Hey World, Is It “America Last” Now?

Just about every nation believes its policies and actions are in its best interests. Even foreign aid gives the donating nation power, influence and often special access to local business opportunities… not to mention trying to stabilize volatile regions that interfere with our global political and economic priorities everywhere. Entering into global commitments to control terrorist and environmental threats are often policies that cannot be accomplished on a go-it-alone basis. It’s no secret that selfishness is usually at the core of such national decisions, even if humanitarian efforts are valuable and “make us feel good.”

But when a nation flaunts its selfishness, literally issues challenges to the rest of the world to accede to our internal priorities, trying to force them to kowtow in the face of their own constituencies to big bully threats from what is increasingly viewed as the biggest bully one earth, exactly what would you think the overall global reaction is likely to be? How would you react if China issues a “China First” edict and demanded that the United States pull all of its military out of any station in Asia? Or if “Europe First” demanded that Google, Apple and Facebook cease European operations unless they operated solely through locally-owned companies.

Does it get worse when the words “America First” are also strongly laced with powerful historical connotations that read “White Christians Must Rule” precedents? Don’t believe me? Take a look at the clear historical trail in my June 5^th “America First” – A Phrase with a Very Dark Past blog. But today’s blog is not about deprioritizing what is important to the American body politic, what is relevant to the best interests of American citizens everywhere. That clearly is what responsible elected officials must do. It is about our taunting the rest of the world, slapping allies in the face and thinking that bully tactics of a narcissistic CEO of a non-publicly-traded series of (often failed) corporations – with very limited public disclosure obligation and responsibilities – will actually produce positive results to our benefit. What is your instant reaction when someone tries to bully you? Especially when you have some genuine power of your own? How about reacting in a way that proves you cannot be bullied? A strong reaction into the opposite direction?

Mexico has not offered to pay for a wall. Germany’s Angela Merkel – cajoled and threatened with tariffs if Germany did not immediately fixed its trade imbalance with the U.S. (which would, unfortunately because of E.U. law, result in a trade war with the entire European Union) – threw up her hands and took every opportunity to chastise Trump’s America as an unreliable “ally,’ refused to budge on the Paris climate change accord and scoffed at the thought of Germany towing Trump’s line. Despite France’s Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to serve as a European intermediary, nothing positive has emerged in E.U.-U.S. relations.

As Donald Trump cozied up to his bro, professional bully Vladimir Putin, to the consternation of Trump’s own Republican Party, there were zero gains for American interests from that exchange. Putin extracted a withdrawal of U.S. military support for Syria’s anti-Assad regime rebels and an unrefuted (by any U.S. official in recent the long meeting(s) between the American and Russian leaders) confirmation from Donald Trump that Russia did not interfere in our elections… even though they did.

Theresa May’s failure to achieve her needed simply majority in the recent U.K. snap parliamentary election was widely touted by the regional press as stemming in serious part from her overly-close relationship with the much-hated Donald Trump administration. Another ally where it is considered politically prudent to turn their back on American demands. Want more?

“In his opening remarks to the annual US-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross criticised China's $347bn (£266bn) trade surplus with the US, saying it was not the product of market forces… The US was critical of China's trade surplus and demanded ‘more fair’ trade arrangements.

“[The result of this unilateral Trump administration demand?] The US and China have wrapped up contentious trade talks in Washington without agreement… The two sides did not issue a joint statement or action plan after the meeting and cancelled scheduled press conferences.” BBC.com, July 20^th. North Korea? No change.

Again, bluster and confrontational tactics that effectively require the other side openly to bow to our demands failed. I must admit that in my role as a professional negotiator, rather consistently, those who bluster and showboat against my clients seldom fare well in their end result. Perhaps I should write book and call it: “The Real Art of the Deal.” But then, Trump self-admittedly does not read. If you are a bully and want to get your way, you have to be willing to use every weapon at your disposal – with often exceptionally dire consequences – and slice and dice your opponents for all the world to see. If you are rash enough to take those steps. Threaten? LOL! World to Trump: been there, done that, next!

