Senate must vote- Judge Garland is qualified and can be seated

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that Judge Merrick Garland would likely pass if a Senate vote is held to confirm his nomination by President Obama. Interesting perspective and analysis provided by Jordan Ragusa.

If the Senate allowed a Merrick Garland vote, he might pass

In fact, a basic data analysis suggests that 60 senators might support Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Perhaps more interesting, though, is how much has changed since he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.  By Jordan Ragusa

Jordan Ragusa PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the College of Charleston

President Obama appointed Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa have said that Judge Garland will not receive a vote in the current Congress. (Since this outrageous public abdication of their Constitutional duty, Article II Sec. 2 of the Constitution, Senator Grassley has since indicated he may meet with Judge Garland.)

Despite the statements of the two senators, one of the reasons Mr. Obama selected Garland is the fact that he is relatively moderate, as indicated by this Monkey Cage post, and was thus approved by the Senate in 1997 by a vote of 76 to 23. 

Notably, Garland was appointed to the D.C. Circuit in that year by a Republican controlled Senate, receiving the support of a majority of Senate Republicans (32 to 23).

On the surface, this would seem to bode well for Garland’s chances of making it to the Supreme Court despite obstructionist claims. However, much has changed since 1997.

In this context (and many like it) the biggest change since 1997 is the increase in ideological polarization in Congress. 

Countless studies have documented that Democrats and Republicans have drifted further apart over the past three decades. My work on this topic argues that a major reason for the Senate’s polarization has been the increase in the number of senators who first served in the (more polarized) House of Representatives. (Reported in American Politics Research: "Why does the House have a polarizing effect on its members that seems to persist even after a representative wins election to the Senate?"

A straightforward analysis can help us adjudicate between these competing expectations about Garland’s likelihood of being confirmed (and crudely estimate how many votes he might receive). Although this analysis has a number of limitations, it can give a rough sense of what to expect.

A simple logit model of the 1997 vote to confirm Garland to the D.C. Circuit data came from Keith Poole’s Vote View website. 

As a matter of fact, the model includes just two variables: (1) a senator’s ideology and (2) whether that senator is from the South. Although this is a very simple model, for sure, it performs well, correctly predicting 88 percent of the "yeas" and "nays" in 1997.

Based on that model’s predictive estimates, what would happen in the current Senate? Data on the ideology of senators in the 114th Congress also came from Poole’s Vote View website.

Figures 1 and 2 below present a senator’s predicted probability of voting for Garland (on the y-axis) by their ideology (on the x-axis). Liberals are on the left, conservatives on the right. Figure 1 is for the actual vote for Garland in 1997 (105th Congress) and Figure 2 is for the simulated vote in the current Congress (114th Congress). Democrats are in blue and Republicans are in Red.

In the current Congress, the model estimates that 60 senators would vote for Garland and 40 would vote against his confirmation. Looking at the figure, 60 senators are above the 50 percent threshold (more likely to vote for Garland than against) and 40 senators are below the 50 percent threshold.

All Democrats are predicted for Garland as are 14 Republicans. The predicted Republican yes votes are: Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, John McCain of Arizona, John Hoeven North Dakota, Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine.

While this prediction may seem surprising, given what we know about party polarization, the two figures reveal how the Republican Party’s shift to the right changed the landscape of Senate confirmations. Indeed, if just 14 Republicans vote for Garland that would represent a net decrease of 18 Republican votes from 20 years ago.

In the first figure above we can see how in the 105th Congress, a number of moderate Republicans have high probabilities of voting for Garland according to the model (and indeed, moderate Republicans did vote for Garland in 1997). But as new, more extreme, senators replaced these moderates, the individual probabilities of a “yes” vote drop well below 50 percent line.

Although this is a crude analysis, it assumes that ideology and region alone shape how a senator votes on confirmations. 

Of course, there are electoral and strategic reasons why a senator would vote for or against a president’s Supreme Court nominee. In addition, an excellent Monkey Cage post by Kastellac, Lax, and Phillips discusses how public opinion in a senator’s state is a key piece of the puzzle.

At the minimum, however, the analysis gives a sense of what a vote on Garland’s nomination might look like and how the landscape of Senate confirmations has been shaped by ideological polarization. Of course, there’s a good chance we will never know if this prediction is right or wrong.

Jordan Ragusa publishes his Rule 22 blog

(Maine Writer post script - The Senate is wise to approve the Judge Garland nomination because he is considered to be politically moderate. Otherwise, to ignore the nomination will put the Court in the position of becoming more liberal, if a Democrat wins the presidency in November 2016, an increasingly likely probability.)

Islamic "Califate" ISIS is loosing its people in Raqqa

“Anyone against them (ISIS) is an infidel. For IS, beheading someone is as simple and easy as saying hello.”

ISIS might be successful recruiting fighters, but the people they're terrorizing, many of them faithful to Islam, are finding ways to escape.When possible, they're learving as fast as possible.  

Obviously, it's extremely dangerous for independent journalism to verify what's going on behind the dark robes and propaganda inside the self declared Islamic State (aka ISIS). Nevertheless, from refugee reports out of Syria, the ISIS hold over certain territories is terrifying people, who are escaping. Reports tell about life being unbearable and getting worse. Why? Because the people are in a dangerous political vice. Bombings against ISIS have terrorized the people while the self declared "califate" continues to preach draconian rhetoric. In my opinion, the resulting humanitarian crisis won't be resolved in our lifetime, because generations of people are traumatized causing millions of them to live as refugees.

