Trump’s Business Savvy Will Translate Well Into The Presidency

Donald Trump, a first time politician,  is without doubt a champion of private enterprise.  This is what America was built on, not socialism.  Tell that to Bernie Sanders.  “[Private enterprise] has made this country great,” he remarked several years ago, long before he decided to run for president.   Now, he wants to return the country to the greatness it previously enjoyed, greatness reflected across the board, not just in the great wealth of its people but the highest living standard in the world.   You can create a good life for yourself as an entrepreneur as he well knows,  “an unbelievable life” if you do well.

Trump has been successful as a commercial real estate developer including hotels and golf courses around the world.  He is also a best selling author, e.g., “The Art of the deal,” (admitting inter alia to being skillful at overcoming obstacles), and a successful television producer, i.e.,”The Apprentice/Celebrity Apprentice.”    He has a track record of successful accomplishments.  Where are Hillary’s?  Trump believes in hard work, taking care of the people who work for him, continued self-improvement, and to never, never give up.  He is a devotee of making a difference in the lives of others.  These characteristics reflect his spirit and are qualities which will translate well into what is seen as an effective presidency.

Copyright©2016. Arnold G. Regardie

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

The Wimp In The White House

A comment was recently heard from someone who favors Barack Obama that he is to be lauded because he has “kept us out of war.”

This is nonsense, an entirely fallacious statement.  It reflects total and complete naivety as to what’s going on in the world today.  We are at war, but Obama fails to see it.

The absence of leadership from the White House is at the root cause of much of the terrorism that prevails in the world today.  The terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium yesterday (for which ISIS claims responsibility) are only the latest examples of the global radical jihad (a term shunned by Obama) which is rampant in today’s world,  an ongoing, unremitting, brutal form of warfare  being perpetrated against civilized nations, a war which the current White House occupant still fails to recognize as such.

Obama has no idea how to deal with ISIS.  He has never defined/adopted a policy for dealing with this terrorist group.  A pinprick here and there from air attacks fails far short of what is needed to defeat it.   What is lacking and is clearly needed is strong leadership from Washington to form and lead an international coalition to confront ISIS militarily, politically, economically, culturally,  and financially,  i.e., in every conceivable way,  and stamp it out.  To block all possible sources of financing may be the m0st effective approach.  No group can operate without financing and will dry up if sources of money are cut off.  This is  a basic fact that, like many others, is not recognized in the White House.

The real problem is that the U.S. has elected someone as president who has no qualifications for the job.  Obama never did have any track record of accomplishments.  Being a community organizer doesn’t do it.  But he had a broad smile, a friendly face, and a gift for gab that made him believable.  Though promising hope and change, he delivered disappointment and discouragement.  He lied to the American people.   His legacy can be summed up in one word: incompetency.

This country needs strong, effective leadership, indeed, so does the free world.     As the leading presidential candidate on the Republican side,  Donald Trump, brings to the table a track record of proven accomplishments.  He has been successful as a businessman, a television producer, and as an author.  He is also controversial, but so was General George Patton.    Patton was a leader; he knew how to get things done.   Patton knew how to win, which made him undoubtedly WW II’s most effective general.  He definitely had his faults, as does Trump.  But Patton’s faults were inconsequential in light of his overall accomplishments.

Trump is cut from the same cloth as Patton.  Trump may be blunt, brash, and outspoken but he is also audacious and knows how to get things done.  He will bring to the presidency all of the skills he has mastered as a successful businessman, as set forth in his best selling book, “The Art of the Deal.”  He knows how to cut deals profitably, a skill America badly needs, how to handle people, also a badly needed skill presently lacking in the White House,  how to handle finances, and, importantly, he knows how to create jobs.  He has had experience cutting through a broad array of obstacles.   There should be no doubt that this experience can be put to good use as president not only in creating jobs, a very important issue, strengthening the American economy, also a very important issue, but in dealing with Congress and in handling foreign affairs.  The job of being president needs someone with business savvy because running the country is akin to running a big business.  Trump has those qualifications.   As he put it in his book, he  is good at overcoming obstacles and motivating good people to do their best work.

On the other side of the equation, Hillary doesn’t have the necessary skills to be president.   In fact, as this blog has repeated urged, she brings nothing to the table.  The country simply cannot afford to elect another incompetent president.

Copyright©2016.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Uncategorized, Writing Improvement

As a follow up to my last post, this rhyme comes to mind:

Hillary Dillary Pudd’n and Pie

Kissed the voters and made them sigh,

But when the people went out to vote,

Hillary Dillary had disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

In other words, Hill’s so-called campaign is a fabrication, without substance, i.e., a lot of hot air.

