America’s Internal Divisions

A Fight for the Future of America————————

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                When U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow recently to lay the groundwork for a summit between Putin and President Donald Trump, the Russian told Bolton that he believed the worsened relations between our two countries was a result of the acute political struggle in the U.S. Bolton might have responded that the larger reasons were Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support of Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, but Putin’s observation was, nonetheless, significant in showing that foreign leaders are very much aware of America’s internal divisions and the effect it is having or is bound to have on the entire world.

 

The term struggle, in fact, is an understatement. Rather, it is developing into a battle for the very soul of America and the outcome is by no means certain. Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat from (where else) California, is merely one shrill voice among many seeking to elevate that conflict into a full-fledged war but her recent diatribe was particularly ominous, leading Trump to respond that she should be careful what she asked for. Said mad Maxine, “If you see anybody from that (Trump) cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back at them.” In other words, create a disturbance, which could develop into a riot. Harass and humiliate them and their families. Disrespect their office.

 

This outburst of hateful speech is typical of Waters and it appears to be just fine with the lunatic left fringe of the Democrat Party which is rapidly gaining control of the party as ageing leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck lose their grip on it. It signals serious trouble ahead as the liberal left engages in a fight, perhaps to the finish, with the conservative right while the mainstream moderates stand by in polite and dignified silence. The angry Waters screed was an endorsement of the outrageous treatment of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family who were denied service and asked to leave a restaurant in a suburban Virginia. Her children were then hassled when they tried to dine at a nearby place. Waters apparently also approved of Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen being harassed and forced to leave a D.C. restaurant and of the noisy demonstrations staged outside her family residence.

 

Public officials are expected to tolerate criticism and even public assaults on their privacy as a price of holding public office. Their families, however, should not be fair game which is why fewer and fewer competent people are now willing to run for office or accept government appointments and subject their families to such abuse. Few would tolerate attacks or harassment targeting family members. That is a line that should never be crossed. Former first lady Michelle Obama famously said that when they (Republicans) take the low road, we (Democrats) take the high road. For planning purposes, just when can we expect that to begin?

 

Mrs. Pelosi and Sen. Chuck offered feeble attempts to distance themselves from Waters’ incendiary outburst, noting a general decline in civility as if it were just a matter of being a little more polite. The decline of civility and decorum and the lack of anger management have been building for a long time, since the Vietnam War and the protests of the 1960’s. It has been fueled in no small way by the left-leaning faculties at American universities and by the education establishment in general. They have produced generations of graduates who have been socialized to refuse to listen to any opinions that run contrary to those instilled in them by their liberal professors. They feel justified in using any means necessary to silence those that disagree with them including, if necessary, violence.

 

While the coarsening of political discourse did not happen overnight, it has worsened markedly since the nomination of Donald Trump who turned the GOP nomination campaign into a TV reality show with personal attacks and name-calling. Against all odds, he defeated all other candidates for the nomination, most of whom were vastly more qualified to fill the most powerful office on earth. It was a testament to Americans’ infatuation with TV celebrities and a frantic desire for a change from politics as usual. Again, against all odds, he defeated a badly-flawed Democratic candidate who barely beat a formerly little-known Socialist for the nomination and the Democrats then became totally unhinged. Politics continued its descent to the sewer.

 

No longer is there a loyal opposition party. The leftist fringe has seized control of it and their objective is to destroy Trump, if not by a democratic election process, then by whatever it takes. If that should happen, expect the Trump core supporters to become unhinged. Progressives think they know, better than the voters, what America stands for: open borders, free stuff for everyone and leave the bill for our grandchildren to pay. This fight will not turn out well because there appears to be no middle ground in sight and at some point, conservatives will say “enough” and stop even looking for one.

July 31, 2018

 

 

 

Time to Wind Down the Mueller Investigation

A Tainted Investigation——————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

For months critics of president Trump and his supporters have scolded them for daring to criticize the Mueller investigation or questioning the integrity or motives of the investigators. Now comes the 500-page report of the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which confirms what most of those with a trace of objectivity left already knew. At least one FBI official, the lead investigator in the Hillary Clinton email investigation no less, displayed not merely the appearance of bias against Donald Trump but a determination to keep him from winning the election. The report also blasted former FBI director James Comey and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch over the probe.

 

Comey’s actions in recommending that no charges be brought against Ms. Clinton, in spite of extreme careless in handling sensitive material, without first consulting his superiors amounted to insubordination and that his excuse for doing so was “unpersuasive”. The report, eighteen months in the making, faulted Mrs. Lynch for meeting with Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while she was still under investigation and failing to recognize the appearance of impropriety. The appearance of impropriety?  Mr. Horowitz said that he was deeply troubled by the exchange of text messages between lead investigator Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, with whom he had a “romantic relationship”, which reflected anti-Trump bias and created the appearance that the investigation itself was biased.