Imagine the plight! Terrified people are fleeing Syria and ISIS. They're leaving their homeland, where their ancestors lived for thousands of years, because of turmoil caused by religious extremism and the horrorible reign of terror led by Syria's President al-Assad. Worse, when allies, who were supposed to protect this horror from worsening, suddenly got "cold feet", rather than respond to the crisis, the humanitarian disaster quickly caused the suffocation of resources of nearly every refugee assistance program available to offer international aid. Now, European nations are being stressed to meet the needs of the desperate refugees, because so many of them are seeking asylum in Germany and Scandanavia.

By the way, what is a "caliphate"?

A caliphate is the traditional Islamic form of government, presided over by a caliph, either appointed or elected, who is considered the political leader of all. ISIS is a self declared "caliphate".

One particular caliphate flag designed in 1939
Ahmadiyya Caliphate (1908-present)

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

By Dominique Soguel, Correspondent

Islamic State: Why family fled capital of the caliphate for 'land of infidels'

ISTANBUL, TURKEY — The sermon’s thundering reproach hit on what residents of Raqqa, Syria, capital of the Islamic State’s self-described caliphate, say is a recurring theme at Friday prayers: “migration.”

“Don’t you know the dangers endured and the price our holy warriors pay to come here, the heart of the caliphate? And you? You want to go the land of infidels,” the IS preacher said, according to six Syrian siblings who fled in January.

It was the last sermon they heard, say the siblings, who made their way to Turkey with the help of a complex chain of smugglers.

“IS picks up on the chatter on the street so they know people want to leave the ‘land of Islam’ for the ‘land of infidels,’” says the eldest, Hamza.

Leaving Raqqa is increasingly difficult and expensive, but many Syrians are still making the journey to Turkey. They're tired of the jihadists’ draconian decrees, but also of rising prices and a life under constant bombing, which has made life difficult even for those who have preferred IS rule to that of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Of course, they know people are leaving IS areas,” says Hamza, a 28-year-old construction worker now working as a tailor in the outskirts of Istanbul. “They are lining their pockets with commissions from the smugglers.”

But Qayss, his brother, who still sports a longish beard in line with the dictates of the terrorist group, interjects, furious at the hint of IS corruption.

“As long as you respect their boundaries, their presence is better than the alternative, definitely better than the regime,” he says, sullenly. “Most IS members wouldn’t dare steal or take bribes, if not out of fear of God, out of fear of their commanders.”
The bottom line

The brothers – who requested to use pseudonyms for their safety – run the spectrum of views when it comes to IS. Hamza is the most critical of the group. Adnan says he started to hate them after a foreign jihadi fighter pulled a gun on him to get ahead in a ridiculously short bakery line.

Like a meticulous accountant, Amer weighs the perceived positives, which includes the closure of brothels and the reintroduction of Islamic dress and prayer, against all the negatives. The youngest, Qayss and Omar, still view them kindly.

But they all concur, that life in Al-Raqqah was untenable. In the end, they say, the arbitrary airstrikes of Syrian and Russian forces, coupled with inflation and lack of jobs, spurred them to leave.

“When IS first came, 80 percent of the population was happy, 20 percent was not,” says Amer. “Now it is the opposite because of the excessive pressure they put on the population.
For their sister, a reprieve

“In the beginning everyone could go anywhere, even women as long as they had a male escort,” he says. “Today even men aren’t allowed to leave IS territory except under very special circumstances, such as seeking medical treatment.”

The brothers say they stayed in Raqqa as long as they did largely because their father was sick with lymphoma and wanted to die in his land, which he did in December. He received treatment in regime-controlled areas, but all the back and forth, coupled with medical care for Qayss after he got into a serious car accident, dried up their savings.

They spent the last of their money on smugglers and are now trying to work to save up and make the journey to Europe, although it would mean being further away from their mother and another brother who decided to stay put in Raqqa.

Their sister, Hanan, is the happiest in Turkey. Failure to observe proper attire in Raqqa earned her a fine of 4,000 Syrian pounds as well as 30 lashes for the brother who came to collect her. Going to the market to get fruits and vegetables is once again a pleasure, as is again being able to access Internet and watch satellite TV.

“As a fully veiled woman in Raqqa, you can’t even see where you are going,” she says, relaxing at home in leopard pajamas. “IS will pick on you for anything, plus you are in a state of constant fear of being bombed.”

Skyrocketing inflation
The prices of fruit and vegetables, the family says, witnessed a five-fold increase because prices are pegged to the dollar and IS insists certain fines be paid in gold. When they left, a gallon of cooking gas was selling to IS members for 1,100 Syrian pounds, or $3, whereas Syrians were paying at least six times as much on the black market.

By late January, gasoline cost 650 Syrian pounds per liter; diesel fuel costs 150 pounds per liter, while a gallon of cooking gas had reached 10,000 Syrian pounds, according to a resident still living there.

Leaving Raqqa has also become prohibitively expensive. The journey to Turkey used to cost 15,000 Syrian pounds, including the fee for the cross-border smuggler. Now, a minimum of six smugglers might be involved in the journey from IS areas to Syrian regions controlled by Arab or Kurdish rebels and onward to Turkey.

In the siblings’ case, the journey added up to 125,000 Syrian pounds per person – $325 or the equivalent of at least three months of construction work.

