Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Comey Talks About Loretta Lynch & Hillary Clinton

Comey told Congress that He Confronted Loretta Lynch and She was NOT Happy about it.

After former FBI Director James Comey testified in an open hearing for the Senate Intelligence Committee he then went on to testify before a closed session of the same committee. In that session, he made some rather interesting comments that… of course, leaked out.

On Tuesday, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), alluded to those statements and to the fact that less than 20 minutes after the closed hearing someone illegally leaked the privileged information to the press. One of those stories ran on the pages of Circa Tuesday morning and the details delivered there provide even more reason for Congress to begin and immediate investigation into the possible crimes of Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton.
Here’s what Circa is reporting from the closed (and classified) hearing:

Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter.
During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the exchange after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an “investigation” but rather as a “matter.”  He suggested it smacked of political spin rather than the way professional law enforcement officers talk.

“That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning,” Comey testified.
Comey said the conversation occurred well before the email probe was shut down and shortly before both Comey and Lynch were expected to testify in Congress and possibly field questions about candidate Clinton’s email issues. He said her request gave him a “queasy feeling.” 

This exchange has already had and important impact on the national conversation, as it has led Senator Dianne Feinstein to call for an investigation into what Loretta Lynch was doing when she seemed to be playing politics with an important investigation.
But Comey had more to say because it wasn’t just Lynch’s decision to give Hillary Clinton’s campaign cover for her crimes, Comey had other evidence that he found far more troubling than her comments to him.

Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.

Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
Comey “took that interaction and the fact she had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public” with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged. Another source said the “tarmac meeting was the public excuse for not going to Lynch when all along there was other evidence that was more concerning to Comey.” 

Interestingly while Comey discussed some documents that he had that seemed to show collusion between Lynch and the Clinton campaign, he did not tell Congress that the information had been debunked as some liberals have argued. In fact, sources tell Circa that the documents liberals and their friends in the media keep referring to were not the “source” that Director Comey referred to in the closed hearing.
“Comey’s account to Congress does not sync with those media reports,” one source said, declining to be more specific. In public, Comey also seemed to suggest as much, saying some of the reports about why he went public with the email case findings were “nonsense.”

So, more evidence that Lynch was colluding with the Clinton campaign to protect Hillary Clinton. That evidence is not the supposedly debunked “Russian forgery” that the media keeps talking about. And most importantly, Comey was sure enough about the fact that Lynch was colluding with Clinton that he confronted her on the matter and then that he went over her head and ignored the proper chain of command when telling all of America about what the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had found.
There sure seems to be a lot more smoke (and maybe fire) with this collusion story, than the Russian one that the media keeps pushing.
By Onan Coca
June 14, 2017

 

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Trump's Food Stamp Reform - by Robert Rector


Research shows overwhelming bipartisan support for work requirements in welfare policy. This article is by Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America for three decades. He is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in domestic policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Donald Trump’s newly released budget contains a proposed food stamp reform, which the left has denounced as a “horror” that arbitrarily cuts food stamp benefits by 25 percent.
These claims are misleading.

In reality, the president’s proposed policy is based on two principles: requiring able-bodied adult recipients to work or prepare for work in exchange for benefits, and restoring minimal fiscal responsibility to state governments for the welfare programs they operate.
The president’s budget reasserts the basic concept that welfare should not be a one-way handout. Welfare should, instead, be based on reciprocal obligations between recipients and taxpayers.

Government should definitely support those who need assistance, but should expect recipients to engage in constructive activity in exchange for that assistance.
Work Requirements

Under the Trump reform, recipients who cannot immediately find a job would be expected to engage in “work activation,” including supervised job searching, training, and community service.
This idea of a quid pro quo between welfare recipients and society has nearly universal support among the public.

