The “Obvious” Defense

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump started last week. The House managers presented a very thorough case. Now it is the time for the defenders of the president to speak. Fair enough.

So, what should they say? Well, let’s look at what the House has presented  and see how they can respond.

The House case focuses first on the withholding of aid to Ukraine and the withholding of a meeting in the Oval Office with the president of the Ukraine. Both are important to the Ukraine for what should be obvious reasons. Ukraine is partially occupied and is at war with Putin’s Russia. Not to belabor the point but again. Ukraine is partially occupied and at war with Putin’s Russia.

So, the Ukraine desperately needs military help. Which the Congress and the president have given them.They also just as desperately need Putin to understand that the US stands with Ukraine against his illegal occupation and aggression. So, both the military and political aid are essential.

It is a fact that the Department of Defense was ready to start to distribute the military aid to  Ukraine on June 18, 2019. From the DOD website:

“The Department of Defense announced today plans to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for additional training, equipment, and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine’s armed forces.” ……https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1879340/dod-announces-250m-to-ukraine/

The DOD does not release any military aid unless a thorough review has been done to make sure the country is meeting the requirements for fighting corruption, insuring human rights, etc.

So, for the president’s Defense Team. The first point they need to address is why the military aid was withheld. What information came to light between June 18 and the hold on the aid? There may be legitimate reasons for withholding aid, if so, what were they? And why was the very process for withholding aid taken out of the usual channels and handed over to a political appointee, rather than a career official?

Along the same lines, the defense may argue that the president can unilaterally withhold aid for any reason. In fact, the aid was held up 9 different times, with no explanation. However, the Government Accounting Office relayed a decision that what Trump did was break the  law. A law that requires him to notify Congress with reasons for any hold up in aid:

“In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from
obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security
assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine
apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances
unavailable for obligation.
Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own
policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds
for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB
violated the ICA….”

Click to access 703909.pdf

So, the president or his staff broke the law. Period. His defense team needs to explain that and justify the hold on military aid. Why did the president think it was essential to break the law? Perhaps he had good reason.Legal reasons. What were they? And why was Congress never notified?

Furthermore, since aid was eventually released they need to answer another question. What happened to make the president change his mind and lift the hold? What new evidence emerged? Did he discover it was illegal or was there a change in Ukraine? What specific reason was there for all of a sudden releasing most of the aid?

The second charge on impeachment brought by the House managers was the obstruction of Congress. Now, it is pretty obvious that Congress was obstructed since the president refused to provide and documents or witnesses to help in the investigation. The question is, was that obstruction legal?

On Saturday the president’s team argued that the entire impeachment proceeding was illegal. So, since the proceeding was illegal they had no requirement to cooperate. Of course, this argument does have a major hole.

The position presupposes that the executive branch alone can decide for the House of Representatives what it can and cannot investigate. In other words, although the Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House, the executive branch can overrule that power. The position falls flat on two levels. First, it disregards the specific language of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Of course it makes no sense legally or logically for the object of an impeachment or investigation to have the power to end an impeachment or investigation.

Along the same lines the president’s defense claimed that the House violated their own rules, so therefore the very impeachment itself is illegal. Yet, here we are. The Senate, controlled by Mitch McConnell, recognized the legality of impeachment. The Supreme Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, recognizes the legality of the impeachment. We are having a trial precisely because the House acted legally. So, once again we have the president, alone, making claims that no other branch of government agrees with.

Now, it is legal for the president to, in certain circumstances, invoke “executive privilege”. However, invoking that privilege means the president has to make a case, before a court, that the documents or testimony being withheld is being done for legitimate national security concerns. So far, Mr Trump has made no such claim.

His lawyers, however, have taken the position that he can claim executive privilege without making a formal claim of executive privilege. In their words, he can hide anything he wants for any reason he wants. In other words, the chief executive is supreme and cannot be investigated or impeached.  Trump has taken this position publicly:

“…Trump was giving a speech at a Turning Point USA conference, where he predictably veered off into a tirade about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and how, as president, Trump could’ve stopped it.