To reach Turkey the family first journeyed to Manbij, an IS-controlled town in the northern province of Aleppo, hid in a chicken coop overnight, and then hiked seven kilometers to the nearest checkpoints held by rebels linked to the opposition Free Syrian Army.

Can Raqqa be liberated?

“The first person in the smuggling chain doesn’t know the last,” explains Adnan. “At every stage the smuggler is a local who advises you where to say you are going at checkpoints to sound credible.”

For others the journey can drag out longer. For the family of Abu Zahra, natives of a small village in Raqqa Province, the journey to Turkey took 16 days. Abu Zahra says he decided to leave IS-controlled territory because two militants had set eyes on his 20- and 18 year-old daughters and he worried that his son would be conscripted to fight with the group, which some of his own relatives have joined already.

“When my cousin gave birth in Raqqa, IS fighters were thrilled because they had a new “mujahid,” or holy warrior, he recalls. “The Syrian people are caught between two fires: the regime and IS. If the regime of Bashar al-Assad fell, I am certain people would have the courage to kick them out.”

That’s a scenario that Hamza and his brothers simply rule out. The fall of the IS-controlled city of Ramadi in Iraq coupled with the proximity of Kurdish factions to the self-styled capital of the caliphate may have raised hopes that the “liberation of Raqqa” is feasible, but people there are too terrified and oppressed to revolt.

“If conditions continue to worsen there is a small chance that people will rise up, but it is truly tiny because everyone is terrified,” says Adnan. “Anyone against them is an infidel. For IS, beheading someone is as simple and easy as saying hello.”

Correspondant Dominique Soguel deserves high marks in journalism for this refugee report. Unfortunately, the ISIS caliphate makes independent reporting too dangerous to verify the horror he described in The Christian Science Monitor article.

Russia's corruption is cultural - said my Ukranian father

"...Szubin's accusation is thought to be the first time that a 

representative of the US government has made such direct accusations.}

Russian President Vladimir Putin is corrupt, according to a US Treasury official’s comments Monday to the BBC.  In fact, the country as a whole needs to do a better job of tackling corruption at all levels, President Putin in turn told his cabinet Tuesday.

Vladimir Putin inherited a culture of corruption that certainly existed even before Stalin and earlier.

Russia has long been plagued by allegations of corruption, but how much of a problem is it, and how does Russia compare with other countries? (How old is Russia? Corruption has existed that long.)"How Corrupt is Russia",  is reported in the Christian Science Monitor. Although I'm certainly not academically trained in Russian culture, I can write from the perspective of being the daughter of a Ukranian. In other words, my opinion is that corruption in Russia is cultural. Vladimir Putin might be calling for an end to Russian corruption, but he's whistling past the graveyard.

Russians live in a culture of bribery, kickbacks and black marketing.  How do I know this?  Honestly, it's knowledge passed on to me from father to daughter. What's different between the corruption in Russia today and how it was in 1908, when my father was born, is just more access to black markets and bribery. Okay, the knowledge I  have about corruption in Russia is learned by oral history. Therefore, in m opinion, it's accurate.  

How corrupt is Russia?
Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused by the US Treasury of being corrupt. Although Putin has been encouraging his cabinet to work harder against corruption. Is there any way of knowing where the corruption lies? (In my opinion, Russia's corruption is endemic in the culture.)

President Putin of Russia is now labeled as being "corrupt" if he's worth 40 billion then it's hard to understand where he's stashing his wealth.  I suspect Putin visits Switzerland frequently, just my opinion.

Allegations against Putin emerged as Adam Szubin, in charge of US Treasury sanctions, told the BBC’s Panorama program that the US government had regarded the Russian president as corrupt for “many, many years.”

"(Putin) supposedly draws a state salary of something like $110,000 a year. That is not an accurate statement of the man's wealth, and he has long time training and practices in terms of how to mask his actual wealth,” said Mr. Szubin.

In fact, Szubin's accusation is thought to be the first time that a representative of the US government has made such direct accusations.

"We've seen [Mr Putin] enriching his friends, his close allies, and marginalising those who he doesn't view as friends using state assets,” said Mr Szubin. "To me, that is a picture of corruption."

A 2007, CIA report estimated Putin's wealth at $40 billion.

When the BBC asked Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov to comment, he said, “None of these questions or issues need to be answered, as they are pure fiction,” reported The Moscow Times.

Mr. Peskov then demanded Tuesday that the US Treasury’s accusations be proven, because “the voicing of such accusations by such agencies as the U.S. Treasury without actual evidence casts a shadow on this very agency.”

Sputnik News, a media organization that describes itself as pointing “the way to a multipolar world that respects every country’s national interests, culture, history and traditions,” described the US Treasury’s comments as “groundless slurs against Putin.”

As for Putin himself, he had this to say in 2008 regarding claims he was Europe’s wealthiest man: “It's simply rubbish. They just picked all of it out of someone's nose and smeared it across their little papers.”

Yet amid this international furor over Putin’s personal conduct, the President continues to chair cabinet meetings in which he demands that “the country’s law enforcement bodies need to work more effectively to recover assets stolen from government coffers.”

“We have adopted a number of anti-corruption measures and introduced mechanisms that help expose corruption schemes at any level, work with a purpose and react in a timely fashion, and sometimes even isolate those involved in corruption from society,” Putin said in a meeting Tuesday, according to the Kremlin.

Where to turn, in the face of such conflicting assessments?

One possibility is the non-profit, non-governmental organization Transparency International, which aims to give “voice to the victims and witnesses of corruption” and “work together with governments, businesses and citizens to stop the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals.”

Each year, they rank countries of the world according to a “Corruption Perceptions Index,” based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be according to “expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions.”

Russia comes in at 136 out of 175 countries according to figures for 2014, the latest available. This puts it below countries including Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, and China.

[Updated Jan. 27th: According to Transparency International's 2015 index, released shortly after this story was published, Russia now ties at 119 out of 168 countries, alongside Azerbaijan, Guyana and Sierra Leone]

Of 28 countries analyzed in Transparency International’s latest Bribe Payers Index (2011), which “ranks the world’s wealthiest and most economically influential countries according to the likelihood of their firms to bribe abroad,” Russia was placed 28th.

Of corse, Putin says he belives in the rule of law. In fact, The Christian Science Monitor says, "To give the last word to Russia's president himself, writing in a New York Times opinion page in 2013: "The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not."  Obviously, Putin is projecting his belief in the law on to others. He is unquestionably knitted into Russia's corrupt culture. Although my father died long ago, he would see right through President Putin's facade. 

My father would say, in his experience, all Russian politicans are corrupt.

Donald Trump is dangerous: Stop this insane campaign

"Addressing Trump’s controversial past statements about women, Baker writes, 'Houston, we have a problem'.”- The Washington Post reports quote from Ward Baker, NSRC (National Republican Senatorial Committee).

First They Came ...

Republicans better figure out what to do about Donald Trump- and fast. Maine Writer was having lunch with staunch Republicans who are devoutly religious, when I learned there is no support for his candidacy.  

I don't know who among Republicans are keeping Donald Trump's poll numbers ahead of the GOP line up, but it isn't the Christian community.

My friends are harbingers of how the Christian community perceives his candidacy. If Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, based on my friends response to his potential candidacy, it will literally tank the entire GOP.  

What can the GOP do in the face of the Trumponian lunatic candidate? Obviously, Donald Trump the Chump's candidacy is a classic example of "what goes aroudn come around". Republicans have spewed right wing rhetoric for so long that they've created a bona fide ideological monster.

Unbelievably, the incendiary presidential campaign of Donald Trump the Chump is calling for a moratirium of all Muslims in America and, therefore, the entire world.

It's impossible to understand how Americans, who've been the beacons of liberty for the world, have somehow become victimized by the Islamic fear, and paranoia spewed by Donald Trump and echoed by many "stupid party" Republican colleagues.

Americans must remember the terrible lessons learned from the experience of Nazi Germany:

First They Came..for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

"First they came ..." is a famous statement and provocative poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.

Yet, rather than stand up to Trumponianism, the Republicans are now trying to adopt his caustic style.

Article by Robert Costa and Philip Rucker report in The Washington Post

Donald Trump is now such a force in the Republican Party that the official overseeing next year’s Senate races has proposed a delicate strategy for GOP candidates: Tap into Trumpism without mimicking Trump.

In a seven-page confidential memo that imagines Trump as the party’s presidential nominee, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee urges candidates to adopt many of Trump’s tactics, issues and approaches — right down to adjusting the way they dress and how they use Twitter.

In the memo on “the Trump phenomenon,” NRSC Executive Director Ward Baker said Republicans should embrace Trump’s tough talk about China and “grab onto the best elements of [his] anti-Washington populist agenda.” Above all, they should appeal to voters as genuine and beyond the influence of special interests.

“Trump has risen because voters see him as authentic, independent, direct, firm, — and believe he can’t be bought,” Baker writes. “These are the same character traits our candidates should be advancing in 2016. That’s Trump lesson #1.”

Baker’s memo, titled “Observations on Donald Trump and 2016,” amounts to a clear-eyed approach to the Trump challenge, to which many Republican elites have responded with only hand-wringing and the vague hope that somehow, someday it will disappear. In fact, the memo posits that Trump could build a powerful enough coalition to win the general election. Regardless of how far Trump’s candidacy ultimately goes, the memo is evidence of the effect he has had on his party.

Still, Baker sees limits to being like Trump. He writes that it is prudent for Senate candidates to craft their own political brands distinct from Trump’s and to distance themselves by quickly condemning his more controversial comments, such as “wacky things about women.” He cautions candidates against “piling on” Trump, however, warning that Republicans up and down the ballot would suffer if the GOP vote was divided or depressed.

Implied in the memo is an understanding that the national party would back Trump if he secured the nomination — managing his candidacy rather than disowning him as the standard-bearer.

The memo was dated Sept. 22 and addressed to NRSC senior staff members, but it since has been shared more widely and has become the subject of considerable discussion at the highest levels of the party in recent weeks as Trump continues to lead polls in early-voting states and nationally.

The document was shared with The Washington Post by a high-ranking Republican who did so on the condition of anonymity because it was not intended to be made public. Its authenticity was confirmed by a second top GOP official.

Trump is not the only candidate who has attracted Baker’s attention. The NRSC confirmed Wednesday that it has similar strategy memos about the possible nominations of other presidential candidates.

In a statement, NRSC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek said, “It would be malpractice for the Senatorial committee not to prepare our candidates for every possible Republican and Democrat nominee and election scenario.”

Baker begins his memo by foreshadowing Trump accepting the party’s nomination at the Republican National Convention in July in Cleveland. He draws a historical comparison to Wendell Willkie, a businessman and political outsider who won the GOP nomination in 1940, but lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who secured his third term.

Baker writes that Republicans must “understand the changing environment and recalibrate now.” For instance, he writes, “Trump is saying that the Emperor has no clothes and he challenges our politically correct times. Our candidates shouldn’t miss this point.”

(Maine Writer- Seems like Baker would rather see Republicans become ideological followers rather than inspirational leaders.)

Baker explains how Trump has connected with voters, especially when it comes to trade with China and immigration. “Trump will continue to advance those messages, but you don’t have to go along with his more extreme positioning,” Baker writes. “Instead, you should stake out turf in the same issue zone and offer your own ideas.”

Addressing Trump’s controversial past statements about women, Baker writes, “Houston, we have a problem.”

“Candidates shouldn’t go near this ground other than to say that your wife or daughter is offended by what Trump said,” Baker adds. “We do not want to re-engage the ‘war on women’ fight.”

Although some of Baker’s recommendations are unique to the current environment, many are standard tactics employed in campaigns past, such as show­casing “citizen narrators” or talking about “basic solutions” to policy problems to make candidates appear as accessible as Trump. This shows the conundrum the GOP is in: In grappling with Trump, it does not have many new tools at its disposal.

Time and again, Baker frames a future with Trump atop the ticket as an intense high-wire act for other Republicans. He calls Trump “a misguided missile” and says he “is subject to farcical fits.” With grim candor, Baker writes that he foresees a campaign year in which candidates repeatedly will have to fend off questions from reporters about the businessman’s comments and behavior.

“It is certain that all GOP candidates will be tied in some way to our nominee,but we need not be tied to him so closely that we have to engage in permanent cleanup or distancing maneuvers,” Baker writes, adding, “Don’t get drawn into every Trump statement and every Trump dust-up.”

Republicans, who hold a slim majority in the Senate, will be defending 24 seats next year, including in presidential battleground states where Democrats are mounting strong challenges. The most endangered GOP incumbents include Sens. Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.).

The task of protecting the majority has fallen to Baker, a retired Marine and Tennessee native. He was credited with many successes from the 2014 Senate campaigns and is close to such establishment fixtures as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

For months, veteran Republicans have been increasingly alarmed about the possibility of a Trump nomination. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is up for reelection in 2016, acknowledged the anxiety Wednesday.

“Of course I worry. All of us have to worry about the viability of the top of the ticket,” McCain told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

McCain made an analogy to Barry Goldwater, a fellow Arizona senator who rallied the conservative grass roots to win the 1964 GOP nomination but lost in a landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson. 

“I think obviously we all know in history that when you have a weak top of the ticket, that has significant impact,” McCain said.
In his memo, Baker says Republicans should understand that Trump is riding a “reformist wave” sweeping the party’s ranks. It is partly ideological, he writes, but also driven by personality and aesthetics. He suggests that Senate incumbents and challengers should cast themselves as reformers.

Envisioning potential advertisements, Baker writes, “Feature candidates working on an old engine and note how sometimes you have to do a complete overhaul to get things working. Consider featuring a candidate in a field ripping up a rotten tree stump so the field can be cleared and planting can be done.”

Baker encourages campaigns to “up the vibe and change the look.”

“Voters are on to you when you do the standard walk and talk through a business, school, or factory,” he writes. He adds that candidates should “lose the suit and visit people in their homes and places of work.”

Baker also takes cues from Trump’s prolific use of social media to drive his message. “Promote tweets that push reforms or condemn Washington’s dysfunction,” he writes.

He warns against being distracted by Trump. “The Trump show may be going on, but back home our families are in a fight for their livelihoods,” he writes. “Always bring the campaign back home to real people and their daily struggle.”

Baker concludes the memo with a section titled, “Covering the Trump Bet,” which seems to throw cold water on the conventional wisdom that Trump will eventually fade.

“Trump has been gaining Democrat adherents and he’s solidifying GOP cohorts who feel they’ve been totally ignored by the Washington Ruling Class,” Baker writes. “If the environment aligns properly, Trump could win. It’s not a bet most would place now, but it could happen.”

Republicans should stop ringing their hands about Donald Trump and his Trumponian bigotry against anybody who he doesn't happen to like.  Moreover, Americans must wake up from this political nightmare and demand for the Grand Old Party to replace Trump the Chump, with a presidential worthy candidate.  

Holocaust education - leadership against Nazis recognized

Unfortunately the world continues to need education about the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Historic short term memory loss allows for people to either reinvent the murder of 6 million Jews before and during World War II, or for some others to clearly deny it ever happened. That's why this article in the Christian Science Monitor is important.

Holocaust hero: US soldier told Nazi captors 'We are all Jews'

Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds

To protect Jewish captives at a Nazi POW camp, US Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds ordered more than 1,000 Americans captives to step forward with him and pronounced: "We are all Jews here."

By Aron Heller, Associated Press

JERUSALEM — The Nazi soldiers made their orders very clear: Jewish American prisoners of war were to be separated from their fellow brothers in arms and sent to an uncertain fate.

But Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds would have none of that. As the highest-ranking noncommissioned officer held in the German POW camp, he ordered more than 1,000 Americans captives to step forward with him and brazenly pronounced: "We are all Jews here."

He would not waver, even with a pistol to his head, and his captors eventually backed down.

Seventy years later, the Knoxville, Tennessee, native is being posthumously recognized with Israel's highest honor for non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during World War II. He's the first American serviceman to earn the honor.

"Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds seemed like an ordinary American soldier, but he had an extraordinary sense of responsibility and dedication to his fellow human beings," said Avner Shalev, chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum and memorial. "The choices and actions of Master Sgt. Edmonds set an example for his fellow American soldiers as they stood united against the barbaric evil of the Nazis."

It's a story that remained untold for decades and one that his son, the Rev. Chris Edmonds, only discovered long after his father's death in 1985.

Edmonds was captured with thousands of others in the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, and spent 100 days in captivity. His son vaguely knew about his father's past from a pair of diaries Edmonds kept in captivity that included the names and addresses of his men and some of his daily thoughts.

But it was only while scouring the Internet a few years ago that he began to unravel the true drama that had unfolded — oddly enough, when he read a newspaper article about Richard Nixon's post-presidency search for a New York home. 

As it happened, Nixon purchased his exclusive upper East Side town house from Lester Tanner, a prominent New York lawyer who mentioned in passing how Edmonds had saved him and dozens of other Jews during the war.

As a G.I. in World War II, Mr. Tanner had been taken prisoner by the Germans and was being held in the Ziegenhein stalag in January 1945, when the Nazi commandant demanded at gunpoint to know which of the American soldiers were Jews. 

As. Mr. Tanner recalled it, their brave officer, Master Sgt. Roddie Edmonds, defied the camp commander, saying the Geneva Convention forbade the request, and Mr. Tanner and his fellow prisoners were spared, to be liberated shortly afterward.

That sparked a search for Tanner, who along with another Jewish POW, Paul Stern, told the younger Edmonds what they witnessed on Jan. 27, 1945, at the Stalag IXA POW camp near Ziegenhain, Germany.

The Wehrmacht had a strict anti-Jew policy and segregated Jewish POWs from non-Jews. On the eastern front, captured Jewish soldiers in the Russian army had been sent to extermination camps.

At the time of Edmonds' capture, the most infamous Nazi death camps were no longer fully operational, so Jewish American POWs were instead sent to slave labor camps where their chances of survival were low. U.S. soldiers had been warned that Jewish fighters among them would be in danger if captured and were told to destroy dog tags or any other evidence identifying them as Jewish.

So when the German camp commander, speaking in English, ordered the Jews to identify themselves, Edmonds knew what was at stake.

Turning to the rest of the POWs, he said: "We are not doing that, we are all falling out," recalled Chris Edmonds, who is currently in Israel participating in a seminar for Christian leaders at Yad Vashem's International School for Holocaust Studies.

With all the camp's inmates defiantly standing in front of their barracks, the German commander turned to Edmonds and said: "They cannot all be Jews." To which Edmonds replied: "We are all Jews here."

Then the Nazi officer pressed his pistol to Edmonds head and offered him one last chance. Edmonds merely gave him his name, rank and serial number as required by the Geneva Conventions.

"And then my dad said: 'If you are going to shoot, you are going to have to shoot all of us because we know who you are and you'll be tried for war crimes when we win this war,'" recalled Chris Edmonds, who estimates his father's actions saved the lives of more than 200 Jewish-American soldiers.

Witnesses to the exchange said the German officer then withdrew. Stern, who currently lives in Reston, Virginia, told Yad Vashem that even 70 years later he can "still hear the words."

About 6 million European Jews were killed by German Nazis and their collaborators during World War II. The names of those honored for risking their lives to protect Jews are engraved along an avenue of trees at the Jerusalem memorial.

More than 26,000 have been designated "Righteous Among the Nations," the most famous being Oskar Schindler, whose efforts to save more than 1,000 Jews were documented in Steven Spielberg's 1993 film "Schindler's List," and Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who is credited for having saved at least 20,000 Jews before mysteriously disappearing.

But prior to Edmonds, only four were Americans, who belonged to the clergy or volunteered for rescue groups. He's the first serviceman and the first whose actions saved the lives of fellow Americans. A ceremony for Edmonds is planned next year. And, thanks to his son's efforts, Edmonds is now also being considered for a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Irena Steinfeldt, the director of the Holocaust memorial's Righteous Among the Nations department, said all rescue stories were unique. She said Edmonds actions were reflective of those of a military man, who was prepared to take a quick, clear, moral decision.

"It's a matter of five minutes and that is it. When he tells the German, 'No,' that is something that can kill him," she explained. "It is something very dangerous that is happening in one moment. ... But it is very heroic."

Chris Edmonds, who leads a Baptist congregation in Maryville, Tennessee, said he believed his father had a "deep moral conviction" instilled in his faith that inspired his actions.

"All he had to fight with was his will power and his wits," he said. "I'm just glad he did the right thing."

____

Russia can't save Assad - Americans must keep up pressure to save Syria

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can't hold out forever.  
Looks like Russians can't prop him up for much longer.

Even if Assad is forced to negotiate a compromise cease fire to finally end the killing, the fact is, the millions of refugees living in camps, as a result of Assad's war, will petition for reparations.

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting (meanwhile, main stream US media isn't reporting this story, yet, thanks CSM)

:
Can Syria's Assad withstand latest battlefield setbacks?

A sudden uptick in coordination among Assad's regional rivals and signs of discord in his own ranks are raising anew the question of whether he will be forced to compromise to stay in power.

