Thursday, March 1, 2018

Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism

I am a Libertarian, not a conservative, and I am in the originalist school of interpreting the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defined “originalism” this way:
“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” This applies to each and every one of the Amendments.

That means to understand what the Constitution means you have to understand how the writers understood the words they used to write the Constitution. That is in opposed to the Progressive’s Living Document way of applying the Constitution. The originalist doesn’t look to give the Constitution meaning, they look to understand what the original writers meant when they wrote it, and then apply that meaning to today’s issues. How judges line up on this divide is decided by the election of the President, and the justices he appoints to the bench. This is why election matter so much, and one of the consequences if elections.

It is the Living Document school of interpreting the Constitution that bends the meaning of the Constitution to fit how they wish to shape the law of the land. This article demonstrates how the two sides of this divide see how things that come before the Court should be decided.
This, by Katie Vloet, explains the divide very well:

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding the fundamental right to marry, provides a useful lens through which to view the differences between originalist and non-originalist views of the U.S. Constitution, the U-M Constitution Day speaker said.  
“It’s really a microcosm of the legal debate about how we interpret the Constitution,” John Bursch said on September 17 at Michigan Law. Bursch argued Obergefell on behalf of Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky earlier this year (listen to oral arguments).
Bursch presented benefits and challenges of both interpretations of the Constitution: originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted, and non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture.  “Non-originalists would say that the same-sex marriage decision is the perfect example of why courts need some flexibility to depart from the text, structure, and original intent,” Bursch said, and that, although changes were already happening in state laws about same-sex marriage, they were happening “at a snail’s pace.” A non-originalist, he said, would argue “that this case was decided correctly because it focused on the liberty and personal dignity that were the animating principles of the Constitution.”
The originalists—including the four dissenters in the Obergefell opinion—would say that the justices in the majority “used substantive due process to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat,” Bursch said. An originalist also would say that this is a “classic instance of the justices imposing their own personal values about the way that they thought the country should be going rather than an application of simple, neutral, objective criteria. The dissenters pointed out that the democratic process was working; laws were changing. … By taking this issue away from the people who passed [marriage] referendums in all of these states, the majority hurt democracy.”
Fight the good fight.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Why I as a Christian support Jude Moore’s run for the Senate in Alabama

I would like to address my reasons as a Christan for supporting Jude Moore’s run for the Senate. Here is the link for Kurt Bardella reasons for dumping the Republican Party. I am not a Republican, rather I registered independent who vote for the Republicans because of their policies. That is the key for me, policies, i.e., taxes, regulations, trade, energy, global warming, etc..

“The GOP would rather elect a sexual predator who preys on teenagers than a prosecutor who happens to be a Democrat. That’s it, I’m switching parties.”

As a Christain, I pray every day that I am forgiven my trespasses (sins) as I forgive those who trespass against me, and I am reminded of David’s Psalm 51 where he says, “…For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.…” If it is true that David sinned only against God the same is true for the rest of us, including Jude Morre.

Whenever Christians condemn sinful actions the secular are quick to through up  Matthew 7:1-3, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”, but they have no limit on condemning what they do not like, like Christians bakers. Here this meme sums it up:

So I ask all of these who so soundly condemn Jude Moore to let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
To vote for a Democrat is to vote against Trump’s agenda which, as you well know, I fully support. To vote for a Democrat is to vote for the eternal perpetuation of the welfare state. To vote for a Democrat is to vote against rebuilding our military being rebuilt (half our airplanes still cain’t fly). To vote for a Democrat is to vote for higher taxes for now on, on those who create the wealth. To vote for a Democrat is to vote for Common Core. To vote for a Democrat is to vote ________________ (you fill in the blank, for you know full well what the Progressive are for and against).

And not the last reason but the last two I will enumerate are abortion, to vote for a Democrat is to vote for the belief that abortion is a Constitutional right. And, do not forget the type of judges that the Democrats would appoint to the bench, and the type they would block if they could.