In the world of global politics and international diplomacy, how do sophisticated operatives achieve their goals without blustery demands that require equal and opposite reactions? I think we can draw our lessons from a diabolical and incredibly Machiavellian part of the world that very few Americans understand: the awkward interrelationship in the Subcontinent (mostly India and Pakistan) and parts of Central Asia (mostly Afghanistan). After all, both Pakistan and India are our allies, and we have been engaged in this country’s longest war to “liberate” Afghanistan and punish terrorists. Riiiight!

Understand that the powerful military intelligence operatives – Pakistan’s “deep state” – inside of and behind the seeming elected Pakistani officials have gotten the job done in a very unstable country. Since its inception, not one single elected Pakistani Prime Minister has completed his/her full term of elective office. Death (unexplained accidental or out-and-out assassination), military coups, corruption probes, etc. have taken their toll. But the deep state continues to get its way and call the real shots. After reading the piece below, ask yourself if you believe Donald Trump knows any of this himself or if his blustery alienation of most of the earth’s leaders is effective.

This extract from former senior director for South Asia, National Security Council, presented in the July 20^th The Cipher Brief, explains how government policies (“[Name of Country] First) are dictated much more effectively under the surface:

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) today represents the defining example of a ‘deep state.’… Historically responsible for coups, assassinations, domestic political manipulation, covert action, media suppression, torture, and ‘disappearances’ across the country – particularly in Pakistan’s insurgency prone Baluchistan province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas – the ISI, has developed from a military intelligence organization focused solely on India into a mythological force of nature in Pakistan and its near beyond. In reality, however, the ISI presents much more of an enigma: although it is afforded significant power and authority, the reach and strength of the ISI isn't always what it appears…

The organization does much more than just collect foreign intelligence. ISI’s role over time has included brutal suppression of anti-state rhetoric, fomenting and countering insurgency, providing illicit channels for drug smuggling, acquiring nuclear weapons components, and developing proxy organizations to splinter domestic opposition political parties. The organization has become an integral component for those wielding power - both for civilians and for those leaders still in khakis.

ISI’s overall directive is to protect Pakistan’s national security. It is tasked with collecting foreign and domestic intelligence and conducting covert offensive operations. ISI de jure resides under the direction of Pakistan’s Prime Minister, but in reality, it is part of the military and answers to the Chief of Army Staff. Historically, whenever an elected civilian has been in power in Pakistan, the Chief of Army Staff ensured that the elected Prime Minister did not develop control over ISI. If the ISI showed loyalty to the civilian government, the Chief of Army Staff would move to marginalize it.

In today’s Pakistan, ISI is used not just to protect the state, but also to ensure that the army maintains its grip on authority. While in 2012 it was announced that the ISI had disbanded its political cell, it is still widely seen as active in surveillance, influence, and manipulation of domestic politics.

When considering the role and mission of the ISI, it must also be made abundantly clear that Pakistani generals view national security from a radically different vantage point than, say, someone from the United States. [Pakistan First?] ISI is tasked with engaging in all of the actions listed above to maintain the nation’s security: threats, perceived or real, drive Pakistan’s leaders to direct actions that enable them to simultaneously maintain their grip on power and protect the nation’s security. Such a strategy includes developing, maintaining, and deploying militant organizations, both internally and externally, and has birthed groups such as the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

The primary argument made by Pakistani generals is that due to historic and growing disparities with India in the conventional military balance, these proxy groups are essential for keeping India off-balance, as well as for ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a Western-aligned and India-dominated neighbor encircling the Pakistanis. Since the democratic election of Nawaz Sharif [whose family is currently facing a major corruption scandal] in 2013, the Pakistani government has consistently argued that it has done away with the practice of nurturing and supporting these types of organizations, but it’s simply not true. And while the case may be that the civilian leadership is not fully aware of the activities of the senior military leadership, the fact is, this operational mindset and behavior is a historical practice dating back literally to the inception of Pakistan.

