Top Iranian General Killed, Immediate Reaction From Army Veteran

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

(An attack and murder of General Qassim Suleimani) in Baghdad, Iraq… I suppose if you’re going to do it, those are good conditions.

It’s a precarious place we’re in now.  If we knew that the embassy attack was managed from the top, the alternative would have been to let Iran think that it was ok… to assault US soil.  But it also forces Iran to either do something or eat it. I’m not sure they’re ready just to eat it, or take that loss, in laymen terms.

This is likely to escalate to open conflict.

I suppose the reason you do it this way is that if we can make the case that these guys managed the embassy assault, Russia will stay out of it.

I think we are fine with fighting Iran inside Iraq and Syria, so long as we aren’t in Iran and Russia doesn’t join.  China will also accept our word.  They won’t openly support us, but they’ll get it.

And as I think about it, this was about the best circumstance we could’ve asked for… to hit Iran hard without drawing other world powers to their side. 

If we aren’t trying to take over or topple Iran, we can fuck them up pretty badly; but this is going to be a big thing now.

And we are going to need Russia and China to stand down – and all the while we are making our case, they’re going to be saying on the surface that it’s a fake case just like the 2nd invasion of Iraq was a fake case.

Overall, it’s probably good for asserting ourselves in the Middle East.  Good for asserting ourselves as strong to Putin, and OK with China because we just inked that phase 1 deal last week. 

I would guess had we not inked and announced the deal with China, this attack wouldn’t have happened.

I understand there are a lot of troops at Fort Drum and Fort Bragg that were given mobilization orders this morning. I don’t know the number, but based on the people getting called it would be between 10,000 and 40,000. That’s a shit ton of people given that we are currently under 5,000 troops in Iraq.

Similar Read: Syria Will Be Part of Trump’s Legacy – But History’s Judgement Is Still Unclear

The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

by with 5 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019…  

In the latest episode of The D.C. Apprentice reality show, we unpeeled another layer of the onion that is the Trump Doctrine. Whether it’s Brexit, Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi, summits with North Korea, tariffs and trade deals, Putin, and now, Ukraine, we bear witness to a convoluted set of policies without specific details and a heavy emphasis on maximizing publicity and attention. Trump’s foreign policy is based on minimizing or eliminating long-term military engagements, renegotiating agreements that play into his deal-making reputation, and provoking diplomatic altercations that further establish Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of Red State America.

Trump vocally embraces the paleoconservative philosophy championed by Patrick Buchanan, Steve Bannon, Lou Dobbs, and numerous contributors to Fox News and Breitbart News. It embraces traditional social positions and nationalism while strongly opposing trade agreements, immigration, and international organizations. It also has a strong isolationist influence that opposes military interventions. Between the trade wars, ICE raids, border wall funding, immigration and asylum reductions, NATO criticisms, and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, Trump is reliably committed to Paleoconservative orthodoxies. 

Trump’s reputation as a deal-making businessman from his real estate business in New York to his TV show to his book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ is built on maximizing publicity by making grandiose, must-see-tv gestures that consumes all oxygen from other competitors. Whether it’s the summits with the North Korean dictator, renegotiating NAFTA, and imposing tariffs on trading partners like China, Trump uses each opportunity and/or manufactured diplomatic crisis to further burnish his perceived deal-making reputation. 

Perhaps most importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is dependent on cementing his status as the Commander-in-Chief of red-state America. The President has gone all-in on being the war-time commander in the new cold war between red and blue America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty is the perfect example. The trade wars with Mexico and China appeals to the rural working-class voters in Midwest and Southern states who see their manufacturing tradition threatened by globalization. Trump’s coalition swapped out college-educated middle-class voters in suburban counties for working-class voters in rural areas. He relishes any attack from blue-state America because it further establishes his war-time credentials with red-state America. Therefore, the Ukraine news only solidifies his support from his fans. In the mind of his supporters, they are at war, and all is fair in love and war. That might seem drastic, but his supporters love that there is no line he won’t cross to defend them against their enemy. Trump has nearly 3 years of history proving himself to his supporters that he will fight every fight that they believe his predecessors were too weak to engage, and this is no different.

This article was originally published on 27 September 2019.

