The next Guy That Cries War, Kick Him In The Butt.

       Wow! Who could have foreseen this situation in Iraq? America sent it's finest men and women into that country to throw out a despicable tyrant and to create a democracy that would be a beacon for the entire Mideast to replicate, and to eliminate all those weapons of mass destruction. and, by the way, to make a tidy fortune in the process. It was a war, but it was a war that would be measured in days. The citizens would welcome us with open arms. It could be done without  substantial loss of life or financial costs to America. Go back and check the rhetoric for yourself.
       So how did that turn out? Well, we did throw out Sadam Hussein, we did make a tidy fortune for a very few corporations, but that's about all that was predicted that worked as planned. As it turns out, the people didn't welcome us quite as expected, there were no weapons of mass destruction and that highly touted democracy? Well, after we got the man we wanted in Al-Maliki, he wanted us out as soon as possible. At least after a decade. Pres. Bush rightly told him that if he would not assure us he wouldn't allow our troops to be arrested we were going to pull out by 2012. Maliki thumbed his nose at us and so Obama pulled our troops out as required in 2013.
       Now suddenly, or not so suddenly, his little kingdom democracy is being overrun by extremists and now he wants us to come back and save his bacon. But now, even if Halliburton wants more super profits, we're not going back in, nor should we. Why not? Because we don't know how to build democracies. We don't even know how to build decent dictatorships. Many Iraqi citizens would rather have these ISIS terrorist extremists to the current government.
       No wonder Bush sits so quietly while Obama gets all the flak for the unraveling of a country that would otherwise have continued to keep things in the Mideast from boiling over. A dictator Sadam was, but at least he kept a lid on things. Just think. We could have saved thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars and we'd all have been the wiser for it.

Tsk Tsk, Poor Bankers.

       As best as I can figure out, some of our largest banks have been lending money to Chinese companies based on collateral like aluminum and copper. That's in the China where it's companies have been sending us manufactured goods that are tainted, inferior or other wise dangerous. But our banks think it makes good sense to loan money to these folks. Okay, so what's the problem now? Well it appears those companies may have been using the same stockpiles of copper and aluminum as collateral for more than one loan. You don't suppose they're being sneaky do ya?
       It would be like you or I getting a mortgage on our vacation hide-a-way in Aspen, Colorado from one bank and then getting another mortgage from another bank and then doing it several more times. It's somewhat illegal, but hey, if you don't mind going to jail, it's a way to get your hands on some extra money. At least for a little while.
       But then if you're a company in China, you're not really concerned about laws in America. Now, our banks might get their money back if they can get to prove there was some shenanigans going on. On the other hand if they can't actually get to see if that Aluminum and copper are really there or not, then you might have a problem getting your money back.
       The thing is, though, it's not like China is a good citizen or fair player. As I said before they continually send us bad product, they spy on our industry and steal trade secrets, and they fix their currency to keep competitive. So why would our banks not want to do business there? China is a big customer with the potential to make them big profits, if they don't get cheated. The fact that funding for business loans back here are tight, and student loans are far too high, doesn't enter into the decision making process. Hey America will just have to get along on it's own with it's own banks. Oh! Wait! These are American banks.
       So what happens if our banks don't get their money back? I'll bet we'll have to bail them out. Does this sound at all familiar?

Terrorists Can Even Be Clean Shaven.

       Ya gotta love this one. According to an ultra-right wing extremist website (I won't mention the name) , the FBI has stated that fists kill more people than rifles and shotguns. Fists - 678, rifles and shotguns -  625. Isn't that neat how they stated that? Of course you notice they didn't mention handguns. Now why do you suppose that is? I don't know what the stats are for handguns, maybe more than even fists and maybe more than fists, shotguns and rifles together. But it helped them not to mention those cute, innocent, concealable weapons. It would have ruined their article.
       Add to that the killing in Las Vegas of those two cops and an armed civilian by a husband and wife team, fresh back from the standoff over government grazing lands. This was a militia loving, hate mongering, anti-government radical couple who decided it was time for the "revolution" to start. Does anyone not think these folks were home grown terrorists? And there are and have been a bunch of them. More than Arab nationals since 9-11.
       So when congress worries more about five terrorists being swapped for an American POW and doesn't seem to care much at all about all these freaky home grown radical terrorists with guns, you have to wonder where our Senator's and Representative's heads are. I'm beginning to think that un-electing isn't enough. I think maybe we need to offer them lobotomies as a perk instead of going to work for lobbyists.
       So, if you're a card carrying militia member and you hate government and think it's time for the revolution to begin. Run for congress instead of killing people. That way we can give you a much needed head emptying. On the other hand, if you actually believe all that guff, maybe your head is already empty. Ya know, now that I think about it, I wonder how many of our Congressmen have already had that procedure. There seems to be an inordinate number of them acting strangely.

Bergdahl, Conservatives And Obama.