With the exception of military operations against insurgents such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who openly oppose Islamabad, little justifies the civilian government’s stated positions in face of the reality on the ground: the leadership of the Afghan Taliban continues to operate freely in Quetta and Peshawar; the Haqqanis roam freely in Miramshah and are even spotted in Rawalpindi; Masood Azhar - the head of JeM - calls into large rallies from his Bahawalpur home, clamoring for state-sponsored jihad, and Hafiz Saeed - the head of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba - remains merely in “preventive detention,” or house arrest.

Despite its almost mythological reputation and ongoing pivotal role in fomenting insurgencies and manipulating domestic politics, the ISI remains an enigma. It represents one of the most passionate guardians of the Pakistani state, exuding a sense of sincerity and honor - while at the same time remain coldly ruthless behind the scenes, to the point of silently condoning attacks on U.S. soldiers by its proxy forces in Afghanistan.

Here’s a big PS to the above: “The Pentagon will withhold $50 million in reimbursements to Pakistan because it was unable to verify that Islamabad conducted adequate counter-terrorism operations against the Haqqani network, a hardline branch of the Taliban… The decision comes as the Trump administration considers a tougher stance against Pakistan, an ostensible ally, as part of a new military strategy for the nearly 16-year-old war in neighboring Afghanistan… Despite the $50-million cut, Pakistan received $550 million in U.S. aid in the last fiscal year for operations against militants in the federally administered tribal areas, or FATA, a rugged northwestern region where the central government has limited control.” Los Angeles Times, July 23^rd.

This ISI Pakistani reality is precisely the kind of “deep state” that Donald Trump says is solidly embedded in our own federal bureaucracy, the swamp that must be drained, and why he – and not our other elected officials or the legions of highly-skilled/experienced senior bureaucrats – and his policies must be implemented no matter who might oppose him/them. Hello Trump base! Conspiracy fans! I wish I could have found hard examples of that American “deep state,” but since I could not, I used Pakistan to show what one really looks like. Bottom line: Except for his litany of executive orders (which he likens to signing Congressionally-passed bills), Donald Trump isn’t getting much done, is alienating both local and global masses to unprecedented levels and, in the eyes of the vast majority of world leaders has placed Trump’s national priorities into an “America Last” position. Tired of winning yet?

I’m Peter Dekom, and indeed, Donald Trump has made America Grate Again.

59% of Millennials Have At Least Some College, But…

Some of the rising negative perception of colleges and unversities sits on the steps of the institutions of higher learning themselves. Like limiting or cancelling talks and presentations from right wing speakers on their campuses. These universities appropriately claim that they are just stemming the often-violent protests that accompany such talks, but in a world where free speech and the First Amendment are under attack, this reality is ill-conceived. Even though risk cannot be completely eliminated, a two-pronged pushback against potential violent protestors has to be mounted. Education: emphasize the importance of the First Amendment as a two-way street and the negative impact on public financing for the institution itself. After all, universities are about learning about ideas, whether you like them or not. Enforcement: Unfortunately, right wing speakers simply require more police protection at some universities. Give it to them!

The harsh reality in the United States: our support for solid education and our comparative test scores on basics (reading, science and math) are plunging. For those of us who live in large, usually left-of-center, urban centers, the negative reactions to “liberal educated elites” are merely distant echoes that can be read about in detached articles in their mainstream media. But the number of PhDs in governmental agencies – from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior to the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Energy – who have the power of influence in policy-making has been reduced by staggering numbers. Evangelical zeal combined with corporate greed have resulted in a diminution of the importance of science and basic environmental realities and an increase in religious and archaic and largely disproven “free-market” rhetoric (where on earth are markets truly free? Anywhere?) have replaced hard statistics and brutal facts as the basis for federal policy. The budget cuts to education are, however, also very real.

Like the death of the Age of Reason shortly after the French Revolution in 1789, populism has elected a president, and too many Americans are overwhelmed with new negative life-changing realities that they believe only adherence to their perception of “God’s mandate” can save them. Primary and secondary education has to move back to religious-values, and colleges – the hotbed of liberal thinking – must be brought to heel. The passionate belief that “God will take care of us” overrides personal responsibility just as biblical mandates have morphed in a menu of choices that we can select at will… reject if inconvenient. But… here it comes… Ever get a nagging feeling that some of that negativity this conservative group is feeling against the “liberal elites” just might be justified?

