My Cabinet

I am finally old enough to run for President myself in theroy (not that I would ignore a constitutional requirement but we will do it just for this theoretical exercise). I have had this for a few years but have just kept amending it.

What the protesters want

This may be a bit moot in my area as things are already starting to open up but to respond to certain comments.

Protesters are not protesting just because they want a hair cut.

Protesters are not protesting just because they want to go to the bar.

Many of them are protesting because they are small business owners who could lose their business forever.

Many of them are protesting because they need to make money to feed their family.

Many of them are protesting because there are people in their life that are in desperate need of seeing them.

The right to peaceably assemble and petition government are Constitutional guarantees and when people claim this is the "new normal" of course there is backlash.

On the other hand, people could be responsible, by using common sense and not being too close.

If a business wants you to wear a mask, don't complain, that is their prerogative, they are free to make such rules.

(Note: I wrote this and posted this elsewhere before the protests against police brutality that are currently going on. I may address those shortly but this is about the shutdown protests)

Is the cure worse than the disease?

Throughout this pandemic, we are being told we should listen to the experts.  Sure, that’s always a good idea. We listen to the medical experts, but this is not merely a medical issue we need to listen to economic experts as well.  No, I am not saying to ignore medical experts, but they aren’t economic experts and we have to give equal weight to all aspects. The long lasting economic consequences of this shutdown. True, we did have that bill to pay the unemployed, but that is not a long term solution.  It is like a temporary bandaid on a broken limb, d\sedate you and tell you to walk without actually allowing the proper ways for it to heal. Now they are just wanting to print trillions of dollars more out of thin air. DO you want hyperinflation? That’s how you get hyperinflation.

They say to ignore the virus, people will die.  True, but to ignore the economy people will also die.

Suicide rates will go up as they did in the Great depression (and I have heard that SUicide Hotlines have already been getting overrurn).  Unemployment is higher now than at any time of the great depression (it was 24.9% at its peak currently they are saying it is it could get as high as 30% and 10s of Millions people out of work). We are also already seeing increased domestic violence and civil unrest will increase as this goes on.  Isolation is not good for someone psychologically, this is why solitary confinement is considered such an extreme punishment, but some locations have said you can’t even go hiking out in the fresh air. What about the businesses that will be permanently destroyed? So in the long run this cure we are currently trying could be worse than the disease. 

One more thing.  If you think the Patriot Act was bad, expect something worse to come out of this, something always does in an emergency in the guise of security. Yet some people are calling for even more restrictions. THere is talk by some governors of shutting down churches permanently if they don’t comply. 

But some of the countries that have had the most success with fighting the virus have done so without shutting down their society.  South Korea, Thailand, Sweden. SK did it with massive testing. I do think msks help a lot. 

Those who call Trump HItler want Trump to act more like Hitler right now/. 

My question for those who think we need a total shutdown indefinitely.  How do you deal with the economic fallout? How long should we shut down for?  

AT first it was 2 weeks now it’;s an extra month, how do we know they won’t keep increasing the time? Some say “s long as it takes’  That is not a plan, that is the sign of a lack of a plan.

Any solution needs to put all these aspects into consideration, not just one. 

I think we need to focus on those who are infected, and let those who are healthy go to work and avoid those who are sick. 

While we finally do have some people talking about it, but at the same time people are saying we might need 18 months of shutdown.

The fate of Roe v. Wade

There is a lot of talk, in the wake of Justice Kennedy's announced retirement, of how the next justice could affect Roe v. Wade. On one hand you have people rejoicing at this prospect, on the other, people freaking out. This is largely media hype.  First, some Republican Senators have publicly stated they wouldn't vote for a nominee who held pro-life views so that could hold it up. Secondly, when Trump's nominees does go through, there is still no guarantee of it, as we can't say for certain that the Republican appointed justices will rule against it (and history had shown this, there have been a Republican nominated majority on the court before and Roe was still not overturned, in fact when Roe was decided, one of the two dissenters was in fact the most liberal members of the court).
Thirdly, someone would have to bring a case before the court before they could rule, a challenge would be made and brought through the lower courts before it makes it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it. This is not unlikely to happen. 
Finally, overturning Roe will not ban abortion, what it would do would make it go to the states, where some already have laws in place that would ban it, while others would not.  That is where the fight would be, in the states. Even if someone was to try to get an amendment to ban abortion on the National level, it would have to go through the states first.
So to sum up, while a new Justice would certain have a major impact on a number of issues including abortion, it is not the end of the line for abortion in and of itself.