The Conservative Argument AGAINST Trump’s Border Wall

by with 5 Comments FeaturedPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019… 

There is no political topic that captures the imagination of today’s voter like Trump’s proposed border wall.  This issue encapsulates national security, humanitarian, economic concerns, and it exploits the hyperpolarization of the rank and file members of both political parties. This issue is THE reason for the longest government shutdown in US history, and at the time of this writing, there is no compromise in sight. In this political stalemate, the only way to move the needle is to look deeper into the issue to see what the actual issue is, and if the taken positions are consistent with the fundamental principles of their ideology and party affiliation. As a lifelong Republican with an engineering background, after crunching the numbers and taking into perspective the number of diversions from bedrock conservative ideals, this border wall and the process it includes is the antithesis of sound conservative policy. The proposed wall is not fiscally responsible, infringes on private property rights through eminent domain, and does not significantly improve national security.

Using my professional background, and my background in engineering costs, I identified these significant expenses: 1. Property value of acquired land… 2. Legal fees for obtaining land through eminent domain… 3. Material costs for a 25 ft steel wall… 4. 2 ft foundation… 5. Labor costs… 6. Permitting fees… 7… Installation of service road for construction, maintenance, and transportation of border patrol vehicles and equipment… 8. Engineering fees, and… 9. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. While there are other expenses like water rights for farmers along the Rio Grande River, and potential litigation issues from a treaty with Mexico regarding these water rights, I am keeping my focus on these items because the process time and costs are significant.

  1. Property Values: Most land along the border is private property. I will assume 75% of the land is private property, a cost of $3,000 per acre (value is likely higher, but once land is condemned for seizure, the value drops significantly), and a 150 ft-wide right-of-way to hold the wall, service road, and any other facilities. Roadway right-of-way varies on size of the road. Typically, it is in the 60-80’ range (300+ for interstates and major highways), but since there will be utility and drainage installations in this right-of-way in lieu of additional easements, I am combining it into one. Total Cost = $75 billion. Total Time to Acquire = 12-18 months to notify property owner & 3-10 years to resolve through federal courts.
  2. Legal fees: This is roughly a third of the total property value based on other federal eminent domain cases. Total Cost = $25 billion. Time to Resolve = 3-10 years.
  3. Material Costs for 25 ft steel wall: Trump has signaled he is willing to compromise from concrete to steel. Assuming the wall height is 25 feet and a unit cost of $7/SF, the Total Cost = $2 billion. Time to Build = 125 miles/year or 14 years.
  4. Foundation Costs for a 2 ft foundation: Assuming a foundation height of 2 ft (typical for a structure of this height) and a unit cost of $10/SF, the Total Cost = $170 million. 
  5. Labor Costs: Labor costs tend to be 40-60% of total expense when combined with materials. Total Cost = $2 billion. 
  6. Permitting Fees: Permitting expenses tend to be 2-3% of total construction costs, depending on location. Permit fees within city limits could be significantly higher because fees are likely based on the total value of the property’s or structure’s value, but for this exercise, we will keep it to materials and labor costs. Total Cost = $100 million. 
  7. Service Road Installation: Service roadways will need to be installed to transport contractors and materials to install the wall. These roadways will be used by maintenance crews as well as transportation means for border patrol agents on duty. Typical costs for 2 lane roads is $3 million per mile. Total cost = $5 billion.
  8. Engineering Fees: typical 2.5-3% of total costs, including property acquisitions. Total cost = $3 billion. 
  9. Miscellaneous fees: On most engineering cost estimates, there is a 10% contingency item that covers additional engineering fees, change order requests, and any other expenses that are anticipated, but the final cost is not known. Total Cost = $10 billion.

When you include a 10% contingency fee to account for miscellaneous or unforeseen expenses, which is custom in most engineering cost estimates, the total cost for this wall, assuming a best-case scenario, is in the $120-125 billion range with a likely completion date in 2029. Trump’s request for $5.7 billion is a small down payment on a costly construction project.

The most expensive part of this endeavor will be the seizure of privately-owned lands through eminent domain. Will Hurd, a former CIA security officer and Congressman of the district with the longest stretch of border in the country, stated there are approximately 1,000 private property owners with land along the border in Texas alone. These properties have been owned by families for multiple generations that will be forcibly taken from them by the federal government at a rate the government arbitrarily sets against their wishes. Historically, eminent domain, particularly the excessive use of it, has been a galvanizing issue for Conservatives. Taking one’s property against their will, particularly after the 2005 Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court Case, prompted state legislatures in red states to pass legislation to reign in or outright prohibit the use of eminent domain in all or rare cases. The number of potential court cases that will occur could effectively shut down federal courts in District 5 (Texas), 9 (Arizona and California) and 10 (New Mexico).

