Hillary's Ghost .

Hillary Clinton's frustration on why she
"really" lost is beyond
current conspiracy theories .

Hillary R Clinton's   memoir What Happened, (1)>>which examines her 2016 loss to President Trump. is a vary interesting book . Clinton might have become America’s first woman president, but she didn’t ,so we have another book .Her new  book  runs from the apathetic white lady voters to (2)>>Russian meddling theory to the inscrutable popularity of Donald Trump. When Clinton's focus turns to herself, however, she's light on culpability. (3)>>Mrs. Clinton has a long history or writing apologetic books . He last book Hard Choices was about Benghazi , the failed foreign American policy under President Obama. Living History a book that was published in 2003 reflected pretty much decrying the overly lengthy later treatments of relatively mundane events as First Lady, and criticizing the lack of candor in the sections covering controversial episodes, including those surrounding her husband and the Lewinsky scandal. These three books I have in my book collections . They sound so similar , its not about making any sense of the "why" but about the "hows" in Mrs. Clinton's  personal recollections. Don't get me wrong here . Hillary Clinton is a vary intelligent and shrewd woman.  In reality she became a epic fail in the political system having to lose the Presidency to two men who came out as the anti- establishment base . As an example of why it’s interesting,  in both cases consider the opening scenes she had to endure , about how Clinton dealt losing twice with the inauguration ceremony in which she might have expected to be sworn in herself, but instead sat there watching both Barrack Obama and  Donald Trump take the oath. She was seemed jinxed from the start when back in 2008 she was running against Obama in a vary nasty campaign . After watching the debate between her and Obama it really sank into me that Hillary had a over confidence dilemma . While she was drilling the unexperienced Obama in a debate regarding healthcare reform in 2008 , Hillary threw some punches , she was incredibly more versed on the subject than Obama was . So how could such a intelligent woman have  lost ? TWICE !? 

Why Hillary Lost to Obama.2008 AD.

What made Obama politically
smart is that he was able
to take his opponents
Like Mrs. Clinton , turn
her into  a supporter .  

Back when Sen. Hillary Clinton was just starting her campaign, top aides and advisers had a ready answer when asked if she could win the presidency."She's already winning," came the response, as repeated by chief strategist Mark Penn, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe and other top aides and advisers, in memos, press releases and interviews as the campaign began in 2007.Obama's change message was far superior in 2008 to Hillary's experience message. With a majority of Americans telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track, Obama faced a danger, fueled by Hillary's gibes, that his change message would be too vague and rhetorical. But the combination of wonky policy speeches in early 2007 and a well-designed Web site that proved he was substantive helped him put meat on the strong bones of his themes.Much of the bombastic campaign rhetoric from 2008 — think “3 a.m. call” — proved as ephemeral as the thousands of half-melted “Hillary” candy bars Clinton’s staff handed out on Super Tuesday ,‘08 shots at Obama have had resonance far beyond the short shelf life of the standard campaign hit parade: her mockery of his vow to transform Washington in his own image, her cry of “elitism” and her skepticism about his managerial chops echo today in the form of GOP attacks and the lingering doubts of some in his own party.Clinton’s campaign attacks on Obama may have been an exaggerated version of reality, but in retrospect they were illuminating, in the way a hand grenade provides a flash of light before going boom.on Feb. 24, 2008, that represented her most stinging attack on Obama’s core hope-and-change message.“I could stand up here and say: let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,” Clinton said, voice dripping with contempt long since discarded. (4)>>“The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing, and the world would be perfect,” Clinton added. “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this will be. You are not going to wave a magic wand…” From that moment on she lost to Barrack Obama.

"  BACK  UP YOU CREEP"

"'This is not OK,'" she recalled thinking in What Happened, set to come out Sept. 12. "Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now, we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled."

Here’s a partial transcript of the debate anecdote:

“This is not ok, I thought. It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause, and ask everyone watching, “Well, what would you do?” Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, “Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women but you can’t intimidate me. So back up.” I chose Option A. I kept my cool, aided by a lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off. I did, however, grip the microphone extra hard.”

