My Open letter to John McCain (FK HIM)

John McCain, you had it all. Your story was an Americana wet dream. A downed naval aviator fighter pilot who survived two years of, what I assume would nothing short of hell, as a POW in Vietnam and an esteemed politician with numerous bill passed with his fingerprints on them. A man who even has a navy battleship named in his honor. You even ran for President and introduced us to Sarah Palin.

This is a storybook like a career.

If only the story is fiction rather than truth.

You were for amnesty before you were against it (politically convenient when facing a Tea Party Candidate for your Senate seat)

You once labeled your stance against torture “a defining issue” for Americans and the role of the  Commander in Chief before you signed legislation to allow it.

You were involved and exonerated in regards to Lincoln Savings and Loan but we all know where there is smoke (at the tune of 3 billion) there is fire.

                                                    (Source: Political Humor About.com)

People called you a "Maverick". And you believed them. You have been an elected official since 1982. You're one of the longest-serving senators in American history. You have gone as far as to defend career politicians as “irreplaceable”. Of course, you would. U.S. Term Limits (USTL) offered you to sign the pledge to: “to sponsor a bill for a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms and senators to two. But you naturally refused.

Lastly, you have gone on a crusade against our sitting President. You went to Germany recently on foreign soil and talked about how our administration “is in disarray”. Disgraceful.

 "I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do. The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself” 

You're the same guy who had such "sensitive information" fall into his lap last year, the smoking gun that would show a link between Russia and Trump. It failed. You're the same guy who bashed Trump for having a connection with Russia even though you're the same son of a bitch who asked Russia to help your campaign back in 2008. But that doesnt stop you from talking tough on Russia. From the Hill last month:

"For the sake of America’s national security and that of our allies, I hope President Trump will put an end to this speculation and reject such a reckless course," McCain said in a statement Friday. "If he does not, I will work with my colleagues to codify sanctions against Russia into law."

Maybe that's because they told you to kiss off and REFUSED to help you or anyone else running for office. That seems rather ironic with Trump and his obvious interference from Russia. Or maybe they just wanted to back a winner?  You know, BEFORE he rebuked you and your sad request. Wikileaks exposed your pathetic ass. Now what? Too bad Churkin didn't die a few years earlier eh Johnny boy?

What's to even suggest and wonder about your relationship with "The Kingdom". A boot licking extraordinaire if I've ever seen one.

                                                                         (Source: Wikipedia)

You play up this war hero business still without realizing you have stayed too long. Your accomplishments will only be as memorable as your constant desire to broker power blocs in your various federal posts as well as some of the things I've outlined here.

I won't call you a RINO, traitor, whore or a sell-out. You're part of the old guard. You're an establishment relic. So you do not understand Trump. Or me. Or the "New" Right.

You were once the star of the Republican party. Now you a white dwarf. Your star is dead. Just going through the motions now. But don't get away mad ol' Maverick, just go away.

The Race that Apparently Wasn’t Won: the US is Taking the Cold War Off Ice

After a fifty-year arm-race that was filled with battles and insurgencies filled via proxy there inevitably could only be one winner. That was the country who held the world’s reserve currency. As the US continued to flex its muscles throughout the world and especially in the oil rich middle east after the Soviet collapse, something started to change.

Russia recovered sooner than we anticipated. They wanted their seat at the table back. It now appears the US has only a table for one. 

“WE COULD DO WITH HAVING A USIA ON STEROIDS TO FIGHT THIS INFORMATION WAR [WITH RUSSIA] A LOT MORE AGGRESSIVELY THAN WE’RE DOING RIGHT NOW,”

Those were the words from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as he sat before the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week and had the courage that so many other have been lacking and finally tell the truth.

To finally place the blame on who’s responsible for our breach of security and confidence in elections. Someone finally nailed it and highlighted our lack of manpower and resources to fend off the evil Ruskies, led by Vladimir the Impaler (Putin).

The man, if you can call him such, who ghoulishly rubs his hands in a heated frenzy at the idea of our destruction, like the bloodthirsty- cannibal – commie he is, hell bent on the destabilization of the entire west.

That’s the script anyway, right? Weird how that works. It’s a strange time we live in. A time where the government decides what questions to ask and just who to ask them to. It’s not new of course but it doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.

The audacity of Mr. Clapper is astonishing. First of all, for us, as Americans to collectively point the finger at another country for meddling and sabotage is laughable if it wasn’t so reprehensible and unequivocally ironic. Sadly, so much of our geopolitical makeup and stances are just this.