 

As we know, Comey, who was later fired by Trump and who, along with Lynch, should have been fired by former president Obama, reopened the Clinton investigation on the eve of the election, probably causing the heavily-favored Clinton to lose the close election. The grandstanding, self-righteous Comey exceeded his authority and broke a long-standing policy by making an announcement during an election campaign that could influence that election thereby reflecting discredit upon the FBI. Yet his Obama administration superiors apparently did absolutely nothing about it. The lead attorney in the Clinton investigation said in a text message to an FBI attorney that Trump wouldn’t win because they wouldn’t allow it. This sowed doubt about the integrity of the FBI and created the appearance that FBI decisions could be impacted by bias. That investigator went on to serve, albeit briefly, in Mr. Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, an investigation occasioned by the firing of Comey. That investigation reportedly, was liberally staffed with Clinton supporters.

 

To say that Americans are justified in questioning the motives, objectivity and hence the integrity of the investigators, especially after recent revelations of bias on the part of another powerful government entity, the IRS in targeting conservative tax exempt organizations, is an understatement. The FBI and IRS have enormous power and influence over the affairs of citizens who need to have full faith in their fairness and integrity. That faith is damaged by the actions of people like Comey, Strzok, Page and perhaps others.

 

Much is said about the integrity and excellent reputation of special counsel Robert Mueller, especially by critics of Donald Trump. But, as constitutional law attorney David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Florida International Law School professor Elizabeth Price Foley point out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, it makes no difference now how honorable he is. His investigation must be considered tainted by the revelations confirmed by the Horowitz report which indicated, among other things, not only “a biased state of mind on the part of at least one investigator, but implied a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects”.  He was removed from the Mueller investigation but the damage was already done.

 

The Mueller investigation is tainted because of the outrageous actions of, hopefully, only a few but the doubt has nonetheless been sown. That investigation should be terminated now by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. If Mr. Mueller is the honorable person he is said to be, I should think that he would agree. And if the FBI’s damaged reputation is to be restored, there needs to be some serious housecleaning and accountability first.

July 21, 2018

U.S.-Russian Relations

Relations with Russia Revisited——————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The anti-Trump movement has progressed to the point that the left’s reflexive response to everything Trump says, does or tweets is unbridled criticism. Now they have accused him of disrespecting our allies by daring to complain about the lopsided balance of trade, threatening to impose tariffs on some of their exports to the U.S., suggesting that Russia be re-admitted to the Group of Seven, leaving the conference early (to prepare for the summit with Kim Jong Un) and taking exception with the joint communique after Canada’s Prime Minister used it to criticize the new U.S. trade policy under Mr. Trump. Any fool knows by now that Trump will reflexively respond to criticism so why provoke the head of the world’s largest economy and Canada’s largest trading partner?

 

Let’s address relations with Russia first. Candidate Trump made it abundantly clear that he would seek better relations with Russia. Critics on the left immediately accused him of being soft on Russia. But he has been anything but soft on Russia since being elected. He has expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and spies. He has provided arms to Ukraine. He has strengthened NATO forces in Eastern Europe and has pressured NATO members to honor their military commitments. He has ended the restrictions on exporting U.S. crude and liquid natural gas which directly challenges Russia’s near-monopoly on providing energy to Europe. He has authorized U.S forces to engage Russian mercenaries in Syria, risking raising tensions and possibly war. How can anyone who follows current events say that he has been soft on Russia? If Putin did, in fact, do anything to influence the election he must be kicking himself. Putin is no fool. He must have known that the predictable Hillary Clinton would have been far easier to deal with than the unpredictable, America first, Donald Trump.

 

Russia may be only the world’s eleventh largest economy but it has its largest nuclear arsenal. G-7 member Italy is not exactly an economic powerhouse, either. And Russia is the world’s largest producer of energy, much of which Europe depends upon. Was it really wise to expel it over a tiff with Ukraine, formerly the breadbasket and prime jewel of the Soviet Union, and the annexation of Crimea which Russia ceded to Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union and which contains the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet? Wouldn’t it be wiser to keep them engaged with the West rather than to further isolate them?

 

I am not an apologist for the communist president/prime minister-for-life, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, but I take a somewhat contrarian view regarding relations with Russia. Russia, under its current leadership, is not our friend but that doesn’t mean the Russians have to be our enemy or that we should unnecessarily provoke them. I believe that unnecessary animosity toward Russia, along with the expansion of NATO up to its western borders, has poisoned relations. It’s important, I believe, to at least attempt to view relations through the eyes of the Russian people. The collapse of the Soviet Union, thanks largely to the Reagan military buildup and economic expansion, was a huge blow to the prestige and self-esteem of the Russian people. It was particularly galling to see former Soviet Socialistic Republics like the Baltic and Balkan states become part of NATO, a force designed to contain Russia.