On Wednesday, as in the aftermath of the debate, social media exploded with reaction to the former Secretary of State's disclosures, but almost all of it was informed by users' party affiliation. Democrats who voted for Clinton championed her, while Trump supporters seized on what they saw as hypocrisy from a sex scandal-plagued Clinton presidency. The people did hear Hillary's plans and rejected them. Many, if not most, Trump voters don't like the guy. However, they reasoned that the alternative was even worse. Clinton looked more dominant than she had even in 2008 — her poll numbers were higher, her challengers weaker, her endorsements more impressive. Liberals, chastened by the disappointments of the Obama years, seemed to recognize Clinton's prescience. The GOP faced almost a Apocalypse. Till they pulled one of the greatest bloddless (5)>> coup d'état in American political history. Collusion was in their mist , they sized power on a alt-right wing platfourm that they were planning in 8 years of Obama .   In last fall's election, no matter which candidate won, the American people lost.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

Hillary won the popular vote
in 2008 , but lost to
Obama .

(1)>>which examines her 2016 loss to President Trump.  I was "flabbergasted" when I watched Hillary Clinton lose to Donald J Trump . I saw the early polls on TV as votes were being counted , she was behind , way behind . Though the election of 2016 was fishy, troubling . Considering Trump's rather disturbing background , Hillary should have won , she beat Trump during the TV debates . Hillary was more articulate than Trump , Trump threating to send Hillary to Jail was a give away besides calling on Russia to hack her e-mails was a red flag to the voters ??  I don't think the voters knew what they were getting. Based on what we know now{ gutting the Russian meddling theory} . The 2016 presidential election is likely to share a lasting twilight-zone quality with the election of 2000. Each led to an unfortunate result, by my lights—the election of George W. Bush in one case, of Donald Trump in the other—through what was, by anyone’s lights, the interaction of a thousand factors whose relative impacts no one will ever be able to separate. So many things “made the difference” in each race that we’ll never know which specific one was most important or consequential. In each case, the loser of the popular vote ended up in the White House—something that seemed a mainly theoretical twist back before Bush v. Gore, since no living American had experienced it.       (2)>>Russian meddling theory.      This is, to put it lightly, crazy.  BLAMING the RUSSIANS is sinister in many ways . I don't believe it , first YOU have to think that if the Russians helped trump win in any way , its extremely hurtful to the Republican party . It puts the Republican GOP establishment in collusion as well . Yes, MAYBE the GOP did rig the election to have Trump win the nomination is MY SUSPICION. But as I said before Trump can't escape his Russia business dealings . I think they will hurt him .  The most amazing thing is that a Clinton campaign official essentially spells out why it’s nuts to Axios Presented By LexCorp, but doesn’t quite piece it together.“The White House was like everyone else: They thought she’d win anyway. ... If he had done more, it might have lessened a lot of aggrieved feelings, although I don’t think it would have altered the outcome. The Russia thing was like a spy novel, and anything he said or did would have helped get people to believe it was real.” (3)>>Mrs. Clinton has a long history or writing apologetic books . Her two books.  Hard  Choices , Living History are more about explaining , apologies to the American public . One of best , long lasting books was the 1996 "It Takes a Village" which redefined the American educational system . To this day it still influences public schools way beyond NCLB / Common Core . Its concept was to introduce US public schools to a global community as one world . (4)>>“The sky will open, the light will come down" .  See this video :   http://bit.ly/2kcM89b . Any body remember this one ? A day after Hillary Clinton angrily called on Barack Obama to stop mailing campaign literature she said misrepresented her positions, the New York senator adopted a more sarcastic tone toward her rival on a campaign swing through Rhode Island Sunday.If Obama was surprised by his presidency's failure to change the tenor of American politics, Clinton probably wasn't. She had always been clear that Obamaism was, in her view, shot through with naiveté about the nature of both American politics and Republican opposition. (5)>> coup d'état . Technically any sudden, decisive political act but popularly restricted to the overthrow of a government.coup d'état in Culture. coup d'état [(kooh day-tah)] A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.he phrase did not appear within an English text before the 19th century except when used in translation of a French source, there being no simple phrase in English to convey the contextualized idea of a "knockout blow to the existing administration within a state."

Trump's UN speech was a "bomb".

Trump's UN speech was a "bomb"
literally .

OK, you tell me was there anything offensive about (1)>>Donald J Trump's crack at the UN speech this week? If you are a hard -core "conservative", this speech was the most powerful down to the point ever spoken at the UN headquarters since Ronald Reagan . If YOU are a "Liberal -Democrat"  , this speech is the most vile, with the most promiscuous abandon livened with insults . IF YOU are in the middle and "independent" as I am,  you get to dissect Trump's rhetoric piece by piece  .  First President Donald Trump made his debut at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 19, where he made a wide-ranging speech that was, well . . . memorable. While addressing an auditorium filled with the world's most powerful leaders, (2)>>Trump dished out threats to North Korea and took the opportunity to rehash his gripes with (2.1)>>the Iranian nuclear deal. The president struck an angry, nationalist tone throughout his remarks that bore an uncanny resemblance to the "America-first" sentiments from his inaugural speech. In addition to nick-naming the North Korean based on threats of nuclear

force, the commander in chief blasted 'loser terrorists,' the 'corrupt' Venezuelan government, and the 'murderous' Iranian regime and 'rogue regimes'. Again Trump's speech in every sense of the word was disturbing . Though he was on the mark  with North Korea , since North Korea has been threating to nuke America , launching missiles aka  (3)>>" Rocket Man" {Kim Jun Un } its still unsettling that a war could break out . From a independent  point of view may have been a bad move for Trump to threaten North Korea , Iran and Venezuela. What is puzzling about the speech is  he would not rule out a (4)>>"military option" in Venezuela as the ruling regime there consolidates power. Why Venezuela ? Get Serious !? Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro had requested a phone call with Trump, the White House said. Trump, according to an administration statement, will gladly speak with the nation's leader when democracy has been restored in the country.The Trump administration has issued sanctions against Maduro, whom it calls a "dictator," and more than two dozen other former and current officials. The U.S. accuses Maduro's regime of violating human rights and subverting democratic processes. Its crazy . Personally why can't our government leaders in chief not get it . You can't make threats like this . Our nation should be setting a higher standard with specialty in the United Nations . It is time to tone down rhetoric and start serious negotiations. The problem is that nobody trusts Washington politicians after Iraq, Libya, Syria lies. Washington politicians of both parties proved to be congenital liars.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>Donald J Trump's crack at the UN speech this week?Since Trump was calling out all the world's villains, he forgot Putin and Russia hacking of Democratic elections. Climate change one of the great threats to the world, no mention, in meantime major hurricane is bearing down on Puerto Rico. Guess Trump never heard of TR's "speak softly, and carry a big stick." This speech is an embarrassing disaster, Trump is making the US an international laughingstock.  (2)>>Trump dished out threats to North Korea.  North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said President Trump is the only person "on a suicide mission," one that is making "our rocket's visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more."In a fiery speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York Saturday, Ri responded to a string of threats from Mr. Trump throughout the week -- particularly Mr. Trump's threat to "totally destroy" North Korea if the U.S. is "forced to defend itself or its allies." Mr. Trump has said "rocket man" Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader, is on a "suicide mission," but Ri said "none other than Trump himself is on a suicide mission.""Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity of my country by referring it to a rocket," Ri said. "By doing so however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rocket's visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more."(2.1)>>the Iranian nuclear deal. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday ripped President Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly a day earlier as “ignorant, absurd and hateful,” charging that it would be a “great pity” if the 2015 nuclear deal his nation agreed to with the U.S. and other world powers “were to be destroyed by rogue newcomers” to politics.In a scathing 23-minute speech to the chamber, Rouhani did not mention Trump by name, but referred to him on several occasions, citing his threats to tear up the nuclear pact.“It will be a great pity if this agreement were to be destroyed by rogue newcomers to the world of politics," Rouhani said. "The world will have lost a great opportunity, but such unfortunate behavior will never impede Iran’s course of progress." (3)>>" Rocket Man" {Kim Jun Un }. He combined his explosive rhetoric with repeated assertions of U.S. military might, and a demand that the UN live up to its founding principles of collective action and self-determination for nations.  Directly putting the country's leader on notice, Trump suggested Kim Jong Un could not survive an American attack. "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself," he said. China allowed NK to have nukes assuming they would not work on rockets in which case the nukes would have been pretty useless. But NK thinks they are going to be able to play the MADD game and they will actually be allowed to launch a nuke on a rocket, even as a test. They figured this was just the next step in the "I'm gonna push Mommy a bit further today" game.The minute NK puts a nuke on a rocket and detonates it somewhere even up in the sky, that has to be the uncrossable line. If not, then we might as well let them have a 300 missile arsenal and start the Cold War all over again just like we did with Russia. And while Russia seems to have matured to the point that they can be trusted not to launch unless launched on, and China seems to have done the same, both those countries have significant infrastructure of value they want to protect. NK does not have that, and therefore simply cannot be allowed to play MADD - because they have literally nothing of value to be threatened.(4)>>"military option" in Venezuela. For years, Venezuela’s leaders have warned of an impending danger from the United States. They claimed American spy planes were flying close to the border. They said United States diplomats had assassination plans for Venezuelan leaders. And at times of domestic crisis, the country’s top officials have said that Washington is planning to invade.Few besides the most fervent government loyalists ever saw truth in the plots. But Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he was considering a “military option” to deal with the crisis in Venezuela may well breathe life into some of the government’s more wild claims. Trump's remarks don't appear to have been coordinated with Vice President Mike Pence, who arrived in Colombia on Sunday for a tour of the region. During his visit, Pence appeared to try to thread a rhetorical needle, keeping pressure on Venezuela without explicitly affirming Trump's statement about military force.

Revisiting Amerika. 2017.

Revisiting Amerika.

One of the most depressing films from the late 1980s was a TV miniseries called (1.1)>>Amerika. I had to FORCE myself to watch it all the way through the last time I saw it because I was so confused by my random memories of the short parts I'd seen before. Let me just say, SO not worth it to sit through the whole thing. If the election of an American president abetted by Russian interference seems stranger than fiction, you're almost right. Right now the fiction of Russian meddling is sort of the same propaganda in line with Amerika . Back in the 1980s   , it was the hard-line Reagan era of the "evil empire" . So fittingly our media machine created unique anti- Soviet propaganda that in a certain way equaled anti - American Soviet propaganda . When I watched the series on Youtube , just watching it . I found amazing psychological parallels in our current American anti Russian hysteria generated by the election of Donald Trump .  Exactly 30 years ago, in the midst of the Cold War, (1)>>ABC aired a seven-night, 14-and-a-half-

hour miniseries depicting life 10 years after the Soviet Union manipulates the presidential election as meek and deflated Americans shrug. “Amerika,” was heavily criticized at the time for peddling the histrionic premise of a bloodless coup. And while much of the production remains implausible, its core message is more relevant today than ever. Well ahead of it's time but well worth watching today for it's topical relevance. Russia takes control of the United States and the Americans find their way of life altered and thereafter, all but destroyed. The TV series was a  gut wrenching . And therein lies the fatal flaw of ''Amerika.'' The root idea - that the United States would simply crumble from within because of a national moral flabbiness - is monumentally implausible. (2)>>''The Day After,'' whatever its artistic quality, at least dealt with tangible realities. There are indeed nuclear stockpiles hovering over our lives. There have been colossal nuclear accidents. And the possibility of a nuclear holocaust must be confronted. 
Some interesting notes on the Actors and Actresses .
But ''Amerika'' asks us to believe that our country was taken over by the Soviets in 1986 in a bloodless coup - the few revealed details are bewildering - primarily because the bulk of the American population had lost its moral fiber, its will to fight for freedom. Rubbish. This is the kind of Armageddon vision nurtured by those who find men in long hair or women in short skirts threatening. Also living in Milford is (2.1)>>Peter Bradford (Robert Urich), Devin's boyhood friend from more humble social circumstances. Practical Peter collaborates with the new authorities in an effort to make the best of things. Meanwhile, his wife Amanda (Cindy Pickett) becomes increasingly more dubious about her husband's strategy and begins to think fondly once again about her first love, (2.2)>>Devin Milford. Weaving in and out of these lives periodically is the elegant, sophisticated (3)>>Russian Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill), who, when not ruminating endlessly on the admirable ramifications of the American dream, is engaging in a torrid love affair with the young actress Kimberly (Mariel Hemingway), who is committed to what has become underground theater. Eugene O'Neill? Tennessee

(Sam Neill)
 Damian Omen III portrait as the Anti- Christ
influenced his Russian Col. Denisov
vary well in Amerika .