What should be done about ISIS?

First of all we need to go over some background as to how the rise of ISIS occurred.

It all started with the invasion of Iraq.  The idea of a regime change however dates back at least to Clinton in 1998.1  At the time right after the first Gulf War, Dick Cheney had warned against invading Baghdad and taking out Saddam and that it was a good thing they hadn’t up to that point and so regime change had not been a goal of that war.  2

A Decade later he had changed his tune but just about everything he had said would happen, did as he had predicted.

Saddam was a tyrant to be sure, but he was fairly secular and let minority groups for the most part do their own thing.  Christians and women were fairly well off, certainly when compared to the rest of the region.  Syria as well was a relatively good place to be.   3  Taking him out then left a power vacuum that was fresh to be filled by the first radical group that could take hold.  4.  The troops largely left except for the few that were left behind to guide them.  This had been negotiated by bush before he left office, Obama had intended and tried to push for them to be there longer, but the Iraqis objected and so they were essentially kicked out. 5  Next we then look at the civil war in Syria, the US opposed Assad and so wanted to back the group that opposed him, enter the rebels.  I knew at that point it was a mistake to support the rebels because I was familiar with history and had looked at who was backing the rebels, the Muslim brotherhood for one thing.  Aside from that, much like Saddam, I knew taking out the leader in such a way would leave a power vacuum and only leave it open for the most radical elements to take control. I predicted nothing good could come of that.  Sure enough, many of those affiliated with the Syrian Rebels ended up joining what would become the Islamic State.  It makes you wonder if our leaders are so naïve as to not learn from history.  However some information has come to light that they may have known more than they let on. You can download the document at Judicial Watch, wherein they acknowledge they knew Al Quaida was supporting the Rebels..6  It tends to happen that we will support someone, particularly in 20 years., that region only for them to become our enemies later, usually the process takes about 20 years, remember, Saddam was an ally of ours at one point.  ISIS latched on faster than that but there were still many of the same factors.

Now his should we handle them?  As I have shown, our attempts to fix problems don’t tend to end very well.  I have been trying to figure it out but there would be no easy and good solution and so what Dick Cheney called a “quagmire” is certainly appropriate.  In trying to fix it and set up a government for them, we may get some stable leader in the area who will then only turn on us.  Normally I think they should handle their own civil wars as Syria should have, but in this case I feel there is some moral responsibility in the part of the US for setting the stage to allow it to happen, plus at this point they have actively declared war on us. I also feel they goading us on.  One option I think we could do is have congress issue letters of Marque  for a very specific mission to target ISIS particularly with a focus on hostage rescue, and then when that is done leave and let the people over there put it together, have them decide on who they want in charge. Currently there has been some success in taking out some of the leaders but my worry there is always what is the collateral damage?  Whatever further action we take however must have congressional backing, some of the problems we have run into have also been with contractors having a lack of oversight.  We would also need to have the people there want it otherwise again we are back where we started, the countries effected would need to be involved in fighting against ISIS, the Arab countries would need to work together to defeat ISIS and at the moment they are fractured.  Ultimately, it comes down to them, they have to be the ones willing to fight ISIS.   In the process, do not arm any rebel group we might think could help against ISIS as we would only regret it later.  This is also why the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is so dangerous.    Having a prolonged involvement as some have suggested will only perpetuate the exact same cycle. I am torn on that, figuring out the problem is the easy part, figuring out solutions may in fact be impossible in the end.   It is important to know the background however before jumping into something.  This is how I have put it all together. Based on the historic precedent, I am pretty confident in this prognostication, at least most aspects of it and why I think it is important to study how history repeats itself, although I am open to ideas.