 

Many ethnic Russians live in eastern Ukraine and most of them want to reunite with mother Russia. In any event, this was a conflict in Europe’s backyard, not ours. Haven’t we had enough involvement in Europe’s wars and don’t we have enough defense obligations already to current members of NATO? Arming the Ukrainians will only further provoke and prolong a conflict that is not ours to settle. Building up NATO forces on Russia’s borders is naturally viewed as threatening to them. Wouldn’t it be to us as well? We almost went to war over a Russian missile buildup in Cuba.

 

Unnecessary hostility toward Russia will drive Communist Russia closer to its neighbor, Communist China. It already has. The last thing we need to have is the world’s second largest and fastest growing economy and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal aligned against us.

 

Finally, with respect to disrespecting our European allies, here’s my take; quit whining, Europe. We rescued Europe from two world wars with American blood. American dollars then rebuilt it. How about a little respect now for our position on trade? Let’s level the playing field for a change. And by the way, didn’t Candidate Trump also promise to end the trade imbalance?  Another promise kept. It’s getting to be a habit, so why do you act shocked when he tries? Oh, right; you didn’t expect him to actually win the election.

July 7, 2018

Hope Springs Eternal

The Trump-Kim Summit

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                A symptom of insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But hope springs eternal in the American breast and so this time things might just turn out to be different, given the precedent-setting face-to-face meeting between the latest of the Kim family dictators and the president of the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy. On the other hand, it may be just another example of American wishful thinking. We are indeed an optimistic people.

 

President Donald Trump said that he didn’t have to prepare much for the historic summit between David and Goliath because he has this unique ability, you know, to quickly judge a man’s sincerity and good faith, real estate dealmaker that he is. That’s some remarkable skill. He also once said that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin was a man he could deal with. Barack Obama said something similar about Dimitri Medvedev, Putin’s placeholder. George W. Bush famously said he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul. He evidently missed seeing a few other things there. How easily American presidents are fooled.

 

Kim turned on what passes for charm in North Korea and he looked almost like a regular guy, albeit with a bad haircut, as he and the leader of the free world laughed and joked like old chums. There were handshakes every few minutes and lots of smiles and shoulder pats, mostly initiated by Mr. Trump. It made one almost forget that Kim Jong Un murders those he views as threats to power, including a brother and uncle, incarcerates thousands of his countrymen for criticizing the government, starves his people in order to maintain one of the world’s largest armies and a small nuclear arsenal and imprisons and causes the death of a young American tourist for the grave crime of taking a paper poster as a souvenir. Yet Trump emerged from the summit declaring an end to North Korea’s nuclear threat. Uh huh.

 

I wish I could join in the general euphoria over the much-anticipated meeting. I hate being a party-pooper, but I’m darned if I can figure out what we gained from it. On the other hand, it’s clear to see what North Korea and China gained. Three generations of Kims have sought a one-on-one meeting with a U.S. president without success until the youngest of them finally pulled it off. There he was at the center of the world stage with more photographers than I have ever seen assembled in one place taking thousands of photos. Kim got what he wanted: instant recognition by standing next to the most powerful man in the world who kept shaking his hand. He also won a cancellation of the joint South Korea-U. S. military exercise, another objective. That’s what China wanted, too. And for years China had urged direct negotiations between North Korea and the United States.

 

What did we get in return? An opportunity for the American president to declare a political victory and for liberals to launch a revival of that tired, old protest song, “All We are Asking is Give Peace a Chance”.  Perhaps one needed to have come of age before the Korean Conflict to understand how we have been played over the years. With respect to giving North Korea’s rulers a chance to change their ways, we’ve been through this before, multiple times. It has never worked. They have never kept their promises. They have used negotiations to buy time, ease sanctions and develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. They agree to inspections and then deny access when inspectors get too curious. What makes us think that things will be different this time?

 

The popular notion is that tough sanctions and tough talk from Trump forced Kim to plead for a summit. I don’t buy it. Kim has much of what he wants already so he can afford to lighten up on the bellicosity and try a little diplomacy to see what he can get from us. He already has nukes now and he will never give them up. They are his key to power and to retaining the loyalty of the generals who rather like being a member of the exclusive nuclear weapons club and running one of the world’s largest armies. Dictators like Kim don’t last very long once they lose their key to power and the support of the army. Without nukes, North Korea is just another impoverished country relying on the charity of others.

 

But this time, you say, it may be different. Sure, and tomorrow, the sun may rise in the west.

June 30, 2018