BEIRUT, LEBANON — Having clung to power for four years amid an armed uprising, the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is being buffeted by a series of battlefield setbacks that could place fresh strains on its internal cohesion.

While there are no indications yet that Mr. Assad plans to drop his hard-line strategy against the armed opposition, a recent flurry of reports of suspicious deaths and disappearances point to possible tensions developing within the regime.

If the trend of rebel successes continues – placing ever more pressure on an already exhausted and overstretched Syrian Army – those reported internal stresses might squeeze the regime into finally considering a negotiated settlement, some observers say.

The calculation, says Robert Ford, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington and US ambassador to Syria between 2010 and 2014, is a matter of cutting losses and holding on to a core region that supports the regime.

“The progression of events will lead over … a period of months to different elements in the regime beginning to calculate whether or not it makes sense to continue being ground down or to begin to negotiate some kind of deal in the regime’s favor while they still have some relative advantages in terms of holding some populated areas and air power,” Mr. Ford says.

In the past month, rebel factions – fueled in part by the stepped-up coordination and support of Assad’s regional rivals – have won a string of victories, seizing the ancient town of Bosra ash-Sham in southern Syria, capturing the long-sought prize of Idlib, a provincial capital in the north, and then grabbing the Nasib border post, the last functioning crossing on the Syria-Jordan border. Furthermore, regime offensives launched in the southern provinces of Deraa and Quneitra and Aleppo in the north have proved unsuccessful.

“The last few weeks have been very tough for them,” says a United Nations diplomat. “It’s difficult to tell how they will react in the coming months, but the [hard-line] mindset hasn’t changed yet.”

'Diminishing cohesion' in ruling circles

Still, the setbacks coincide with the rumors about internal feuding within Assad’s circles. Last month, Mohammed Assad, a relative of the president, was shot dead in the regime stronghold of Qardaha, reportedly over a dispute about money and influence. Last week, another Assad cousin, Monzer al-Assad, was arrested on the direct orders of the president for “illegal activities.” It remains unclear whether that alludes to common criminal practices or plotting against the regime.

Hafez Makhlouf, a cousin of the president and a key hardliner who headed the powerful General Security Directorate in Damascus, was reported last September to have been dismissed from his post, and later left the country for Belarus or Russia, where his father, Mohammed, lives. Official Syrian media said Mr. Makhlouf was subject to a routine personnel change to reflect a promotion.

Another incident that spurred intense speculation involves Rustom Ghazale, the head of Syrian political intelligence, who was alleged to have been badly beaten in February following a heated argument with Rafik Shehadeh, the head of military intelligence.  The source of the argument is said to have been differences over Iran's increasingly influential role in helping prop up the Assad regime.

Syrian media said Mr. Ghazale had been wounded in fighting with rebels in the south and was recovering in the hospital. Accounts from other sources have varied, claiming he subsequently died from his injuries or remains on life support. It was widely reported, including in media supportive of the Assad regime, that the Syrian president had dismissed both Ghazale and Mr. Shehadeh from their posts because of the fracas.

“There are more and more signs of diminishing cohesion within the ruling circles in Damascus,” says Ford.
Regional coordination

Still, there has been no shortage of predictions about Assad’s imminent fall or reports of the deaths or defections of senior regime figures that ultimately turned out to be false. The impenetrability of the Assad regime has long been a source of frustration to world leaders, diplomats, politicians, and analysts seeking to understand the thinking in Damascus. So far, Assad has defied forecasts of pundits who predicted that his regime would collapse soon after protests broke out in March 2011, instead surviving a brutal conflict that has spawned extremist Islamic groups and left some 220,000 people dead.

The regime’s recent setbacks in Idlib and the south are due in part to Assad’s regional enemies – including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Jordan – agreeing on the need to unite rebel factions to oust Assad, according to analysts and regional diplomats.

“Before you had four forces fighting each other – [Al Qaeda-affiliated] Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State, moderate rebels, and the regime,” says a Western diplomat based in the Middle East. “But now everyone is ganging up on the regime, and that has changed the whole dynamic. It has been extremely sudden.”

The Assad regime insists it is fighting “terrorists” and has shown little willingness to engage in serious negotiations with the opposition. The opposition demands that any negotiations must include an acceptance that Assad can no longer stay in power, a condition unacceptable to the regime.

“The regime’s negotiating position is extremely rigid,” says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “So I think people are thinking that we have to work on changing Bashar’s calculus.”

If the rebel forces in the north and south are able to build on their recent gains and advance toward Damascus, the regime will come under tremendous pressure to find an alternative not only to its hard-line policies, but perhaps an alternative to Assad himself. The coming months will tell, but there are plenty of skeptics.

“The regime is not capable of changing.… It is so barren of initiative that it cannot come up with any creative thinking,” says a former Syrian official speaking on condition of anonymity. “They don’t want to negotiate under duress because they think it is a sign of weakness. But when they feel strong, they don’t want to negotiate because they don’t feel they need to.”

Another incident that spurred intense speculation involves Rustom Ghazale, the head of Syrian political intelligence, who was alleged to have been badly beaten in February following a heated argument with Rafik Shehadeh, the head of military intelligence. The source of the argument is said to have been differences over Iran's increasingly influential role in helping prop up the Assad regime.

