Closing Thought–06Sep17

Hunting Down The Enemy!

I admit it…..back in the day I was a true fan of pulp fiction….mostly spy novels….the location, the women, the equipment……

Then there are real life situations that smack of good fiction…..especially in the spy world……I recently wrote a post about the death of Russian ambassador……

Source: What The Hell? – In Saner Thought

Then there are those that see a conspiracy everywhere and this situation is no different….granted this is a Russian site and is a bit biased in their thoughts….but it does make for some interesting reading….

The more time passes, the more the deaths of Russian ambassadors abroad starts causing suspicions. It seems that something ominous happens. The ambassador of the Russian Federation in Sudan Mirgayas Shirinsky, who was found dead in the swimming pool of the office villa on August […]

Source: The New Entertainment of the American Intelligence Agencies Is Hunting Down Russian Ambassadors?

Whatcha think?

The Shortest Wars

I do a lot of historic reading…..wars mostly….and I like to post on some things that my readers may not be aware of in their readings.

We have studied the longest wars….such as the Hundred Years War, Vietnam War and our longest to date…Afghanistan……

But what, you may ask, are the shortest wars in history?

A good question……and now I can help with the answer…..

Since Biblical times and before, man has been constantly fighting. It seems that never a year goes by without one war or another starting or finishing. Some of these wars take many years and have very high death tolls, but there have also been some extraordinarily short wars. This is a list of the ten shortest wars since 1800. I have not included wars that ended in ceasefire, wars of revolution or independence, or wars that occurred during the First or Second World Wars.

Source: Top 10 Shortest Wars – Listverse

Now the next time you play “War Trivia” you have the answers that others do not…….you’re welcome…..


After much speculation about the Obama program, DACA……Trump has made up his mind and allowed the much maligned Sessions delver the news to the country.

Bad news for “dreamers.” The White House is indeed phasing out a program that has protected hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought into the country illegally as kids, reports the AP. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the anticipated move Tuesday morning, per Reuters. Sessions called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program unconstitutional and said the federal government will no longer accept applications for DACA. However, the nation’s approximately 800,000 “dreamers” won’t be immediately affected as the program is wound down through March, and President Trump urged Congress to come up with a legislative alternative, reports the New York Times.

“Congress, get ready to do your job – DACA!” the president tweeted Tuesday morning. Sessions called the Obama program an “open-ended circumvention of immigration law through unconstitutional authority by the executive branch” and said it likely would have been rejected in the courts, reports the Washington Post. Trump had similarly denounced the program as “illegal” during the 2016 campaign, though he softened his language upon becoming president. Dreamers who currently hold permits can continue working in the US until their permits expire. Those whose permits expire by March 5, 2018—when the program was originally scheduled to end—can apply for a two-year renewal provided they do so by Oct. 5.

But as usual the Trump Twitter account got a work out about this issue…..with the language showing a bit of soothing rhetoric after the initial bombshell…..

The fate of young immigrants in the US was thrust into limbo Tuesday when the White House announced it was phasing out the Obama-era DACA program, more formally known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. President Trump gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative alternative before the program ends in March, and he promised that the issue would be resolved “with heart and compassion—but through the lawful Democratic process,” per NBC News. The White House maintains that President Obama’s executive action was unconstitutional and that Congress, not the president, must decide such things. (Obama himself made a rare public statement criticizing the move.) Related coverage:

