Friends, have you been following the ridiculous story about USAF aircrew staying at Trump's resort near Glasgow, Scotland -- and how this supposedly represents another attempt by Trump to profit from his office? Well, it was always malarkey. Here's the proof:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-force-deal-with-airport-turnberry
Anyone in the media or the Democratic Party who pushed this story ought to be ashamed of themselves. They were smearing the honor and integrity of the U.S. Air Force, after all, in addition to that of President Trump! These non-patriots ought to be asking themselves: do I really want to pick a fight with people who have B-52s at their disposal? I think not!
In other news, last night was the third Democratic debate, and all the big guns were on the same stage for the first time. My overall view is that this debate will do nothing to alter the dynamics of the race. At times Vice-President Biden was fumbling and inarticulate, and at other times he was reasonably effective and apparently sincere. He's still uncomfortable answering questions about race, and honestly I don't see why. He has nothing to be ashamed about -- except his current endorsement of the Left's reverse racism masking itself as egalitarianism. Warren was her usual self. For a woman with a plan for everything, I must say her pronouncements in debates are remarkably vague. She hates corporations -- that much is clear. If anyone can prove that she's worked hand in glove with corporate interests at any point in her career, that could be a major blow to her "brand." Bernie was Bernie. Some of the other contenders put in good performances, but no one shone on stage. I suspect poll numbers won't budge in the short term. Frankly, it surprises me how passive many of the Dems have been to date. You would think that if you were languishing at 1-5% in the polls, and Biden, Warren, and Sanders were leaving you in their dust, you'd want to shake things up a bit, and you'd be willing to throw a few bombs to do it. But no -- the disagreements are mostly very polite, and no one seems to be in a big hurry to win over primary voters. I keep wondering when these candidates will take the gloves off... If the answer is never, then I'd say there's a good chance that the top three will all limp to the convention with a sizeable collection of delegates but with no majority, and then things could get really crazy! We shall see.
The issue about the military and Scotland is a "nothing burger" considering it was approved by President Obama. FOX is the only one carrying that--you can put it in a search engine and it does come up.
ReplyDeleteAs for President Trump tweeting about Bolton, the President spent like 24-48 hours doing so, I am glad to see he has stopped, perhaps he saw my tweet to him about it, (Ok, ok, one can dream, grin). I have to use Twitter for a class, so I figured I might as well sign on with the President.
I did not stay up to watch the debate, I heard (and read) about it though. Not one candidate stands out. It is the same old jargon, sad to say. I did have a good laugh over Robert Francis O'Rourke's plan to "Hell Yeah I'm seizing the guns"- Challenge accepted.
Someone (well, a lot of those folks) need a refreshers course about the American Revolution. I am sure if you asked what April 19, 1775 means they would look at you with a blank stare.
Dr. Waddy and Linda: First, as a Vietnam vet my mind snaps reflexively shut whenever the leftist ensnared Dem party criticizes anything connected with the military because I resolutely assume them to be consumedly and ignorantly contemptuous of our fighting forces. Don't care what they think, naw, not at all, except to denounce it!.
ReplyDeleteGee, I didn't hear Dems protesting when Hillary tried to turn Marine Officers into waiters at White House liberal soirees (why, without, I'm SURE, any vindictive intent, I mean, that Marine recruiter saw right through her didn't he? And she couldn't stand the revelation that he saw through her game; he knew she didn't have the stuff to get through the FIRST DAY at Quantico, as had so many of her "inferiors"). OK Mayor Pete served honorably but his party is antiAmerica and all that defends essential America.