The central argument made for the wall is the impact it will have on national security. This structure is supposed to make significant reductions in the number of illegal immigrants in our country. This week, the Center for Migration Studies released a study analyzing the numbers reported by the federal government and found that 62% of illegal immigrants are people who came here legally and overstayed their temporary or student visas. This has been the trend for the past seven years. Most illegal crossings occur at busy checkpoints or ports, not in isolated locations because there are not means of transportation available. Cartels have perfected the art of smuggling through these checkpoints and have made them a focus of their operations. They have also built numerous tunnels under the border that a wall would not impede. This means the people our national security departments are most concerned about will not be impacted by this wall. Creating the illusion of security is not the same as actual security.

This wall requires supporters to embrace a fiscally irresponsible purchase and revoke their bedrock defense of private property rights for a physical structure that has negligible benefit for national security. Wall supporters might have other, some might say sinister, reasons for supporting this issue, but it is not a conservative one.

This article was originally published on 22 January 2019.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

 

Nobody Is Above The Law… Impeachment

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The night before only the 3rd vote in US history to impeach a sitting president, New Yorkers gathered in Time Square to chant, “Nobody is above the law.” Nobody… surprisingly a point of contention considering some would argue that doesn’t include the highest office in the land, Commander-in-Chief, 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Following the Civil War in 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first president in US history to be impeached. Nearly 150 years later, Bill Clinton become the second. And with the exception of some unforeseen wild event, Donald Trump will become the third. A shame for Donald Trump considering he survived the Mueller investigation, only to get caught up in a quid pro quo regarding his attempt to pressure Ukraine’s leaders to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden and his father, senior statesman and Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden.

(Sidenote: Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors for Burisma, a Ukraine-based energy holding company from 2014 to 2019 while his father, Joe Biden, who was Vice President at the time, oversaw policy regarding the Eastern European nation. Hunter had no experience in Ukraine nor did he have a background in the energy sector. While it’s not illegal, him having a paid board seat on the other side of the world is bizarre, it doesn’t add up, and should be questioned.)

I digress… back to US presidential history…

It’s important to note that while Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have both been formally impeached, neither of them were removed from office through impeachment. And neither will Donald Trump. While the House of Representatives have more than enough votes to impeach him, the Senate does not. Nevertheless, Trump felt the need to write a 6-page rant disguised as a letter to Nancy Pelosi where he exclaimed, “More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

6 pages of that…

Nearly a year from the 2020 elections, how will this impact the electorate? Specifically independents and voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania… three states which all went blue for the previous 6 presidential elections before 2016.

Will it even matter? Or more importantly, which Dem will capitalize on this historic moment, win the nomination and carry that momentum to the general election?

Similar Read: Important Takeaways From Mueller Testimony

Kamala Harris Could’ve Been President, but Black People Wouldn’t Let it Happen

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

On January 20, 2019, Senator Kamala Harris entered the race for president. She had a huge campaign rally in Oakland with 20k+ attendees, which was much larger than a lot of the major candidates. She had a great start. On December 4th, she suspended her campaign due to lack of funds to continue. 

Kamala Harris was seen as the next Obama. She was the first elected official to campaign for him in Iowa in 2007. Hillary Clinton’s donors groomed her right after her historic Senate race win in 2016. She was a District Attorney, Attorney General, and a Senator in California. She had the makings of a great presidential candidate. So what happened you ask?

4 days before she entered the race, the NYT wrote a hit piece on her titled, “Kamala Harris Was Not a Progressive Prosecutor” – that was the beginning of the end. From there, she never received adequate press coverage with the exception of any negativity that was going on in her campaign. Even her much-lauded debate performance in November received little coverage. AM Joy did a panel on why Kamala wasn’t receiving the media coverage she deserved. (you know there is a problem when the media says you aren’t receiving enough coverage). Her poll numbers were low due to several factors such as name recognition, no media coverage, and her reputation as a “cop who locked Black people up.”

What I have found is that most people wrote her off from the beginning due to the fact that she was a DA. Without giving her a fair chance or actually reviewing her record, she was doomed from the jump. Amy Klobuchar was a DA too with a far more troubling record. Joe Biden wrote the crime bill and Bernie voted for it. Did they receive any negative coverage for it? NO.

