REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES UNIONIZE!

Aware of the big money involved in their debates, and the fact that their fellow Republicans are capable of grilling a Democrat for eleven straight hours, on television, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, fearful of being treated like Democrats, appear to have gotten together to change their working conditions.  They have already won a reduction in debate hours and now are working on easing the type of questions  to which  they are expected to respond.  No longer do they wish to be questioned by networks which have a  Liberal bias, such as Fox News. Indeed, as quoting their statements, on a verbatim basis, likewise demonstrates a Liberal bias, they want only an edited transcript of the proceedings to be released to the Press.  The audience, too, should consist only of the members of the candidates families.  Then, and only then, will they have an unbiased debate.

THE MOST EXPLOSIVE REMARK

The most explosive remark, uttered during the most recent Republican candidates debate, seems to have been ignored by the media.  When Donald Trump, dismissively commenting on John Kasich's economic success in Ohio,  derisively said that he owed it to fracking, instead of a big hue and cry that the interests of the oil industry was being dissed by a Republican candidate, Kasich, defensively said it wasn't the only industry that Ohio had.

That both Trump, as well as Kasich, turns out to be a moderate Republican on climate issues, should have been worthy of note. That Trump turns out to be a moderate on any issue should have had banner headlines.

WORSE THAN SLAVERY

Dr. Ben Carson calls the Affordable Care Act the worst thing to happen since slavery.

It may be worse. After all, slave owners never tried to interfere between slaves and their doctors, or try to impose socialized medicine on them.  In that regard, slave owners were much nicer people than Barack Obama.

BENGHAZI BEWILDERMENT

I admit that I don't get it  From the recent Benghazi hearing, I have learned that the State Department did not use email to communicate sensitive material between Washington and its ambassadors.  They used cables, which I assume were encrypted, but not email.  Email was used for non sensitive material, to begin with, so Hillary was able to say, with confidence, that she did not email any document which had been classified at the time it was sent.  Nevertheless, Republicans excoriated her for having a private server which was not necessarily secure.  At the same time. according to what Trey Gowdy said on a TV interview, this date, it was shameful that while a private citizen, Sidney Blumenthal, had unfettered access to Hillary's email, Ambassador Stevens did not.  Of course, that Ambassador Stevens was required to send his communications by cable and not email, for security reasons, is hardly an excuse, for a crusading Republican Select Committee Chairman. 

The only other point that the committee seemed to make, in the 11 hour marathon grilling, was that somehow, Obama got some advantage, in the 2012 elections because, even though Benghazi was a terror attack and not a result of demonstrations against a movie, it was called the latter instead of the former, at first.  The committee pointed out that Hillary, in an email to another ambassador, within hours of the incident, called it an attack by  an al Quaeda-like group whereas other sources in the Administration were using CIA reports that it was part of a demonstration. 

The matter was brought up, by Mitt Romney, at the second Presidential debate on October 16th, 2012, before the elections were held.  Romney accused Obama of having waited 14 days before calling the Benghazi incident "an act of terror".  Obama pointed out that on September 12th, the day after the attack, he had called it an "act of terror" in a speech in the Rose Garden.  In addition, a day later, in Las Vegas, he also had referred to the incident in Benghazi as "an act of terror".  The American people had ample exposure to the fact that the attack in Benghazi was the work of terrorists before the November elections yet for almost three (3) years now Republicans persist in the delusion that Obama, somehow, tricked the public into believing that Benghazi was part of a demonstration, and therefore, somehow, stole the election.  Somehow, this somehow even outweighs, in importance, Bush/Cheney having lied us into a war in Iraq. 

CONSEQUENCES OF BETTING ON THE WRONG HORSE

Reports of a flurry of diplomatic initiatives, by Israel, with China and Saudi Arabia, might be judged in context of recent events:

1. Mr. Netanyahu had dealings, directly, with John Boehner and the Republicans in the House of Representatives, by-passing the President of the United States, an unprecedented breach of protocol and an insult, even if unintended.  Mr. Obama never gets mad, but he does get even.

2. Since Bibi's speech to Congress, the treaty, which he was trying to stop, has gone through, Mr. Boehner has resigned, the Republic Party, on which Bibi relied to change U.S. foreign policy, is in complete disarray.

3. At the recent U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Netanyahu, in an attempt, possibly, to mend fences, gave a fawning,  obsequious speech extolling President Obama, and I suspect he will bring his knee pads to his next meeting with the President.

4. In the interim, Obama made no effort to stop Russia from becoming a player in a country sharing a border with Israel.

I do believe that there is much consternation within the Israeli Government that serious damage has been done and failing a resignation of Mr. Netanyahu, they may not have the complete backing of this administration, or another Democratic one.    

PLUTOCRATIC SOCIALISM

Recently, there has been an increased interest in the meaning of "democratic socialism".  Perhaps the explanation that, for the past 3.5 decades, the U.S.A. has been living under plutocratic socialism which is the opposite of democratic socialism, might be helpful.  In a plutocratic socialistic society, the resources of the government is funneled to benefit a small number of wealthy individuals whereas under democratic socialism, resources are funneled to assist a large number of people, who are not necessarily wealthy.  

To demonstrate, under our present system, for example, the government will channel $1 trillion so that the people in the financial sector will not have to suffer the consequences of a reduced standard of living, or forgo their year end bonus, for having made the wrong bets, while at the same time allow the burden of a deep recession, that follows, to fall on the neediest.

With the present election cycle, the electorate may have the chance to switch from plutocratic socialism to democratic socialism, or even getting rid of both types of socialism, but I fear it will be neither. 

"IF ONLY THEY HAD HAD GUNS"

The Nazi war machine's blitzkrieg went through the armies of France, Belgium, Norway, Poland and almost all of European Russia like a hot knife through butter.  If only they had had guns, they, like the Jews, could have stood up to the Nazis and could have made the Holocaust less likely.  Our thanks to Dr. Ben Carson for illuminating us, as to this obvious fact.