Dr. Waddy and Linda: Remember Walter Mondale in '84, saying, "I won't lie to ya, I am going to raise your taxes?" I love this RFK clone Beto (though I see he hazards a tie now).RFK said, "well your boys wasted their lives in Vietnam" as he headed for Marilyn's residence. Now Beto says , "yeah of course I'll TAKE those semiauto Ar 15s and your AK 47 semiauto imitations and after that all of your semiautos and then anything that looks icky, surely I will); as if I know or acknowledge any knowledge of the firearms protected by our (sniff) 2nd Amendment". (He'll TAKE them, he says!) "Do I care that Al Gore lost the White House because of similar presumptions? Nah!" OK, he "needs a lesson and he is going to get one"re: Citizen Kane.Now when the successful Dem nominee turns "moderate" in the general election (as he or she must and will, disingenuously)he or she will have to disavow 'ol Beto and that's an added burden.
ReplyDeleteTo everyone: I was off on RFK and Marilyn but his attitude toward our Vietnam effort was the same. No doubt he was chasing other (two legged game as he saw it ) in 1968, while scolding us.
ReplyDeleteLinda, I'm glad to hear that President Trump took your advice. He'd be wise to do so more often. As for me, I used to pay more attention to the President's tweets, and it was my impression that generally the media blows them way out of proportion. The vast majority are thoroughly innocuous. Sometimes he does get a little petty or immature in his insults and self-justifications, though. I could live with less of that.
ReplyDeleteO'Rourke's comment about guns should be seen for what it was -- a desperate plea for attention. Guns rights are in danger in this country, yes, but not from a private citizen whose five minutes of fame ended in Nov. 2018.
I agree, Jack, that the liberal line of attack re: Turnberry assumes USAF complicity in a brazen scheme to enrich the Trump family. Probably also liberals assume that ANYONE who stays at a Trump resort or hotel is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to enthrone Putin as global overlord (for some reason). Seek help, lefties! You need to recover your marbles.
Dr. Waddy: Now do you see that Cuomo is advancing a law to ban firearms as prizes in lotteries? I can just see some sociopath saying: " well maybe among the .22s, muzzleloaders, handguns and bolt action varmint guns offered in this game of chance I just might acquire that weapon with which I can work mass evil and well, I have the stability of mind to wait for my chance to come up - oh really, I do!" I can't wait for the Supreme Court to get ahold of this stuff.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: In Cuomo's principality all such winnings are subject to Federal background checks and he knows that. His determination to "outlaw" all lawful expression of the (despised by him) 2nd Amendment in HIS state is obvious. Supreme Court take notice; NY electorate, for God's sake stand up!
ReplyDeleteJack, the anti-gun movement is like a Chinese water torture: drip, drip, drip. At some point, the Supreme Court will need to clarify what kind of restrictions are lawful. We still have jurisdictions where it is virtually impossible to own any gun -- and that shouldn't be. In New York, we're lucky Emperor Andy allows us to own slingshots, let alone firearms.
ReplyDeleteI think, Jack (In agreeance with Dr. Waddy), perhaps this gun issue will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. I see Robert Francis O'Rourke, Biden and others are opening their mouths in regards to the Heller decision all those years ago...Its ok, let them run their mouths, the more they do, the more guns get bought (and that is a undeniable fact). I like to remind these people of April 19, 1775. My big mouth might get me in trouble yet this semester. Just keeping stating the facts--which I have to find better ways to do, such as April 19, 1775, which most people including the young people do not have a clue on what I am talking about. How can a person sit in a American Revolution class and not read the required readings is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteLinda and Dr. Waddy: I'm just reading a history of the Revolution in 1775 and 76; I never realized, its the virtual totality of the War in New England, the very seed bed of the revolt. How did they persuade the rest of the colonies to join them? But they did, we know.
ReplyDeleteThe price they paid to secure liberty against even a RELATIVELY moderate tyranny such as that of 1770's Britain (I know if you were a Boston merchant or a New England farmer wholly dependent upon unimpeded commerce that you would not have viewed it as "moderate" but historically compared to Russia or the Turkish Empire (?)). (We have the luxury of detached contemplation of those times from comfortable settings). Some very serious matter indeed must have brought those "embattled farmers: farmers - with as intense and demanding a regimen of daily labor as they faced - into very battle against the KING'S troops on April 19th. First Lexington and Concord were skirimishes compared to the pitched combat all the way back to Cambridge that day. And then in June," Bunker Hill". The carnage there traumatized three British Generals: Howe, Burgoyne and Clinton and gave them great misgivings about storming colonial fortifications after that.
