Tag Archives: politics

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

The Misguided Public Media – Part 2.

This is a supplement to the blog posted on December 15, 2015.

This is a dangerous time for America, not to mention the free world.  Leadership, strong leadership, is vitally needed.  World terrorism is running rampant and must be considered as the number one issue facing the country today.   Isis is not a “JV team”  nor is it “contained” as the White House would have you falsely believe but is strong and growing.   This is no time for someone who embraces the likes of climate change as the major world issue while people are being shot down indiscriminately.  Because this group teaches members and recruits that  it is an honor to die for this cause, the cause must be rooted out and stamped out.  Leadership is needed to lead the campaign against this cause,  leadership with a proven record of accomplishment.  Isis must be confronted head on and therefore choosing the next president, the right president,  is vital to our interests.  That person must possess a proven track record of  success and accomplishment with the necessary temperament and judgment to fill the office.  Mere talk is not enough.

This brings me back to the major premise of this blog – the national interest must be considered by the media in covering all candidates in the presidential race.   Merely playing  partisan politics is not enough.  So, is the media giving the same scrutiny to Hillary that it gives to Donald Trump?   Absolutely not.  Where does the media point up her absence of leadership, her absence of accomplishments, her missing track record of success.   The media coverage is distorted and misguided.  How much media coverage has been given to the ongoing FBI investigation of Hillary’s email  misuse? How many presidential candidates in the past have been the subject of an FBI investigation?  The results of that investigation should be made public, indictment or not.  The public is entitled to know what the investigation shows.  The public is entitled to know if Hillary has broken any laws, whether there has been any criminal conduct, no matter if punished or not,  and to make its own judgment in that regard.  This is not a game – national security is at stake.

My new book, “Prelude to Disaster:  How Imperial Japan’s Diplomatic Treachery Led to America’s Greatest Military Disaster – Pearl Harbor,” (available on Amazon’s Kindle and in print) is instructive in today’s tumultuous world.  It tells the true story of the shortcomings of American diplomacy, why the possibility of an attack on the U.S. mainland was overlooked despite at least two independent sources predicting such an attack.   Using the benefits of 20-20 hindsight, it is easy to say that at a minimum daily reconnaissance flights out of Hawaii  should have been conducted.  If done, the Japanese attack force  surely would have been detected.  And it’s easy to say it should have been foreseen that the U.S. Pacific Fleet would have been an impediment to the  Japanese plans to push south in the Pacific, and so the Japanese would want to eliminate it.   There are lessons applicable today from this experience.  The point is, nothing should be taken for granted, no area, no point should be considered as sacrosanct.  This includes a determination of fitness for the nation’s highest office.

There’s no ro0m today for shortsightedness – the stakes are too high.   No room for obsessing on the likes of climate change as the major threat to free countries everywhere.  This is mere fancy.  Absolute realism is needed in today’s world.  All possibilities of attack by Isis must be considered and appropriate action taken.  A coalition of nations led by American forces is sorely needed.  Boots on the ground are the obvious answer, not just American boots, but those of all nations  in the coalition.   This requires American leadership,  clearly lacking  currently.  Also, all branches of the armed forces must meet and communicate daily on the existence of threats by Isis; there must be full disclosure by all to a knowing Congress and to a President who is capable of taking the required action.   There is no time for excuses, or inter-branch jealousy.

A recent Newsweek story has been published,  in which is a well deserved, scathing denunciation of Barack Obama appears.  Newsweek, as you may recall is a very liberal magazine.  So coming from Newsweek, the story is quite a revelation.  But Newsweek has finally seen the light.  Better late than never, as the saying goes.  The point is, it was a mistake to elect Obama, eminently unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent, and a world-class liar,  a terrible mistake, for which we are still suffering the consequences, a mistake  which must not be repeated.  One way to nail down that this mistake is not repeated is for the media to assume responsibility to the public to assure that ALL presidential candidates are evenly covered, qualifications for office, or lack thereof,  absolutely and completely exposed.   Anything less is a public disgrace.

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

 

3 Comments

Filed under clear writing

“The Shadow of Crisis Has Passed.” Oh Really!

When a world leader is perceived to be cut off from the reality of the world, it is quite a spectacle.  Frightening in its implications.

But that’s what we are seeing now when President Obama, opening his State of the Union address recently, makes a statement such as “the shadow of crisis has passed.”  Did he really say that?  What world is he living in?  If he really believes what he said, he is totally and completely cut off from the realities of the world.  He does not deserve to be president.   And the country needs, somehow, to do damage control  for the next two years.  As in major damage control.  In other words, at the very least a congressional watchdog is needed to make sure Obama does no harm to national interests.  This watchdog must oversee everything he says and does.