“I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump said. “But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”…” 

AND…

“…During a pre-taped one-on-one interview with ABC News reporter George Stephanopoulos, Trump argued that “a lot of great lawyers” agree that Article 2 of the Constitution means that the President can’t obstruct justice.

“So a president can’t obstruct justice?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“A president can run the country,” Trump responded. “And that’s what happened, George. I run the country and I run it well.”

“When the President does it, it’s not illegal?” Stephanopoulos asked….”

“I’m just saying a president under Article 2–it’s very strong, read it,” Trump said. “Do you have Article 2? Read it.”

(To be clear, executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution)

Trump Claims Article 2 Gives Him ‘The Right To Do Whatever I Want As President’

Trump When Asked If POTUS Can Obstruct Justice: POTUS Can ‘Run The Country’

So, the president’s defense team will have to find a justification that he has refused to cooperate with Congress. While they may rightly point to very specific instances where other president’s have attempted (successfully or unsuccessfully) to invoke “executive privilege”, they will have to justify an unbridled power of the president to hide all his actions and documents.

Now, will the defense team address these issues raised by the House managers? Will they respond to the facts and evidence in the charges? Will they talk about how the Democrats have hated Trump from day one? Will they talk about Adam Schiff?  Will they talk about the Mueller Report being a hoax? Will they claim the entire procedure is a  “witch hunt”? Or will they talk about how corrupt the Biden’s are? Benghazi Redux?

In other words, will they address the points the Hose manager have  made, or will they deflect ? Isn’t the answer obvious?

Worth a Thousand Words

An old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words.  And so it goes. We FINALLY get down to the truth about why Mr Trump called back his ambassador to the Ukraine.

If you recall, Ambassador Yovanovitch was a long time diplomat. She had been appointed by GW Bush to various posts, some rather dangerous. She had been appointed by Obama to the Ukraine post, an area of her singular expertise. She was appointed by Trump and scheduled to remain until the middle of 2020 at the request of Secretary of State Pompeo.

Then, abruptly, she was called home by Trump. No reason. No explanation. No admonishment for misbehavior. Just called home. The one person in the Ukraine who knew more about the corrupt players and how to help the new president deal with them. Called home.

The reason for her  recall has been a well guarded secret. What did the president know about her? What devious behavior had she been involved in? How was she undermining US anti-corruption efforts? Always a gentleman, Mr Trump refuse to tell us what she had done wrong.

Until now.

In an interview on Fox and Friends, Mr trump finally explained why he fired her and brought her back to Washington. He had heard that Ambassador Yovanovitch had REFUSED to put up a portrait of Mr Trump in the Ukraine Embassy!!! According to Mr Trump she refused to put his photo on her wall!! Next to her Hulk Hogan poster.

(Fox and Friends interview: A trove of psychological data. If you have time, read it:  https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-trump-fox-and-friends-interview-transcript-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings )

Now, the fact is that the Ukraine Embassy DID put up Mr Trump’s official portrait as soon as they received it. Problem was that the White House, not one for details, neglected to have an official portrait taken and sent out until almost a full year after his election. Details.

Now to some it may seem like a far fetched reason to fire an ambassador. Kind of petty? Firing an ambassador to a major ally because of a rumor about a photo? Well, Rudy said that Lev told him that Igor heard from Vlad that Marie never even put your picture on the wall!! And she never lit a candle in front of it! That’s what people say. What people say. What people say.

Was that the REAL reason for a massive change in leadership in a country being invaded by Putin? An ally we need badly? A place where US presence and stability is essential?

I say: Yes. If nothing else, Mr Trump has shown the ability to redefine pettiness and childishness to a new level. And just the rumor of anyone not kowtowing to his fantasies and ego would certainly be enough cause for firing.

And in the case of a woman… who can doubt it?

No Quid Pro Quo

No quid pro quo. So goes the latest talking point in the pretzel logic of the GOP. Let’s start at the beginning.