       Well, now some leaders including House Speaker John Boehner are claiming that the Bergdahl trade has made Americans less safe. Really? Well it is possible the trade has made us less safe, but then lots of things we've done and continue to do, by choice, make us less safe. For example, the Iraq war, that has made us less safe. Then there's 'Stand Your Ground' laws. They make us less safe, but some states are doing it anyway. And then gun legislation, or actually the lack of sensible restrictions make us less safe, but you won't hear Boehner rush to promote those items to help make us safer.
       What is it about this Bergdahl thing that has so many conservatives up in arms. And to be fair, it's not that all conservatives agree, by far, but it seems most elected conservatives are up in arms about the trade for Sgt. Bergdahl. They keep coming up with different arguments hoping one will stick. Why are they fixated on this? Mainly because it's 2014. It's an election year.
       They've concluded that anything that makes the president look bad, gives them more votes in November. that and the fact that they have never been able to accept that Obama got elected. Twice! They don't like him. He hasn't helped that situation, but they don't like him. The few times he's tried to be inclusive toward them, they've snubbed him. Like ignoring invitations to come to the White House, Boehner and others simply didn't go. But to be fair, Obama hasn't been the kind of guy who will sit down and negotiate with them. At least not comfortably.
       There is one more reason for these attacks on Bowe Bergdahl. There's a presidential election coming just around the corner. It's only two and a half years from now. The campaign is in full swing. Half a dozen Republicans are already vying for the job. Hillary is acting like a candidate, but claiming not to be. Not just yet, that is. What better reason to find fault with the current president and something he did. And besides, they don't like Obama. Never have.

Whose Right To Bear Arms?

       For some reason I wound up on the e-mailing list for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS newsletter. I'm surprised because while I do believe we should be able to own firearms, I don't agree with these Second Amendmenters. At least when it comes to open carry and stand your ground laws. And I especially don't get all worked up by their conspiracy theories.
       The latest conspiracy has to do with (guess who), Obama and this time the FDIC. That's the federal insurance for banks. It guarantees your deposits should the bank fail. Well, I wanted to see how that could possibly work. See the conspiracy states that the FDIC will take away our guns, and I wondered how that could be pulled off.
       Turns out, as best as I can determine, that the FDIC would take away the credit for gun dealers. That way all the gun dealers would go out of business. But even if that were possible, we Americans still have enough guns in the hands of private citizens to arm half the countries in the world and still have enough left over to challenge any army so foolish as to invade us.
       No matter, these folks are convinced President Obama is intent upon taking everybody's guns and do.... what? I assure you there isn't enough room in the White House to store them. Not even in the Lincoln bedroom. Now, I will admit the President and all reasonable, thinking citizens would like to limit the sales of guns, especially to the mentally unstable and to criminals. Which is something the NRA is flatly against. Actually the NRA is flatly against such legislation because the gun manufacturers have instructed them to be against it. See, that would cut down on sales, and that would be a bad thing. For them.
       The problem I see for the NRA and the manufacturers is that one of these days we'll have another mass killing that will be the tipping point that will cause even conservatives to be shamed into voting for far more strict legislation. Such legislation would be more fearsome than even the NRA. It would be a terrible cost and there's no reason for it. Except for groups like the NRA.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Guilty - Innocent.

       Ya know, there's been a whole lot of people shouting about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release and the prisoner exchange. Just imagine, five very bad actors released from Gitmo. Taliban leaders that we fear will only get back into the business of trying to kill Americans. And I'll bet that's exactly what they're gonna try to do. Although, I hope our government is keeping a very close eye on them and will strike if they try to do it.
       But what seems to capture the most newsprint and airtime is that Sgt. Bergdahl willingly wandered off his duty station and was captured and that it cost the lives of at least six men trying to free him from captivity. He's just not the kind of person you give up those five Taliban leaders and endanger American lives. There seems to be no question Bowe and even his dad are bad actors. So why would President Obama give up such dangerous men for this guy who is guilty of what may well be crimes.
       The idea that we never leave one of our own on the battlefield is good, but if he did all these things, then how can we claim he's one of our own? Did we give up too much for someone that's just not worth the risk?
       Well, the answer to all these claims and questions is that he's innocent. I absolutely guarantee he is innocent. The reason I know he's innocent in spite of the fact that I think he's most likely guilty, is that in America, everyone is innocent. At least we're all innocent until or unless we're proven guilty in a court of law. So if you believe in our laws, our country, our constitution, then you're gonna have to accept that as an innocent man we could not rightly leave him in enemy hands. Yep, even if he goes on trial and is found guilty of desertion and even if he's found guilty that he aided and abetted terrorists and the enemy. Even then, he's not guilty now.
       Nobody said life would be simple. Even for simple people, life is not simple. So, unless we decide to ignore our laws and treat him like a guilty traitor, he's innocent. And if we do ignore our laws, then perhaps we'd be proving he was right. And then we'd be guilty.

Having The Wrong Address.

       A dear friend of ours asked if my wife got her card. Come to find out, she had an old address which is why we didn't get her card. But it got me to thinking how this sort of thing could easily play into the hands of some of our fondest politicians. A politician could ask his supporters if they had received his special letter of thanks. When his supporter said no, he could easily just mention some fictitious address as the culprit. He then could profoundly apologize and ask for the correct one.
       Why would  a politician want someone's address? Surely you jest. But it's not just politicians who could profit from this ploy. Used car salesmen, tax collectors and a whole host of people could  be using this avenue of address fishing. Of course it wouldn't be long before the idea would become over-used and thus lose it's value as a tactic of deceit.
       I must say, honesty is indeed the best policy. Especially when the alternative is so openly disingenuous. So just what should one say when in a group of friends and acquaintances who are all asking if one member has received their cards? An oft used excuse is "I didn't realize you were ill." Of course this is only acceptable if you live far, far out of town or have been out of town. Another way to handle this embarrassment is to quietly and unobtrusively slip away from that group.
       Of course a politician has a perfectly acceptable excuse by merely claiming he'd been so busy saving the world from (enter important issue here) that he hadn't gotten the word. The one person you never, ever want to hear say they didn't know you were ill, is your employer. I mean, can you imagine, you were out sick for two weeks and your boss didn't even miss you? He may begin to think about how necessary you are to the company. Perhaps the only person who might be more hurtful to hear say that, would be your spouse.