Hillary postulated recently, during an interview, that she “always” tried to tell the truth.  This pathetic response in itself is nothing but another lie.  I shake my head in wonderment that such an unqualified, incompetent, but power-hungry woman can garner any support whatsoever.

Also, the ongoing FBI investigation deserves continued public attention.  The public is entitled to know the results of that investigation, no matter what ultimate decision is made by the DOJ.  The public has an absolute right to know what the facts are, as found by the FBI’s investigation.  There should be no cover up, no protection granted.

Copyright©2016.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

February 23, 2016 · 7:53 pm

Hillary Is Unqualified For Any Public Office

There is no way to get around it – Hillary’s campaign is undoubtedly the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public.

She brings nothing to the table, not even a lightweight, but a no-weight, a nonentity in every way.    On top of the fact that she is utterly unqualified for any public office, much less the presidency, in terms of experience, leadership accomplishments, leadership traits, temperament, judgement, character, and competence, she is dishonest and a cheat.  But she keeps lying, telling the people she is eminently qualified for the presidency.   Even trying to shrug off the ongoing FBI investigation, a criminal investigation no less, as a security check, or something like that.   She is a congenital liar, as succinctly put years ago by the late William Safire, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

This is a low point in American politics, that she should even be considered as worthy of the Democrat Party nomination.

Lets look at her misuse of top secret, highly classified government data.  This is perhaps the most glaring example of her total and complete lack of judgement.  To say she didn’t send or receive any classified information because nothing was marked classified at the time is a monstrous lie.  As Secretary of State (a terrible, totally unjustified appointment in and of itself, but that’s another story), she should well know what is classified and what is not.  She received formal training on  the classification process  and the standards for handling classified information.  Having  information such as top secret/SAP emails on her private, unsecured server, put many people, even the entire country at risk.  Well placed security operatives may lose their lives if their true allegiance  is revealed.   Her conduct is not merely despicable.  It deserves to be considered treasonous and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, including any applicable prison term.

But like I always say, fair is fair.  Hillary should be given every chance to explain her reckless, totally unsupportable misuse of top secret classified government information – after she’s released from prison.

Hill is dangerous for the country.  If she had a shred of decency, she would just admit the coming charges by the FBI are true, save the people the expense of any further investigation, and simply withdraw from the race.

Further, as if her reckless, misuse 0f classified information is not enough, her propensity to lie about everything should be the clincher.  How can anything she says or does be considered  truthful?  Even when she doesn’t lie (if ever), who would believe her?  With no credibility, she would be unable to function as a president.

And her failure to tell the truth is a piece of historical fact that will follow her around wherever she goes.  It already has, but many in the media continue to disregard it.   She knew the Benghazi attack was terrorist based, based on an email to her daughter the night of the attack.  But she had the gall to stand there with Obama in front of the 4 coffins containing the bodies of the Americans killed in the attack and blame it on a video which (according to official reports) caused street riots to escalate.  However, Hillary says she answered all the questions at the hearings!  The question to be answered is how many more Americans would die if she was president?

This power-hungry but unqualified, incompetent  woman is not presidential material.  Not even close.  She will say anything, do anything to get what she wants.  We can only hope that the mainstream of America will come to realize that, if they haven’t already.

 

Copyright©2016.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement

The Movie, “13 Hours.” My Take.

I saw the movie “13 Hours” yesterday.  It deals with the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  I came out of the theater virtually shaking with anger from what our people at the compound had to endure over a 13 hour period because of security failures.  The attack on the compound was well organized, well coordinated, well planned, and supported by not only automatic weapons but mortar fire.    The attack cost the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Aside from the fact that the movie was a riveting, compelling,  action- packed true story, well worth seeing from that standpoint alone, the political implications from the lack of security have been and still are enormous.

It’s hard to believe that in this day and age our government was so inept.  It’s easy using 20-20 hindsight to fix blame for the security shortcomings there.  But then again the shortcomings were clearly visible and an attack was predictable.  So, hindsight is  not necessary; foresight was enough.  The trouble is, those responsible for security had none.  They were grossly incompetent.  That includes Obama’s White House and Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State, among others.