First, Trump did nothing wrong. Some crazy whistleblower without any first hand knowledge of the phone call to Zelensky reported it.

Hearsay. The whistleblower never heard the call, so he or she could not know what was on the call. So, nothing to see here.

Then we learned that the Inspector General looked at the case. He did some investigating, as he is supposed to. And he found that there was some substance to the whistleblower complaint.

But Mr Trump did nothing wrong, so he released the perfect transcript of the call. Well, not exactly the transcript, but a partial transcript with some parts missing. But it was perfect. See. Just another plot by the Dems to get Trump.

Then we read the partial transcript and OOPS. In it Mr Trump is clearly asking for a “favor” from Zelensky. The “favor”, it turns out , is to investigate “corruption” And he specifically mentions the Bidens.

No problem, says the Trump supporters. He never specifically tied any conditions to this request. Just asking and not getting what you want is not a crime. Trump never did anything to coerce the Ukraine.

Next, we learn that there was a months long attempt by Giuliani to get Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. And Sondland was involved. And Pence was involved. And Pompeo was involved. And Perry. And Volker.  And Lev. And Igor. An entire parallel universe trying their hardest to get the Ukrainians to make up stuff about the Bidens. IF they wanted the military aid they deserved.

But then… it is learned that the military aid to the Ukraine was put on hold. Ukraine, in the middle of a border war with Putin. Ukraine, which badly needs military help and Congress voted to help. And the Pentagon is ready to deliver. Then a hold is placed on the aid. By the White House. No one knows why. But, no problem. As Kelly Anne Conway says: Just a coincidence!

So, no quid pro quo.

Now quid pro quo usually means that I will give you something and then you give me something. These “somethings” have value. And they are “somethings” I would not normally get. “Somethings” I may not even deserve.

So, does Ukraine get “something” they did not deserve? Nope. Eventually, after the whistleblower complaint became public, Mr Trump released the military aid. But this was aid they DESERVED. It was not a “quid pro quo” because it already supposed to go to the Ukraine.

Trump did not offer the Ukraine anything new of value. They already had a right, under the law, to the military aid.  Did I mention they were fighting Putin? So any weapons Trump sent to the Ukraine might be used to kill Russian soldiers or  lackeys. Putin was not happy.

So, there was no quid pro quo. The GOP is correct.

What we are seeing is a perfect phone call and a perfect set up. For extortion. Trump tried to EXTORT the government of Ukraine by withholding much needed military aid. Aid they had a right to . To force them to publicly state they were investigating the Bidens. Now, Ukraine did not need to investigate the Bidens, which would be a waste of time. No. Just announce, on TV, that you are investigating the Bidens.

Just give Mr Trump a political TV ad so he can call the Bidens crooks. Don’t worry about finding anything, the announcement is enough.Then Fox “news” can spend every day talking about the criminal Bidens. Every hour. Every minute.

Do it OR ELSE. OR ELSE you don’t get your military aid. You don’t get the photo op with the US president. Do it OR ELSE you will lose even more countrymen to the Putin invasion. 13,000 casualties already.

That is not a quid pro quo. It is extortion.

Extortion: the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

So we now have the entire Republican party standing behind a man who has used extortion on an ally who is trying to survive the attacks by Putin. The GOP saying it seems ok to them. Extort an ally? Is that wrong? Is that an impeachable offense? Undermining the 2020 election? Is that wrong?

The stench of the GOP grows daily. Extortion is not a problem. What next? Perhaps an open murder on 5th Avenue?

 

Time to Do Nothing

In 1949 Mao Zedong and the communists took over China. They instituted communist policies . In response the US cut off all relations with the People’s Republic of China for many years. Mao was a dictator. Harsh. Ruthless. The US would have nothing to do with him. He was an enemy.

Then, in 1972 , Richard Nixon did what was necessary. Mao did what his subordinates did not want him to do. Nixon visited China, met with Mao and started the opening up of trade and cultural relationships. The rightwing in China and the US were outraged by this betrayal of ideals. They wanted conflict, not reproachment.

