The Lipstick is Wearing Thin and Other Matters

Lipstick on a Pig.  As ridiculous as the Trump Campaign/Russia Collusion farce was, it never seemed to reach the point of absolute annoyance that the House Impeachment Inquiry has attained.  The House Democrats have put lipstick on their impeachment livestock, but it has really worn thin and if you look very closely…it hardly remains a shade of red.  Furthermore I can assure you; if the pig ends up in the Senate, where the Republicans will be running the show, it will end up as a large order of pulled pork barbecue.  Don’t be surprised if Speaker Pelosi doesn’t figure out some way to bail out of this sad episode (perhaps a censure motion?) and stave off the Senate cook-out.  If she doesn’t want to see her porcine product skewered in the Senate, she’d better be developing an alternative strategy.  The impeachment jar is empty, the voters are sick and tired of the same old Democratic story, and there is legislative business that needs doing.

Double Standard Abounds.  The mainstream media has sold its soul to the Resistance and forfeited all of its ethics and credibility through its biased coverage of the Trump Administration.  But even more breath-taking than their shameless coverage is the obvious double standard demonstrated when considering their Trump coverage versus their Obama coverage.  Point in case: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/11/18/analysis_medias_no_evidence_biden_standard_is_a_double_standard_121241.html .  The House Democrats, in unison with their partners in the mainstream media, started this circus by accusing Trump of a quid pro quo and then morphed those charges into bribery.  The facts are that Obama literally sent a pallet of cash to the Iranian Mullahs and President Rouhani in an effort to seal his JCPA Iranian Nuclear Deal; i.e. bribery.  As recorded on video, Biden threatened to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine if a certain Ukrainian prosecutor wasn’t fired (the prosecutor was fired and then the aid was delivered); i.e. quid pro quo. 

As a side note, attorney Andrew Weissmann, formerly known as Robert Mueller’s pit bull, has taken a job with MSNBC.  The man who many believe actually ran Mueller’s special investigation is now spouting new conspiracy theories relating to the Trump Administration.  It is also rumored that the upcoming DOJ IG Horowitz report will name a former Mueller team member as one of the individuals referred to the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution.  How can the mainstream media even dare to think that anyone will take them seriously when they prop up naked partisans like these and call them legitimate news sources or opinions?  And even more bizarre, will history marvel at how the American people could ever have taken the Mueller Investigation seriously?  BTW…a detailed expense report for the Mueller Investigation has never been released and likely never will be.  I expect it would be quite revealing to find out exactly how much taxpayer money was wasted on this fiasco. 

Civility in WDC?  In past posts, I have repeatedly called for a semblance of statesmanship and civility in our government proceedings on Capitol Hill.  Here is another online voice calling for a new day in political endeavors: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/can-the-american-right-and-left-get-back-to-civil-debate/ .   As tragic and disillusioning as it is to look over the political landscape of America today; it is even more difficult to see any prospect whatsoever of any form of civility returning to our nation’s capitol.  The die appears to be cast that will condemn this current generation of leaders to the partisan paralysis that has become so prevalent in our country’s politics.  We can only hope that the next generation of leaders from both sides of the aisle will be better able to work together in the administration of our government.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

Destroying Your Enemies.  This new attitude that seems to be so pervasive in our nation about bludgeoning anyone who deigns to disagree with your opinions, political or otherwise, is quite troubling.  It is so brazeningly hypocritical for a group to decry a lack of tolerance in those they disagree with while simultaneously screaming intolerance for those they themselves oppose.  Here is a perfect example of how outrageous this whole movement has become: https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/21/rep-blumenauer-under-fire-for-calling-for-boycott-of-sondlands-hotels-to-pressure-him/ .   

The older I get, the more I appreciate and exercise the right to spend my consumer dollars and time supporting products and causes I can believe in.  But to me, this power of personal choice is a private matter and these organized boycotts of people and businesses have a bad look.  America is a free country and we all have the right to criticize and cite valid reasons for that criticism.  But to take that strategy further into the land of organized and politically-motivated boycotts is contrary to the tenants of freedom upon which this nation was founded.

