Month: October 2016

Thanks to social media, Aleppo has recently become the worldwide symbol for downtrodden victims of war.  A major stronghold for anti-government forces, Aleppo has been the site of intense combat since 2012.  For most of 2016, anti-government forces have been under siege in the east side of the city.  Air strikes by the Assad government and the Russians have destroyed substantial parts of the city, as well as wounded and killed many civilians.  On the other hand, counter attacks and artillery bombardments by anti-government forces have also contributed to the decimation of the city and its population.  In other words…it’s war.

Aleppo has been called Syria’s Stalingrad, and for good reason.  Like Stalingrad, there is a feeling of an impending winner-take-all situation for whoever is victorious.  The length and intensity of fighting is also similar, with a relatively high rate of civilian casualties.  The recent and relentless aerial bombardment by government and Russian forces is also reminiscent of the unabashed bombing of Stalingrad by the Luftwaffe.  Having said that, there are stark contrasts between Aleppo and Stalingrad; most of which are related to the difference in the global power structure of our modern time.

For one thing, the Battle of Aleppo is considerably smaller in scale, despite the existence of much more sophisticated weaponry.  For all the bellyaching of the mass media, and their constant whining over civilian casualties, the total fatalities of Aleppo amount to probably less than 5% of the total fatalities of Stalingrad.  There are also many more factions involved in the battle for Aleppo.  Furthermore, many outside powers are considerably more involved in the Syrian conflict than ever existed in Stalingrad.  Lastly, and possibly most important, there was no United Nations at the time Stalingrad was fought.

The last two points are very important because of the overall negative effect the U.N. has on such conflicts.  The U.N. gives almost all parties an equal voice.  It also gives veto power to both sides of opposition within the greater conflict (the United States and Russia).  Thusly, the U.N. has a tendency to prolong conflicts by trying to moderate them.  It could easily be argued that if the U.N. simply let conflicts continue no-holds-barred, one side would win and less lives might be lost in the long run.  In situations where survival of the fittest would otherwise rule, the U.N. repeatedly props up the underdog.

In this particular situation, the underdog happens to be Syria’s anti-government forces and the hapless civilians they use as shields.  The U.N. accuses the Russians and Syrian government of human rights violations because they are official entities.  It is more difficult to attach the same violations to anti-government forces, regardless of the fact they are equally as “guilty.”  Part of this is due to the fact the anti-government groups are basically loosely affiliated militias, tribes, and terrorist groups.  However, as a somewhat prestigious member of the U.N., Russia is forced to “listen” to its demands.

Russia’s recent halt in the aerial bombardment indicates it is either heeding the U.N. warnings of human rights violations or it is simply regrouping in order to strategize.  More than likely, it is a combination of both.  What Russia should do is bomb the so-called rebels into the ground.  Civilians should never be deliberately targeted, but collateral damage should be expected in warfare.  Tragic though it may be, it is simply part of modern war.  The alternative is letting the enemy live another day and thusly, letting civilians suffer an extra day of war.  By constantly pressuring ceasefires, the U.N prolongs the conflict and the overall suffering of all parties involved.

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it.  The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”  He was absolutely right.  Americans better start realizing what Aleppo truly symbolizes: total war.  The media can show all the photos they want of scarred up little boys in a war-torn land.  Unfortunately, that little boy is only one of millions in his local conflict.  He is one of billions in global conflicts.  And he is one of trillions in the earth’s history of global conflicts.  Overall, the Battle of Aleppo is quite unremarkable.

If you are one of the pansies who think the Battle of Aleppo is bad, you should study the Bombing of Guernica or the Siege of Leningrad sometime.  Then again, maybe you should not; it might destroy your flowery view of humanity and make you cry.  There was no international committee to cite either side for war crimes or human rights violations.  Quite simply, there were two sides in an all-out battle for survival.  When it was concluded, there was a clear winner and loser.  And when the battle war over, it was over.

~AD

Share This:

Originally, I was going to ignore this issue because I do not fancy taking part in the gossip muckraking that is the American media today.  However, seeing as how a lot of Americans seem to be reacting to the Trump Access Hollywood audio and resulting accusations against him, it is necessary to address.  Great job American media; you have brought this garbage into politics!