The world did not end. The US was not defeated. In fact, over time, China has become a major world player and dominant economic force. A major trading partner with the US.

In 1986 the Russian leader, Gorbachev, met with the US leader, Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev had opened up Russia and the Russian people to the possibilities of democracy. Perestroika and glasnost . Reagan, a fervent anti-communists, saw an opportunity to cooperate on arms control. Both men signed the arms reduction deal which helped defuse the 40 years of hostility and tension between the two superpowers. Both men were criticized as “weak” by hardliners at home.

While Russia has fallen back into a dictatorship, the arms deals have held. Billions that could have been wasted by both nations on military spending has been saved. Not to say that both countries still spend way too much on the military. More than either needs for its defense. It was a bold, unpopular move for Reagan and Gorbachev to make.

But Reagan took a step toward an enemy and helped change the world.

Vietnam was a communist nation. The US fought a long war before ultimately admitting defeat. The hatred of many toward the North Vietnamese (and to some extent the South Vietnamese) was overwhelming. They were ruthless. They were despicable. The hatred of Americans by the millions of Vietnamese who had family killed by the “invaders” was also overwhelming.

In 1994, almost 20 years after the US left Vietnam, Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo. Once again US companies could do business in Vietnam. Vietnam could be brought fully into the world trading system. Trade between the two nations now has reached billions of dollars a year. Former enemies have become trading partners.

Which brings us to Kim Jung -Un. The dictator of North Korea. Yesterday Mr Kim called for talks with his neighbor, South Korea. And South Korea responded positively. Both sides see no reason for increased hostility and increased fear. The president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, has asked the US to postpone joint military operations as a gesture of good will. He wants to open up talks with his enemy to the north.

Would it not be nice if North and South Korea opened up more and more trade relations? Would it not be nice if these two nations could tone down the rhetoric and begin more cultural and economic interactions? Hasn’t history taught us that even the most hated  enemies can, over time, become trading partners? And once nations forge strong trade partnerships they both have a stake in keeping the peace and developing economically.

Nixon taught us that. Reagan taught us that. Clinton taught us that. Have we learned?

Let us hope that the US encourages this new interaction between the 2 Koreas. Or at least does not do anything to undermine the possibility of peace. Then, 20 years from now the people of North and South Korea may be able to freely visit each other and take advantage of increased trade and wealth.

If the US just lets it happen. Sometmes just doing nothing is enough.

 

Trump’s Inaugural Address

Trump’s inaugural address was interesting. While some people believe that it lost something in the translation from the Cyrillic, I can’t say. Like most Americans, my foreign language abilities are pitiful.  Why should I learn a bunch of foreign languages when it is much easier for the other 6 billion folks on Earth to just learn English? But I digress.

While some found Trump’s speech to be hostile I am willing to approach it as Fox Entertainment, er, News would. I say ignore most of it and focus on what you agree with. Or better yet, twist it to express what you want it to express.

For example. From Trump’s speech:

“…At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction, that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public…”

Trump is taking the liberal position that it is the proper role of the government to serve the citizens! YES. A proper function of government. Serve the people. Chairman Mao could not have said it better.

The government must provide good schools for ALL. No. Not good. GREAT schools. Which means more funding for public schools to help make them great. Innovation.Higher wages to attract the BEST people to the profession. Donald knows that to get the BEST people you need to pay them well. Donald, I agree.

Safe neighborhoods. AMEN. Let’s increase police protection, especially in poor urban areas. Hire more cops. Hire more minority cops who can relate better to our highly segregated cities. Maybe return to police on the beat. Demand that police PROTECT people and not arrest them without  cause. And protect little boys who play with toy guns by not shooting them on sight. (As Trump also stated: This carnage stops right here and right now) Donald, I am with you!

The government must supply good jobs. YES. We have so much that needs to be done. An FDR style public works program is what we need. Build up the economy. Put people to work. Not next year. Not in five years.  But immediately with a massive public works program. I am  with you, Donald! Now, can you get the Congress to go along?

So far, Donald and I see eye to eye on these liberal solutions to the problems caused by 30 years of conservative Congress rule. AMEN.

More from Donald:

“….Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs….”

Finally. A POTUS who understands that low, non-union wages have driven down the middle class and created a class of working poor. He understands that a tax system that gives breaks to millionaires (some haven’t paid taxes in 20 years!)while adding to the tax burden of the working poor is wrong. He will  roll back the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for millionaires and multinational corporations that have robbed America of so much revenue. And transferred the tax burden to the working poor. He will go back to the days when unions were strong and working families could enjoy the good life. He will immediately implement a living wage ! Go, Donald, go! Support the workers! Workers of the World , Unite !

And he will punish companies that buy cheap Chinese steel that undercuts American made steel. Companies like Trump International  Hotel  in Las Vegas. A company that rejected steel from Ohio, Michigan,  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin mills in favor of cheaper Chinese steel. He will  punish the Trump Signature Clothing Collection.  Even though companies like Brooks Brothers use 85% American made clothing, the Trump Collection uses only Chinese fabric. Finally, we have a POTUS who will  stand up for the American worker and buy American made products.  (Sorry,  Walmart…you have to go…)!

One more section of the speech:

“…For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own.

And spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We’ve made other countries rich, while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon….”

Go, Donald , go!  The US spends trillions and trillions of dollars overseas and almost NOTHING at home. Our military has been starved of resources. Time to turn it around.

For example, in the last year for which data is available the US spent 50 trillion dollars on foreign aid. No. Wait. That is 50 BILLION dollars on foreign aid. OK. So maybe we don’t spend trillions and trillions. Most of it goes to either humanitarian or economic aid.

According to a poll done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans think that foreign aid consumes about 26% of the US budget. Amen. That is what Americans THINK. Except …well…the fact is that foreign aid consumes about 1 % of the total budget. ONE per cent.

So. Maybe foreign aid isn’t really draining the US economy after all. Maybe one percent is not a big drain.  But, Donald is right that we are starving our military. In 2015 military spending in the US was ONLY $600,000,000,000 (That’s $600 billion). That was about 54% of all discretionary spending. (Spending on education was about one-tenth of that.)

MASS STARVATION in the ranks! How can the US stay safe when the rest of the world is outspending us?  Oops. Well. Er. The total US spending on the military equaled the spending of the next 7 highest spending nations…combined….China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France and Japan. How do we expect our military to survive when we only outspend the next highest spender, China, by a ratio of almost 3:1?

OK. So maybe Donald fibbed a little on the last point. But you can’t expect him to fact check ever inaugural address!

So. Take heart. Donald is going to spend trillions on infrastructure. Return us to union wages. Make safe streets for black people. And he will send all those little black boys and girls   (without toy guns) to the best schools ever.

It’s all there. Just read between the lines.

Trump’s Great Wall

Mr Trump was adamant. He was going to build a WALL. A concrete, brick solid WALL across the entire 1900 mile border with Mexico. His minions chanted : Build the Wall! Build the Wall!.

Of course, people with common sense said, “No”. The border crosses desert, mountain and river. Areas where building a wall would not only be prohibitively expensive, but impractical. And, we already have walls and fences covering much of the border where it is appropriate and feasible. Certainly extending some fencing and increasing border security was reasonable. But not a 1,900 mile solid wall.

Nevertheless, Mr Trump insisted that the border was porous. Rapists and criminals were streaming across the “open border”. Only his 20 or 40 or 90 foot high wall would stop the deluge of criminals pouring in from Mexico. Hillary Clinton, he said, wanted those borders “open” so all those rapists could easily force their way across the border. Of course, Clinton actually voted FOR the 700 mile border security fence in 2006, as did Obama. A sensible, bi-partisan approach to a real  problem. But we won’t let facts get in the way.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/did-clinton-once-want-to-build-a-wall-too-230026

And the $25,000,000,000 price tag for his wall? No problem. Mexico would simply pay for it. He would somehow force Mexico, one of the poorer nations in the world, to fund a massive wall that he wanted. And they would do it for free. According to his campaign website Mexico would be “forced” to pay at least $5-10,000,000,000 for the wall on day one of his administration. Trump assured us.

Then Mexican president Nieto said: “Nope. Not going to happen.” He met with Trump and told him point blank. Then, after Mr Trump was elected the Mexican foreign minister, Massieu, reiterated that Mexico would not give the US any money to build a wall.

One of Trump’s main supporters during the election, Brandon Judd is the head of the Border Patrol Union. He supported Trump and his wall. In an NPR interview on November 17, 2016 Mr Judd seemed to be hedging his “wall” bet. He claims he has been advising Mr. Trump about border issues.

Now, Mr Judd says, Trump did not really mean a “wall”, just a border security system. Like we have now, except expanded. (Kind of like Senators Obama and Clinton voted for when they were in the Senate.) Walls already exist, said Judd. But a wall all the way across the border …uh…nope..

“…JUDD: The wall is going to be absolutely effective in certain locations. We do not need a wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border. And what I really appreciate about President-elect Trump is he understands that he doesn’t know everything. And every single time that I’ve sat down and spoken with him, we’ve talked about a wall. We’ve talked about whether it needs to be the full 2,000 miles of the Southwest border or if we just need it in strategic locations. And he’s been willing to listen and that’s very refreshing….”

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502402360/border-patrol-agents-union-confers-with-trump-on-securing-the-border

So, we don’t really need a wall after all.  Just enhanced security. Like Clinton voted for in 2006 in the Border Security Fence Act? That 700 mile fence in strategic locations that has helped reduce illegal immigration?

But Trump wants a brick and concrete and mortar wall, right?

Again, the Judd interview:

“…JUDD: Well, we do want walls in certain locations. We do want a very effective wall. We’re not talking about a brick-and-mortar wall. If you build just a brick-and-mortar wall, they’re going to come up and they’re going to break that wall down. And then it’s going to be very, very hard to patch that type wall. You have to build something that is going to be very difficult to defeat….”

So, we shall see. Will Trump really try to build a massive wall,  as his supporters wanted. Remember the “Build the Wall” chant ? Second only to the “Lock Her Up” chants at the Trump rallies?

Of course, Trump HAS built wall before. In Scotland. When he took revenge on the Scots who lived on the land of their ancestors next to his newly built “golf resort”. When these Scots publicly opposed this boondoggle Trump responded by building a wall across their land,  effectively blocking their view of the ocean they had enjoyed for years. And he sent them the bill for the wall.  They never paid. But he did successfully destroy their ocean view. He taught them a lesson.

And in the past Trump has headed many building projects. And failed to pay his contractors.

So, maybe that is his plan. He will hire contractors to build a wall and simply NOT PAY FOR IT !  Or not build a wall as he promised? Or do nothing but simply TWEET that he has accomplished something?   Meanwhile, we haven’t heard much lately about the Great Wall of Trump. Time will tell.

 

Contestant #4: Rubio…Less Than Meets the Eye.

(This is the fourth in a series of biased reports about the people who think they are qualified to be president. Really. They do. They think they should be the most powerful human being on earth. Really.)

I somehow missed it. On April 13 Marco Rubio evidently announced that he wanted to be President of the US. I missed it.

I had a little trouble finding his campaign website but I finally did. (marcorubio.com).

In announcing his candidacy he emphasized that he was a break with the old way of politics . A new beginning. A new way. Oh, I almost forgot. He announced his candidacy to his wealthy donors before he told the rest of us. A new way?

I checked his Senate website looking for specific legislation he has sponsored and/or passed. None mentioned. (rubio.senate.gov)

His campaign website has 5 issues. Each has a nice picture and the usual Obama-is-bad statements. I think someone should tell Marco that Obama will not be running again.

His 5 issues: Isis, Cuba, Iran, Abortion,Israel.

Nothing on health care. Nothing on unemployment.  Nothing on job creation. Nothing on immigration. Nothing on gun violence. To look at his website you would think he is running for Secretary of State….hmmm.

On ISIS he says we should kill them. He says we cannot “ignore” the problem. Yet, he has proposed no legislation authorizing the POTUS to do so. He does sit on the foreign relations committee, so he could write a bill.  But killing ISIS is a good idea. Obama should have thought of that.

On Cuba he says that Cuba is an exporter of terror and we should not have relations with dictatorships. Isolate dictatorships. An interesting principle. But he makes no comments about our China policy. He wants to keep Cuba isolated because it is a “communist” dictatorship. Maybe China is a nice communist dictatorship?  Did I mention he rejects the policies of the past and looks to the future?

On Iran he says we should isolate them as well. We should do what Netanyahu tells us to do. Does Rubio really think that the US can unilaterally decide world arms policies? And why should we look to Israel to determine our foreign policy?

On Israel he is clear. Obama  (there he is again) has “failed to stand with Israel”. But a quick check of military aid to Israel shows that under Obama the US has given much more aid than under Bush. More, in fact, than any other administration. Giving more aid and making it clear that we will support Israel in any attack is somehow “failing to stand” with Israel?  (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html)

The only domestic issue he chooses to include on his website deals with abortion. He is unequivocal. Roe v Wade, which guarantees a woman the right to an abortion, is “morally wrong” and should be overturned. He does not elaborate .

In some of his speeches Rubio has called for more tax breaks to create jobs. (Reaganomics) He has denied the science of climate change. Wants to go back to a time when all abortions were illegal. He was for immigration reform or not. Opposes any gun restrictions. Wants to isolate Cuba. Did I mention that he wants to look to the future and rejects the policies of the past?

His main claim seems to be that he is young. He emphasizes his youth as though it is somehow a qualification in and of itself.

In the political boxing ring Rubio is not a lightweight. He is a featherweight. Old wine in new skins. A blast from the past.

Much, much less than meets the eye.

Bibi and Obamacare

The GOP has bypassed traditional protocol and allowed Bibi Netanyahu to make a political speech before Congress. Now one wonders what Boehner and company will do next. Perhaps they need to ask Bibi some tough questions while he is here. But don’t count on it. It’s a veritable love fest of anti-Iranian propaganda.

But, if the GOP was not so crassly cynical in it’s approach to politics,  they might consider the following.

Since WW2 the US has given more aid to Israel than to any other nation… over $121,000,000,000.

And we are in the middle of a long term deal which gives Israel at least $3,000,000,000 each year…ad infinitum. Of course, much of that aid goes to the US arms industry.

Oddly, while Bibi was here, no one in the GOP threatened to cut off funding. Let us recall that the GOP has attempted at least 57 times  to cut off funding to Americans who now have health care. On principle. The principle being that health care guaranteed by the government is communism. Evil. According to the GOP it is more important to stick to the principle than to actually help our own citizens.

Back to Bibi. While Congress continues to fund Israel (while trying to defund US unemployment benefits, education, SSI disability, etc.) they are oddly silent about the Israeli COMMUNIST system.

You see,  Israeli citizens have  a GUARANTEED health care system. By law, every citizen must participate in the system and employers are required to participate. COMMUNISM run amok. An Israeli citizen is entitled to health care, free of any pre-existing conditions and even free hospitalization.

While not perfect the Israeli health care system is certainly “communist” according to the criteria governing current GOP political thought.

Since a national health care system is inherently evil, why does Congress continue to support Israel? After all, by providing $ 3,000,000,000 per year aren’t we helping to subsidize this communist program. Why , after voting over 57 times and shutting down the US government to oppose the ACA is Congress blind to the  socialist/communist system imposed by Bibi on innocent Israeli citizens?

If the GOP was anything other than a bunch of hypocrites here is what they would do. Demand a cut off of all aid to Israel until the Israelis cancel their current socialized health care system and go to a “free market” model.  Think that is likely to happen ? At least not before they vote for the 58th time to end Obamacare?