Maybe Obama is just too busy working on his golf swing to read the newspapers or watch television.  Maybe he really doesn’t  know or understand whats going on in the world.  Maybe he really doesn’t know what happened in the congressional mid-term elections last November.  Maybe, even scarier, he doesn’t care.

Can it really be true that he has never heard of ISIS, or the Islamic State?  Or  Al Queda.  Or Paris.  Or Yemen.   Or does it just seem that way.  Is Obama really detached from reality?  Is he living in a separate but parallel universe, as one well-known commentator recently asked.  Is he really delusional, or does it just seem that way?  Does the public need a dictionary definition of delusional to understand this guy?  Does he really not see the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism.  If he does, why doesn’t he say so?  In those words.

But it’s more than his detachment from world reality that makes one question his competence.  It’s also his defiance when it comes to domestic matters.  He continuously taunts the Republican Congress by threatening to veto legislation even before it comes to his desk, as in Keystone pipeline.  This is the mark of someone who has his own agenda at heart, not the national interest..  Obama is obsessed with his own importance, wildly obsessed.  By his  continuous taunting of Congress he is showcasing his fury at being told by the electorate that it doesn’t care (to put it mildly) for his policies. The Republican party now controls Congress but Obama can’t accept it.  To adopt a time-worn cliche, it’s his way or the highway.  This is a dangerous state of mind for someone who is supposed to be leading the country.  Very dangerous.

But Obama is more than just  incompetent.  He also has no credibility.  He is a gifted, world-class liar, with lies flowing out of his mouth like water out of a faucet.  How can anything he says or does be trusted?  Is he acting in the national interest or in the interest of his own political program?  He is dead set on closing Guantanamo but is the release of the detainees there in the national interest?  Or Obama’s political interest?  Are th0se being released a threat to America?  Who’s checking on that?  The WH has also said giving Guantanamo back to Cuba is not on the table.  We’ll see.   And his recent comment that Iran’s path to nuclear capability has been halted is too blatantly false to require further comment.  Congressional oversight is desperately needed here, and has traditionally been employed, but Obama has said he will reject it.

Democracy is not perfect.  Sometimes mistakes are made.  Electing Obama is an example. The country must learn from this mistake and not ever again elect someone who has not proven his/her leadership traits.  The country cannot afford another mistake like Obama.  Nor the world for that matter.  Demonstrable leadership qualities must be present in any future presidential candidate.  Are you listening Hillary?   But that’s a whole  new ocean to swim in, which we’ll leave for another time.

Copyright©2015. 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

Hillary Clinton – A Non-Entity With No Credibility

Last Sunday the Wall Street Journal published an article which referred to Hillary Clinton’s recent “hawkish” views. This article was objectionable in my view because it provided some semblance of credibility to Hillary’s political posture. This attempt at foisting some credibility upon her is totally and completely misplaced. She is not qualified to hold any public office. She is unqualified and incompetent. Period. The views I posted on this site some 2 years ago about her tenure as secretary of state are still relevant to her purported qualifications for office today. Here is what I wrote.

The Secretary of Mistate, Mistake, er, State.

What makes a great Secretary of State? By what marks is he/she defined? Carrying out the president’s foreign policy? Getting treaties signed? There are no easy definitions. But you know a great Secretary when you see one.
Appointing Hillary as Secretary of State, as his first cabinet post, marked Obama as a lightweight, because she is a lightweight. She is in fact a no- weight. I can’t begin to find any credence in this appointment. At the time of her appointment Hillary had no experience in foreign affairs; she never wrote, lectured, taught, or spoke on it, nor has she done anything since her appointment to distinguish her as as deserving of the appointment, nor as being a great or even a good one.

Maybe it’s because Obama has no foreign policy to speak of, none that can be defined.
Her lack of experience in public office preceded her into the present job. She was elected to the U.S. Senate – in a very liberal state of course. But she flew in on the back of her husband, an impeached president, who disgraced himself, his family, the White House and the country. She certainly was no leader of any kind in the senate, not having introduced any resolutions that come to mind.

Even before that when entrusted with “Hillarycare” by husband Bill, this endeavor, decried by many as a form of socialized medicine, was a miserable failure. The book, “It Takes A Village,” ostensibly written by her, did nothing to further the cause for her program. The book was a fraud, falsely proclaiming a crisis in education and then clamoring for government intervention to cure the non-existent crisis.

