The “Future” Party

The funeral of Barbara Bush, the matriarch of a preeminent Republican family illuminates just how broken things are.  While former Presidents of both parties attended there was a notable no-show, the present Republican President Donald Trump.  Now sitting presidents don’t always go to first lady funerals, but who wouldn’t want to be seen paying his respects to “America’s Grandmother,” especially a publicity addict like Trump. He didn’t go simply because he wouldn’t  have been welcome.  Think about it.  The leader of the Republican Party wasn’t welcome at the funeral of the wife of one Republican president and the mother of another.  If this doesn’t alert the nation to a major split in one of our two major parties nothing will.  In fact, most of the Republican attendees must feel they no longer have a party.  Rolling over for the present President would mean surrendering their values.  According to recent polls, they are a minority in their party, with the President viewed favorably by at least 70-80% of Republicans.   As the Senator  from Arizona, Jeff Flake, found there is no  room for those old Goldwater-Reagan people in the present party.

A move to the other major party offers no welcoming home either.  If you’re a free market Republican strongly favoring trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific  Partnership (TPP) you might find kindred souls among the Democrats. After all, it was negotiated by the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration.  Surely on this issue at least these Republicans could join with Democrats.   This would be way off base.  To placate the dominant progressive wing of that party, Clinton simply ran away from her own handiwork.  Bernie Sanders and the progressives didn’t want any part of TPP so she caved.  Odd, the dominant Trump wing of the Republicans had exactly the same position on TPP as the dominant progressive wing of the Democrats. On closer inspection this isn’t odd at all .  On major issues these supposed blood rivals are in basic agreement or have symbiotic relationship. Continue reading


If the Russian situation isn’t enough to keep you up at night, our “policy” in the Far East should do the job.  North Korea threatens us with nuclear tipped missiles it hasn’t quite perfected  and we agree to a summit that can do nothing but enhance the prestige of that country’s dictator.  We are counting on China. to apply pressure on the  North Korean Dictator Kim to give up his Nuclear weapon systems, at the same time we are on the verge of a trade war with them over their predatory trade policies. Seems China is in a fortuitous of position to get a pass on trade if they help us on North Korea.  How did China get in this position and we ended up on the horns of the dilemma?

Now, North Korea is a Chinese Satellite much the same as Belarus is to Russia.  Both look to their masters before taking any action. What if Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko was determined to undertake a nuclear program to threaten its NATO neighbors especially Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Would our President meet with him to get him to give up his program? Of course Putin would  offer to mediate the problem if we would remove our sanctions on Russia for his good offices. One would like to think we wouldn’t fall for this and would properly hold the puppet master Putin responsible . and go right after him.

Yet this is the same as our East Asia Dilemma. If Kim didn’t know his master he wouldn’t have been on the next train to Beijing when Xi whistled. Don’t be fooled with the reports China has been taken aback by North Korean actions.  If China didn’t want North Korea to have Nuclear missiles it would never happen. Kim would get the message and stop the program or he would be gone and someone more obedient would take his place  After all China is the only country providing anything of value to North Korea. There would be no collapse sending millions of starving Koreans into China, just a quiet military coup.  Those that have profited so handsomely from  North Korean Stalinism only have to be assured of their positions with the new boss. So why doesn’t China make the move?  Simply because this situation serves China’s purpose.  Think about it. China threatens major trade routes counter to our and our allies interests. They steal our and other’s intellectual property along with other unfair trade practices.  Without the North Korean situation, we would be taking a much more adversarial attitude towards China. Yes we’ve threatened put on some tariffs but those will probably go in payment for any help China gives in halting the North Korean Nuclear program.  You just can’t punish someone when you’re simultaneously begging for their help.  China has us just where they want us.

Continue reading

A State of Confusion

With the seemingly endless amount of news tumbling out of the administration orbit, it’s hard to keep things straight.  This could be because we seem to be headed in two directions at once on so many things.  A terror nerve gas attack takes place in the United Kingdom that is traced back to Putin’s Russia.  While officially we backed our NATO ally , our President called Putin to congratulate him on his re-election that virtually everyone saw as rigged.  Trump never even mentioned the attack to Putin.  When pressed, the administration fell back on the old saw “we need good relations with Russia.”  Surely the leader of our close ally Theresa May wasn’t amused. While his administration takes some actions against Russia, Trump himself refuses to take Putin to task.  Down deep, what is our real policy towards Russian aggression?  Our allies must be wondering, especially, those on the front lines.  Of course, when you threaten your allies with stiff tariffs at the same time we’re telling them you’re with them all the way you can understand their confusion. Wars often start with miscalculations, think August 1914.

The recently passed Omnibus Spending  Bill tossed the idea controlling our national debt out the window.  The credit people at Moody’s and economists from all sides warn this irresponsibility can’t go on forever. Some small government  and/or fiscally conservative Republicans were appalled and even the President threatened to veto it at the last-minute. Trump caved, saying he had to sign in order to get desperately needed money for our military.  So what do hear now? He wants to take money from the military to build his wall.  With estimated to cost over $25 billion that’s quite a few planes , tanks and ships. Maybe we didn’t need these after all.  Is the military budget there to protect us or is it a Presidential slush fund?

Continue reading