To Seek Out New Life and New Civilizations.  For those out there who are ardent supporters of spending a portion of the U.S. taxpayer largesse on exploration of all kinds, here is an update: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/  .  While my conservative side questions the wisdom of spending millions on oceanic and deep space exploration while our federal deficit explodes; my imaginative side argues that if we are going to be a leading nation on this planet, then we must dream of life beyond what we know and reach beyond our grasp.   I will add this to the discussion…If we are going to continue to finance large exploration projects; I would prefer to prioritize the Arctic and Antarctic regions, along with the ocean depths, before we blast off blindly into space.  We can certainly manage to juggle more than one ball at a time and space does represent the final frontier; but I would like for us to explore our local options first.  There are certainly other nations looking at those local options: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/july/russias-activities-arctic-cannot-go-unchecked-either .

John Solomon Responds.  One of the most professional and hard-working journalists I know of took some flak this week from House Impeachment Inquiry hearings witness Lt. Col. (Mister) Alexander Vindman.  Vindman questioned the veracity of Solomon’s reporting in a rather provocative and snarky fashion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/08/you-know-his-grammar-might-have-been-right-lt-col-vindman-bashed-john-solomon-testimony/ .   Out of respect for Solomon, who is an example of those people in the news arena who are trying to do it the right way, I am linking his response to Vindman: https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/ .  A proper take-down such as this needs no further commentary.

The Search for a Better President.  Our system of selecting a President is messed up.  No, I do not question the wisdom of our federal general election process; the Electoral College system works just fine for me.  What I am questioning is the method we use to get down to the final two (national party) candidates on the ballot from which we have to choose our President.  Both the Republicans for 2016 and the Democrats for 2020 have demonstrated that too many candidates in a free-for-all presidential primary, coupled with a bizarre scheduling of primary contests pinging arbitrarily across the country, leads us to a less than desirable end result.  Is there perhaps a better way?  Here is some food for thought: http://centerlineright.blogspot.com/2016/08/question-for-our-national-parties-wtf.html .  And while we’re at it, let’s go ahead and address the lack of wisdom in perpetuating a bad choice simply because they are incumbents.  Trump was a bad choice.   He was clearly a better choice than Hillary Clinton; but a bad choice nonetheless.  And once we put a person in the White House, be they Democrat or Republican, history shows us that we are likely to double down on the original choice of selecting that individual as the leader of our Party and our Nation.  Incumbents just don’t lose too often.  Consider for a moment the concept of term limits: http://centerlineright.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-place-to-begin.html . 

Term limits would free us from the arrogant extremities of Donald Trump for a second term and a better primary system would likely present us with improved choices when we go to the polls for 2020.  As all Presidents before him have done, Trump will spend the last two years of his first term running for a second term.  Every Senator or Representative in Congress spends an inordinate amount of their time and energy raising campaign dollars in order to remain in office.  That is time and energy that should be spent on doing the people’s business and all that campaign money simply leads to corruption and improper influence. 

The Impeachment Chronicles

This week brought us the public portion of the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.  After having their selected State Department employees (past and present) pass secretly through their SCIF bunker in rehearsal of their expose routines, the Democrats figured that their star Trump critics were ready for prime time.  For me, the only suspense present in the proceedings was waiting for that moment when Adam Schiff’s eyes would actually pop out of his head onto the dais before him.  How can those orbs remain in his head when obviously 75 percent of them are exposed outside of their sockets?  That…is…amazing; a seeming physical impossibility.