Once in a while Hillary makes a little whimper of noise about one thing or another, but in actuality she does nothing. Joining other nations in favor of a change of leadership in Syria does nothing to show her leadership. Clearly, on Obama’s part, the appointment was an act of political expedience, just to get her out of his way and keep her quiet – so far as attacking him or his administration, that is.

Today’s (2/25/12) liberal leaning LA Times carries an article proclaiming that “Clinton Hints at Coup Against Assad.” The writer, Patrick J. McDonnell, attempts to provide Hillary with some credibility by pointing out that she is one of the leaders of a coalition calling itself “Friends of Syria.” The writer credits her with calling for Assad’s security forces to oust him, citing the cases of Tunisia and Egypt, where militaries stepped in to oust “longtime autocratic leaders” (i.e., dictators) after popular protests. Of course, joining others in the swell of protest against Assad does not exactly stamp her as a leader.

A clear sign of her lack of credibility is the fact that as of 2/24/12, she has no part in talks between the U.S. and North Korea concerning food aid to the impoverished country, dismantling of its nuclear weapons program, and other issues. The U.S. is represented by Glyn Davies, who is described as special representative for North Korean policy. Hillary is nowhere in sight.

The main problem with Hillary’s holding any public office is that she has little if any credibility. Remember, when she ran for president, she was caught in a bald-faced lie – claiming she was caught in sniper fire in [Bosnia] when landing there during a visit. This was a total lie, which she later admitted. So, can you believe anything she says? As all trial lawyers will know, there is a jury instruction you can ask the trial judge to give if the evidence warrants it i.e., falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. What this means is that if the jury finds that the defendant (or a witness) lied about one thing, the jury can find that the defendant (or witness) lied about everything.

And of course hubby Bill was no slouch at lying either.

So much for Hillary’s credibility. Who’s going to believe her?

It’s not to late for Hillary to remove herself from the limelight and move into the kitchen, where she can concentrate on making toll house cookies. There, at least, she can hopefully avoid putting her foot in her mouth. But, of course, with her, anything’s possible.

Copyright 2012. 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

Remembering President Richard Nixon – 40 Years Later

On March 1, 2012, I published a blog about President Richard Nixon. He resigned from the presidency 40 years ago, on August 9, 1974, the only president to do so. Despite the shadow of Watergate, he accomplished a lot as president. To honor his presidency, here is a reprint of my blog.

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON’S EMBRACE OF “RED CHINA” – A MASTER STROKE OF FOREIGN POLICY.
The impact of relations between the U.S. and China should be examined in the context of President Richard Nixon’s legacy.

Before Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to the U.S. fades from memory, and bearing mind the occasion of President Obama’s visit to China in 2009, it is fitting to put those visits in historical perspective. Recall that it was President Richard Nixon’s historic trip to Peking in 1972, some 40 years ago, which opened the door to improved relations with “Red China,” as the Chinese mainland was then known. This trip took place after two decades of bitter hostility, isolation, and non-existent diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. The two countries had no framework in place for dealing with each other.

Some would say there is nothing about Richard Nixon worth remembering. But if one can cast aside the disgrace of Watergate and the horrors of Vietnam, horrors he inherited from his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, and focus instead on the visit to China, it stands out as a major foreign policy accomplishment, one which should have earned Nixon the Nobel Peace Prize. Whatever else the personal shortcomings of Richard Nixon were, and there were apparently many, credit should be given where credit is due. Opening up the gateway to China was a brilliant master stroke of foreign policy which revolutionized world diplomacy and world trade. It was all the more remarkable in light of Nixon’s strong anti-communist stance during his political career.

The benefits of Nixon’s decision cannot be understated. What had been a miniscule dollar amount of trade between the two countries, roughly five billion dollars in 1979, has grown to the staggering total of between four hundred billion and five hundred billion dollars today. Moreover, cultural exchanges continue apace, involving many hundreds of exchange students. Last year there were over 3 million mutual visits between the two countries. Further, China, while still harboring a communist government, embraces an emerging capitalist economy, resulting in an ever improving life style for its people. For example, China today is the number one automobile market in the world. American capitalistic icons GM and Ford are strongly entrenched there, as are McDonalds and Coca Cola.

Obama’s 2009 meeting with Chinese President Hu, and his recent meeting with Vice President Jinping is hopefully a harbinger of deepening ties between the two countries, as well as mutual cooperation on trade and other issues.

However, historical perspective notwithstanding, the fact remains that Obama received a tepid response in his efforts to gain China’s cooperation in responding to the global economic showdown. This may be due to China’s recognition that America should focus on its own problems first, or it may be that China is simply not impressed with Obama and his administration.

