The Next Looney Left Conspiracy Theory?

The AP is reporting that Russia knew in advanced about the chemical attack in Syria. Any bets on how long it will take for the looney Left to begin speculating that Trump also knew in advance? After all, he and Putin are BFFs, right?

Why Putin Would Prefer Trump

I'm not saying I believe the Russians affected the outcome of the 2016 election but if they did, why would they prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head. First, Trump would mean a strong America. One might be tempted to think a strong America is not in Russia's best interest but that would be a mistake. A weak America is actually a more dangerous America and a Clinton presidency would have certainly guaranteed a weaker America. A weak America invites challenges from provocateurs like Iran, North Korea, and ISIS. Additionally, perceived weakness on the part of the United States reduces our negotiating power which further increases the likelihood of conflict. Moreover, as an extension of the Obama Administration, a Clinton Administrative would have continued to fail to provide leadership on the world stage which would make it necessary for Russia to step in as it has had to do in Syria. Putin and the Russians know that a strong America makes everyone safer. There are other reasons why the Russians would prefer Trump over Hillary.

The second reason the Russians would have tried to influence our election in addition to insuring a stronger America providing real leadership in the world again is that Trump will be better for the economy. A strong American economy is essential to a healthy global economy. Obama and the Democrats have more than doubled our national debt, imposed anti-business regulations and legislation, and embarked on a wealth redistribution scheme that will sooner rather than later cripple our economy. Their zero sum game economic view sees America as the world robber baron rather than as a powerful economic engine driving a healthy global economy. Trump understands that America is the solution not the problem and unlike Hillary, he plans to work to fix the American economy rather than "manage its decline". A more healthy and vibrant US economy will lead to a better world economy by creating a "bigger pie" from which Russia stands to benefit. In addition to a stronger America with a stronger economy, there is one other reason Putin might have wanted Trump to win: it's better to deal with a pragmatist rather than an ideological zealot.

Hillary Clinton is a far left ideolog who, even when faced with mountains of evidence contrary to that ideology, is unable to adjust her positions to comport with a dynamic world. This leads to bad decisions like prematurely pulling out of Iraq, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Trump on the other hand appears to be pragmatic and willing to adjust his positions and courses of action in order to take advantage of changing situations. That is the mark of a successful businessman who makes good decisions. Bad American decisions are bad for Russia too.

It now seems pretty clear that the Russians did do some hacking during the 2016 election. What isn't clear is if those hacks affected the results in Trump's favor. Apparently what they did do was leak inside information from the DNC and the Clinton campaign that exposed their dirty tricks and their real opinion of the American voters. If that had an effect on the election, it was because it exposed the truth. What is also clear is the truth benefits everyone including both America and Russia. How can that be a bad thing?

Tillerson and the Order of Friendship

For those concerned about Putin and Tillerson being too close based on the fact that Putin gave Tillerson the Order of Friendship, I say relax. The Order of Friendship from Putin is like a Christmas card from your insurance agent. Don't read too much into it.

Spike (Putin) and Chester (Obama)

This old Warner Brothers cartoon reminds me of the relationship between Putin and Obama.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg

US-Russian Relations

In Defense of American Exceptionalism

The concept of American Exceptionalism is back in the news again and as usual it is creating a stir. For many non-Americans and especially Europeans, it raises hackles. "How dare those braggarts declare themselves superior. Those young upstarts!" While it is true, many of my fellow countrymen believe American Exceptionalism does mean that we are better than the rest of the world, they are mistaken just as are those citizens of other countries that view the phrase as a demonstration of Yankee conceit. Even President Obama got it wrong when he said in his speech outlining the case for attacking Syria,

“But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. ... That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional.” This was met with the following, rather ironic quote by Russian President Putin in a September 12, 2013 Op-Ed in the New York Times. Putin wrote:

"...I would rather disagree with a case he (President Obama) made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

It is easy to forgive Mr. Obama's mistake - after all, he is a relative newcomer when it comes to believing in American Exceptionalism. It was not too long ago when he declared that “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Putin's mistake, piggy-backing off of Obama's, is also understandable (though I find it strange to hear references to God, the Lord and democracy coming from a former Soviet KGB officer.) If Putin, Obama and so many others keep getting it wrong, then what is American Exceptionalism?