Nearly 90 percent of the public agree that “able-bodied adults that receive cash, food, housing, and medical assistance should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving those government benefits.”
The outcomes were nearly identical across party lines, with 87 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

Establishing work requirements in welfare was the core principle of the welfare reform law enacted in the mid-1990s. That reform led to record drops in welfare dependence and child poverty. Employment among single mothers surged.
Despite the harsh impact of the Great Recession, much of the poverty reduction generated by welfare reform remains in effect to this day.

Unfortunately, though, welfare reform altered only one of more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs. The other programs were left largely untouched. Trump’s plan is to extend the successful principle of work requirements to other programs.
Restoring State-Level Accountability

The second element of Trump’s plan is to restore a minimal share of fiscal responsibility for welfare to state governments.
As noted, the federal government operates over 80 means-tested welfare programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, training, and targeted social services to poor and low-income persons. In addition, state governments run a handful of small separate programs.

Last year, total federal and state spending on means-tested aid was over $1.1 trillion. (This sum does not include Social Security or Medicare.)
Some 75 percent of the $1.1 trillion in spending comes from the federal government. Moreover, nearly all state spending was focused in a single program: Medicaid.

Excluding Medicaid, the federal government picks up the tab for nearly 90 percent of all means-tested welfare spending in the U.S.
The United States has a federal system of government with three separate levels of independent elected government: federal, state, and local. Under this three-tier system, the federal government already bears full fiscal responsibility for national defense, foreign affairs, Social Security, and Medicare.

It makes no sense for the federal government to also bear 90 percent of the cost of cash, food, and housing programs for low-income persons.
But for decades, state governments have increasingly shifted fiscal responsibility for anti-poverty programs to the federal level. As a result, the federal government picks up nearly all the tab for welfare programs operated by the states.

This is a recipe for inefficiency and non-accountability.
One of the key lessons from welfare reform—now 20 years ago—is that both blue and red state governments spend their own revenues far more prudently than they spend “free money” from Washington.

Efficiency in welfare requires state governments to have some fiscal responsibility for the welfare programs they operate.
The food stamp program is 92 percent funded by Washington. Washington sends blank checks to state capitals—the more people a state enrolls in food stamps, the more money Washington hands out.

A dirty secret in American politics is that many governors, both Republican and Democrat, regard this type of “free money” poured from Washington as a benign Keynesian stimulus to their local economies. The more spending, the better.
The Trump budget recognizes that the food stamp program will become more efficient if the state governments that operate the program have “skin in the game.” Therefore, it raises the required state contribution to food stamps incrementally from 8 percent to 25 percent.

By 2027, this would cost state governments an extra $14 billion per year. Half of the so-called “cuts” in food stamp spending in the Trump budget simply represent this modest shift from federal to state funding.
The remaining savings in food stamps in the Trump budget come from assumed reduction in welfare caseloads due to the proposed work requirement.

A Proven Policy
Today, there are some 4.2 million nonelderly able-bodied adults without dependent children currently receiving food stamp benefits. Few are employed. The cost of benefits to this group is around $8.5 billion per year.

In December 2014, Maine imposed a work requirement on this category of recipients. Under the policy, no recipient had his benefits simply cut. Instead, recipients were required to undertake state-provided training or to work in community service six hours per week.
Nearly all affected recipients chose to leave the program rather than participate in training or community service. As a result, the Maine caseload of able-bodied adults without dependent children dropped 80 percent in just a few months.

A similar work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents, imposed nationwide, would save the taxpayer $80 billion over the next decade.
Even this would be a pittance compared to the $3.6 trillion the federal government will spend on cash, food, and housing benefits over that period.

The Trump policy is the exact opposite of so-called “block grants” in welfare.
In a welfare block grant, the federal government collects tax revenue and dumps money on state governments to spend as they will.

Welfare block grants have always been failures. In fact, the Trump budget would eliminate two failed block grant programs—the Community Development Block Grant and the Community Services Block Grant.
Instead of block grants, Trump is seeking to reanimate the principles of welfare reform from the 1990s that emphasized work requirements and renewed fiscal responsibility from state governments.

