Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran an op-ed piece by a former U. S.
Ambassador-Foreign Service Officer and columnist Dan Simpson. He we
asked to speak at his Yale class reunion on "the state of the nation and
its implications for this year's elections." He opined in the article
that as there was another speaker along with him and that the organizers
may have hoped that some gentlemanly fireworks might make the evening
more interesting. The fireworks did not happen, for the two speakers
were not that far apart in their opinions. It's too bad that Special Dog
wasn't the second speaker for their would indeed have been some
differences of opinion.
On some things I would not take issue with..."the role of money (in elections) is predictable, if appalling"....."Superdelegates rival the Electoral College in their undemocratic role in the presidential selection process".... and "Hillary Clinton was unimpressive as secretary of state and the Clintons have taken money from everyone" are three such statements, but much of Mr. Simpson's remaining comments range from naivete to seriously flawed.
The author writes that "we have ended up with two bad candidates...." He is wrong twice here. I assume that he means that they would be 'bad' for the country. Hillary Clinton is more than just a bad candidate for there is corruption woven throughout her life. How can this be ignored, overlooked and relegated to just being bad? On the flip side, Donald Trump is not a bad candidate....as in bad for the country....because our fate is already sealed and God's judgments are upon us and will increase in intensity. How can anyone be considered a 'bad candidate' in light of that. Of course the author would have no idea what I'm referring to here.
On another point..."Donald Trump has showed no regard for anyone, having offended women, Hispanics and African Americans.....he doesn't hesitate to stimulate violence.....he would probably bring change, but would constantly humiliate us as a nation, as opposed to making us proud." Over the past few decades the Progressive/Leftist/Marxist and Communist elements (and the Republican elites who share dirty bathwater with them) have driven our nation into the ground, destroyed that which was good in our heritage and did all this through deception and often simply because of vainglory. Donald Trump's supporters, imperfect as they all are (along with the rest of us who will vote for him, Lord willing, but do not fit the descriptive of supporter)....(these supporters) experienced and recognized what was going on over decades in America but had no voice with which to respond. Donald Trump was and is that voice. Only the most gullible of liberals from the gender and ethnic origins that the author mentions would be offended. Mr. Trump does not stimulate violence. Those who protest him are the violent ones, usually recruited from those whose scams are now out in the open. Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson et all were and are trying to stem our humiliation brought on mostly by the Clintons and Barack Obama. The author writes that "Bernie Sanders is right, but sad." He's half right on this...Bernie Sanders is wrong....not right (on just about everything) and indeed is truly sad.
The author adds..."Americans have been seriously misgoverned for years now by dysfunctional governments in Washington"....close but no cigar....Our government functioned very well in its intents. It kept the American people in the dark, lied to them, kept up the game of pretending to be opposing parties while in reality are but one party....with two ends of the seesaw in order to keep one on top at all times.
Here's one that you may have to take a deep breath in advance for..."Our numerous failed wars have sapped our strength. Our armies did not win in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq..." Our strength has been sapped by our leaders chosen by citizens of a narcissistic holocaust of a society who have chosen every imaginable entertainment over responsible citizenship. We did not lose in Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq. We have had our legs cut out from us in each of these conflicts, thanks to the Dewey and NEA educated, Communist inspired, self-flagelation aroused news media who never heard of an American Founding Father or hero who did not deserve to be brought down.
The author, Dan Simpson, has an impressive resume but he showed very little discernment in his reunion oration. He concluded his op-ed piece with this comment on the way he wished the evening had gone.... "My own preference....is for the more dignified Kantian 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' " approach to reasoning that I was taught in Philosophy I." What Mr. Simpson could not remember, because he probably was never taught in Political Philosophy I, would have been a different meaning of the Dialectic. When referencing Socrates, it means a simple dialogue in an attempt to find truth but with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel or Karl Marx we see the scenario of whole societies going through a process of change. Communism relies on this process for it is confident that the final result will be the dictatorship of the state of which it (Communism) will be enthroned.
Mr. Simpson at one point in his piece asked "How did we get to this Point?" The answer is that we forgot God....the same answer that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn gave as to the reason for the"ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people." He added..."I could not put it more accurately than to repeat.....men have forgotten God; that is why all this has happened."
On some things I would not take issue with..."the role of money (in elections) is predictable, if appalling"....."Superdelegates rival the Electoral College in their undemocratic role in the presidential selection process".... and "Hillary Clinton was unimpressive as secretary of state and the Clintons have taken money from everyone" are three such statements, but much of Mr. Simpson's remaining comments range from naivete to seriously flawed.
The author writes that "we have ended up with two bad candidates...." He is wrong twice here. I assume that he means that they would be 'bad' for the country. Hillary Clinton is more than just a bad candidate for there is corruption woven throughout her life. How can this be ignored, overlooked and relegated to just being bad? On the flip side, Donald Trump is not a bad candidate....as in bad for the country....because our fate is already sealed and God's judgments are upon us and will increase in intensity. How can anyone be considered a 'bad candidate' in light of that. Of course the author would have no idea what I'm referring to here.
On another point..."Donald Trump has showed no regard for anyone, having offended women, Hispanics and African Americans.....he doesn't hesitate to stimulate violence.....he would probably bring change, but would constantly humiliate us as a nation, as opposed to making us proud." Over the past few decades the Progressive/Leftist/Marxist and Communist elements (and the Republican elites who share dirty bathwater with them) have driven our nation into the ground, destroyed that which was good in our heritage and did all this through deception and often simply because of vainglory. Donald Trump's supporters, imperfect as they all are (along with the rest of us who will vote for him, Lord willing, but do not fit the descriptive of supporter)....(these supporters) experienced and recognized what was going on over decades in America but had no voice with which to respond. Donald Trump was and is that voice. Only the most gullible of liberals from the gender and ethnic origins that the author mentions would be offended. Mr. Trump does not stimulate violence. Those who protest him are the violent ones, usually recruited from those whose scams are now out in the open. Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson et all were and are trying to stem our humiliation brought on mostly by the Clintons and Barack Obama. The author writes that "Bernie Sanders is right, but sad." He's half right on this...Bernie Sanders is wrong....not right (on just about everything) and indeed is truly sad.
The author adds..."Americans have been seriously misgoverned for years now by dysfunctional governments in Washington"....close but no cigar....Our government functioned very well in its intents. It kept the American people in the dark, lied to them, kept up the game of pretending to be opposing parties while in reality are but one party....with two ends of the seesaw in order to keep one on top at all times.
Here's one that you may have to take a deep breath in advance for..."Our numerous failed wars have sapped our strength. Our armies did not win in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq..." Our strength has been sapped by our leaders chosen by citizens of a narcissistic holocaust of a society who have chosen every imaginable entertainment over responsible citizenship. We did not lose in Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq. We have had our legs cut out from us in each of these conflicts, thanks to the Dewey and NEA educated, Communist inspired, self-flagelation aroused news media who never heard of an American Founding Father or hero who did not deserve to be brought down.
The author, Dan Simpson, has an impressive resume but he showed very little discernment in his reunion oration. He concluded his op-ed piece with this comment on the way he wished the evening had gone.... "My own preference....is for the more dignified Kantian 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' " approach to reasoning that I was taught in Philosophy I." What Mr. Simpson could not remember, because he probably was never taught in Political Philosophy I, would have been a different meaning of the Dialectic. When referencing Socrates, it means a simple dialogue in an attempt to find truth but with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel or Karl Marx we see the scenario of whole societies going through a process of change. Communism relies on this process for it is confident that the final result will be the dictatorship of the state of which it (Communism) will be enthroned.
Mr. Simpson at one point in his piece asked "How did we get to this Point?" The answer is that we forgot God....the same answer that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn gave as to the reason for the"ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people." He added..."I could not put it more accurately than to repeat.....men have forgotten God; that is why all this has happened."