I have to preface this with my stance regarding Mr. Trump’s comments in the leaked audio from Access Hollywood.  This kind of thing always looks horrible taken out of context.  Sure, within a certain context, it can be seen as Trump bragging about sexual assault.  Within another context, it can be seen as perfectly innocent, if not stupid, dirty talk between two guys.  We cannot know for a fact exactly what Mr. Trump was talking about that day.  What we do know for a fact, is how men act.  For all those people out there broadcasting their horror over the comments, let me educate you because it is time you learned about the average male psyche:

Men are disgustoids in human form.  If you did not know that, congratulations; you are now old enough to learn it.  We are all adults here so let’s cut through the BS.  The majority of men take part in, have taken part in, or have been around lewd discussions about women at some point in their lives.  Guys say dumb, provocative, crude, and braggadocious things to each other about the women they encounter.  If you are a guy who has never experienced this, you are in the minority (probably because of the social circle you run in).  Good for you.  Now go forth and compete with Ryan Gosling to see who can create the most unrealistic expectations of man.

Now let’s get to these allegations against Mr. Trump popping up all of the sudden.  Basically you have a her-word-against-his  situation.  As far as I am aware, all the accusations thus far are in regard to incidents occurring years prior, with little or no witness.  The problem with that, on the part of both Mr. Trump and the alleged victims, is that it is the accuser’s word against his.  Since this is the case, it was up to his accusers to take action when they happened; whether via lawsuit or legal prosecution.

We can speculate all we want about why the accusers would wait.  If some or all of them are truthful, I would not presume to put myself in their situation because I have never been there.  I can see the argument that they would be afraid to bring it up because of Mr. Trump’s status and power.  However, to be truly fair; if we are going to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt on their timing, you must also give the accused the benefit of the doubt.  One has to acknowledge the odd timing of all these accusations during such a politically charged time.  If these women did not want notoriety, as one of their attorneys alleges, they likely would not have waited until the accused was a candidate for President of the United States.  If the allegations are true, I am truly sorry the women did not pursue cases in time, because everybody deserves justice.  Having said all this, we have to fast-forward to the facts and reality of now:

These accusers chose to wait until way too late, depending on statutes of limitations.  We do not know for fact whether such allegations are true or lies.  We probably cannot know by now.  One fact we do know, is there is now very little, if any, room to prove Mr. Trump is guilty of such things.  The problem with such allegations coming out now, is they are completely one-sided against Mr. Trump.  All we are left with now is three things: 1) no proof or evidence, 2)the raw emotion of allegedly violated women, and 3) a man raging out against both his accusers and a mass media eating up the stories and regurgitating it 24/7.

The media eats this gossip up because of the raw emotion it provokes; the typical story of the rich, powerful, playboy victimizing the poor, humble, secretary-without-a-voice.  This kind of story makes for good ratings; which makes money.  The media plays on ridiculous complaints of chauvinism, which have been stigmatized by an audio clip that does absolutely nothing to PROVE Mr. Trump’s alleged disrespect for women.  Last I heard, in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty.  If it is too late to prove guilt, you are by default innocent.  American’s probably would not want it any other way.

I do not know if Mr. Trump is innocent of such things or not.  The accusers may be lying or Mr. Trump may be lying.  More than likely, the facts can be found somewhere in between, which is why such situations need to be brought out sooner rather than later.  The fact that multiple women are making accusations means nothing.  Mr. Trump is a successful and controversial businessman and now politician, who has consequently been opened up for attack.  Accusations by themselves are not evidence.  Unless hard evidence or prosecution should ensue, there is no damning evidence against Mr. Trump.

One cannot blame Mr. Trump for his reaction, especially considering there is little or no proof of his guilt.  One also cannot blame Mr. Trump for going after the media, which has been proven to be biased against him.  At the end of the day, we can only fairly judge somebody by the facts we know.  Thus far, the facts only tell us Mr. Trump is a typical potty-mouthed man who has been accused of sexual assaults.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Share This:

In the last couple weeks, two important developments have arisen in the ever-evolving Syrian Civil War.  First, the ridiculous cease-fire organized by the United States and Russia has broken down.  This is not a big deal, as no one paid much attention to the cease-fire anyway.  However, the second development is more important; that of Russia’s deployment of an advanced anti-missile system to Syria.  This is clearly a move against the United States by the Russian government.  Russia is very quickly supplanting the U.S. as the dominant superpower player in Syria.  The U.S. needs to re-evaluate both its position and strategies in the Syrian conflict, and right quick.

