Responsibility to protect

I have often heard people conclude that if women were running the world there would be fewer armed conflicts and that may be true but one recent example shows the opposite. It is called the “responsibility to protect doctrine”, pushed by three women in the Obama administration that led to the invasion of Libya. The press is full of reports about how Clinton, Rice and Power pushed Obama to war. The New York Times, citing insiders, reports that Obama shifted to intervention in Libya only under pressure from the trio: “The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity.” These women felt that many innocents in Tripoli would be overrun by government forces led by Gaddafi and explained that it was the duty of outside forces to intervene. The result was the overthrow of Gaddafi and the total chaos that now exist in Libya. Many suspect, that it was this disastrous outcome, that caused Obama to back away from his threat against Assad in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of 200,000 innocents, the displacement of 2 million, the massive influx of refugees into Europe and the rise of ISIS. So much for the “doctrine of responsibility to protect”. It is quite stunning that mistakes of this magnitude can be made and no one seems to be held responsible.

Politicians love gridlock

Politicians love gridlock. This furthers the conflict between voters on both sides but alienates those undecideds. When the two parties are at war the faithful are used as pawns. There are two approaches. The first is the teen defense where all they have to do is show that the other side did it and then it is OK. The second is to blame the other side. This is why a candidate like Hilary Clinton can be the front runner when polls show she is considered dishonest and untrustworthy and the one word used best to describe her is “liar”. This is why no matter how absurd Donald Trump’s statements become, his followers stick with him. This is why those who voted for President Obama continue to side with him regardless of his many foreign policy misjudgments. People’s loyalty to their side is so strong that they can no longer use good judgment. When backed into a corner with evidence, they, using the current vernacular, “double down”. In business, a good manager is more than willing to change his mind when new evidence is presented but in politics the press will portray that as flip-flopping and so politicians spin every change as no change and expect their followers to line up behind them but there are signs that the people have caught on and are now turning their ire toward Washington. It could be that the masses will no longer be tricked by their own unwillingness to change and move into the ranks of the undecided.

Democratic socialism

Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for president is often called a socialist when in fact what he proposes is a democratic socialism similar to the European Union. There are many ways to compare these two systems of government but one of the simplest is GDP and population. The United States with 318 million people produces 22% of the worlds GDP and the European Union with 505 million people produces 24% of the worlds GDP. On a per person basis it is $54,000 per person in the US vs $37,000 per person in the EU. In the United States all government spending including federal and state is 35% of total GDP and in the EU it is 49%. Gross Domestic Product, (GDP) is the sum of all Consumer spending plus Government spending plus interest and plus export/import. Compared to the US the EU has moved 14% (49-35) from Consumers to Government. People in government always want more power and they get that by getting more money to spend. It is their belief that they know better than the people on how money should be spent. If you believe that the government knows better how to spend your money than you do then you will lean toward democratic socialism.

Immigrants

I have heard, once again, from my friend in Europe, a lady who is well informed and well educated. She says the problems of today started many years ago when the birth rate in European countries declined to the point where they wanted immigrants and many from various Muslim countries were welcomed. Unlike America, where immigrants tend to blend in to the so called melting pot, the European immigrants stayed in their areas and maintained their language and culture. This led to high unemployment and poverty and in time disillusionment with their situation. Now these people have become easy prey for groups like ISIS and the results are individuals who would rather die for a cause than continue to live as second class citizens. When immigrants come to America they want to stay in their own area and maintain their language and culture but economic pressures forced them to integrate with the general society and many worked their way out of poverty and were able to provide better lives for their children. Even the recent influx of immigrants across our southern border, have recognized that in order to move up the economic ladder they must learn English.

Oil trucks

The news has reported for almost two years that ISIS is getting much of their money from the sale of oil and yesterday this report appeared: ISTANBUL — Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said. According to an initial assessment, 116 trucks were destroyed in the attack, which took place near Deir al-Zour, an area in eastern Syria that is controlled by the Islamic State. Some are questioning why this kind of attack was delayed for this long?

What-if

As I listened to President Obama speaking about changing strategy in Syria, he began to play the what-if game. What if I send troops to Syria and then what they move to Yemen and if I send troops there what if they move to Africa and so on and I was reminded of my days as a financial planner. I would talk to people about setting up a will or a living trust and they would start with the what-if questions and after 20 minutes of that, they would say they are not prepared to do anything at this time but would think it over. The end result is that they never got their will or trust set up. It was always easier to wait and see and I think that kind of summarizes Obamas plan for Syria.