In the past, I have shared my views on the super-inflated egos of U.S. Senators and how each of them believes they would be far superior to whoever might be sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office.  After reading and watching these State Department employees bitch and whine and moan and groan and lecture us all in condescending fashion; I honestly think this bunch of self-aggrandizing marshmallows can give the Senators a good run for their money in the arena of self-importance combat.  Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is a perfect example of what I am writing about.  It is offensive to me that she somehow thinks that her Princeton degree and years of government paychecks entitle her to openly challenge the wishes of the President she serves and independently pursue a foreign policy that conforms with her private agenda, rather than the one formulated by her employer.

Ms. Yovanovitch had served for over 30 years in the State Department’s diplomatic corps before her unceremonious termination as Ukrainian Ambassador at the pleasure of President Trump.  It goes without saying that every…single…incoming…President typically terminates sitting Ambassadors and replaces them with their own selected candidates; many times using those positions as rewards for financial campaign support.  As with all patronage appointments, we can only hope that the selected candidates have a minimum level of competence to go along with their deep pockets.  If you read the transcript of Ms. Yovanovitch’s testimony: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776075849/read-former-ukraine-ambassador-yovanovitchs-testimony-to-congress, it is abundantly clear that her feelings are extremely bruised over the manner in which she was fired and she is equating herself and her fate with some fairly noble individuals and events.  Notwithstanding the real value of her service and good intentions, her narcissistic sense of self-importance is rather breath-taking. I suppose that when you are the top U.S. official at residence in a foreign land, you begin to take on an air of independence and nobility that exceeds reality.  Perhaps this is similar to what we see with the spoiled celebrity athletes who are put upon a throne at an early age and never really grasp the concept of commonality with the rest of humankind.  Like many who reside in the privileged bubble with her, Ms. Yovanovitch has forgotten exactly who is the supervisor and who is the subordinate.

 Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

You can use any phrase you like to describe it, but anyone who denies the existence of Deep State entities in our government is naïve to the extreme.   Every single Department in our government has an enclave of career employees who persevere through multiple Presidents and Administrations.  This ongoing core group of experienced and trained government employees is critical to the ongoing function of our federal bureaucracy; but it is a dangerously double-edged sword.  When certain individuals in positions of influence and authority remain in those jobs for decades, they tend to expand the concepts of their own wisdom and knowledge in an autonomous fashion and gradually fail to respect the will of those elected officials who have been selected by the voters to supervise them.  They become inappropriately safe and secure in their own ideas and opinions; utilizing their years of experience to game the system in ways that emphasizes their agendas at the expense of the President, Congress, and appointed heads of state. 

We have seen this reality play out repeatedly over the history of our nation; but never to the extent of the present drama we are witnessing in the Trump Administration.  From the Department of Justice to the State Department to the Defense Department and the many other Departments that make up our government, entrenched individuals have both independently and collectively embarked upon actions to massage, ignore, or blatantly subvert the will of the Trump Administration.  This is wrong.  It was wrong when the President was Obama; it was wrong when the President was Bush; it is wrong when the President is Trump.  The solution to public displeasure with a President’s policy initiatives is the ballot box.  Federal political (patronage) appointees serve at the pleasure of our President and that is as it should be.  When a President is elected, they have every right to select those who share their philosophy of government to serve them in the quest to implement their ideals and agenda.  We as voters can only hope and expect that those selected for these positions of power and influence, who have immense impact on our daily lives, are capable of performing their jobs in an honest and reliable manner.  We may not agree with what their policies are; but they have earned the legitimate opportunity to deliver on the promises they made when they campaigned for the office.

Just as Ms. Yovanovitch is the classic example of the diplomatic snowflake who has obviously lost her sense of exactly how she fits into the machine; so is former CIA Director John Brennan a similar example of the same syndrome in the Department of Justice.  But Brennan is so much more dangerous: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/11/15/the_brennan_dossier_all_about_a_prime_mover_of_russiagate_121098.html .  The upcoming reports of DOJ Inspector General Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Durham will deal with Brennan.  As for Yovanovitch, John Soloman does a great job of posing the questions that she should address: https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-15-essential-questions-for-marie-yovanovitch-americas-former-ambassador-to-ukraine/ . 