• Ban other countries, sovereign states from nuclear programs; while we enhance or polish our own.
• Publicly demand other nations to stop escalating proxy wars of aggression or support hostile nations or terror groups while we conduct and support our own of our choosing
• Rail at other nations (and this is my favorite) to stop their currency manipulation while we fund the largest theft of wealth the world has ever seen 100 x’s over via the petrodollar fiat monopoly scheme
• Condemn the justice or lack thereof of other nations why we operate black sites across the globe without oversight or even public record or knowledge

I could go on. And on. And on. But for the sake of clarity, structure and respect for a sensible word count – let’s get to the point. We demand another country to pay the piper for infiltrating our election while we run the largest covert and clandestine operations of anyone in the world on friends and foes alike.

Disrupt elections. Support coups. Assassinate or help aide the assassination of democratically elected leaders. Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Russia did do what they are accused of. Then I say… so what?

Business as usual. Par for the course. When in Rome… you get the idea. Russia wouldn’t have done anything we haven’t done or will continue to do to our enemies and allies alike on a year – year, day to day & minute by minute basis.

EVEN if this was true what would have happened?  They would never have changed a vote. All they would have done was expose the dirty laundry of the DNC and its quarterback, one Hillary Clinton. And that would have been the point. She was itching for a war with Russia. And has been pushing so for years at her time as Secretary of State. She made it perfectly clear to the US populace during the debates:

“I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR A NO-FLY ZONE AND SAFE HAVENS WITHIN SYRIA, NOT ONLY TO HELP PROTECT THE SYRIANS AND PREVENT THE CONSTANT OUTFLOW OF REFUGEES BUT TO, FRANKLY, GAIN SOME LEVERAGE ON BOTH THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE RUSSIANS.”

A no-fly zone initiated over another sovereign nation that you never declared war on? Where have we seen this before? Seems legitimate.

I have the direct opposite take from that of our intelligence community. One that is quite simply this, knowing what we know about Mrs Clinton if Russia didn’t intervene in some capacity to influence the election

I would assume they were either severely incompetent or awaiting a mutual destruction endgame. Why would they want a presidential candidate who is openly hostile to their standing in the world, in power of the most deadly armed forces the globe has ever seen? So, whether they hacked the emails is of insignificance to me.

Staying with this alternate reality (like the one our intelligence community and administration likes to play ie a reality without evidence) if there was any hacking shouldn’t the onus fall on the DNC? For being quite frankly, lazy, incompetent and just unappealable to the undecided voter? Seems plausible enough.

I mean it’s THEIR security that was hacked after all. If not the bumbling DNC, then who? You can’t blame another nation for doing what we (and every other nation mind you) do on a day to day basis and that is mine for data to use to said nation(s) advantage.

So then, I turn my attention to the real culprit here and that lies at the feet of our national security. Because no matter what; shouldn’t the role of national security involve ummm…. SECURITY? And if the security is breached shouldn’t we look at our security in place or lack thereof?

• As of last year, we had over 100k people working on our behalf in the US intelligence community.
• Just two years ago taxpayers funded and completed the NSA’s Data Center, the 1.5 billion dollar/1 million square foot facility in Utah whose sole purpose is spying and data collection.
• In 2003 we see the creation of Homeland Security whose budget often lies anywhere in the 40-80 billion dollar range annually.
• Let us not forget about the FBI and of course, where would we be without the CIA and its black budget. A virtual blank check from the Department of Defense for the Central Intelligence Agency and its brother and sister agencies working in the intelligence community. A budget which has been reported to be in the 50 billion dollar range

That seems like quite the defense. It would seem we have all we need to stop or thwart any mass scale, state-sponsored hacking program. Yet, James Clapper is asking for more? An INCREASE? That begs the question, could our national security really be incompetent? And this is where things go off the rails in opposite directions.

It would seem, a regional strategy to support the mujahideen in Afghanistan to defeat Russia was an end justify the means approach despite the blowback that occurred with Al Qaeda and subsequently 9-11. An unforeseen error I would surmise.

What about a strategy that has seen us embrace regime change in Iraq. A nation that was secular in an Islamic theocracy dominated middle east? To then promote nation building then abandon said nation while creating vacuums that foster groups like ISIS? Do those ends justify the means too? Was Iraq such a threat?