This is certainly easier said than done.  There are a lot of players involved and the U.S. could take several different routes in handling the conflict.  Let’s forget the impending change in White House leadership for a moment and think outside the box about U.S. options in the region.  Let’s also pretend the U.S. will act like the hegemon it could be if it allowed itself, and not taken any option off the table.  Several options will be numbered below, though they are in no particularly important order.

Option 1) Support only the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The U.S. could choose to support the various weakened rebel groups that once constituted the FSA.  This seemed to be the overall popular choice made by the Obama administration at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War.  The administration saw a chance of replacing the tyrannical rule of Bashar al-Assad with a more moderate ruling force in the region.  This approach was benign, but extremely naive.  Not to mention the support was weak from the get go.

There are two problems with supporting the allegedly moderate anti-government forces.  First, these rebel forces have been found to be extremely unorganized and disunified.  The FSA does not exist in any significant form any more and it was never that strong to begin with.  Second, the so-called moderate FSA was made up of various rebel groups consisting of Islamic extremist fighters.  The FSA received funding from the U.S. in 2013 but no one really knows who benefited from this support.  It is possible the more extreme groups within FSA received some of those funds.  Al-Nusra Front is the largest off-shoot of the FSA groups and it is internationally recognized as an Islamic Terrorist organization.

The FSA is the perfect embodiment of the chaotic, unreliable, and tribal nature of politics within the Middle East.  Moderate groups do not last long among a tribal culture, as can be seen by the fate of the FSA.  President Obama’s move to support the FSA is an example of Western culture’s lack of understanding of Middle Eastern culture and how to deal with it.  This will be discussed later.  For now, we can conclude that the loose support FSA received from the U.S. has failed to do any good for either them, or the U.S.

Option 2) Support the Assad regime.

This is a strategy likely to be rejected by most Americans because they do not want the U.S. to be associated with supporting a tyrannical government.  This reasoning by itself is stupid, as the U.S. has supported the tyrannical government of Saudi Arabia for decades.  If you reject support of Assad on this premise alone, you better re-evaluate the U.S. relationship with multiple other governments.

Supporting Assad might not be a bad idea.  The history of the modern Middle East is a history of struggle to maintain stability against extremist forces.  Dictators are the ruthless necessity to maintain peace in a land with few resources and a lot of religious extremists.  Post Saddam Hussein Iraq is the perfect example of this.  Hussein, though despicable as a human being, was effective at crushing opposition and keeping his country relatively free of Islamic extremists.  The region was considerably more stable before his removal from power.  His ruthlessness is what provided stability.

The destabilization of Iraq has led directly to the instability in Syria.  Had Iraq not been unstable, Assad would likely have crushed the Arab Spring in Syria and resulting rebel fighters relatively quickly.  There would have been no power vacuum in either nation to be filled by extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Al-Nusra Front (effectively Al-Qaeda in Syria).  Syrians would not be as free, but Europe and the United States would be a lot more secure.  This should be the end goal anyway; let Syrians fix their own country.  

Option 3) Do nothing

This is probably the worst option altogether.  It may save American lives up front, by preventing front line military casualties.  However, it is almost guaranteed to lead to the loss of Western civilian lives in the long run.  Doing nothing will likely mean continuing civil war for years within Syria.  This will translate to a greater threat of terrorist attacks on the West by radical Islamic terrorists who will flourish in a war torn Syria.  Afghanistan is example of how war torn nations are perfect bases for terrorist training camps and supply lines.

Leaving Syria will also send a bad message internationally; that the U.S. is willing to leave the field to Russia.  Syria has become an important battleground between Russia and the U.S. for establishing dominance on a global scale.  This is a battle the U.S. is currently losing, as evidenced by the widespread disregard for U.S. Naval ships in the region by Russia and their ally Iran.  The U.S. can still easily come out ahead if we play our cards right.  Doing nothing is not a card that should be played.

Option 4) Support the Kurds and the division of Syria along ethnic/religious lines.