One additional video that gives some good information on the background of the origins of ISIS

(Ben Swann)

Primaries 2014

It’s been a while since I did one of these but I wanted to get this out there.

Voter endorsement

These are races that I think have particularly good candidates

California Primary
Governor: Tim Donnelly

Some good things he did.  He wrote bill to Nullify the NDAA and to Jerry Brown’s credit he signed it.

Incumbent Congress: Tom McClintcok

He has been pretty consistent with supporting the Constitution.

In San Bernardino county: Paul Schrader for Sherriff.

North Carolina

I would have gone for Greg Brannon

There is a good Congressman there, Walter B. Jones

Kentucky

Senate race is difficult, McConnel is one of the worst.

Incumbent to vote for. Thomas Massie

Ohio

Incumbent Justin Amash for congress he has been one of the most Consistent constitutionalists in congress and posts the reasons for his votes on Facebook.

Colorado

Governor: Tom Tancredo seems pretty good but there are a few others I might look into.

I will add more as the primaries in different states go on.

Martin/Zimmerman Case

Since this was all over the news, even supplanting more important stories I figured I would try to explain my view.
First of all, I don't see what was so special about the case that warranted it the media attention it got.  Many similar cases happen all the time and you never hear about them.   People picked sides early on before there was enough evidence to even make a judgement.  They relied on emotional arguments and on top of that made it a race issue.  It was tragic that someone died, but it would also be bad to condemn someone without all the evidence.
The fact that people started rioting because of the verdict is telling, I'm not sure of what except that our society is very messed up and actually perpetuates racism.  Don't throw a tantrum when you don't get your way, it proves nothing and is in fact counter productive.  Violent mobs are not the same thing as peaceful protest.  This is all perpetuated by how the media and a number of public figures emphasized this case and used race baiting as their tool.  As well as the fact that initially the photos the media chose of each were misleading each being years old,  to get the desired results.
Whether or not you think the ruling was just you must realize we have due process and people are innocent until proven guilty.  Maybe Zimmerman was guilty maybe he was justified I actually can't say.  I didn't follow the case as closely as many because as  previously stated there were more important issues out there, but even if I had I should remain objective.  I do think it would have been bad any way you look at it since the incident probably could have been handled better on either end.
I do think that both parties may have had fault, Zimmerman seemed overzealous and acted like a wannabe cop but Trayvon seemed like he wanted to act tough.  That's the impression I got from what I saw.   Zimmerman did have a right to self defense if he was attacked.  This was a key point of the case as self defense is key to our system.  This case did more specifically deal with Stand your ground which might be worth examining, but if you are opposed to the law, try to change the law rather than going after cases involving it.  We must be allowed to defend ourselves and many saw this case as effecting that.  One more thing. this relates back to the race issue, Hispanic is not considered a race, many people were emphasizing that Zimmerman was half Hispanic.  However this point should be moot since race should not have come into it in the first place.  This emphasis on race is what keeps racism alive, I'm not denying that racial profiling occurs but to claim that was the only reason before all the facts are in Zimmerman got off is failing to see the whole picture.  It may have been a factor but don't make assumptions unless it can be proven.
I do think there are problems in our system that relate to someone having a better lawyer having a better chance to win but that isn't even what most people were focusing on this case.  Overall, I think it was a distraction from the important issues.  Don't get me wrong I think it was unfortunate and tragic Trayvon died but we must approach everything rationally.  Some of these people show a lot of hypocrisy, where was their outrage with OJ Simpson?
Justice can fail us and be corrupted and that can be frustrating but there is a right way and a wrong way to handle it.  I reiterate though, if you don't like how it turned out, trashing the city is not the answer.  There are many ways to protest or try to change things that are more constructive.  If the point is to say that Trayvon was discriminated against because he was black, then it is the black people forming a mob, does that really help the case that blacks shouldn't be thought of as violent?  In reality it just gives more ammo to those who make the claim of black violence.  Individuals should be judged by their actions not race.  That goes for everyone.