Deeply Needed Reforms
Of course, the left adamantly opposed welfare reform in the 1990s. In their view, welfare should be unconditional. Recipients should be entitled to cash, free food, free housing, and medical care without any behavioral conditions.

No wonder they have proclaimed Trump’s proposal to be “devastating” and a “horror.”
Contrary to protestations from the left, the U.S. welfare state is very large and expensive. For example, federal spending on cash, food, and housing benefits for families with children is nearly three times the amount needed to raise all families above the poverty level.

But the current welfare state is very inefficient. Trump seeks to reform that system.
In Trump’s unfolding design, welfare should be synergistic. Aid should complement and reinforce self-support through work and marriage rather than penalizing and displacing those efforts.

A welfare state founded on this synergistic principle would be more efficient than the current system. It would reduce both dependence and poverty.
More importantly, it would improve the well-being of the poor who have benefited little from the fractured families, nonemployment, dependence, and social marginalization fostered by the current welfare state.

 

Monday, May 22, 2017

Draining the swamp is messy.

May 14, 2017
By Michael Master (author of Save America Now, Rules for Conservatives, The Birth Famine)

Our home is in a community of 2,000 homes located on the intercostal in North Carolina.   Everything lives here.   Alligators. Water moccasins.  Rattle snakes.  Sea hawks.  Egrets.  Giant blue heron.  Mosquitoes… blood sucking mosquitoes.  We’ve watched from our back porch as dolphins chased sail boats and motor boats up the intercostal and watched the moon rise over the ocean and cast its glow over the intercostal.  


When the community decided to drain the swamp in the center of the community, it was a big deal.   
Draining the swamp was messy.   The swamp was about 10 football fields, about 6 feet deep, with lots of creatures living in it.   It was a dangerous swamp.  Not one that you would walk  or swim.   You would not dare sit next to it in the dark of a moonless night.   If not the snakes, then the mosquitoes would eat you alive.  

As the water level decreased, the creatures were exposed.   As the water level disappeared, all that was left was 3 feet of yucky black mud and the roots to dying cypress trees.   The fish, snakes, frogs, rats, and birds were all stranded in the yucky mud.   
Those creatures of the swamp fought for their lives as the swamp disappeared.   The fish flopped around in the black mud looking for some water for life.   The frogs croaked incessantly all night while their young pollywogs were stranded  lifeless at the top of the black mud.   Snakes slithered in every direction in the black mud in search of food.   The rats that live in hollows all along the water abandoned their nests while the birds that feed off the swamp creatures also abandoned the area.   

Finally, the mud dried out.   No more snakes.  No more rats.  No more fish.   No more frogs.  No more mosquitoes.  And no more birds that feed off those creatures of the swamp.   
That same thing is happening to the political swamp in America.   Trump is draining the swamp.   His picks for his cabinet are all swamp drainers.   Yeah, 3 are from Goldman Sachs.  3 of 23.   Practically all of his cabinet have executive experience (military, or government, or private sector) .. and it is the executive branch, now isn't it?   

The mud is becoming visible as all the creatures who live in the swamp are fighting for their lives.   Government employees at the IRS, EPA, and Education are flapping in the mud like dying fish.   The lobbyists are slithering here and there looking for government funds like the snakes in the mud ... especially those who wrote Obamacare.  The liberal media cartel is chirping and croaking  all the time like frogs trying to reverse the draining.   The tax and spend politicians are dying off like the blood sucking mosquitoes.  The political appointees of Obama are fleeing DC for other jobs like the birds who lost their meal tickets.   And the information leakers like Comey and Lynch are looking for new places to nest like the rats that left the swamp.  Soon, all that will remain will be the dying institutions like public education as the dying cypress trees of our society.   
Everyone who lived off the swamp is praying for rain.   Election rain so Democrats might win some elections from Republicans since the Democrats suffered such horrible defeats during the 8 years of Obama.   Impeachment rain so the professional politicians can get rid of Trump as the swamp drainer.   Low approval rating rain so the media can claim they were correct about Trump.   Virtual rain, fake rain, so pundits can claim that Trump is not making any progress even though the results say the opposite.   

Draining the swamp is messy, muddy.   But the mud will soon dry.   Democrats just lost special elections in Arkansas and Omaha after sinking millions into them.  Democrats might grab an election here or there in places like Georgia where the demographics are changing to black communities, but not without millions and millions of campaign money ... and Democrats cannot afford to do that for all the elections in 2018.  Democrats must defend 23 Senators in 2018 as compared to 10 for Republicans and Democrats must win 25 seats in the US House from Republicans and then win back 900 state legislative seats and 14 governorships.  If Georgia is an example,  that will cost Democrats hundreds of millions to try.  
SCOTUS will be rendering its decisions about Trump executive orders just before the 2018 elections ... and more than likely, SCOTUS will rule against the Obama appointed judges who live in the lower court swamps.  SCOTUS will help Trump. 

Comey is gone.  Lynch is in trouble.   Clinton is back in trouble. The Clinton Foundation donors are talking.  Clapper and Yates both said that there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. 
Schumer is gasping for rain like one of those stranded fish.  His Republican swamp buddies like McCain will abandon him as he dies … a rat leaving the swamp even though they shared an apartment together.   His Wall Street swamp buddies cannot help him.   The Washington Post and The New York Times and CNN and NBC are all trying to seed the clouds.  But none of it is producing enough rain to help Schumer stop Trump from draining the swamp.   

Draining the swamp is loud.  Listen to all the hysterical liberal media cartel who are trying to make it rain in order to save the swamp where they live.   Chanting.  Lies.  Rain dances.   But no real rain is coming.  Only fake rain.   The swamp will soon be dry.    And when it is, then the next task to make America great again can begin.   

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

New Study Shows Global Warming Nonexistent For Nearly Two Decades

While globalists have consistently bludgeoned us with doom and gloom predictions regarding so-called “global warming”, a new study could prove to be their worst nightmare.

Global warming, or the idea that man’s use of fossil fuels has contributed to an unprecedented heating of the entire globe, is a relatively new idea for scientists on the left.  As recently as the 1970’s, much of the scientific community was convinced that an increase of greenhouses gasses in Earth’s atmosphere would insulate the planet against the heat of the sun, thereby creating the opportunity for a mini ice age.  After this prophecy failed to unite global governments in a sovereignty-snatching liberty grab, leftists and globalists were forced to turn this theory on its head, instead claiming that the earth was actually heating up.
This 180 degree flip then allowed for all of the subsequent, invented doomsday scenarios to manifest.  Liberal politicians the world over began touting images of sad, emaciated polar bears clinging to small pieces of ice as proof-incarnate that the world was doomed to global warming-induced flooding as the ice caps melted.  It was just one piece of a global puzzle that would serve to unite the world under one global authority – something that the allow for a consolidation of power far above that of national governments.

Meanwhile, true science continued to debate this new, and liberally convenient, outlook on our global climate.  The culmination of decades of exhausting, unbiased work in the field of global climate science has now gifted us with one of the clearest pictures of our planet’s true environmental situation…and the globalists are not going to be happy.
“The Telegraph newspaper in the UK has published a fascinating article detailing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

“‘Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.’
“‘As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.’

“‘This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.’
“​The author then goes on to decry the very real consequences to businesses and citizens from governments continuing to enact ever more stringent regulation to offset this global ‘warming.’ But the real findings of the DMI are significant. The liberal media might take issue with a U.S. think tank funding a study that says global warming doesn’t exist — or at least hasn’t for 19 years — but they’ll accept the findings from little ol’ Denmark, won’t they?”