Syrian media said Mr. Ghazale had been wounded in fighting with rebels in the south and was recovering in the hospital. Accounts from other sources have varied, claiming he subsequently died from his injuries or remains on life support. It was widely reported, including in media supportive of the Assad regime, that the Syrian president had dismissed both Ghazale and Mr. Shehadeh from their posts because of the fracas.

“There are more and more signs of diminishing cohesion within the ruling circles in Damascus,” says Ford.

Regional coordination

Still, there has been no shortage of predictions about Assad’s imminent fall or reports of the deaths or defections of senior regime figures that ultimately turned out to be false. The impenetrability of the Assad regime has long been a source of frustration to world leaders, diplomats, politicians, and analysts seeking to understand the thinking in Damascus. So far, Assad has defied forecasts of pundits who predicted that his regime would collapse soon after protests broke out in March 2011, instead surviving a brutal conflict that has spawned extremist Islamic groups and left some 220,000 people dead.

The regime’s recent setbacks in Idlib and the south are due in part to Assad’s regional enemies – including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Jordan – agreeing on the need to unite rebel factions to oust Assad, according to analysts and regional diplomats.

“Before you had four forces fighting each other – [Al Qaeda-affiliated] Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State, moderate rebels, and the regime,” says a Western diplomat based in the Middle East. “But now everyone is ganging up on the regime, and that has changed the whole dynamic. It has been extremely sudden.”

The Assad regime insists it is fighting “terrorists” and has shown little willingness to engage in serious negotiations with the opposition. The opposition demands that any negotiations must include an acceptance that Assad can no longer stay in power, a condition unacceptable to the regime.

“The regime’s negotiating position is extremely rigid,” says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “So I think people are thinking that we have to work on changing Bashar’s calculus.”

If the rebel forces in the north and south are able to build on their recent gains and advance toward Damascus, the regime will come under tremendous pressure to find an alternative not only to its hard-line policies, but perhaps an alternative to Assad himself. 

The coming months will tell, but there are plenty of skeptics.

“The regime is not capable of changing.… It is so barren of initiative that it cannot come up with any creative thinking,” says a former Syrian official speaking on condition of anonymity. 

“They don’t want to negotiate under duress because they think it is a sign of weakness. But when they feel strong, they don’t want to negotiate because they don’t feel they need to.”

Julie's note - It appears that providing US military assistance to Syrian rebels may have had an impact, but the Syrian people still need enormous help to regain their lost homeland.  (When Assad eventually falls, will Russia take in him and his family?)

Al Qaeda in India for an overtly terrorism reason

There's a horrific logic behind why Al Qaeda wants to be in India. It's called nulear power.

Al Qaeda can use money to buy influence, so the terrorism network should be able to access those who control India's nuclear power industry. God forbid, when and if that happens, the entire world will be at an even higher risk for nuclear terrorism than exists today.  Forget about shooting innocent people out of the sky when they're flying on passenger airplanes......Al Qaeda wants to deliver a terrorism threat to affirm it's power over all nations.  

Of course, my theory is hypothetical. Nevertheless, my hypothesis is this:  Al Qaeda wants to annihilate human beings who somehow don't fit the terrorist group's ill defined vision of being Muslim. That means destroying Western cultural and democratic influence. Al Qaeda has no access to drone technology. Nonetheless, it only takes one horrific nuclear incident and Al Qaeda will have
achieved its heinous goal of creating a terrorism world order.  

The Christian Science Monitor Reports:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al Qaeda, has had a rough few years. His old boss and friend Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces in a May 2011 raid in Pakistan. Zawahiri, who is also presumed to be in Pakistan, hoped that the Arab uprisings that started that spring would somehow bring him and the group he now leads back to relevance in the heart of the Islamic world.

But while ideologically similar jihad groups have fed on the chaos of the past few years, particularly amid Syria's horrific civil war, the upheaval hasn't exactly benefited Zawahari's dwindling force in core Al Qaeda. The self-declared Islamic State (ISIS) has clearly challenged Al Qaeda in seeking to take up the mantle of leadership of what these men imagine is a global jihad. This summer, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself the caliph of the world's Muslims. He has an army, territorial reach, and financial resources behind him that Al Qaeda, even in its heyday, could not have imagined.

Yesterday, Zawahiri struck back. Sort of. In his first audiotape for a year, the Al Qaeda leader declared a new affiliate, "Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent." That group's leader, identified as Essam Omar, says on the tape that the "apostates of India" – he identifies them as Jews and Hindus – will be destroyed and promised that jihadis will "storm your barricades with cars packed with gunpowder."

Here's my theory:

India has nuclear power. There are plenty of Muslims living in India. Therefore, the hypothesis is to create a network of Al Qaeda sympathizers who can recruit just one nuclear power insider who will provide access to atomic technology.  

My hypothesis is certainly  grounded in the here and the now. In other words, it makes sense.  

While I'm at it, there's also a tangential theory floating in my cloud of ideas. Sadly, if my theory holds (because Al Qaeda is obsessed with destruction, whatever the cost to mankind) then, the motivation needs a delivery system to achieve the intended evil.

It makes no sense to have access to the dangers of nuclear technology without a methodology for delivering the gruesomely designed terror.

How would Al Qaeda deliver a nuclear terror threat? The group has no access to missiles, unless the Russians give them a few, which is hardly likely. Consequently, Al Qaeda must steal a delivery system.

How would Al Qaeda steal a delivery system to deliver nuclear terror? Okay, here's my tangential theory. MH370.

Can anyone disprove my hypotheses?