If you have interest in the House impeachment inquiry, you owe it to yourself to read the transcripts of the witnesses.  And don’t stop there…read the transcripts of the complaint and the second phone call in question (links available in prior posts).  In fact, read the transcript of the first phone call between Trump and Zelensky: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/second-phone-call-even-more-innocent-than-the-first.php .  At some point in this process, regardless of your political leanings and your opinions of President Trump, the question must be posed: THIS is sufficient to overturn the legitimate election of an American President?

Anatomy of the House Impeachment Circus

Use your head.  Trust your own judgment.  Think for yourself.  You do not need MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal to tell you how to think.

Here is the whistle blower report: https://www.scribd.com/document/427562713/Declassified-Whisteblower-Complaint#from_embed

Here is the likely identity of the whistle blower: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

Here is the undisputed summary of the telephone call cited by the whistle blower complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/427409665/Ukraine-Call-Transcript#from_embed

Here is the House resolution regarding their secretive and non-transparent impeachment inquiry: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-text-house-resolution-trump-impeachment-process-n1073481 .  Note that all actions involving minority (Republican) rights and transparency require Democratic approval.  

Fact: The Trump Administration released $400 million in military aid to Ukraine on September 11, 2019:  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/07/us-aid-ukraine-donald-trump-froze-one-chart/  .  Note that the details of the actual aid package release come in the final paragraph…after much heavy breathing and extraneous detail. 

Fact: In the immediate aftermath of the telephone call in question, there was no new investigation opened into Joe or Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma: https://apnews.com/cd2d1f8ba4cb4caeaba690ff87cca225

Consider the event.  Consider the source.  Consider the rules of the impeachment inquiry.  Consider that the aid was actually released.  Consider that no new investigation has occurred.  If a President can be impeached for this, then he or she can be impeached for how they get out of bed in the morning. 

Impeachment is the ultimate political act of overturning the democratic process at the very heart of our Constitution.  The House is essentially considering going into the voting booth and erasing all 2016 votes for Donald Trump. 

Federal Fiscal Year 2020 (which began on October 1, 2019) appropriations which fund our government have not yet been passed.  The US/Mexico/Canada Trade Agreement has been lying on a House table awaiting consideration for about nine months.  Immigration Reform continues to languish.  Roads and bridges all across the nation are unsafe and crumbling; while a bipartisan bill to address them cannot find room on the House floor for debate.  Health care costs continue to rise and squeeze American taxpayers while the House fiddles with impeachment.

Is this what you elected your U.S. Representative to do?

Is this the type of government you want for our nation?

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

Pax America in Today’s World

Has the American military and diplomatic approach to global conflicts and our cooperation with global allies become so outdated as to be dysfunctional?  Do the endless wars that we have become embroiled in over the last three decades indicate that our foreign policy has not kept pace with the evolution of the geopolitical dynamic?   In a strictly non-partisan context, have our Presidents and Legislative Branches assumed an outdated posture of operating in a reactive, rather than proactive, manner that consistently has their plans and schemes outpaced by reality?  I believe the answers to these questions are yes.

In an effort to balance global support for human dignity and freedom with global military assessments with national security issues and with domestic political upheaval, our past several Presidents have seemed to be constantly off-balance and disconcerted in the responses that have been implemented against the very real and violent threats posed by foreign nations and entities against our country and our way of life.  Terrorism, nationalistic military adventures all across the planet, political discord and uncertainty in the governments of both our enemies and our allies, the potential (and perhaps active) militarization of space, and the virtual shrinking of the communal world ushered in by technological advances….all of this has contributed to a global environment of chaos, uncertainty, and conflict.  How can we as a nation, one whose very existence is built on the premise of freedom, dignity and human rights for all people, continue to remain a stabilizing and positive force in the future for the whole of nations?