Once again, true, free science has indicated that the global warming hoax is simply a scam by overactive liberal imaginations.  Their phony, prophetic diatribes are nothing more than ghost stories that eco-terrorists and globalist henchmen tell their children in order to scare them into subservience.
Now, with this latest study coming into the limelight, perhaps we can finally destroy this blatantly bogus boogeyman once and for all.

by Andrew West - May 8, 2017

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

How Desert Storm Destroyed The Military.

The US military that won Desert Storm or Gulf War I in 1991 was a spectacular military, a gargantuan industrial age military with high tech weaponry and well trained personnel, that when called upon, achieved victory with the speed of Patton and the elan of Teddy Roosevelt.

Overlooking the vast eight mile carnage on the Highway of Death in Kuwait, destruction that was caused by a US Air Force and Navy that bore almost no resemblance to the two services now, a sergeant in the 7th US Cavalry remarked, “America sure got its money’s worth from those Joes.”
In 44 days, the largest military force assembled by the US and its allies since Normandy destroyed the world’s fourth largest army in a brilliantly led, fabulously executed air and ground war in the sands of the Middle East.

The ghosts of Vietnam were vanquished by men who had experienced the horrors and strategic errors of that war and who inculcated those lessons to the personnel they led.
Both General Colin Powell and the late General Norman Schwarzkopf had both served multiple tours in Vietnam and their experiences there made them highly skeptical of the press and its intentions.

Therefore, no reporters were embedded with combat units during the war.
The world was given a Nintendo video game, sanitized version of a war; while albeit short, had many elements of the nastiness of wars past, but appeared to be nothing more than a high tech cake walk.

Because there were no journalists in the field, the world never saw H.R McMaster, the President’s National Security Adviser, who was then a captain in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, fighting the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard at a now famous grid line dubbed the 73 Easting.
On McMaster’s left flank, the scouts from the 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry were also battling the Tawakalna and the ghosts of the Little Big Horn, at a nameless speck of desert landscape known as Phase Line Bullet.

Later that night, grunts and tankers from the 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One, hit the Guard at Objective Norfolk and before the night was over, found themselves engaged in close quarters fighting with fanatical Guardsmen in a place most of them want to forget, but can’t. Two days before, the Big Red One had spent the opening hours of the war burying Iraqis in the trenches alive with bulldozers.
On G Day +3, the US 1st Armored Division hammered the Iraqi Al-Medina Division of the Republican Guard at a place now known as Medina Ridge. The Battle of Medina Ridge was to date the largest tank battle since Kursk in 1943.

Yet, the world saw none of those battles being fought as they saw no Marines storming through Kuwait. There were no journalists; hence no video, no film, no photos; nothing to show the world except a few shots of B Roll of the Iraqi Army surrendering to Marines on the border. To the American public, the Iraqis were surrendering en masse, when in actuality the Republican Guard was going down with the ship. For example, the 10,000 man Tawakalna Division was virtually annihilated, including the division commander who died in an artillery barrage on the night of February 26, 1991.
While General Schwarkopf’s power point presentations enlightened the world, the soldiers and Marines found themselves in a Dante’s Inferno, with smoldering vehicles, dead Iraqi soldiers strewn over tank turrets in a man-made darkness of oil fires that smothered any sunlight and the vast remnants of an army, which littered the battlefield: rifles, helmets, sundry equipment and arms and legs that were picked at by packs of roving wild dogs.

War is hell…but the American public never knew.
The day Desert Storm ended, the death of the US military commenced.

The Pentagon, basking in glory and bowing to pressure from the public and crackpot feminists like Patricia Schroeder, started drinking the Kool Aid and they’ve never stopped. The war was a video game, a clean, quick rout. Modern war was now sanitized, where the bad guys would die at stand-off ranges of a mile or two and explode in little black and white pixels on Pentagon TV screens. In fact, war was now so quick and so easy that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms and Special Forces.
Our victory in Desert Storm became the catalyst for every left wing wacko to hack at the military with a meat cleaver.