Let’s face it; Kurdistan is the closest thing to a shining star of success the U.S. has had in Iraq.  It is true the Kurds have their own struggles, but overall Kurdistan in Iraq has seen relative success following the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  The Peshmerga has also seen success in fighting ISIS and they have always held their own against the Turkish government.  If any ethnic group in the world has fought hard for their independence, it is the Kurds.

And as for Turkey…they can go pound sand.  If there is any “ally” in the region who has consistently failed to aid the U.S. when it really counted, it is Turkey.  Turkey would not allow the U.S. to use their bases for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  Turkey continues to support Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al-Qaeda in the region.  The government of Turkey has consistently moved away from secular rule in the past decade.  And although Turkey plays host to some nuclear equipment for NATO, they need us more than we need them.  The Peshmerga has done more in the battle against ISIS than Turkey ever has.

Let the Kurds and their allies merge Rojava (the de facto autonomous region they control) with Iraqi Kurdistan.  Let Israel keep the Golan Heights and split up the remaining territory between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians.  The downside is that war would likely ensue between any newly formed states.  The U.S. should back the Kurds in any resulting conflict, as long as the Kurds do not engage in genocide, terrorism, or anything similarly horrific.  Of all the involved parties in the conflict, the Kurds’ politics are most conducive to Western ideals.  Their rule is based in secular politics, and includes gender equality and sustainability.

Option 5) Play two sides off against each other.

The U.S. has a tremendous opportunity in Syria to let our enemies bleed each other dry.  Hezbollah and ISIS are two of the most far reaching terrorist organizations the U.S. must fight.  Luckily for us, they hate each other with a passion; possibly more than they hate Westerners.  Both of them are essentially proxies for larger opponents.  These opponents are Saudi Arabia/Sunnis versus Iran/Shiites (backed by Russia).  Saudi Arabia supports Al-Nusra, which collaborates with ISIS to attack Westerners and Shiites.  Iran backs both Hezbollah and the Syrian government under Assad (and the Alawite minority).

The U.S. should play both sides just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war from 1979 to 1989.  Let Saudi Arabia and Iran use Syria as a battleground for bleeding each other dry.  Russia should also be allowed to pour military and funds into the region, only inasmuch as they make little material gain.  The Kurds independence should be supported in this scenario also; they can be used as a wildcard to prevent either Saudi Arabia or Iran from gaining an upper hand.  They can also be used as a base for striking at threats posed by any rampant influx of terrorist fighters.

In this option, ISIS should be absolutely crushed before anything.  Raqqah should be bombed to the ground and the caliphate exterminated by a combination of special ops and air strikes.  No mercy should be shown because they do not show any to us.  Destroying ISIS will allow the Saudi Arabian/Turkish backed Al-Nusra to complete their ascension to top dog in the conflict, and thusly allow them to be used as a pawn against Hezbollah.

Such a conflict could be carried on indefinitely.  Syria could become a funnel for channelling Radical Islamists on both sides, Sunni and Shiite, to kill each other off.  Both sides will be weakened, as will Russia if they continue to support the Shiites against the odds.  Saudi Arabia and Iran have been searching for a way to destroy each other for decades.  This could be the opportunity to let them do it without jeopardizing the world’s oil reserves.

One could even hope that the Vietnam effect will take place in Iran if the conflict becomes prolonged.  Iran already suffers from a lack of support among some 80% of its population, who do not enjoy subjugation by theocratic rule.  Such an endless war could weaken the Revolutionary Guard and be the necessary spur the Iranian citizenry needs to throw off their chains.  One could hope.

 

Needless to say, these are not the only options available to the U.S.  Indeed, American’s should not be too quick to take any one option off the table.  Nor should our allies.  The nations of Western Europe are facing a wave of refugees and violence caused directly by the Syrian Civil War.  The threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorism is something all Westerners are facing.  The relatively moderate and peaceful nation of Jordan is also threatened by the chaos in Syria.  The U.S. may very well find allies among any nation that stands to lose from the violence in the region.  However, the U.S. needs to stop dancing around the problem and face it head on; because it is not going away.