Many will say her campaign was flawed. But I am here today to tell you that EVERY CAMPAIGN IS FLAWED. I believe with Trump in office and the media pushing this white savior complex since 2016, no woman or person of color will be able to win this race. 

Black people have overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden due to the fact that he markets himself as the only one who can beat Trump and he was Obama’s VP. In 2016, the fear of Trump did not win us an election and it will be the same in 2020. The treatment of Kamala Harris by Black people has by far been the worst I’ve ever seen of any candidate. Even after she dropped out, Black social media continued to drag her. They said she wasn’t the one, but maybe she would be a great AG or VP. If you criticized her record as AG of California… why would you want her to be AG for the entire country? If she isn’t good enough to be President… why is she good enough to be VP? I believe Black people have always made it harder for other Black people to succeed. 

The day after she dropped out, campaign vultures began to swarm around Kamala’s supporters and donors. Elizabeth Warren even created an ad with a picture of her and Kamala stating that Kamala was forced out of the race due to low funding and billionaires got to stay in the race and if she was president she would fix that problem. That is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my life. She used the demise of a Black woman to boost her own candidacy and gain her followers. That’s how America treats Black women… uses them up and throws them away.

I was deeply invested in the Kamala Harris campaign for many reasons. The main reason was because I believed in her ability to win and get things done. I believed she would have dragged Donald Trump across the debate stage and trounced him in an election. I believed in her vision for America – to uplift people instead of put them down and to speak truth. When she was on the debate stage, she was the only candidate that would bring up issues that directly related to Black people. That will now be gone forever as there are no Black candidates able to qualify for the debates. Her impact was felt as you have seen in the days following her announcement to drop out.

She has received more media coverage in the days following her exit from the race then she ever has. It’s a sad state of affairs. 

Similar Read: The Demise of Kamala Harris – the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next 

My Summary of the 5th Dem Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsRace Relations

MSNBC/WaPo should be banned from hosting debates. Too many of the questions were centered on Trump’s personality. That shouldn’t be the focus of the questions for a presidential debate, but talking about DT has been excellent for MSNBC’s ratings. DT has especially helped Rachel Maddow’s career.

The debates took place in Atlanta, at Tyler Perry Studios. Buttigieg’s camp just had a week of race-related issues and the only people who got questions concerning race were Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. ? Yang’s response was spot on though. 

Warren – She’s good when she’s prepared to answer non-surprise questions so this performance wasn’t bad for her. I appreciated that her responses were more specific than most of the other candidates’ responses. At one point she said: “And in the first 100 days, I want to bring in 135 million people into Medicare For All at no cost to them. Everybody under the age of 18, everybody who has a family of four income less than $50,000. I want to lower the age of Medicare to 50 and expand Medicare coverage to include vision and dental and long-term care.” This doesn’t sound too different from what is available now through the ACA. ?

Booker questioned Warren’s wealth tax much like Yang did in the last debate. Booker had a great night. I’m miffed that the media puts so much glory on Buttigieg, the Rhodes Scholar, when Booker is ALSO a Rhodes Scholar. I’m glad Booker let people know! ??

Buttigieg – If I weren’t following the race and only saw this debate, I might think Buttigieg was great. He claims the progressive title but he totally isn’t. He has a lot of big money backing him. The moderators favored him so much that instead of addressing him on his manufactured Black endorsements, people from his camp using stock images of Kenyans to show Black support, and being dismissive of his own constituents in South Bend – they tried to bait Kamala to attack him. Kamala didn’t take the bait. I wonder if she didn’t because she thought that if he were to win the nomination he’d seek her out as his VP since she’s a Black woman and he polls at 0% with Black voters. The moderators were really SOFT on him.

Gabbard went after him, but I doubt her attack will affect his polling numbers. He’s a big-money establishment candidate. She is not.

Harris came into the debates with planned statements. Not once did she answer a question. LOL, She’s very evasive. She also seems to get a thrill out of criticising people. I think she’d make a horrible Commander in Chief. A leader who gets off in criticizing others isn’t a good thing. We already have that!

Neither Harris nor Biden could respond to how they could get Republicans to work with them. I think that says a lot.

I’d feel so badly for the person put in charge of typing up the transcript of a Biden vs Trump debate. ?

