As I wrote before, Trump should have stayed out of this one. Even though it isn't a big item, it does appear to have a life of its own, as the anti-Trumpers won't leave it alone. They want to bring this up that Trump brought it up.
This got me going again in this department too, so I researched a little and found this business that confirmed what I wrote in an earlier post on the subject.
What I found was that there was a Miguel Cruz associated with the man who was involved in an altercation with Lee Harvey Oswald, while Oswald was in New Orleans just months before the assassination. Miguel Cruz is not the name of Ted Cruz's father, nor any search of ancestry that I undertook could find any relations connected to Cruz. That doesn't clear Cruz of that, but the connection to the assassination was pretty lame to begin with.
Trump isn't careful enough with his words. That could lead to his downfall.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Trump and nuclear weapons for Japan
Did you hear about Hillary jumping to a ten point lead over Trump? Well, it may be for things like a questionable report of what Trump said.
Basically, they are claiming that Trump is advocating that Japan get its own nuclear weapons. Trump denied saying that Japan should get nuclear weapons, and it was reported in a way that is supposed to destroy his credibility.
That's why I am jumping into this again. It is like a replay of what happened during the primaries.
So, I researched the controversy. I wanted to know if Trump actually said that Japan should get nuclear weapons. What I found in my search was this CBS report, which does not exactly claim that he said that. Basically, what we have here is that the media is spinning what he said, and then slamming him for saying what he didn't say.
Typical garbage that the primary season stuff had. This is what turned me against the so-called conservatives who couldn't get their stories straight. So, I had to chase it all down, and when I did, I came down hard against the so-called conservatives.
Here's the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.
There are two CBS reports ( the two links in this post ) cited as proof that he actually said this, but I cannot find in either report where he said that in a verbatim quote. He DID say that eventually Japan would get nukes, and I don't know how you can fault him for that. The assumption that they never will get nukes is based upon the notion that there will always be a United States of America that can defend Japan. If that is no longer the case, that America can defend Japan, then what choice do the Japanese have?
In other words, the media is not telling the truth. So what else is new?
Basically, they are claiming that Trump is advocating that Japan get its own nuclear weapons. Trump denied saying that Japan should get nuclear weapons, and it was reported in a way that is supposed to destroy his credibility.
That's why I am jumping into this again. It is like a replay of what happened during the primaries.
So, I researched the controversy. I wanted to know if Trump actually said that Japan should get nuclear weapons. What I found in my search was this CBS report, which does not exactly claim that he said that. Basically, what we have here is that the media is spinning what he said, and then slamming him for saying what he didn't say.
Typical garbage that the primary season stuff had. This is what turned me against the so-called conservatives who couldn't get their stories straight. So, I had to chase it all down, and when I did, I came down hard against the so-called conservatives.
Here's the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.
There are two CBS reports ( the two links in this post ) cited as proof that he actually said this, but I cannot find in either report where he said that in a verbatim quote. He DID say that eventually Japan would get nukes, and I don't know how you can fault him for that. The assumption that they never will get nukes is based upon the notion that there will always be a United States of America that can defend Japan. If that is no longer the case, that America can defend Japan, then what choice do the Japanese have?
In other words, the media is not telling the truth. So what else is new?
Wolf and Lamb argument once again
A search of the blog yielded twenty posts that referenced the Aesop's Fable of the Lamb and the Wolf. I think we could be witnessing the same drama unfold as the one depicted in the fable.
The moral of the fable was the proposition that force always gets the better of an argument. The lamb argues with the wolf, but the argument is in vain, because the wolf will do whatever he pleases anyway. Thus, the wolf eats the lamb unconditionally. Force overwhelms all arguments the lamb had in his own defense.
Now, in this email controversy, who is the wolf and who is the lamb? Is Hillary a victim? Are her accusers doing so in disregard of law and justice? Or, are her accusers correct and; in response to the just accusation, is she behaving as a she-wolf, who will do whatever she pleases regardless of the law?
The law assumes innocence until proven guilty, but that may not even be allowed to take place. If there's no indictment, then a court of law cannot determine guilt according to the law. Probable cause has already been established in terms of an investigation. A grand jury could be empaneled to decide whether or not a trial should be held in order to determine if guilt can be found beyond reasonable doubt.
No indictment being sought means that those in charge of enforcing the law refuse to carry out their responsibilities. If the FBI recommends an indictment, one must be sought. To refuse an indictment is a political act. It is a wolfish act in and of itself. Since the indictment of a former official of the administration is at issue here, the only justification for not seeking an indictment would be to avoid political embarrassment, because such embarrassment may be a factor in the outcome of an election.
Is there rule of law anymore, or is it the law of the jungle, where the stronger party can devour the weaker party at will? Such would be the case if a recommendation of an indictment is ignored or refused. The wolf would have won the argument again.
The moral of the fable was the proposition that force always gets the better of an argument. The lamb argues with the wolf, but the argument is in vain, because the wolf will do whatever he pleases anyway. Thus, the wolf eats the lamb unconditionally. Force overwhelms all arguments the lamb had in his own defense.
Now, in this email controversy, who is the wolf and who is the lamb? Is Hillary a victim? Are her accusers doing so in disregard of law and justice? Or, are her accusers correct and; in response to the just accusation, is she behaving as a she-wolf, who will do whatever she pleases regardless of the law?