Since, 1991, the US military has been slowly coming apart at the seams. Stress cards, open homosexuality, transgenders on active duty, sensitivity training, pregnancy simulators for male troopers, lactation stations in the field, babies born on US ships of war, female graduates of Ranger School, including a 37 year old mother (it’s funny how the women looked so well fed), women in the SEALs, women in Marine infantry units and females in the field artillery (even though most cannot carry a 155mm round) are just some of the insanity that has taken place in the last 26 years, but which snowballed into hell under the Obama administration.
A social revolution engulfed the military, starting with Tailhook and continuing to this day. Warriors were forced out and feather merchants and PC flag bearers were promoted. Girl power was in and masculinity was out. The warrior culture was buried and a new culture was reborn that resembles corporate America, not the US military of yesteryear.

No, General Kennedy, it’s not your father’s army and that’s a problem, a big, festering problem.
And, now, with the world in flames, with ISIS blowing up Europe, with Putin pumping weights in the Artic while he watches his BMP’s on skis roll by, with Kim Jong-Loon on the loose with a toy chest of nukes and missiles and with Iran figuring out that Trump ain’t Barney Fife, the US military needs to be rougher and tougher and more ready for a fight than ever.

And, we ain’t. And, that’s the fact, Jack.
Many are waiting for Mad Dog Mattis to stick a pike in the heart of the military’s social engineering forever.

We are still waiting…
Perhaps, Secretary Mattis is so busy dealing with the thugs on the planet, that he has forgotten that the armed forces that will be engaging the thugs is still in trouble.

Secretary Mattis must once and for all shut down the feminist fantasy of women in the combat arms.  There are thousands of jobs for women in the military where they can serve honorably and be promoted, without, in Mattis’ own words, ‘setting themselves up for failure in combat.’
Mattis also needs to get rid of the perfumed princes, and the feckless duds who have infested the senior ranks of the armed forces. I would rather have a sergeant with guts running a division than a two star coward who is more worried about his pension and future job on cable news than the mission and the troops.

The US military is still being led by people who believe that the military is nothing different than working for Google, except that the military has uniforms and weapons.  When you eschew the glorious traditions of the military and combine that with ludicrous social engineering, you are setting yourself up for massive failure.
While the US military interpreted the results of Desert Storm incorrectly, the real lessons from that conflict are crystal clear. The US military functioned well in an environment that focused on the mission, not on political correctness, LGBT rights, day care centers on submarines and breastfeeding Rangers.

With our enemies stacking up against us, time is running out to fix the problems which were initially caused by a victory 26 years ago, in a war that has largely been forgotten.
by Ray Starmann | April 21, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you, Ralph H.

Starmann, with credibility I do not have, puts into perspective issues I've asked questions about since Desert Storm, some I've left to you, Dan and others for expert commentary. In large part because Desert Storm was so successful (to my eyes anyway) I was, soon on, disgusted with both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You know my concern that goes so far as to ask "can we win another major conflict?" And, I know your answer. I've talked with a former CENTCOM Commander for his opinion of the two wars and his answer was, "the worst managed wars in history." OK, I don't think Gen. Tony Zinni would object if he knew I was repeating his words.

Women in combat is another issue. I get worse than anger from more than a few women when they know I don't support putting women in combat. Is it possible that Gen. Mattis and Pres. Trump can stop the madness in our military, including stopping the damn fool social re-engineering!   Can they overcome the disastrous effects of the Obama years and of congressional neglect??  Still have more questions than answers.

Perhaps you and others here can help me reconcile our needs that the ignorant and feckless "leaders" seem neither to understand nor want to. Sorry, my hot button got ignited. I don't have the military creds to trust my own opinions,  but it seems that today even top senior officers are more interested in politics than in fighting to win.

Thanks,

Joe M.