~AD

 

Share This:

Southern California was faced with multiple protests this weekend.  Officer involved shootings in the past week in south Los Angeles, Pasadena, and El Cajon sparked protests and/or riots in each of those communities.  Black Lives Matter spokespeople have also commented on the shootings.  In our previous article we presented BLM with the facts regarding violence in the Black community.  Now seems like a good time to offer BLM some valuable advice in regard to changing their approach.  There are some serious changes BLM could make to help more educated and intelligent Americans take them seriously.  Here are some important ones:

• BLM needs to immediately denounce the riots and violence that have permeated their protests, and those of their followers.  Whether this violence is by design or coincidence, it is detrimental to their movement receiving any kind of serious recognition.  BLM supporters disrupting traffic, engaging in property damage, and assaults only gives “the state” legal reason to incarcerate them.  Is that not what BLM is trying to prevent?  Then again, there are many BLM supporters who try to justify the violent behavior and inflammatory language.  To them, America’s past history of slavery and Jim Crow laws is justification for their followers to behave violently.  Yet none of these followers have ever experienced either of those institutions.  Nor have those victims of their violent behavior ever been perpetrators of those institutions.  Smashing store windows and tagging property with graffiti is not a way to get small business owners to support your cause.
• BLM should ditch the outrageous accusations of state sponsored genocide and oppression designed to inflame passions.  Such accusations actually alienate them more than anything.  If BLM wants to expand its support, it needs to stop accusing the establishment of being racist.  Instead, they should focus on specific changes to laws and/or policies they believe to be discriminatory toward Blacks.  They would find a wider, more legitimate, and educated support base if they did so.  Americans are more receptive to criticism if it comes in a constructive manner.
• BLM needs to promote intraracial dialogue.  Before accusing outside forces of being racist, they need to examine racism between Black Americans.  The labels of “race traitor” and “Uncle Tom” are all too commonly used to describe Blacks who dare to imply the problems facing a lot of Black Americans are self inflicted.  There is no doubt racism still exists in the United States.  However, if you want to have an honest discussion about racism between Whites and Blacks, you cannot ignore racism between Blacks and Blacks.

It is a safe bet that BLM will not make any of these suggested changes.  This is because they rely on a support base largely made up of ignorant liberal do-gooders, and/or outright criminals and anarchists.  Furthermore, they rely on videos of law enforcement engaging in uses of force against Black suspects.  These videos are usually useless as far as showing what actually occurred that lead to the use of force.  However, they are perfect in sparking emotional outrage over what appears to be a militarized police force “victimizing” a Black citizen.

Let us take the case of Philandro Castile for example.  The video circulated by his girlfriend via social media takes place immediately after the actual shooting.  Nothing about the video proves innocence or guilt on the part of either Mr. Castile or the officer who shot him.  It only provides us with the general “mood” of the situation after the shooting, where we see a distressed officer and a dying Mr. Castile.  The video is perfect for BLM use.  It gives us no facts about what led to the shooting, and all the emotion that came after.  To the ignorant eye, it shows an uncaring and violent officer and a calm, yet tragic girlfriend.

Thanks to the dominance of social and liberal media, such a video spreads like wildfire; giving the feeling that excessive use of force by police is epidemic.  Such videos are used by BLM and their supporters to advance an agenda.  People are quick to feel sad for the pleading girlfriend and feel anger for the officer who has just taken a life.  Many of these people have been told by Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton for years that they are oppressed and any contact with law enforcement is likely to lead to their death.  This fits pretty well with BLM’s message that the State is responsible for violent Black deaths.  The details of such events are either ignored or sometimes outright lied about by witnesses (i.e. “hands up, don’t shoot” in Ferguson, MO).  Without details of the shooting or knowledge of police training, the public is simply left with a dead Black man, his saddened girlfriend, and a peace officer who has just taken a life.

Maybe the other reason BLM will not make the suggested changes is because they are afraid of finding out how wrong they are.  There are little or no changes to “the state” that need to be made on the grand scale.  If one is to ask the average BLM supporter what specific changes they would make to law and/or policy and procedure, they would not be able to articulate specifically what laws or P&Ps are discriminatory.  Because BLM puts so much emphasis on police shootings, we will examine them a little more closely in the next article.  We will also get into some specific strategies BLM could use if they are truly interested in decreasing violent deaths among Black Americans.  As it stands right now, BLM will only make things worse if they continue their current approach.