What we cannot do is continue to put out flash fires as they crop up in every little nook and cranny across the international landscape.  While we certainly can, and should, fulfill our obligation to serve as a beacon of light, hope, and support for all people who seek personal freedoms; the harsh reality is that the United States simply no longer has the brute military force and diplomatic influence necessary to serve as the world’s policeman in every incident of global unrest.  At some point, sooner rather than later, it will become apparent that the money we spend in the defense of world peace and contentment is depriving us of important resources sorely needed to insure the well-being of our own citizens.  But far more importantly, we should by now realize that we can no longer pursue U.S. military involvement in foreign skirmishes that costs us dearly in human life and monetary loss while essentially casting us in the unappreciated role of military interloper and global bully.

How can we, as a nation seeking to find our proper role in a changing world, continue to be a reliable pillar of peace for those seeking civil existence while simultaneously finding an alternative to a fragmented, knee-jerk foreign policy that spreads our marvelous military and diplomatic capabilities thinly across the face of the planet?  These resources, incredible as they might be, simply cannot withstand the continued challenges that are increasingly being thrust upon them.  What path can we possibly travel to achieve the balance necessary to continue our desired role in the geopolitical and military development of this world?   While acknowledging, as I have done many times before, the utter foolishness and hubris of a layman like me spouting foreign policy ideals; I will nonetheless put forth a vision for the future role of America in the world.  I will call it Pax America Light. 

Pax Americana (Latin for American Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world as a result of the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States beginning around the middle of the 20^th century and continuing to this day.  Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20^th century, it has been used with different meanings and eras, such as the post-Civil War era in North America, and regionally in the Americas at the start of the 20^th century.  Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace.  In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations.  For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as the launching of Pax Americana.

The ever-evolving dynamic of foreign powers and governments makes it impossible to ascertain precisely who is in charge at any particular time and place.  Ruling strongmen or entities come and go, often changing through violent overthrow or political disruption.  I must imagine that the rest of the world looks at America with the same concern.  Obama’s foreign policy was largely an advancement and natural evolution of Bush’s foreign policy; while Trump’s foreign policy initiatives have been dramatic departures from both of his predecessor’s philosophies. 

What we do know for certain is the extent of our military abilities. And through our intelligence establishment, we have a pretty good idea of what we do not know.  In other words, as we look to the future, we can map out the world in regions that can be defined based on their stability, volatility, risk to global peace, threat to U.S. national security, and long-term implications to world peace.  Once these regions are established and based on strategic concerns, the United States could establish regional super-bases; autonomous sites equipped with modern technology attributes and sufficient military capabilities to enforce American interests in their area.  We can harden them and make them as impenetrable as is humanly possible.

Obviously, these sites would require the clear and unquestioned support of the nations in which they were located.  It is altogether conceivable that ironclad, long-term agreements could be consummated with American allies to establish these bases on property that is considered to be essentially sovereign America.  Although that reality would be extremely challenging, it should be achievable given America’s military strength and diplomatic prowess.  By noting American military strength, I do not propose the acquisition of this property by force.  I am simply saying that given the principles upon which our nation stands and our obvious military prowess, this type of facility should be a welcome addition for any country that shares those aspirations.  What better defense could their nation have in place?

No doubt, a network similar to what I am suggesting already exists to some degree.  America surely has some very impressive military bases here and there across the globe.  And it is certain that these bases are part of a deliberate and strategic pattern regarding capabilities and locations.  The system I envision is one built upon the assets we already have in place and supplemented by additional bases; while some bases might be closed.   If an existing base is already in the right place internationally and is not limited by extraneous factors regarding its enhancement, then that reality can simply move the effort down the road that much quicker.  Aside from elevating any physical capabilities that we may now possess, this new effort would also feature a very public acknowledgment of our new approach and intent.  There would be no stealth or secrecy in the establishment of these bases.  A prominent element of their deterrence value would be their very visible presence.  Our existing military alliances (i.e. NATO) and cooperative efforts will remain intact and should actually be facilitated by this type of operation. 