So yes, I forgive and support Jude Moore in spit of his pass picadillo and bigger transgressions that he may or may not have committed many years ago for it is now that I am concerned with. I would also remind you that all of those calling for Moore’s head today are the same ones who lauded Ted Kennedy as a lion of their party in spite of his having left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown, he left the scene and did not report the accident to authorities for ten hours. Ah, but that is nothing as compared to touching a 14 year old 30 years ago.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Asteroid 16 Psyche $10,000 quadrillion at today’s prices?

I read that the US space agency has now fast-forwarded its plans to send a rocket to the asteroid – bringing it forward to 2022. Psyche is made up entirely of nickel and iron, which are the exact same materials at the Earth’s core. This – as well as its sheer size – had led experts to believe the asteroid is actually the remains of a planet.

But the value of just the iron alone if the asteroid was transported back to Earth, would be $10,000 quadrillion. This would be enough to cause the world’s economy – worth $73.7 trillion – to collapse altogether. Lindy Elkins-Tanton, the lead scientist on the NASA mission and the director of Arizona State University’s School of Earth and Space Exploration, said.

This Lindy Elkins-Tanton does not have a clue how the economy works, and the law of supply and demand. Its worth $73.7 trillion is true only under today’s supply and demand. If it was to be brought here the price of iron and nickel would drop to the price of transporting it. Anyone who has bought gravel for their driveway knows that the delivery costs more than the aggregate does.

The demand for seawater is limited to the use we can put it to but is free for the taking, desalination cost is the collection of the water and the process of converting it to fresh water. If nickel and iron were to become as common as seawater the drop in price would only hurt the nickel and iron miners, who, I hazard, would quickly go into the nickel and iron transport business.

Lindy goes on to say “Could you kind of sit on it and hide it and control the global resource — kind of like diamonds are controlled corporately — and protect your market?”

It is true that the DeBeers only release a small quantity of the diamonds that they mine to keep the prices high. If they were to put them all on the market the price would fall like a rock, but the only part of the economy that would be affected would be those who sold them for and made them into jewelry. The rest of the economy would buzz right along.

However, I will believe it when I see it.

A friend, Jimmy Barbour, told me, “She works in science so it is quite possible she has never heard of a supply curve or how a supply curve would shift.” Maybe, but if she is going to spout off about economics maybe she should brush up on it. 