The law assumes innocence until proven guilty, but that may not even be allowed to take place. If there's no indictment, then a court of law cannot determine guilt according to the law. Probable cause has already been established in terms of an investigation. A grand jury could be empaneled to decide whether or not a trial should be held in order to determine if guilt can be found beyond reasonable doubt.
No indictment being sought means that those in charge of enforcing the law refuse to carry out their responsibilities. If the FBI recommends an indictment, one must be sought. To refuse an indictment is a political act. It is a wolfish act in and of itself. Since the indictment of a former official of the administration is at issue here, the only justification for not seeking an indictment would be to avoid political embarrassment, because such embarrassment may be a factor in the outcome of an election.
Is there rule of law anymore, or is it the law of the jungle, where the stronger party can devour the weaker party at will? Such would be the case if a recommendation of an indictment is ignored or refused. The wolf would have won the argument again.
Is there anything that Hillary could do that would cause her people to reject her?
Anything at all?
There is a report that Hillary's email wasn't password protected.
Therefore the question: is there anything that this woman can be held accountable for?
This is extreme negligence at the very, very least. It's like leaving the keys in the ignition in a car parked in front of a master car thief convention. There's just no way that any classified information could be protected like that. Countries spend fortunes to overcome even the best security measures and sometimes succeed spectacularly. The consequences are immeasurable damages to the national interest.
There are those who say that nobody got killed. This is the kind of thing that bring about the ruin of a nation. How many people might get killed because of something like this? There may not be a limit except for the number of people in the country. I think it is that bad.
Even if it isn't that bad, and even if our adversaries are just kidding about being adversaries, it is still an unacceptable risk. But to believe that previous sentence, you'd had to be gullible beyond belief.
Ever heard of Murphy's Law? That kind of thinking would deny that anything could ever go wrong.
There is a report that Hillary's email wasn't password protected.
Therefore the question: is there anything that this woman can be held accountable for?
This is extreme negligence at the very, very least. It's like leaving the keys in the ignition in a car parked in front of a master car thief convention. There's just no way that any classified information could be protected like that. Countries spend fortunes to overcome even the best security measures and sometimes succeed spectacularly. The consequences are immeasurable damages to the national interest.
There are those who say that nobody got killed. This is the kind of thing that bring about the ruin of a nation. How many people might get killed because of something like this? There may not be a limit except for the number of people in the country. I think it is that bad.
Even if it isn't that bad, and even if our adversaries are just kidding about being adversaries, it is still an unacceptable risk. But to believe that previous sentence, you'd had to be gullible beyond belief.
Ever heard of Murphy's Law? That kind of thinking would deny that anything could ever go wrong.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
One more thing about this email business
If you don't think Hillary's email scandal is any big deal, I dare you to read this book. Particularly, chapter 10, entitled "Treasures from the vault".
If you read that and still don't get it, then you are irretrievably stupid. If you do get it, but still don't care, then why don't you go someplace else in the world to live? You don't belong here.
Anybody helping her, either directly or indirectly, deserves to be shot. I do not exaggerate.
If you read that and still don't get it, then you are irretrievably stupid. If you do get it, but still don't care, then why don't you go someplace else in the world to live? You don't belong here.
Anybody helping her, either directly or indirectly, deserves to be shot. I do not exaggerate.
Free To Choose [ to go broke I suppose ]
Those of you who follow this blog, and there aren't many I admit, may remember what I said about Milton Friedman. I paraphrased him saying in his book that it would be "wonderful for us" if what all we produced were dollars, and other countries were willing to exchange goods for those dollars.
Well, I found the book, and yes, it is there, and is a fair assessment of what he said. Page 34 to be exact.
I suspect that policy makers are taking that LITERALLY. They are more than willing to run up the debt on the national credit card until one day...
quote [positing a hypothetical scenario in 1980 that isn't quite so hypothetical today]:
They don't have to burn nor bury them. Just receive interest and expand their market share. Eventually, the USA won't be able to make good on the debts, and that will be that for the US economy.
Even though their dollar holdings will be worthless, they will still have the factories and the skilled working class. We will have a bunch of worn out and useless junk, and everybody will be unskilled and desperately poor. If that isn't what's happening, then maybe I'm wrong. But the Fed cannot raise interest rates, for if they do, they cannot pay interest on the debt without severe dislocations. That's a fact, Jack. Our prosperity is a mirage.
That's what globalism brought us. If you think your stock and bond holdings will save you, think again, sucker.
Well, I found the book, and yes, it is there, and is a fair assessment of what he said. Page 34 to be exact.
I suspect that policy makers are taking that LITERALLY. They are more than willing to run up the debt on the national credit card until one day...
quote [positing a hypothetical scenario in 1980 that isn't quite so hypothetical today]:
...everything is cheaper in Japan [ comment: it could be anybody we are trading with, like just everybody everywhere these days] so that there was nothing in the US that they would be willing to buy.. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury their dollars, that would be wonderful for us.
They don't have to burn nor bury them. Just receive interest and expand their market share. Eventually, the USA won't be able to make good on the debts, and that will be that for the US economy.
Even though their dollar holdings will be worthless, they will still have the factories and the skilled working class. We will have a bunch of worn out and useless junk, and everybody will be unskilled and desperately poor. If that isn't what's happening, then maybe I'm wrong. But the Fed cannot raise interest rates, for if they do, they cannot pay interest on the debt without severe dislocations. That's a fact, Jack. Our prosperity is a mirage.
That's what globalism brought us. If you think your stock and bond holdings will save you, think again, sucker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)