Church committee

As WW 2 came to a close and the cold war was born the United States intelligence agencies took on a greater role in protecting the country by making friends with a lot of bad guys. If anyone was opposed to the Soviet Union they were our friends. This growth in espionage led to abuse of power and in 1975 The Church Committee, led by Senator Frank Church stepped in to defang the CIA. Many rule changes were made and two of those made it difficult to stop the 9/11 attacks. First, Church rules prevented the CIA from communicating with the FBI which caused confusion about the Muslim in Minneapolis who took pilot training. The second and more important is the fact that the Church Committee discouraged US agents from working with known criminals to gather intel. After 9/11 the pendulum swung again and intel gained importance. Because of the many years when working with criminal types was forbidden, the US was behind on intelligence gathering people and electronic surveillance proved inadequate. The incident in Paris was caused by lack of intelligence and this will be changing with more power going to intel gathering agencies. The west was repeatedly warned by ISIS that there would be attacks on their homelands but there was not enough intel to prevent attacks. When and I say when, not if, the US is attacked, it will be a wakeup call but if they come across the southern border the US will look pretty foolish and a wall will be going up a big hurry. Too little, too late.

Deportation

A recent controversy has developed around the deportation of illegal aliens and during the 8 years of the Truman administration 3.4 million illegals were either deported or left voluntarily. Since the population of the United States at that time was half what it is today that would be an equivalent of 6.8 million being deported today. The interesting thing about this information is that it was brought to the attention of the news media by Trump. It is odd that no one in the press searched this out as they did with Carson’s youthful claims and Hilary’s claim of wanting to join the marines. Perhaps now that it is out, there will be more reporting on this issue. Then they can move to the deportation of 2.1 million that occurred in the Eisenhower administration. It is difficult at best to get inside the head of Trump but being the great negotiator he says he is, this might be his starting position and compromising by getting the wall up and then deporting all illegals convicted of felonies. (Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.) The next step could be to introduce some of the ideas floating around which will allow the illegals to gain citizenship status.

Trump as president

My guess on how the average person would see themselves handling the problems presented to a new president and they might be projecting these solutions onto a person like Trump. The new President Trump tells Mexico that we purchase 900,000 barrels a day from you and we will begin paying you 10 dollars per barrel less and use that money to build a wall. When the wall is complete we will go back to paying full market value. We have enough oil to supply our needs without yours so feel free to ship yours to Europe or Asia. He tells China whenever you manipulate your currency we will add an import tax equal to the same amount. He tells his military experts to come up with a plan to destroy ISIS and he will back them recognizing that in the process innocent civilians will be harmed for that is part of war. He would tell government agencies like the EPA to set up rules that will promote economic development while protecting environment not the other way around. He would tell leading businessmen that when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar they will be going to prison and not some white collar country type but the real thing. He would tell the big banks that they must break up and work with government agencies to achieve that end. He would expand the energy sector by moving from coal to oil to natural gas, a process which is already underway. He would continue to research other methods like wind and solar but they would not receive preferential treatment. He would push for states to increase the minimum wage. He would push for a single payer national health plan sometimes called Medicare for all. He would eliminate the capital gains tax rate and lower payroll taxes. He would lower the corporate and individual tax brackets. He would install defensive rockets throughout the NATO countries that surround Russia and increase the military aid to these countries. He would withdraw from the United Nations and rent them space in New York if they wanted to stay. Note that many of these things are considered sacred cows to conservatives and liberals but a person like Trump is neither or both.A

dealers vs users

Taking on the problems in the criminal justice system is not at the top of the list for most candidates but it deserves some attention. The main complaint is that many of those in prison are just drug users and they should be in treatment centers not jails. It is difficult to find data that separates drug users from drug dealers and this is an important factor. Both of these crimes are called victimless because when a dealer is convicted there is no victim standing in the court room but there are victims scattered around the city that could be called into court. It is commonly agreed that much of the street crime in cities like Chicago is caused by drug dealers and users. Dealers fighting over turf cause many injuries and deaths and these represent the victims who were not in court at sentencing time. The President is releasing many of these criminals and if they are users they will likely become users once again and if they are dealers they should not be released until they have served their time but even that won’t help much since the recidivism rate for both of these groups is high running about 70%. When someone says that the President released prisoners convicted of drug crimes, it is important that they break that down into drug dealers and drug users.

Old ways, new ways

I believe that the American people have outgrown their politics. The young people coming up, especially the millennials, have moved on but the main stream politicians are still caught up in their old ways. The Republicans are still dealing with cultural changes like gay marriage, race and abortion while the Democrats are struggling with free trade, guns and stagnant wages. Young people are fed up with leaders who put party above country and the established politicians don’t know any other way. Young people see the arguing in Washington as childish and the people in charge want to point out the mistakes of the other party. Young people want the government to stay out of their business and the government thinks these people need their guidance and protection. Young people can’t believe the mess that things are in and all the result of good intentions by well-meaning people who like generals are still fighting the last war. They know their college debt is a result of government provided financial aid and they know that social security is not realistic and they know the jobs of the future are not like those of the past but the leaders in Washington haven’t figured that out. The country is in a transition stage and it will take a few more years for the leadership to figure out how to deal with the new ways.