  • A ‘wall’ trade? One idea being floated is a deal in which Republicans agree to legislation protecting “Dreamers” if Democrats agree to funding for a border wall, reports Newsweek. At Salon, Heather Digby Parton thinks Democrats should take any such deal offered. She opposes the wall, but “putting 800,000 Dreamer kids’ minds at rest will be worth it.”
  • Bannon test: This will be the biggest test yet of the power of Steve Bannon since leaving the White House, observes Politico. Bannon and other conservative advisers (including Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions) pushed the president to end DACA, and Bannon could go after more moderate GOP voices on immigration, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.
  • Ryan, Rubio: In a statement, House speaker Ryan said he agreed that Obama overstepped with DACA and that was it never a “viable long-term solution.” But he also said he hoped Congress could put legislation in place “ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong” can stay in the US. Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said Trump needed to give lawmakers a clear sense of what he’d be willing to sign, per the Miami Herald.
  • Harvey hero: One recipient of DACA’s protection was 31-year-old Alonso Guillen, who died trying to rescue people from Hurricane Harvey. The Houston Chronicle has more on his life story, and the New York Times notes that Trump chief of staff John Kelly has been moved by stories of Dreamers helping out in the wake of Harvey.
  • Silicon Valley: Microsoft said it was “disappointed” in the White House decision, but said Congress must now rearrange its priorities over the next six months to protect Dreamers. The company employs 39 of them, and other tech companies are similarly worried.
  • Not so complicated: At the National Review, Andrew McCarthy writes that Trump made the issue “more complicated than it needs to be.” McCarthy makes the case that Obama’s action was illegal and asserts that Trump’s path is the correct one: “Follow the Constitution” and let Congress hammer out a compromise.
  • Badly handled? At BuzzFeed, Ben Smith argues that Trump misplayed the issue, gave away his political leverage, and ended up with the worst possible outcome: “He’s shooting the hostages.”
  • Full text: Here is the full text of Sessions’ explanation of the decision. “The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness,” he says.

Is this piece of crap just a ploy to get his money for a wall?  Using almost a million people as a blackmail scheme….cannot get much tackier than that….but I am positive he will try.

He, Trump, in a Tweet is giving the Congress 6 months to do a comprehensive immigration reform…..seriously?  Does he not know how flipping absurd that is?

And all this concern by the GOPers in Congress is just amazing….glad to see they have a conscience…..but if they had this much compassion why was an Obama EO necessary to some action?

Funny how much compassion can be mustered up with an election looming.

This is all just a game to Trump….to pretend it is anything else is just moronic.

Can Conservatism Be Reclaimed?

Today the Congress returns to work from their vacation for Labor Day… would be a good time for them to take control of their party and their agenda….force Trump to work with them.

In the era of Trump conservatism has taken a hard hit…..gone are the days of a conservative agenda.

What we have now is an attempt by the president to kill the American political society.

There are some cracks showing through…..the GOP has been doing whatever Trump wants but now their are a few Repubs that want to reclaim their party and their agenda…but what they must do……

The way congressional Republicans could demonstrate seriousness about distancing themselves from distasteful aspects of the Trump administration would be to take some legislative action on those aspects. Here are some possibilities:

  • Congress could pass a law creating a special prosecutor position to investigate Russia issues with a fixed term, so Trump couldn’t arbitrarily fire Robert Mueller.
  • It could take up some of the suggestions of former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub to give the OGE more independence and statutory authority to force changes.
  • Legislators could pass a law mandating meaningful financial disclosure from presidents and presidential candidates, and a companion law requiring presidents and vice presidents to follow conflict of interest laws that apply to other White House staff.
  • They could tighten anti-nepotism laws so that a president’s clearly unqualified children are not acting in an official government capacity regardless of their salary situation.
  • They could restore funding that Trump’s Department of Homeland Security eliminated for de-radicalization programs aimed at white nationalists.
  • Congressional committees could hold hearings on the potential threat of white nationalist groups to the country.
  • Republican members of Congress could make their anti-Trump statements on Fox News and conservative talk radio outlets, delivering the message to the people who need to be persuaded that Trump is wrong rather than simply distancing themselves from him in the eyes of mainstream audiences.


These steps alone would not save their precious agenda….but it would help establish them in a leadership role for the country.  Their agenda is threatened by corruption, in bed with neo-Nazis, the Russia thing, all diversions hanging over Trump’s head.

While I was never a fan of the conservative agenda I am less o over the Trump agenda (whatever the Hell it is)……

Could History Explain North Korea?

When North Korea is mentioned most Americans just roll their eyes and say under their breath “crazy bastard”…..but the whole situation with the country could be explained by history…

The U.S. and North Korea are on the brink of hostilities that if begun would almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange. This is the expressed judgment of most competent observers. They differ over the causes of this confrontation and over the size, range and impact of the weapons that would be fired, but no one can doubt that even a “limited” nuclear exchange would have horrifying effects throughout much of the world including North America.

So how did we get to this point, what are we now doing and what could be done to avoid what would almost certainly be the disastrous consequences of even a “limited” nuclear war?

Source: How History Explains the Korean Crisis – Consortiumnews