Or what about Libya? We participated in air support and a no-fly zone (ah there it is) in the overthrow and the removal of another secular leader in Gaddafi who grew Libya into the richest nation on the continent of Africa. To only see it fall into the hands of rebels and a climate of total deprivation and chaos.

How about secular Syria who has seen us wave the sword at for decades? Always right there to punish them by sanctions and or by proxy as the US backs the same terrorist ties that the US pinned 9-11 on. Does this seem like a sound strategy?

And then there is Iran.

If radicalization and theocracies don’t share our values then why are our intelligence community and the nation following a script that has us doing the exact opposite shaping our geopolitical landscape? That leads to only one logical answer because that is the objective. We want to destabilize the region.

We want to protect the petrodollar hegemony (as Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya have all left or tried to leave the US dollar as a reserve currency). We want to control the energy in the region via pipeline deals and the players who sit in an area where ⅔’s of the world’s oil supply is derived from. All of these are true. All of these are objectives.

If Russia infiltrated the election to merely expose the neocons and hawks of the left (Clinton) they do so at the behest of the entire free world. The world that would rather not end.

So the witch hunt that’s taking place regarding Russia via our intelligence community and our mainstream “media” is the US trying to reshape the narrative. A narrative where they are back trying to dupe the public into another hail mary from the cold war playbook. However, the cold war has ended and we have the internets. We won’t be fooled again.

How policies perception and reality are often ambiguous

Part 2 of a 3 part story on the Department of Defense and its coming to the realization of its own shortcomings and the realities it faces; and the motivation for those that will not go down swinging.

As we continue our buildup to combat the dangers of the War on Terror, somewhere along the way; somebody failed to tell our elected leaders that the defense budget was becoming super sized. Wasn’t the Homeland security created to organize our communications and protect us here at home from terrorism? That budget this year was 57 Billion.

But the beat goes on and the defense budget keeps increasing. It was President Bush who was once labeled a war monger by many of us (and rightfully so) yet President Obama has not only kept up the same strategies, he has expanded upon them and increased spending along the way. So what exactly is the defense budget and how does it relate to other nations spending?

First, here is a little perspective:

In 2001 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 390 Billion

In 2011 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 540 Billion

That is a 38% increase in 10 years. Again, this isn’t including the Nuclear Weapons programs or the wars we are fighting throughout the Middle East. If it seems like a lot; it’s because it is. Now the cuts that will take place starting in 2013 are not actually from existing defense… it’s from proposed increases. According to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky:

"This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%."

So, in reality this is just slightly blunting the momentum of the leviathan that is the DOD. The Department and its cozy relationship with Congress and Industry (queue the black and white Eisenhower farewell address) remain warm and fuzzy and most importantly to those three love birds: intact and thriving.

And that I believe is the point. It has to be. How can anyone, given the information and the trends not see defense as a bloated bureaucracy, one that should be first in-line on the chopping block? Our ever expanding Department of Defense is not in an arms race yet their budget and approach clearly says otherwise. Shouldn’t we be shaping our military to fight the battles of the 21^st Century; instead of preparing for an enemy of the twentieth that doesn’t exist?

In 2010 we spent almost six times the amount on defense than China does and eleven times more than Russia; yet many if not a majority of our elected leaders refuse to accept the notion of making cuts in defense. To me, it’s pretty clear… if we take the 18 nations that spend the most on defense; the US outspends all of her counterparts… ALL 17 of them COMBINED. So cuts are not only logical in our economic situation but they are a necessity; even if we were not drowning in debt.



Isn't it a bit silly for us to be even worried about a war with another super power in the first place? The idea of us engaging in war with a China or Russia is almost laughable because of how implausible it is. For one, it would be certain nuclear mutual devastation and then you have the reality of China and the US being so economically intertwined; it would be disruptive to both countries at so many levels.

In fact so much so that even the funding of a sustainable war would be impossible. Most people in this country see China as an economic threat and rightfully so, but it’s a threat only because we depend on them so much; as they do us. Our 1/4+ Trillion dollar trade deficit with a nation has a tendency to create a little codependency.

We are building a military prepared to wage a war not seen since the days of Hitler and we are outspending every nation at astronomical rates. Who is the war on terror about anyway? Stateless organizations whom hide in caves and target random civilians around the globe. Isnt that a threat to all nations? Why do they not allocate the resources that we do?

It just doesn’t seem to make sense. To fight such an enemy that is no more dangerous or powerful than a drug cartel using conventional warfare with cold war spending and tactics. How we cannot connect these dots is astounding if it wasn’t so downright intellectually offensive.