Benghazi had been a hotbed of unrest, gripped by civil war and terrorist activities since Gadhafi had been toppled.  The environment was bad enough to force Britain and France both to close their embassies.   European security officials were worried that weapons and vehicles were being stockpiled in Benghazi, post Gadhafi and that al Quaeda was gaining a foothold.  The U.S. well knew the diplomatic situation there was dangerous, so dangerous in fact that it had to be labeled “critical,” according to the movie.  Yet, we did not pull out.  True we had no embassy but only a diplomatic compound.   Nevertheless, what we had there was grossly under- protected, and the failure to fully protect that compound, given the unstable environment, can only be ascribed to gross incompetence, even criminal negligence.

Wikipedia, while not necessarily the repository of the last word on anything, still is to be regarded as possessing some authority.  It does say that the Secretary of State, among other duties and responsibilities, “ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American cities, personnel, and interests in foreign countries.”  That duty was flatly abrogated in this instance.

What has really aggravated the situation regarding the lack of protection for the Benghazi compound is the fact that both Obama and Hillary compounded their manifest failures by lying about how the attack originated.  Standing by the caskets of the four Americans killed in the raid, after the remains arrived in the U.S.,  Obama claimed, and Hillary knowingly acquiesced, in the bald-faced lie that the raid had been inspired by a video, when they both had information attesting to the fact that it was a terrorist attack.  Hillary emailed her daughter the night of the attack, telling her the raid was terrorist based, a fact which came out during her testimony at the last hearing.  The lie, repeated on Sunday talk shows by Susan Rice and others, was made in the time before Obama’s election, and undoubtedly helped in that regard quite a bit.

My distain for Hillary as a candidate for any public office, much less the presidency, is hardly a closely guarded national secret.  But after seeing this movie, my feelings have intensified dramatically.   She brings nothing to the table in terms of dealing with tough issues.  She has no proven track record of success at anything.   She is eminently inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent.  She is also a world-class liar, one whose lies are a matter of record.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle put it nicely: “Liars when they speak the truth are  not believed.”  Serious questions also abound as to her character,  honesty, trustworthiness, temperament,  and judgement.   She is a power-hungry woman who is dangerous for this country.  The country made a terrible mistake by electing the present White House occupant; that mistake must not be repeated.

Copyright© 2016.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

 

2 Comments

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement

A Personal Dilemma – Was The Pearl Harbor Attack Foreseeable?

In one of my recent blogs, I mentioned that predictions of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, came from at least two sources.  But I didn’t mention the sources.  So, here they are.  One was from a Peruvian source known to U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew.  This is discussed on page 118, footnote 7, of my new book, “Prelude to Disaster:  How Imperial Japan’s Diplomatic Treachery Led to America’s Greatest Military Disaster – Pearl Harbor,” available on amazon.com in both Kindle and print.

It is pointed out in that footnote that Ambassador Grew’s testimony before the Joint Congressional Committee which issued the report which forms the essential basis for my book, was that, with the single exception of  information on which his message of January 27, 1941 was based, he had no knowledge or indication from any source prior to the attack which indicated the possibility of such an attack.  The information on which that message was based is explained in footnote 7, as follows:  “My Peruvian colleague told a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources including a Japanese source that the Japanese military forces planned in the event of trouble with the United States to attempt a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor using all of their military facilities.  He added that although the project seemed fantastic the fact he had heard it from many sources prompted him to pass on the information.   Paraphrased copies were promptly sent by the State Department to Military Intelligence Division (Army) and Office of Naval Intelligence (Navy).” (Emphasis added).  Interesting stuff.

The other source came somewhat earlier but was more authoritative.  In 1937, General George Patton was the G-2, i.e., military parlance for Intelligence Officer, for the Hawaiian Islands, in charge of security for the Islands and their vulnerability to attack.  Patton had followed  Japan’s continued aggression 0ver the years, including its invasion and conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and its invasion of China in 1933, and believed that war with Japan was likely.  That year, 1937,  he wrote a paper entitled “Surprise” in which he predicted, with uncanny accuracy, a Japanese attack on Hawaii.  This bit of information comes from an excellent book about General Patton entitled “Patton – A Genius For War,” by Carlo D’Este, page 361.

So, the idea of a Japanese attack against the U.S. itself was likely scoffed at and little, if anything, was done about it.  But, nevertheless, those two straws in the wind, coming from widely disparate sources, did exist.

More disturbing to me was the apparent failure of those directly concerned with the nation’s security to foresee that elimination of the U.S. Pacific Fleet would fit nicely into Japanese plans to push south in the Pacific, towards Malaya, the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), the Philippines, and Australia, among other areas, plans which were undoubtedly anticipated by the U.S.  (See e.g.,  book, pp 41- 42).