What motivated those colonials? One of them said in the 1850's: "son, we had always ruled ourselves and they meant that we shouldn't ". Do we still have that resolution? We don't have to take up muskets; we need repair to the political barricades. We must vote as if it means all, as it does. We must stand up on our legs and howl, as did Thomas Paine, because the threat to our liberties is as present and profound as was that of his day. The Cuomos of our day will surely continue to presume and venture and challenge our by them hated rights unless we stand up!
Linda -- so you're saying books are for READING? That's a radical concept! For most youngsters I fear they're more like expensive paperweights -- the irony being that, in the digital age, none of them have much need for paper. No wonder they disdain books!
ReplyDeleteLinda, you're certainly right that Democratic anti-gun rhetoric is great for gun sales. In a perverse way, Democratic electoral victories are also great for the NRA and the GOP. I guess that means many people need a good fright to get motivated. C'est la vie.
Jack asks some profound questions. What makes people rise up and "resist"? I agree that, by the standards of the 18th century, British "tyranny" was mild. In fact, it wasn't tyranny at all. Be that as it may, the colonials were used to "benign neglect," and after the Seven Years' War the British were cracking down. It strikes me, though, that clamoring for independence was risky on all sorts of levels. One, you could be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Kind of a downer. Two, even if you succeeded (against all odds), would an independent nation in the Americas be sustainable? It had never been done before. The French could come along and swallow up what the British had lost... I think there's good reason to regard the American rebellion as "foolhardy", in the context in which it began. Yes, it ultimately prevailed, but you wouldn't have gotten good odds on that in 1775 or 1776.
Dr. Waddy: That's a well taken view of our revolution. Considering the hardships worked on loyalists it make sense that it could have been an honorable choice (staying loyal). Still, when one considers that the British Army consisted of some very crude men indeed and some who were openly disdainful of "Jonothan", (sic) it must have been a disturbing thing to have them quartered in one's home. Was that done in Britain?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question, Jack. We need to consult our resident expert on this one: Linda!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy and Linda: I do not deny that we could well have been a very advanced and civilized country if we had lost the Rev. War. (I meant to say above: the carnage of Bunker Hill might have prevented Howe or Clinton from storming the, nonetheless, fortress of Valley Forge and ending the thing). We need only look to Canada or Australia, both (despite their gun restrictions), on balance, wonderful places to live, at least now.But I'm glad things worked out as they did because American liberty is manifest! And ALL Americans can benefit from it.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that, Jack! "American liberty" is a beacon to the world. I wonder, though, if we had stayed "on side" and in the Empire, would the Empire have been better off...and thus the world?
ReplyDeleteDr. Wady: Well, we would probably have been engaged in WWI much earlier than April 1917 and that might have ended the conflict far sooner and that might have prevented the Russian Revolution. Could it have prevented Germany coming to the aid of Austria- Hungary against Russia (which then triggered the enactment of the Triple Entente)?
ReplyDeleteCould England have managed the inevitable emigration to the American west? How would it have dealt with slavery? So many possibilities. Had Britain succumbed to the submarine onslaught in 1917, would we then have become part of Germany? Would we have assented to this?
What is obvious, I think, in most territories those Brits presumed to rule for a time at least: they benefitted from it and that's not surprising, given the overall positivity of British civilization.
Agreed, Jack -- British rule was almost uniformly a blessing. That's not because the British were perfect, by any means...but the alternatives were generally far worse!
ReplyDeleteHad the American Revolution failed, I assume that the whole history of the 19th century would have been transformed, and the 20th century would have been utterly unrecognizable, therefore. As it was, the "Anglo-Saxons" dominated the modern period. How much surer and more total might their domination have been if they were fully united? It boggles the mind.