Klobuchar – She brings absolutely nothing new to the table. She’s a younger Biden in a dress.

Steyer annoyed me. He also isn’t offering anything new but he thinks he is. He also kept saying he’s the only candidate talking about term limits. He’s wrong. Yang has been talking about term limits too. In fact, Yang is for 12-year Congressional term limits and 18-year Supreme Court justice term limits.

Yang made the most out of the little time he was given. He isn’t the establishment and is obviously not an MSNBC/WaPo favorite. All his answers were substantive and teachable moments. Who knew the only other country without paid family leave for new mothers was Papua New Guinea? What other candidate has concluded that we should have a WTO, but for data (new world data organization) and that this would get Russia to the table and make it so they have to join the international community and stop resisting appeals to the world order?

Sanders offers great teachable moments too. He’s the best at revealing the country’s problems and realities.

Similar Read: Who Did Well in the 4th Debate… Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg? 

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Syria Will Be Part of Trump’s Legacy – But History’s Judgement Is Still Unclear

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

The president’s pullout of Syria is essentially an effort to force an end not only to our engagement in the area, but also to the basic credibility of the neoconservative worldview- as well as efforts in the future to shape global democracy and influence world order. There are plenty of Republicans who see this approach as heresy, and there are plenty of Democrats and media outlets who relish the blood-on-blood infighting to come (and who will strangely express their outrage at a decision they would have lauded once merely because the opposite of the administration’s policy is their policy), but the reality is much more nuanced.

On the surface, the president’s motivation is driven by polling. Our commander in chief is a populist at his core- not an idealist.  Most Americans (many in both parties) don’t favor extending the war in Syria. This is quite simply because we aren’t able to do what it takes to win. Assad’s forces are backed by Russia; there’s no way to build real stability in the region without a heavier hand than we are willing to take or through regime change, and there seems to be no way to force regime change short of open war with Russia. Further, as China increasingly begins to flex in the pacific and begins to highlight our “meddling in the affairs of others” -including Syria- as China launches their own massive campaign for development, seeking access to the natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa, the president is mindful that it’s from China where we face the greatest long term security threat, and it’s China who benefits most from our distraction to a protracted entanglement with Syria and Russia. Further, while the timing of Iran was the president’s doing, it’s also clear that they are a much greater threat to global security in the near term. Our security interest in Syria is that someone accountable to the UN controls and regulates the area- whether it be Turkey or the US, either will make certain that it isn’t ISIS. We really can only do so much.

But that’s only part of the story. Turkey’s interest in Syria isn’t focused first on restoring peace to Syrians. The Kurdish forces we have used since the beginning of the war in Iraq have fought with us because they are a people without a land. Spread throughout Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, this proud, ethnic population descended of Saladin is at odds with each of those nations as they seek to restore some autonomy. They have been capable allies because they have more than 1,000 years of history fighting for their own survival. Walking away from them when we are done will be a public betrayal that the Chinese and Russians will hold up as the true nature of “American Imperialism.” They will say that Americans come with high ideals, but leave when it’s no longer convenient. To Bush-era neoconservatives, it’s unthinkable; to Trump and his “America First” agenda, it’s a way to cross the bridge back from nation-building and burn it behind him.

In the long term, this may be the better move. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq, and increasingly the people of Afghanistan have come to realize that Americans come and Americans go. If we fool no one, and if we do really lack the resolve (and quite possibly the ability) to build regimes and promote democracy in the aftermath of conflict, then it is possible that the sooner we go the better. This may also help us usher in a day when America accepts that it is no longer the sole global hegemon and must share global military and economic influence with both China and Russia once again. If pulling back now gives them space we would have needed to cede eventually through direct conflict, it may increase stability in the long term also.

But in the short term, it’s a lot of bad taste. To those who can’t bear to see America as anything but a beacon of light that can dictate the ways of the world, it looks like a retreat. To those focused first on human rights, it’s a turnover of power to another heavy-handed imperial force that will bring another wave of increased violence before it can hope to bring local stability. While the president’s motivation may be no deeper than extending a political olive branch to a growing, centrist plurality of the American public focused on their own economy, anxious to make a trade deal in China and not willing to subsidize stability of the Kurdish population (so long as there’s someone on the ground containing ISIS), if America is a truly is a shrinking power, in 50 years this may be seen as a thoughtful and pragmatic preservation of resources. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Dems Can Learn From the Patriots… “On to Milwaukee”

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsSports

I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase “We’re on to Cincinnati.” This was the famous line used by New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick during a Monday Night Football postgame conference. He used the phrase after the New England Patriots were blown out by the Kansas City Chiefs (not those Chiefs with Patrick Mahomes) 41-14, and fell to 2-2 in the early 2014 season.