It is clear that Obama is an excellent politician and a gifted speech maker, but it is equally clear that he is simply a novice when it comes to government management and making major decisions. He has no experience at all in administration and governing of anyone or anything. In other words, he comes across as a lightweight president, a figurehead, who has yet to prove himself as a leader. So, China has humored him, adopting a wait and see attitude before agreeing to anything. It remains to be seen whether Obama will have any real impact on the course of world affairs or whether he will be swept into the dustbin of history.

Copyright 11/20/09, updated 2/27/12, All Rights Reserved. Arnold G. Regardie.

Leave a comment

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

An Immigration Update – Bill O’Reilly’s Take

I’m a long time follower of Bill O’Reilly on Fox News and find his reporting usually to be in depth, factual, and concise. Recently he suggested that viewers check out his suggestions to solve the immigration crisis as found on his website, BillO’Reilly.com. I did that and found many of his suggestions to have some merit. Here is a sampler, mixed in with some of my own thoughts.

Much of the problem lies with the failure of President Obama to be preprared for this crisis. He has had five and one half years to get his act together on this as well as other problems and has done virtually nothing. Mexico itself is a primary issue. Tougher policing of that country’s northern and southern borders would be a first step. Increased surveillance by Mexican police and military forces on the southern borders would help to stem the flow of would be illegal immigrants from Central America on their way to the U.S.

The same steps should be taken to help secure Mexico’s northern border with this country. The U.S. should have sent national guard troops to the border long ago. Apparently the president is now moving in that direction. Also, the U.S. should send patrols by U.S. aircraft into Mexican airspace to target activity by cartels and smugglers.

The trouble with these steps is getting Mexico’s cooperation and that perceived difficulty, in my opinion, is because Mexico is still fighting the Mexican-American War, i.e., there is lingering great resentment towards the U.S. over how the war ended. Remember that in the Treaty of Gualdalupe-Hildago, signed in 1848, Mexico ceded to the U.S. huge amounts of territory which now comprise California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. But the threat of trade sanctions against Mexico would certainly get that country’s attention.

As concerns the illegals presently in the country, O’Reilly advocates having them register at the nearest post office within three months with name, address, and birth date. Failure to do so would be a felony, justifying deportation in and of itself if convicted by a special immigration court. Registration would result in the issuance of an ID card which would be used to apply for a work permit. Registrants unable to find work would be deported, as would be criminals, addicts, etc. Those desiring citizenship would have to get in line behind all others. Entitlements would be denied to illegal aliens although their children would be eligible to receive benefits. This is not amnesty but a vetting process. A hard working, honest individual should be able to find a place in this country but there is no guarantee.

Illegal immigration is a huge, complex issue and there are no easy answers. But these suggestions outlined here would be a productive start.

Copyright 2014. 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

Versailles 1919 – Planting The Seeds of Middle East Discontent

Recently I attended a luncheon which featured a university professor speaking on the current repercussions of the 1919 Paris peace accords. Notably absent from his comments was any reference to what effect the Versailles Treaty had on the Middle East, specifically, how this region was affected by the peace treaty drawn up by the victorious Allied Powers. This was a major omission, considering the ongoing chaos in Iraq and surrounding areas today.

I explained in a blog on June 13,2014, that the central feature of the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” depicted an army of arabs crossing the desert to attack the port town of Aquaba from the rear, completely taking the Turkish garrison stationed there by surprise. This army was led by Colonel T.E. Lawrence of British intelligence, portrayed brilliantly by the late Peter O’Toole.

The point to be remembered here is that the arabs had been promised a free and independent arab state by Great Britain and France, in return for their cooperation against Germany and the other central powers during the war. These promises were never kept and instead the vast arab lands once controlled by the Ottoman Empire were partitioned by Great Britain and France into what is today Iraq and Iran. A minority sect, the Kurds also petitioned for the establishment of their own country, Kurdistan, but this plea was also disregarded.

These promises are discussed at great length in Margaret MacMillan’s fine book, “Paris 1919,” especially in the chapter entitled “Arab Independence.” Much of the discontent existing in the region today can be traced to these broken promises.

If there is to be peace among the warring factions today there must be some form of representative government. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds must all be equally represented. This is the first issue, to get agreement on this point. Next is the question of how to implement this agreement. Also to be considered is the question of what countries are to be involved in the decision making. None of this can be achieved without a cease fire and some form of crisis conference to establish an interim government including an election date while all of the details are worked out.

Strong American leadership will also be required. This may be beyond the capabilities of the current president, Barack Obama, but the effort must be made. The idea must be imparted to the warring factions that all interests will be appeased in a representative government and that the current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not be supported by the U.S.

Copyright 2014. 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