Monday, November 6, 2017

The Cuban Missile Crisis at 55 As Remembered by a Marine in the Blockade

The other day I ran across this article that reprinted by the “History News Network“, and having lived through the Cuban Blockade as a member of the 6th Marines aboard the USS Boxer I had to respond, which in return brought a response from Mariano Torrespico, to which I to rebut.
“James G. Blight and Janet M. Lang are the authors of six previous books on the Cuban missile crisis. Their new book, “Dark Beyond Darkness: The Cuban Missile Crisis as History, Warning and Catalyst” will be published in December 2017. They teach at the University of Waterloo.”
Picture this image in your mind’s eye: a thumb and forefinger brought so near to each other that they almost, but don’t quite, touch. As the thumb and forefinger nearly touch, a voice says, “We came that close to nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis.” 
In January 1992, top-level decision-makers of the Cuban missile crisis—former Cuban leader Fidel Castro and former US defense secretary Robert McNamara—used this image to convey how close the world had been to nuclear annihilation on October 26-27, 1962. As they spoke, the pupils in their eyes dilated, their voices cracked, heavy with barely managed emotion. That was their remembered reality of that moment: a world on the brink of Armageddon. Both would go to their graves haunted by what they learned from each other in the 1992 conference on the crisis that we organized in Havana, almost 30 years after the most dangerous moment in recorded history. 
Are we being hyperbolic? Were they? We don’t think so. In the case of the Cuban missile crisis, what could in many other contexts be brushed aside as hyperbole is often just unvarnished fact. Consider what McNamara and Castro learned in the course of those epochal exchanges at the 1992 Havana conference.
McNamara had already believed in October 1962 that the crisis was dangerous. In military affairs, McNamara was President John F. Kennedy’s designated principal worrier. He worried about a panicky Russian second lieutenant who might launch a nuke at the United States without authorization. He worried about a Russian move against West Berlin. In these instances, a nuclear response would be required, and after that, probable escalation to all-out nuclear war. Subsequent research by us and by others has shown that he was right to worry about all these possibilities. 
But what he learned in January 1992, 30 years later, was far more horrifying to him. He learned that the Russians on the island were ready and willing to nuke any invading US force with tactical nuclear weapons—something McNamara had never dreamed was possible. He also learned later that the Russians were ready and willing, with Cuban logistical assistance, to strike the US base at Guantánamo Bay with tactical nukes that, by October 27, had been moved into battle positions in eastern Cuba—another eventuality that had never appeared on his scope. If either of these scenarios had materialized, a nuclear US counterattack would have followed immediately, killing millions of Cubans and thousands of Russians on the island. Cuba would have been destroyed. And that would have been only the beginning—of the end of the world, as we know it. Again: fact, not hyperbole. Essentially, McNamara learned that he was monumentally wrong about the basic assumptions on which any US attack on Cuba would have been based. …
My first response:
I was a with the 6th Marine Regiment, a B.A.R. Man, aboard the USS Boxer, a landing platform 
helicopter (LHP), sailing around Cat Island during the Cuban Blockade. The W44 was a tactical nuke of the time which could fit in a 155mm howitzer, and had the explosive power of 72 tons of TNT, 32 2,000 pound bombs. Yes, they could have taken out Gitmo, but then the Phantom Jets in Homestead would have taken out the artillery as the 2nd Marine Division would have invaded both by sea and the air. The helicopter would have carried the 6th Marine far inland, and we would have fought our way back to the main forces coming from the sea. This maneuver was called an envelopment, and we practiced it the whole time I was in the 2nd Division. We would not have had to use nuclear weapons to take Cuba and loved doing it.
To which Mariano Torrespico had this to say:
Fortunately, you people did not have to re-take Cuba, a land that was not and is not yours; fortunately, you people did not have to re-enslave the “non-white nation” of the Cubans, because they fight back (like the Viet Cong); fortunately, Men were in charge, and they decided not to End the World over hillbilly racism. Fortunately, the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.
Which of course racked up my ire invoking this response:
Si vis pacem, para bellum, to each of your points in order given: 
“Fortunately, you people did not have to re-take Cuba” 
America has never taken Cuba to have to re-take it. Cuba was taken by the Spanish. The Spanish-American War in 1898, which lasted only a few months, and when it was over Spain signed a peace treaty giving the United States control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, and Guam. Cuba, however, became an independent country rather than a U.S. territory. Earlier in the 1800s there was the Filibuster Movement which was attempts to take over Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Mexico from 1830 to 1860. Famous filibusters were larger than life characters such as Narciso Lopez, a Venezuelan-born soldier who, aided by sympathetic Southern money, liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He then attempted three times to free Cuba.
“…you people did not have to re-enslave the ‘non-white nation’ of the Cubans, because they fight back (like the Viet Cong)” 
The Cuba’s people are of a mixed race, not a “non-white nation”, the Spanish took the island and the first three centuries after the conquest, the island remained a neglected stopping point for the Spanish fleet, which visited the New World and returned to Spain with the mineral wealth of continental America. It was the growth of the U.S. as an independent nation, and the collapse of Haiti as a sugar-producing colony, Spanish protective policies, and the ingenuity of Cuba’s Creole business class all converged to produce a sugar revolution on the island. In a scant few years, Cuba was transformed from a sleepy, unimportant island into the major sugar producer in the world. Slaves arrived in increasing numbers; large estates squeezed out smaller ones; sugar supplanted tobacco, agriculture, and cattle as the main occupation; prosperity replaced poverty; and Spain’s attention replaced neglect. These factors, especially the latter two, delayed a move toward independence in the early nineteenth century. While most of Latin America was breaking with Spain, Cuba remained loyal.
For the other half of that sentence, “they fight back (like the Viet Cong)”: 
America did not lose the Vietnam War on the ground in Vietnam, it was lost on the streets of America and the Halls of Congress. It was the Russian sponsored Peace Movement and the Liberal Press that led to our leaving the South Vietnamese to the purge that the Communists exacted upon them, not the fighting powers of the Viet Cong. They, the Vietcong, were pretty much destroyed after the 1968 Tet Offensive. Militarily, Tet was an utter failure. Upwards of 30,000 VC were killed or captured and their units destroyed. The NVA lost approx. another 20,000 men, however, they could replenish much, much faster then the VC. After Tet, the NVA became the primary enemy in South Vietnam and Laos. They controlled the Ho Chi Min trail and took politcal and military control for the rest of the war. The remaining VC became more delighted to support and intelligence operations than anything else. Some have pointed out that this destruction was done on purpose, as they knew they did not stand a chance against the Americas, to remove them as a political force after the war was over.
“…fortunately, Men were in charge, and they decided not to End the World over hillbilly racism.
Fortunately, the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.”
We were not “frat-boy fakes” we were highly trained Marines, the Marines are the point of the spear; the Army  and other seraves are its shaft. The spear does not decide where it is thrown, but once released will do the destruction it is trained to do. However, both the Korean War, the Cubin Blockade, the Vietnam War did have this in common, and it was not to re-enslave “non-white nation”, the policy was an extension of the “Containment Policy” which was designed to stop the spread of Communism in the world. It was called the Cold War, and had nothing to do with enslaving people, quite the opposite in fact, to keep people free from the enslavement of Communism. 
In Vietnam we failed to stop the Communist which lead to the rise of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which took control of the country in 1975. During its reign, which ended in 1979, Pol Pot oversaw the deaths of an estimated one to two million people from starvation, overwork or execution. The mass graves he commanded his people to dig were often referred to as “the killing fields.” Pol Pot was arrested in 1997 and died under house arrest on April 15, 1998.
You go ahead and live in your dream world where everything is seen thought the eyes of racism, “…the Russians spared your life and those of us alive at that time, because their leaders were combat veterans, and not frat-boy fakes.” While we were posed to hit the beaches in Cuba a deal was made to take our missiles out of Turkey in return for Russia taking theirs out of Cuba, had the deal not been reached we would have taken the missiles out, for we would not have allowed them to stay had they refused. And we would have taken them without the use of Nucks.
“…the president [Kennedy] recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, “And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey.” And so, after the ExComm meeting [on the evening of 27 October 1962], as I’m sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy’s office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy—at the suggestion of Secretary of State [Dean] Rusk—to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey.”

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

The Three-Fifths Compromise And Roland Martin

Tuesday on MSNBC “Velshi & Ruhle,” discussing White House chief of staff John Kelly’s comments on Fox News about Confederate monuments, host of “News One Now” Roland Martin said “too many people in this country who are white” didn’t know history and wanted to “somehow glorify these Confederate leaders.” Martin said, “I’m not going to allow four stars stuck on stupid to simply go on. Here’s a man who’s utterly clueless. For him to say, ‘Well, we could have compromised’—really? We did compromise. It was a thing called United States Constitution, and you know what that said? If you’re a black, you’re three-fifths of a human.” He continued, ”I need John Kelly to actually go back and read a history book that my 12-year-old nieces are reading right now, because clearly, he fell asleep in history.” Source.

In this spiel, Roland Martin demonstrated his own lack of understanding of history. The three-fifths compromise did not make a slave three-fifths of a human; it diluted the South’s power in the House of Representatives by not allowing slaves to count as a whole person when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. Had they been counted as whole persons, which is what the South wanted, the South would have many more representatives. The Northen states did not want the slaves to count as persons when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. The three-fifths of a person was the compromise made between the Southern and Northen states to get the Constitution ratified by both the Northern and Southern states.

So, Roland Martin, go back and study a little more history, and what the meaning and conditions that brought these events into existence. And, consider that no black slave came to North America that was not sold into slavery by other blacks

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Artificial Intelligence is not Intelligence, Its Capability

Just read, “That’s according to SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son. The Japanese billionaire spoke from the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Wednesday. In about 30 years, artificial intelligence will have an IQ of 10,000, Son says. By comparison, the average human IQ is 100 and genius is (sic) 200, according to Son. Mensa, “the High IQ society,” starts accepting members with an IQ score of 130.”

The reason the average human IQ is 100 is that the IQ test is designed to give an average score of 100. IQ tests are tests in which you cannot study for, this means that the test measures the general intellect of a person at any age. To do this, researchers in the early 1900s developed a concept known as “Mental age” vs “chronological age.” The rationale is as follows, if a child is six years old, but can only perform tasks as well as a three-year-old, that child is said to have a “mental age” of three years. One then takes the “mental age” and divides that by the child’s “chronological age” to determine a “mental quotient.” The six-year-old child performing at a three-year-old’s rate would be said to have a mental quotient of .5 (three divided by six), This number is now multiplied by 100 to get rid of the decimal, so we end up with an IQ of 50.

That a machine can perform better on an IQ test it does not measure its intelligence, what it measures is its capability. The machine will have a higher capability to perform certain tasks and the number of tasks that the machine (robot) is able to do will increase. Though I doubt that it will ever be able to train a horse without being taught how.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

“Be careful … at some point, I fight back.”

Martin Bailes wrote in
“Be careful … at some point I fight back.”

You all do know McCains story right? Prisoner of War in 1967 with fractured arms & legs then beaten & tortured …
put in solitary … refused preferential early release & came home with permanent life-long disabilities, It was of course to McCain Trump was referring in his vacuous bitter put-down “He’s not a war hero … I like people who weren’t captured.” And it is to this man, this now dying man, that bone-spur draft dodging New York building playboy now threatens to “fight back” McCain’s politics may trouble me but he’s a man worthy of decent treatment more than a little respect … & I can only echo the words of another veteran on the TV talking of (sic) Trump “this man has the empathy of a cockroach.”

“McCain’s politics may trouble me, but he’s a man worthy of decent treatment & more than a little respect …”

Did you ever wonder why the Veterans did not get pissed off at Trump for saying that about McCain? I am a U. S. Marine, active duty 1960–63 and an active member of the Marine Corps League for 30 years, and I do not hold a single Marine who holds any respect for old Songbird McCain. He broke his arms & legs because he did not tuck them in when he ejected from his jet, and he was never beaten. He says that he refused preferential early release, let me ask you, what powers did he have to refuse his captures anything?

I have spoken with POW who was at the Hanoi Hilton with him, they all called him Songbird he told them all he knew without being tortured.
The Republican US presidential candidate John McCain was not tortured during his captivity in North Vietnam, the chief prison guard of the jail in which he was held has claimed.
In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Nguyen Tien Tran acknowledged that conditions in the prison were “tough, though not inhuman”. But, he added: “We never tortured McCain. On the contrary, we saved his life, curing him with extremely valuable medicines that at times were not available to our own wounded.” Source:
Here is the profile of John McCain noting he is the only American in history who could defect to a Communist country and there be declared an Air Ace for their side as he has personally destroyed five of our fighter aircraft. We also note that he received too much room service at the Hanoi Hilton.