This is where my dilemma arose.   To say the attack was therefore foreseeable would fit well into the “In Retrospect” or conclusory part of my book.   However,  on reflection, to add that comment to the book seemed a bit presumptive on my part.  It just didn’t seem right for me, coming along some 74 years later, to say that the attack was foreseeable and, therefore, should have been preventable.  So, I left it out.  There were some very skilled and highly intelligent and competent people in The White House, the State Department, and the armed forces, who arguably failed to see the attack coming so I decided not to second guess them.  Maybe, when and if I do a revised edition of the book, I’ll put it in.  In the meantime you’ll have to read the book yourselves and decide whether I made the right decision.  Please let me know what you think via a comment to this post.

Copyright©2016.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement

The Misguided Public Media – Part 3

There is one more thought to be added to the last two blogs about having balance in the public media’s coverage of the presidential race, i.e., there must be accountability for irresponsible journalism.   What is  considered irresponsible is more likely to exist in the reader’s eye than anywhere else.  Finding any objective criteria to use  is undoubtedly out of reach.  But the lack of media scrutiny of Hillary’s career achievements, or lack thereof to be more accurate,  is startling.  That she is being given a pass by the liberal media is too obvious to merit serious discussion.   Only her “coronation” remains according to prevailing sentiment among liberals.  This is totally unacceptable, particularly where the stakes are so high as in a presidential race.

While “Freedom of the Press” must be given full rein in a democratic society, media irresponsibility is not an isolated occurrence and should not be tolerated.   The media is not perfect by any means.  One blatant example of media irresponsibility, albeit not in a political context, comes to mind, the publication on December 5, 1941, by the Chicago Tribune,  “practically in full,” of “the most highly secret paper in the possession of the U.S. Government.”   That paper contained the U.S. plans for fighting a global war if one should eventuate.   Secretary of War Frank Knox advised reporters that day that an investigation of the Tribune would be likely.  This episode is mentioned on page 300 of my new book “Prelude to Disaster: How Imperial Japan’s Diplomatic Treachery Led to America’s Greatest Military Disaster – Pearl Harbor,” available on Amazon.com in Kindle and in print.   I am not aware that any such investigation ever took place but no doubt it was considered by many and had it taken place may have been well justified.  Why the Tribune would stoop to such a tactic as revelation of the most closely guarded Government secret at a time when the possibility of war was close at hand was definitely not in the public interest.  Freedom of the press?  This was an abuse of that freedom.  Such an abuse is beyond my understanding and clearly qualifies as irresponsible journalism.

What is going on in today’s presidential race may not be as clear cut as the foregoing example but still qualifies as irresponsible journalism.  I’m talking about the media favoritism that is being accorded Hillary Clinton.  Here is a power hungry woman who brings nothing to the table.  She does not even qualify as a light- weight, she is a no-weight.  But many, far too many, in the media continue to give her a pass so far as her questioning her qualifications is concerned.  Electing a president is serious business.  It’s not a popularity contest.  It runs deeper, much deeper, than partisan politics.  We’re talking about qualifications for running the country.  Where has it been shown that Hillary has the experience to make the difficult, the very difficult decisions that a president must make?  Why doesn’t the media jump on her total and complete lack of a track record so far as success in life is concerned and give that as much coverage as it gives to Trump?  Trump is scrutinized continually.  The imbalance  is  totally unjustified.

No partisanship is intended by singling out Hillary’s lack of performance credentials.  On the Republican side, Carly Fiorina has the same basic flaw as Hillary, i.e., no track record of proven success, nothing to show she has been weighed in the balance and found able to perform.  True she was  once CEO of Hewlett-Packard but she was also fired.  Where is her track record of performance?  There is none to speak of.

The country simply cannot afford to repeat the same mistake it made with Obama, to wit, electing someone as president with no proven experience in making difficult decisions, with no proven qualifications as a leader.  It may well be the right time for a woman president, but it has to be the right woman.  That woman is not Hillary.  Hillary is dangerous for this country, not to mention the free world.   She is incompetent, inexperienced, and totally lacking in the leadership skills, judgement,  and temperament necessary for the chief executive.  She is a world-class liar to boot, and the pending FBI investigation portends possible dishonesty.  In order to strike a fair balance in media coverage of the presidential candidates, those premises all deserve to be and must be fully vetted by the media.

Copyright© 2015.  Arnold G. Regardie.  All rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, sound sentence structure, tips for good diction, Writing Improvement