whatever the popular margin ends up at, the college is remorseless, my friend. You just have to win a state. You win Ohio by 1 point or 20, you get the 18 electoral votes. And Clinton is projected to win nearly every big state.

Let's go back in time first for some context about how thorough a thumping this would be. In the 1980s, of course, Republicans thrashed Democrats, who were at sea.

Ronald Reagan's first election, for example, was 489-49. But then came the culture wars of the 1990s. We started dividing up into camps, and wins of that size weren't possible anymore. But even so, Bill Clinton ran up huge Electoral College numbers, much bigger than his vote margins: In 1996, for example, he beat Bob Dole by eight points but clobbered him in the electoral vote by 379-159.

Then came the era of the red-blue divide.

George W. Bush 271-with-an-asterisk, Al Gore 267. Bush 286, John Kerry 251. That's how it looked things were going to stay for a while, but then the financial collapse happened, John McCain picked Sarah Palin to run with him, lots of people were feeling hopey-changey, and Barack Obama won big in 2008, 365-173. He retreated in 2012, but 332-206 was still a big win, and Mitt Romney showed the limits of the present-day Republican Party. He won only one of the seven main swing states (North Carolina) and flamed out in the states Republicans always talk big about, just like they do now (Pennsylvania and Michigan).

So here we sit. In my experience, it's been thought by insiders that Obama's 2008 numbers aren't replicable, that the Democratic advantage probably rests naturally around the 70 to 100 vote range.

But this could be epic.

FHQ gives Clinton all of Obama's 2012 states plus North Carolina (which he won in 2008) and… drum roll… Arizona. Now, Arizona last went Democratic in 1996, and that was the first time it had done so since 1948. But don't laugh. Clinton leads, by a point, in RCP average. That's just two polls, so who knows. But Latino turnout will presumably be through the roof.

Let's have more fun. Here's where I think it's possible the FHQ might be selling Clinton a little short. Think Georgia sounds crazy? Yeah, it kinda does. But Trump is up there by only four. I spoke Tuesday with a Democratic operative in the state who was spinning me to some extent, sure, but who sounded pretty bullish as he described the state GOP's internal divisions and the fact that about 40 percent of the electorate is going to be non-white. That 40 percent is mostly African American, and Clinton's going to win 85 or 90 percent of that 40 percent, so do the math—she'd need less than 30 percent of the white vote to win the state. Still sound crazy?

Let's climb farther out the limb. How about Utah? One earlier poll from Utah actually showed Clinton slightly ahead; another came out yesterday showing a tied race.

And if that's not crazy enough for you, contemplate Kansas. I said Kansas. Kansas hasn't gone Democratic since I think 1236 (okay, 1936). A poll last week showed Clinton ahead there. Not by one. By seven. And if these states fall, it will mean Trump has had a total meltdown, and who knows what else is falling.

Now, don't expect Clinton to win Utah or Kansas. But the mere existence of these polls are joyous things. And, unless either Trump or "events" (i.e., the FBI) really change the direction of this thing, they're going to keep coming. Tied in Missouri! Trump up only five in South Carolina! Gary Johnson pulls ahead of Trump in New Mexico, Colorado!

Okay, it's all great fun, but what does it matter? Lord knows, as Dubya showed us, you're as much the president with his 271 electoral votes as you are with Reagan's 489. But still, it does matter. Two points.

One: It's psychologically devastating for a party to lose a state it's supposed to win. If, say, Clinton actually carried Georgia, it would wound the GOP badly and lead to loads of stories about how even the solid South is now slipping out of the ossified party's geriatric hands. It wouldn't be the same as, for example, Obama's winning Indiana in 2008, which everyone knew was a fluke. Clinton winning Georgia wouldn't be a fluke.

Two: It's what the man himself deserves. There's one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it's not "Mexican" or "Muslim." It's "loser." How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser.

To a "girl," no less! FHQ, from your spreadsheets to God's ears.

If the election 2016 is predicted to be "epic" for Democrats, the hope is that the collateral impact will be to remove all Republicans from the US Congress, while Trump drains the Grand Old Party.
Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8497462.post-60841228108851312052016-06-15T07:05:00.006-07:002016-06-15T07:05:55.727-07:00Media editors criticize Donald Trump and his ignorance of First Amendment

Obviously, the only person who candidate Donald Trump wants to have as a beneficiary of free speech is his narcissistic self.

Associated Press Media Editors condemn Republican candidate Donald Trump blacklist of media when he is challenged or criticized by the news coverage.

Hypocritical Second Amendment zealots throw around the words in the US Constitution, as though this particular law was the only subject the Founding Fathers seemed to care about. Yet, I doubt many of the rabid "secondamenders" have even read the Constitution. '
In fact:

US Constitution First Amendment (in other words, the first law the authors and Founding Fathers wrote):

The Associated Press Media Editors have called Donald Trump to abide by the Constitution's First Amendment law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, candidate Donald Trump has decided to trump the First Amendment by denying Freedom of Speech to people and media outlets with which he disagrees. Listen up candidate Trump, you can't endorse the Second Amendment but then ignore the First one.

Donald Trump has revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post and barred multiple major news organizations from rallies and campaign events, while working to become the nation's next president. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the rights of a free press, as established in the First Amendment.

The press has an obligation to provide vigorous, thorough and accurate coverage of anyone running for the office of U.S. president. And candidates have an obligation to allow uniform media access to their events, regardless of whether coverage conforms to their wishes.

The Associated Press Media Editors joins other major news leadership organizations in condemning this affront to the democratic process and the very principles on which our nation was founded. We urge the Republican Party and its presumptive presidential nominee to abandon these sanctions and allow full access to all media outlets to protect the public's right to know.
Some other journalism organizations speaking out are the Society of Professional Journalists and American Society of News Editors

Juliana L'Heureuxhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com