It is clear that these bases would provide open and inviting targets for America’s enemies; those being political, military, and terrorist-related.  But would a defined base of operations, protected by all the resources and technology we have at hand, be any more at risk than our globally-scattered boots on the ground military equipment and personnel?   I don’t think so.  Aside from the very real physical threats that would have to be taken into account; there would likely be considerable political and diplomatic resentment to America’s open expansion of its authority and presence.  Once again, if we are secure and resolute in our cause, we should be able to convince our potential allies of the wisdom in this approach. 

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

From these bases, we should be able to address strategic threats as they occur.  Our intelligence can identify and evaluate necessary responses and actions.  Our defensive capabilities should provide us with adequate long-range, or if necessary, short range special operations strikes that fit into our strategies for world peace and stability.  Having a single, defensible footprint in these regions, as opposed to having our assets sprinkled across deserts and jungles from north to south and west to east, should increase our efficiency and effectiveness in the pursuit of America’s role in global, human development.  Rather than dealing with the necessity of assimilating our defensive presence into the natural habitat and population; we would have the autonomy to basically restrict our normal operations to the base itself.  There would be times when skirmishes might swirl about in proximity of these bases; but every local conflict would not require American intervention.  I do not propose a monolithic icon of an imposing and ominous death star castle.  To the greatest extent possible, the principle of self-determination should remain in play.

Americans will still integrate themselves into the cultures and societies of foreign nations; it will simply be in a non-uniformed fashion.  And if it should ever become necessary, the intelligent and geographic locating of these bases would place American forces in a prime position to protect indispensable natural resources that are vital to our nation and the free world.  My preference would be that while the U.S. continues its alliances and leadership in NATO; this would be an effort of our nation alone.  Any efforts to dilute it with globalist aspirations would, in my opinion, compromise its very nature and intent.

In a broad sense, this strategy would allow the United States to embrace its role as a stalwart force for freedom in the world; while freeing us from the complex and arbitrary diplomatic strings attached to many foreign relations concerns.  It is perhaps bizarre to some to push a vision of American military forces serving as the Watchmen for the World.  But here is the deal: If the task is going to inevitably fall to us anyway…if we are the only nation equipped to perform such a function…if no one else will step forward and assume that role in the future of mankind…then why not do it on our own terms?  America’s failure to put its total resources and efforts into military foreign policy initiatives, both military and diplomatic, has resulted in past tragic failures.  The wages of those partial efforts are spent lives, broken reputations, untold consequences of lost opportunities, and billions of dollars wasted on lofty political structuring with poor foundations. 

Voltaire first said…with great power comes great responsibility.  Whether we like it or not, the United States is the preeminent power in the world.  Such a system of militarily-imposing bases would constitute an awesome power in the hands of American leaders.  The challenge to use that power judiciously would be great indeed.  But is that obligation any greater than the one our leaders face today?  Is it not the case that the present military advantage and arsenal that America possesses is at the discretionary disposal and behest of our elected and appointed officials?  In a very real sense, the only thing that would change is how America implements its role in the league of nations; not how we approach that role.  Having a better system in place will not make us any wiser; it will simply make us more powerful and effective.

Once again, I endorse the direction President Trump seems to be taking American foreign policy.  Aggressively pursuing an interventionist policy in foreign conflicts has accomplished very little for the United States and has accumulated a tragic price-tag over the terms of several presidents; both Republican and Democrat.  We cannot, and should not, foist upon foreign governments the Constitution of the United States.  We can, however, internationally support and uphold the principles contained in that document.  How we implement that support is the key question in this entire debate.  It strikes me that a transparent and strategic application of our military strength in a fashion as I have set forth would be a very logical way to begin that process.  To apply some context to this subject, a very good read follows: http://carolineglick.com/al-baghdadi-and-trumps-syrian-chessboard/ .  American foreign policy is truly onion layer-level complex.