The reason behind the phrase, and Bill Belichick’s entire coaching style for that matter, was that the loss was not due to the Chiefs, but due to the Patriots. “On to Cincinnati” was his way of saying… look we got blown out, we’ll adjust, it’s on to the next game to do what we do best… win.

The Patriots would hold true to that and beat the tiger stripes off the Cincinnati Bengals… 43-17. And oh, that Bengals team went to the playoffs the year prior and the same 2014 season the Patriots beat them. 

You see, the secret sauce to the Patriots success is their relentless discipline to only focus on one opponent at one time. And each opponent is analyzed with the same mindset that they can beat the Patriots. In other words, the Patriots focus on their own strengths against the weakness of their opponents… in order to beat them. 

2020 Presidential Election… 

At the time of this writing (October 2019), there are more legit Democratic candidates than teams in the NCAA tournament! And though there are many candidates… they all have the same mindset…

DEFEAT TRUMP! 

The same mindset… from the useless impeachment orchestrated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to each and every Democratic candidate during debates using Trump as their rally call to gain an edge against their opponents. 

We know Trump is terrible, so what… his base is MORE entrenched now than they were in 2016. Which means that if a lackluster candidate wins the nomination for the Democratic Party… you’re looking at a close night come Tuesday, November 3rd 2020. 

So what’s the answer? Go to Milwaukee and double down on bold clear agendas on why a Democratic president is needed moving forward. No matter who it is, the policies are what matter. That’s the Patriots way. That’s why they went 3-1 without Tom Brady and 11-5 overall him during their 2016 Super Bowl Season. Because for the Patriots… opponents don’t matter… THEY DO. 

So go to Milwaukee Dems. Make bold declarations that the Democrats along with its newly elected president will be bold on the environment, be bold on fixing immigration, full legalization of marijuana, universal healthcare, and so on.  

Make the race about principles over (Trump) the person, because the current way isn’t working. Dems need to go to Milwaukee and plan to win in November 2020. The Patriots are great because they focus on one team and one game at a time. Despite starting the 2014 season 2-2, the “on to Cincinnati” Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. And Dems can do the same. 

Similar Read: The Language of the Soul: The Power of Sports

What a Fall From Grace

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedGen ZGun Debate

While I’ve been in college only for four and a half years, it feels as if I’ve been there twice as long because so much has changed from the time I enrolled and to now.

I entered college under Barack Obama and will be graduating under Donald Trump. I’ve watched Trump gradually tear down what little Obama was able to build, branding it as ineffective, but was unable to come up with anything better.

In my junior year, I interned with The Japan Times when I studied abroad in Japan. Every day without fail, Trump would be on the front page with new or recurring shenanigans. Through a different cultural lens, I was able to look at my president, at my country and see how we are continuing to plummet from grace.

The mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL happened while I was abroad. When I returned home, there were many more mass shootings. There were many more shootings in general, which claimed the lives of innocent people for unjustifiable reasons.

If we put forth legislation to regulate the gun market, people will claim that it’s an infringement on their second amendment rights, and/or use under-the-table methods to obtain a gun. It turns out that the more you tell someone to do something, the more likely it is for them to do the opposite.

This holds true in terms of immigration as well. Everyone’s circumstances for emigrating from their home countries are different, though more often than not, it is a better option to take a chance on America versus staying home. Under this anti-immigration presidency, immigrants have been treated worse than I’ve ever seen in my life. Separating children from their adult relatives, housing these children and adults in separate detainment camps without the barest of essentials, and making these children stand trials without translators or juries are just a few of the inhumane efforts to deport these immigrants.

America was built on immigration and continues to thrive today because of immigration. Yet, xenophobia has a vice grip on some Americans. The fear of foreignness coupled with the misconception that immigrants are taking over our economy result sometimes in fatal events like the mass shooting in El Paso, TX.

I continue to watch as our “magnificent” country further deteriorate because that’s all I can do when I don’t know what to do or what can be done. 

Similar Read: Fascism 101