American Exceptionalism is the notion that the United States of America (not Americans themselves) is special; unique. Our Founding Fathers codified in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that the rights of man come from God and the rights of government come from the governed. This led to America’s unique ideology that, according to Seymour Martin Lipset (late political sociologist and recognized expert on the subject) is based upon the ideas of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez faire. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison et al didn't invent these ideas. They learned them from reading the writings of the great European philosophers John Locke, Adam Smith and Montesquieu among others and applying them. The result was a new country with an economic and political environment that allowed ordinary citizens from every corner of the world to come and create, achieve and prosper to levels that were impossible for them in their native lands. Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the exceptional nature of America is that a little boy, who only 150 years might have been consider someone else's property based on the color of his skin; essentially abandoned by his hippie mother and foreign Kenyan father, could grow up to become president. If that isn't exceptional, I don't know what is!

Putin Saves Obama's Political Bacon Over Syria

I don't know if President Obama has one or not but if he doesn't, I nominate Vladimir Putin for Obama's BFF after Vlad saved his political bacon this week over Syria. To say that Obama mismanaged the situation with Syria is a mistake because it suggests he tried to manage the situation with Syria. He did not. What happened was a series of missteps that has become the trademark of the Obama Administration - this inept team of amateurs. Fortunately for them and everyone else, it is often better to be lucky than to be good. Here is what I mean.

What started the sequence of events that had the Administration careening toward what appeared to be yet another blunder was President Obama's statement back in 2012 that if Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons that would be crossing a "red line." The off-handed and off-teleprompter remark placed the United States in the position of having to either take action against Syria or losing credibility when on August 21st of this year, someone (allegedly the Assad regime) fired rockets armed with chemical warheads into eleven neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs killing 1500 civilians - 400 of which were children. Over the next several days, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry tried to make the case for attacking Syria to let Assad know there are consequences to violating international law regarding the use of gas. Initially, Mr. Obama claimed he didn’t need the approval of Congress in order to strike Syria but as his efforts to build the support of the international community failed, he pivoted and said he would ask for Congressional approval. As the Administration tried to convince lawmakers and the American public that attacking Syria was in our national interest, the president began to receive criticism for “drawing the red line.” True to form, Mr. Obama denied drawing the red line and tried to blame everyone else - the world and Congress - despite the video of him clearly using the words “red line.” It was soon very apparent that this effort was also doomed to failure.

While answering the question, ‘Is there anything that Syria can do to avoid being attacked?’ during a CNN interview, Sec. Kerry made his own off-handed remark. Kerry flippantly replied, ‘Well of course they could give up all their chemical weapons within the week but that’s not going to happen.’ Kerry made this remark never dreaming anyone would take it seriously. However, when Russia and Syria indicated that they might be willing to discuss this proposal, he soon began backtracking and even the liberal press recognized this to be a major screw-up. With an address to the nation scheduled to take place within two days, things were looking pretty bleak for Team Barry. Suddenly it must have occurred to Obama and Company, that they had just been thrown a “life line.” What had initially been universally seen as a blunder was now being hailed by Kerry, Obama, and liberals everywhere as a great secret plan that had been weeks in the making. You know what they say, ‘Success has many parents; failure is an orphan.’ In his Tuesday night address, the president said he would delay asking for Congressional approval to strike Syria and that he would allow time to see if diplomacy might still lead to a peaceful solution. The president did however say that a military strike was not off the table if the weapons turnover proposal failed. President Obama was ‘off the hook.’

Since his speech, Mr. Obama and his administration have been patting themselves on the back for getting Russia to take the lead on Syria. Barack Obama has slipped comfortably back into his preferred leading from behind mode. In his new role as world leader, Mr. Putin wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times that chastised President Obama for his handling of the crisis in Syria and warned him not to take military action. Not fully recovered from having so narrowly dodged a bullet, Obama and the gang that can’t shoot straight hasn’t had time to realized that they should be humiliated.

There is a saying, “There are three kinds of people in the world: Those that make things happen; those that watch things happen and those who say, ‘What just happened?’ I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself which one is Obama; which one is Putin and which one is Kerry.