Wall Street’s misplaced pseudo-religious belief is that anything that regulates business or imposes hard dollar costs on making money, particular taxes and environmental/financial honesty requirements, has to be bad. That belief system – believing that Donald Trump is great for business – is what is driving the stock market to new heights. One solid trade war, one eruption of a major war from someone’s pulling the wrong trigger or a simple waking up to the fact that an unpredictable/destabilized domestic political scene is really bad for business… and boom, down it all falls, stocks first… land values next. The euro is already beginning to rise against the dollar… or haven’t you been watching? Wall Street is whipping up the flames that ignite social conservatives… but what are those nasty liberal elites doing to bring down the volume of massive disharmony? Little or nothing?

Back to the original mission of this blog. Why do conservatives increasingly think of college and universities as the “newfound enemy,” when our future rather dramatically depends on present and future generation’s mastery of complexities that can only be understood through higher education? That their children would be thrust into the continuing downward spiral of earning power towards poverty without that educational reverse thruster. Bottom line, there is a rather dramatic correlation between liberal thought and increases levels of high education. So as the children of these terrified adults go to college, they learn that those sacred beliefs held by their parents just might be an advanced form of denial… that change not only cannot be stopped but it usually swallows and digests those most dedicated to stopping it. What are we missing? And, liberal elites, we are indeed missing a lot.

Writing for the July 23^rd Los Angeles Times, Fredrik deBoer (an academic at City University of New York and a member of the Professional Staff Congress of CUNY, PhD English from Purdue University) explains further: “Only 36% of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, versus 58% who say they have a negative effect. Among Democrats, those figures are 72% and 19%, respectively. That finding represents a crisis.

“For it to be a crisis does not depend on you having any conservative sympathies. For this to be a crisis requires only that you recognize that the GOP is one of two major political parties in American life, and that Republicans’ lack of faith in higher education will have practical consequences.

“Further, it helps if you recognize that, in the present era, Republicans dominate American governance, with control of the House, Senate, presidency and crucially for our purposes, a significant majority of the country’s statehouses and governor’s mansions. They also have built a machine for state-level political elections that ensures that they will likely control many state legislatures for years to come.

“As an academic, I am increasingly convinced that a mass defunding of public higher education is coming to an unprecedented degree and at an unprecedented scale. People enjoy telling me that this has already occurred — that state support of our public universities has already declined precipitously. But things can always get worse, much worse.

“And given the endless controversies on college campuses in which conservative speakers get shut out and conservative students feel silenced, the public relations work is being done for the enemies of public education by those within the institutions themselves.

“Who’s to blame for the fact that so few Republicans see the value in universities? The conservative media must accept some responsibility for encouraging its audiences to doubt expertise; so must those in the mainstream media who amplify every leftist kerfuffle on campus and make it seem as though trigger warnings are now at the center of college life.

“But academics are at fault, too, because we’ve pushed mainstream conservatism out of our institutions. Sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons have found that about half of professors identify as liberal, versus only 14% who identify as Republican. (At the time of their study, in 2006, only a fifth of American adults described themselves as liberal.)

“In ‘What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?’ Michael Berube describes and defends a philosophy of non-coercion and intellectual pluralism that isn’t just an intellectual curiosity, but an actual ethos that he and other professors live by. I grew up believing that most professors lived by that ethos. I don’t anymore. And when I suggest it’s a problem that academics are so overwhelmingly liberal, I get astonished reactions. ‘You actually think conservatives should feel welcome on campus?’

“In my network of professional academics, almost no one recognizes that our lopsided liberalism presents a threat to academia itself. Many would reply to the Pew Research Center’s findings with glee. They would tell you that they don’t want the support of Republicans. My fellow academics won’t grapple with the simple, pragmatic realities of political power and how it threatens vulnerable institutions whose funding is in doubt. That’s because there is no professional or social incentive in the academy to think strategically or to engage with the world beyond campus.