Share This:

Donald Trump receives a lot of criticism for his temperament and his ability to look “presidential.”  Even a lot Mr. Trump’s supporters wish he would be more careful with his words and moderate his approach.  However, one can find a lot of value in Mr. Trump’s temperament, which is perhaps why he cites it as one of his greatest assets.

First, it is important to mention that for at least the first 150 years of United States history, only the smallest percentage of Americans even laid eyes on their president.  Speeches and campaigns were not televised and viewed by any large numbers until the 1960’s.  Since then, it seems to have become a trend for politicians to move toward political correctness for fear of not stirring up opposition to their success.  Or could it be that politicians have always done this and modern media has just made it more apparent?  Either way, it is ironic how often the people who complain about their political leaders saying a lot of nothing, are frequently the same people who want their leaders to moderate temper and approach.

Furthermore, what exactly does it mean to “look presidential?”  Why limit the presidential “look” to a calm, evenhanded, mediocrity?  From Washington to Obama, there have been many great presidents who would not fit this narrow model, and for good reason.  There is something to be said for a president who gets fired up about something.  Passion, and even anger, within a candidate is an indicator of the energy he or she will put into the job.  When something as superficial as “the presidential look” has become the deciding factor for voters, it is a sign of lack of vision on their part.

Why has something so superficial become more important than substance?  Some of the greatest leaders in world history were probably not the type to mince words.  Many of Mr. Trump’s followers are specifically attracted to his direct approach and politically incorrect speech.  Many Americans would rather have a president who says what he means and does not beat around the bush, than one who gives a long, lawyered, meaningless answer every time.

Much of what Trump says may be ineloquent, awkward, or over-simplified, but nonetheless true.  Case in point: Trump said President Obama is the “founder of ISIS.”  He has been questioned on it several times by the media.  When asked to clarify, Trump has insisted he meant exactly what he said, and he explains it in a way just as ineloquent as the original statement.

We all know what Trump meant.  Considering his propensity for exaggeration and jesting, he should not be taken too literally.  He tries to be flamboyant for greater impact and this does not fit in with political correctness; don’t expect it to.  This is definitely counter to the current trends within our culture.  People seem to have increasing difficulty distinguishing between speaking respectfully, and walking on eggshells.  Some Americans have become so obsessed with political correctness, it is amazing they manage to have meaningful conversations at all.

Since when did Americans need their hands held so much?  When a society becomes increasingly offended by words, it is a sign of that society’s problems becoming truly trivial.  Yet, in our nation, there are so many problems that are not at all trivial.  They are real problems with real solutions, yet everyone turns to jello as soon as these issues are discussed.  Race relations, immigration, birth control, religious freedom, and many others are all contentious issues within our society.  They all could benefit from respectful yet brutally honest discussions.  Why beat around the bush when we are all adults who should be capable of respectful debate?  It comes down to whether Americans priorities lie in resolving issues, or continuing under the facade that all is okay and.

Donald Trump is an American who seems to have a genuine desire to resolve the issues in our nation.  American’s could benefit from a leader who is not overly careful with his language.  In the end, such a man or woman would be better remembered for the actions they took and the changes they made.  Suppose for a minute that Mr. Trump is elected and has only moderate success over four to eight years.  Twenty years from now, will anyone remember or care about old rhetoric involving a Hispanic judge, the Mayor of London, or Miss Universe?

Nor should American’s buy into the criticism of Mr. Trump’s temperament.  The notion Mrs. Clinton promotes that Mr. Trump is going to fire off nuclear weapons because he is having a bad day is absurd.  What is worse is many Americans believe this garbage.  Does anyone really think Mr. Trump would be as successful as he is if he was as unhinged as Mrs. Clinton implies?  It is also doubtful he would have such a positive relationship with his children if he was so unstable.  

Mr. Trump may not be the best orator.  However, he speaks directly and is not afraid to address the issues facing our nation.  Like any personality trait, there are simply positives and negatives to it.  To put it simply, right now the United States needs a leader who will not take any crap.  The alternative is electing a leader who uses a lot of words to say nothing.  Americans are tired of their concerns being trivialized or neglected.  Many of us would rather have a president who brings positive change, even if his style is brash.

~AD

Share This: