Much of the analysis of efforts to inhibit Mr. Trump’s election and remove him from elected office seems based on the assumption that he is an idealist seeking to reveal the nefarious networks of self seeking government employees and officials who have sacrificed America to their petty whims and material desires.
I just saw the question why did Obama have to take out Flynn. I am aware that Obama and Flynn disagreed about how to deal with Turkey. General Flynn opposes Islam and Turkey’s leader Erdogan has given Turkey an Islamic government. But after an unsuccessful revolution to secularize that government Erdogan sought to have Gulen who he believes led that secularist rebellion returned to Turkey from the United States. Obama apparently refused to send Gulen back to Turkey, but Flynn in consulting on behalf of Turkey has been willing to assist in Gulen’s return.
Could this be why Obama had to take out Flynn?
Mrs. Hillary Clinton and the news media are sociologically naive.
Whenever gender in politics is discussed we are told that women would like to see a woman elected president and that men would rather elect a man.
The kind of man or woman is never an issue. Honesty and intelligence are not factors. Wealth and political connections are never mentioned. Nor are trust and truthfulness, for lying and spinning are practised in politics and journalism.
No one has ever explained how the spouse of a wealthy well connected family could ever act against the social and economic interests of their family’s friends and associates to aid those less fortunate, those seeking change.
Attempting such explanation requires knowledge that would take one into the depths of policy where commentators must explain how the development of policy would cause those controlling present policy to sacrifice for those lacking in power and wealth, those who cry for change by any man or woman who would provide it. (May 24,2008)
“Change for something to eat” the title of this piece got imprinted on my mind by a man in a trench coat standing at the entrance to the North bound subway at Bloor saying ” ch’ ch’ change for something to eat” some years before I wrote this when in the 1990’s a growing number of people had started living on Toronto’s sidewalks.
Recently the topic systematic racism is in the news. Again no one has been implicated except the police who have killed those of a different race than themselves and the system itself.
Rather than again attempting to make police compatible with those who are different from themselves police departments must be disbanded because they have been unceasingly implicated in racist acts that manifest the system’s racism.
But who believes that systematic racism exists only because of the actions of some members of police departments. Disbanding police departments should end the killings that make society intermittently aware of systematic racism and take the heat off members of the system who somnambulantly follow procedures; but procedures whose implications may still lead to offences caused by systematic racism.
In the old days I don’t think the term racism was part of the English vocabulary, or even sexism; maybe it’s because not many went to university back then: hardly anyone was middle class enough to afford it. But considering the increased use of those words: racism and sexism; if enough people had known them there were many opportunities to use them instead of the milder term prejudice, because I used to think there were a lot of people who were prejudiced against anyone not like themselves nationally, racially or even socially. Today it’s as though everyone who is anyone especially upscale politicians and executives and NGO groups are against racism and even the police I hear.
Where did all those prejudiced people from the old days get to? Did they reform, die off, or, like the Democrat party in the states, just change stripes like Democrat segregationist governor George Wallace often identified by media as a Republican because Democrats wouldn’t want him now that they’re the anti segregationist representatives of minorities, speaking against prejudice racism and sexism.
On May 16, 2020, I was perusing The Sundance/ Conservative Tree House site, and came across comments reacting to President Trump’s recently warning Republican senate leader, Mitch McConnell, that time was running out. One of the comments was supported by a video of a speech given in 2015 to either the US congress or the senate by Republican senator Ted Cruz about the UNIPARTY system in which Republicans when controlling both congress and the senate would roll over and accept any legislation the Obama Democrats wanted as long as they were threatened with a government SHUT DOWN. That speech reminded me of the following piece that I wrote around the time of a government SHUTDOWN.
“During the 2012 Republican primaries and the presidential election that followed I was unable to detect among Canadian or American journalists anyone who admitted supporting Republican candidates or the political concerns of the Republican party. Everything said or written about Republicans stressed their representing tax breaks for the rich and in general big money. And to me “everything said or written” means easy to pick up because it’s been said ad infinitum, and almost word for word Online. So I began wondering what a confessed Republican voter would look like. Would they look like a Bush, a Romney, a Ron Paul, a Pat Buchanan or any other Republican politician, certainly not an easily identifiable news delivering journalist. Or might they resemble the writers of articles about Democrat supporters such as Exelon or BP: small money?
And today after the shut down and debt limits dust has settled and everyone needing government money can resume getting paid, and the Chinese purchasers of U.S. bonds can stop worrying, at least until January or February 2014, that they might not receive the interest payments they need to help pay for the manufacture of consumer products that they ship to Europe’s and America’s consumers, I again ask: are there really any Republicans out there. Maybe because I don’t live in the U.S. and get only wall-to-wall news from journalists both Canadian and American: maybe if I lived in one of the states painted red that sometimes makes me think that the entire map of America except for the little blue splotches in the south-west and north-east corners, I’d know what a Republican looks like. And what’s really funny about no one acting like they favour Republicans is that most of the little bits of blue on America’s political map seem to represent areas that contain high concentrations of U.S wealth arising from technology, dwindling manufacturing, and most of all from banking in the north- east, where big money is made out of smaller money.
Today is October 19, 2013, and I’ve been reading an October 18 print Toronto Star article from Reuters that tells how Mr. Obama has been scolding congress especially Republican congress people about the way they’ve jeopardized the United States by needlessly forcing the recent government shut down. Again I can’t stop thinking about all those people from north to south who voted for Mr. Romney and Republican politicians, and wondering how they must feel about this near endless vilification of Republicans. No one says anything to defend or console Republican supporters other than we fought the good fight and lost, or a recent expression of human regard by a media person on Canada’s BNN television who asked colleagues more than once through her mid-day stint: Don’t you think they’re just kicking them(Republicans) when they’re down?”
The colloquial term “whistleblower” now central to threatening political jargon has lost its original force. Journalists seem to use it to attract readers. I heard it so often during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump that I started associating it with the actions of powerful people, not the powerless little nobodies secretly snitching (so as not to be fired) on their superiors. Even the Canadian Press uses the term to promote a dire prediction for next winter.
I’ve been concerned about General Flynn since I became aware of his existence in 2017 about the time President Trump at a press conference was asked why the general had departed from his post as national security adviser to the president. At the time Mr. Trump’s pleasant, matter of fact response to questions about general Flynn’s departure, saying that he fired him because of incorrect information he’d given to Vice President Pence about contacts with a Russian diplomat, made it seem that the president bore no ill will toward Mr. Flynn or anyone else involved in the matter. But the thought of the president’s firing Flynn, a man I later learned had been with him throughout his primary and presidential election campaigns, seemed odd.
About that time I was aware of the view that Mr. Flynn had resigned; in fact that question came up in the press conference which I expected would eventually be settled. But in the months and years that passed any time I sought a definitive answer to the question: was the general fired or did he resign, the question was never settled; most journalist opinion was that the general had resigned with some mention that he had been fired. I always felt that if he’d been fired the reason was hard to fathom especially since the president seemed to accept the outcome without antipathy, eventually asking FBI head Comey to go easy on the general whom they’d arrested for lying.
I then had additional reason for bewilderment, Flynn’s arrest. What did his leaving his position as national security adviser, being fired or having resigned, have to do with his arrest for lying to the FBI which the president was certainly aware of when he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn.
So why did the the FBI charge him with lying? The only answer I could find online for several years was that he’d been set up to lie when he thought he was being informally interviewed and wouldn’t need a lawyer. Yet if this entrapment was a set up why didn’t the president ask more of Comey than just that he go easy on Flynn; why didn’t he demand an explanation of FBI tactics?
Only recently did I learn that Mr. Flynn and his son had been consultants to the government of Turkey.
In reading General Flynn’s recent letter asking the court to relinquish his guilty plea made to avoid prison and the threatened indictment of his son, he affirms contrary to that original plea that he did not lie when he denied discussing Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador. He in fact did not recall whether he’d discussed the Obama sanctions.
That same conversation with the Russian ambassador was denied by Flynn when he briefed VP Pence; for this reason Trump said he fired Flynn( asked for his resignation). Flynn, however, said that he resigned because of the fact that that conversation had been leaked to media causing an unwarranted distraction in the early days of the Trump administration.
May 11, 2020
Now that William Barr; United States attorney general, has said there never had been a justifiable reason for the FBI to pursue General Flynn, the time I’ve spent determining why the president reacted so pleasantly to Mr. Comey’s FBI arresting the general, not demanding Comey explain why he’d arrested him or that he himself had to fire the general for lying to VP Pence instead of saying as he did; he’s a nice guy , “go easy on him”, I’ve learned that the only people who care about Flynn’s legal troubles and apparent exoneration by the justice department are Mr. Trump’s most doctrinaire supporters and me.
I still believe that Mr. Flynn’s relationship with Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan could reveal more about the real President Trump than has been appearing in 5 years of mocking media reports.
Last week Canadians had known since January 2020 that the first cases of coronavirus 19 were related to travel; but when Canada’s prime minister’s wife returned infected from a trip in March last week, she was celebrated on CP24 television news for self quarantining. And today less than a week later he’s telling everyone to stay at home, especially the kids.
And last week Germany’s Merkel sounding dire and looking grim saying she feared most Germans would succumb to the disease, announced she’d spend fifty billion Euro’s or US dollars to fight it, media yawned.
And President Trump spoke of throwing one hundred and fifty billion dollars at it, and today when Canada’s prime minister said he’d throw eighty – two billion at it ( that I didn’t know Canada had especially now that its currency has fallen to 69 cents) we all yawned.
I wonder what the mayor of Brampton was thinking as he returned from a family trip the day CP24 has been repeating a caption stating a medical authority’s view that most coronavirus 19 were related to travel.