“Instead, all of the incentives point toward affirming one’s position in the aristocracy of the academy. There are no repercussions to ignoring how the university and its departments function in our broader society, at least not in the humanities and, for the most part, not in the social sciences either.” What!!!! You mean we should listen a lot more… even folks we really do not agree with?! Talk to them?! Invite them to teach and speak to us?! Actually take time to hear the other side?! What happened to good old fashion polarization? Casting the first stone? Sitting in judgment of others? Isn’t that the new America? Shouldn’t we just get used to it? Someone has to take the first steps. Or….

I’m Peter Dekom, and just take a really long look at what American society has become to see if recent trends to divide us are in fact what’s best for us all?

Schumer Tries to Resurrect a Moribund Democratic Party

New York Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, has set forth what he believes are a set of proposed “bold changes to our politics and our economy.” The new official Democratic agenda. Calling this list a “better deal for American workers” in a July 24^th editorial in the New York Times, Schumer announced three enumerated platforms for a horribly-divided Democratic Party heading for the 2018 mid-terms, so far the “party of no” opposing anything and everything Trump.

There’s not much here, but it is a start… baby steps lacking a program of implementation and one that side-steps or just glances by some of the biggest domestic issues facing this country: the big healthcare fix (way beyond the cost of prescription drugs), student debt, restoration of environmental/financial/consumer regulations and failing infrastructure. And if you are a worked in an obsolete rust belt manufacturing sector or working in fossil fuel extraction (especially coal), nothing here is going to pull you away from Trump’s empty promises.

Here is that minimalistic, nascent Democratic platform: “First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

“Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave…

“[1] We’re going to fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging and demand that drug companies justify price increases to the public. And we’re going to push for empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans…

“[2] Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care. We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they’re hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.

“[3] Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work. We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

“In the coming months, we’ll offer additional ideas, from rebuilding rural America to fundamentally changing our trade laws to benefit workers, not multinational corporations.”

The “why” we need these changes (see Schumer’s take below) could be taken from the underlying arguments from both sides of the aisle. The big difference: Republicans arguing that getting government out of people’s lives is the only path to growth and Dems stating that this path only enriches the wealthiest Americans… direct government involvement is their answer. The underlying evil is change. Both parties rail at globalization and each is silent on the obviously mega-impact of automation and artificial intelligence. Schumer explains:

“There used to be a basic bargain in this country that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could own a home, afford a car, put your kids through college and take a modest vacation every year while putting enough away for a comfortable retirement. In the second half of the 20th century, millions of Americans achieved this solid middle-class lifestyle. I should know — I grew up in that America.

“But things have changed.

“Today’s working Americans and the young are justified in having greater doubts about the future than any generation since the Depression. Americans believe they’re getting a raw deal from both the economic and political systems in our country. And they are right. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers.

“And for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans.

“Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people…” Riiight!

At least, the Dems have wisely started with a domestic agenda, avoiding the exceptionally negative foreign policy shifts that have tanked American power and influence all over the world. They have left untouched the only clear “spend more” GOP vector remaining on the table: Upgrading the American armed forces with billions of new dollars, allocations that represent over 40% of the world’s entire military budget, even though we have not won a major war since World War II. We lost influence and control over Iraq to Iran, and the Taliban control more of Afghanistan than they did when we began that conflict 17 years ago (our longest war). ISIS may lose territory, but they have spread their evil in uncontained attacks all over the world. Until their economic fears are settled, most Americans just don’t care about what’s going on “over there,” even if the issues cannot be separated so easily.

There are a couple of other major considerations that make a unified, national message difficult to sell and even more difficult to implement by a minority party. Even if it is a tough expectation, all electing a 2018 Democratic majority in either House of Congress does is to stalemate and gridlock decision-making until the 2020 presidential race. Progress forward would still be stymied and will give the GOP/Trump machine someone to blame. It is going to take some clever explaining to keep this from deeply infecting the Democrats, but it is a road that they have to walk down. It also augurs better for centrist candidates than those on the extreme left, easier targets for the GOP. We may move farther left in the future, as automation and artificial intelligence take their toll on the job market, but America is still a nation very much in the middle today. And yes, it always is “the economy stupid!”

But what the Dems really need to focus on is this rather unsubtle political axiom: All politics is local. Battles need to be fought – based on issues of local importance and failed efforts of elected local officials – within state legislatures, governorships, other local offices and with Congressional candidates dealing rather directly addressing voter concerns in their own districts and states. Restrictions that reduce the voting power of local Democrats – from gerrymandering to other voter restrictions – should be in federal courts in every state where this impact is real.

At least someone is finally trying, but there is so much work to be done that local Republicans, as deeply embarrassed as they obviously are over Donald Trump’s tweets, ravings, policy-reversals and chaos among those he selected to work with, aren’t even looking in their rear view mirrors to see where Dems are advancing… yet. Dems are still thousands of miles away from creating a meaningful threat… even in the days of a wildly unpopular Donald Trump. Even with a Pence-tie-break-Senate-vote to “debate” the… er… mystery and unknown… GOP healthcare “repeal and replace” plan? Yup!

I’m Peter Dekom, and while we live in some of the most unjust and unfair times in American history, until Americans feel economically secure about their futures, those moral issues will just trail as national priorities as much as we may hate that reality.

New Presidential?

 Tonight's blog has been hijacked by Peter's editorial staff. We had to vent...

A few days ago, President Donald Trump made a speech at the dedication of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford that was both respectful and presidential. It wasn’t a particularly great speech, just the usual stuff about proud Americans and how great our service people are, while politely acknowledging all the VIPs in the room, even those he’d previously denigrated. For a bar set as low as it is right now, it was a high point for a struggling president. There was hope that maybe he was beginning to “get it.”

Today, he had the opportunity to build on that momentum as he spoke to the safest, and certainly most impressionable audience he would ever face, the National Jamboree of the Boy Scouts of America. If ever there was a moment to stay on teleprompter and make a solid, standard, polite, PRESIDENTIAL speech, this was the time. Trump apparently felt differently…

“What the hell!” Trump exclaimed early in his chat with the boys. The lads roared back in boisterous approval, and Trump was on his way down to a new Limbo record. (The bar has been lowered yet again) Then came "Who the hell wants to talk politics... " as he began to talk politics. Hey mom and dad, remember that word you told me it’s not polite to use… Well go to HELL! The president says it’s OK.

He warned the boys not to believe the dishonest news media and told them to pursue success above all else. He trotted out members of his cabinet as sterling examples of former Boy Scouts like destroyer of the environment Scott Pruitt, destroyer of health care Tom Price, and destroyer of something, but he forgot what it was, Rick Perry. (Price he “jokingly” threatened to fire if their failing health care bill doesn’t pass congress.) Trump himself was never a scout, but at least he hires them. (10 of his cabinet members are former scouts… kinda makes you wonder what they’re teaching those boys?) Loyalty and obedience… important tenets of the BSA, but to Trump they were what Eagle Scout Jeff Sessions (not in attendance) was lacking.

He commented again and again on the huge size of the crowd, daring the cameras to show how many kids and parents were there for him. (He forgot that this was the last day of their annual, national jamboree, and Trump was just one act in a four day show. Sort of like Melanie taking credit for Woodstock.)

He denigrated congress, the judiciary, political correctness, Hilary Clinton, President Obama, the press, and anyone else he could think of. It was Trump’s greatest hits on tour, and his audience of mostly white, teenage and younger, boys ate it up like they would a heavy metal concert. Trump basked in the glory of their adulation, receiving a much-needed boost of star worship. (It should be noted that Complaints from parents have come pouring in since the conclusion.)

As Trump pointed out again and again, it was a love fest. Trump didn’t want to leave. He called Washington a swamp, then corrected himself and said that it was really a cesspool. He railed against the horror of Obamacare, because nobody appreciates the intricacies of healthcare like 10-17 year old boys, and he blamed everyone he could think of. He told the boys that Obama didn't care about them, and they responded by booing lustily at the mention of the previous President. The nastier he got, the more the boys loved it. To them, Trump was like the coolest role model ever.

Scout Law  reads: "A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." Donald Trump is really none of those things. The flood gates are wide open now boys… go out and respect nothing!

We now return the blog to Peter