USS Forrestal fire: /
The 1967 USS Forrestal fire was a devastating event with series of chain-reaction explosions on 29 July 1967 killing 134 sailors and injuring 161 persons on the USS Forrestal (CVA-59), after an electrical anomaly discharged a “Zuni” rocket on the flight deck. Forrestal was in combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War at the time. Damage exceeded $72 million (equivalent to $502 million today) including damage to aircraft.

The claim has been made:

”Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that John McCain deliberately ‘wet-started’ his A-4E Skyhawk as a prank on the F-4 Phantom behind his A-4. “Wet-starts,” may be done deliberately, by pumping kerosene fuel into the engine without ignition, then lighting it to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. It was concluded by investigators that John McCain deliberately “wet-fired” his A-4E. In McCain’s case, the ‘wet-start’ launched a Zuni rocket from the F-4 behind them.”

During the course of his flying career in the U.S. Navy, John McCain was involved in five major mishaps or crashes with his aircraft. The most dramatic incidents occurred in 1967. He barely escaped with his life after the missile exploded aboard an aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, in July of that year, but killing 134 of his fellow crew members. In October, McCain was shot down over Vietnam by a surface-to-air missile.

The official Navy report into the Corpus Christi accident on March 12, 1960, concludes that the AD-6 Skyraider trainer crashed because McCain failed to “maintain an airspeed above stall speed.” It attributed the accident to “the preoccupation of the pilot with a power setting too low to maintain level flight.” The single-engine prop plane sank in Corpus Christi Bay. McCain was rescued by a helicopter after swimming to the surface. The accident report excluded a series of other factors, including engine failure and disorientation of the pilot due to vertigo. But, it concluded pilot error was “the sole contributing factor” to the accident.
A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post from the Democratic National Committee, which conducted research at the Naval Historical Center in Washington. McCain had another accident with a T-2 trainer jet in November 1965, while flying between New York City and Norfolk, Va. The Naval Aviation Safety Center was unable to determine the precise cause of the accident or the degree of pilot error.

McCain wrote later that his engine “flamed out” and he had to eject. In his autobiography, McCain recalls another mishap around December 1961 when “I knocked down some power lines while flying too low over southern Spain. My daredevil clowning cut off electricity to a great many Spanish homes and created a small international incident.”

He landed his Skyraider back on the USS Intrepid after the incident, which does not appear to have triggered a safety investigation, but then John McCain’s father and grandfather were both high ranking Admirals in the US Navy.
Some of those who were on the Forrestal and other persons familiar with the ordnance told me that because the rocket did not hit McCain’s craft, only actions by the pilot could have caused any bomb to fall from McCain’s Skyhawk. These sources — who spoke under the condition that they not be publicly identified — agree with each other that, if any bomb fell from the McCain airplane, it was because of actions that he took either in error or panic upon seeing the fire on the deck or in his hasty exit from the plane. Two switches in the cockpit of a Skyhawk need to be thrown to drop such a bomb, according to the sources.

Whatever the circumstances of the fire’s origins, McCain did not stay on deck to help fight the blaze as the men around him did. With the firefighting crew virtually wiped out, men untrained in fighting fires had to pick up the fire hoses, rescue the wounded or frantically throw bombs and even planes over the ship’s side to prevent further tragedy. McCain left them behind and went down to the hangar-bay level, where he briefly helped crew members heave some bombs overboard. After that, he went to the pilot’s ready room and watched the fire on a television monitor hooked to a camera trained on the deck. From Investigating John McCain’s Tragedy at Sea.

Senator John McCain The Traitor — Audio Proof

McCain worked hard to normalize US/Vietnam relation without an accounting of all POWs, KIA, and MIA:
John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero people would logically imagine to be a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.
Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as McCain has made his military service and POW history the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War have also turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.
You can knock Trump all you want for being a draft dodger, but he did not burn his draft card and run off to Canada like so many, he took the same risk of being called up as everyone who got a college deferment. Did it piss you off that Bill Clinton dodged the draft?
Why do you think Trump won the Veteran and active military vote by far?