Williams? No, we first see Kimberly in ''The Fantasticks,'' which presumably will keep on running no matter what the world comes to. Needless to say, given the time, money and intense effort that has gone into ''Amerika,'' the production does contain a few considerable assets. While several members of the cast - especially Mr. Kristofferson, long a vocal protestor against nuclear arms - have publicly expressed reservations about appearing in the film, the nervous concern seems to have given some of the performances an extra edge. Mr. Kristofferson gives a fine, strong performance that takes on Lincolnesque dimensions. And Mr. Neill as the suave Russian Colonel Denisov just about walks off with the mini-series, bringing authority and charm to every scene he steals. Ms. Hemingway's actress is a bit of inconsequential fluff, but Ms. Lahti and Ms. Pickett are splendidly solid, making two rather odd women genuinely sympathetic. Add this to the effectiveness of some of the more emotionally choreographed scenes - the parade that ends Episode Two is a heart-tugging display of flag-waving patriotism - and ''Amerika'' clearly can claim a decent share of dramatic assets. But getting through the enormous glut of stereotypes and preachifying dialogue that surround them will tax even the most willing suspenders of disbelief. (The only real villain, incidentally, is the East German named Helmut; the Russians on display are positively enlightened sorts, ashamed of the ''hotheads'' back in the Kremlin.) While the viewer gets occasional, mystifying reports of the Soviets dealing with problems in other parts of the globe, from Afghanistan to Alaska, the story sticks to locales in Nebraska, Washington and Chicago. Will Devin be able to lead the people against Peter's compromise for a decentralized and thus fatally weakened America?

Trump and  Russia .
Crossing from Fiction to reality .
 After the collapse of the Soviet Union a quarter-century ago, the jokes petered out for a while after authorities lost their grip on power.  Honestly I don't think many Americans believe as they do about  a Russian take over of our political system . Meanwhile, as "normal”  Americans, they manage to cast a rather bright spotlight on the rather absurdist new “normal” that is on display for a posse of Trump Administration appointees and insiders, so many of which just coincidentally have some Russian connection or other.  The post offers

a “handy reference chart" of those leaders who seem genuinely disturbed by the now statistically-impossible-to-be-explained-by-mere-coincidence phenomena of so many people in the Trump camp being connected to Russia and those who are trying hard to act like it’s perfectly normal to, say, hang out with Ambassador Kislyak or have a bank account at the Bank of Cyprus.  We know there are now numerous investigations going on, but in this moment before the shit really hits the fan for Trump and his comrades—in the absence of an explanatory story line that explains what most everyone instinctively already knows may well be the most bizarre and brazen but ultimately fumbling episode of treason in the history of of the United States—it is helpful to have this reference chart to see the amazing scope of the scandal. Meanwhile , the United States government and its partners in corporate media are engaged in a sustained propaganda attack against the government and people of Russia. The tactic is an old one and is used precisely because it is so effective. If a nation and its people are disparaged and dehumanized enough its enemies can attack in any number of ways without fear of debate or popular opposition.Zeal to blame Russia for a bad election outcome has spread like contagion among countless self-described progressives, understandably appalled by the imminent Trump presidency. But those who think they’re riding a helpful tiger could find themselves devoured later on.

The "end" of  Amerika  . Fast forward "fiction". 

Rebellious Devin Milford (Kristofferson) is the ex-presidential candidate who doesn't want 1990s America to be Balkanized; Peter Bradford (Robert Urich) is a regional puppet-governor who wants everybody to remain orderly and cooperate with the Soviets. Devin decides to tap into the Natnet TV communications satellite and deliver a rousing keep-America-united message to the whole nation.To get to the communications center, Devin's troops take on the hated occupation forces at the barracks outside their Nebraska town. Devin fights his way to the communications center. The madman barracks commander gets drilled just in the nick of time by his former lover, Althea (Christine Lahti). But, just as Devin is ready to deliver his speech, Peter shows up with his troops. When Devin won't be put off, Peter's right-hand general shoots him dead. Cut to Devin's well-attended funeral. Cut to the conveniently unguarded barracks, where Devin's son Billy is talking to America via Natnet: "My father died because he believed that what he stood for was more important than life. . . . He lived for himself. He lived for his ideals, for the America he loved. He lived for me--and for you."

Ends the book: "Devin Milford . . . left a legacy that his son and his son's children would inherit. A legacy of American spirit that was priceless."

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1.1)>>Amerika. – suggesting a Russified name for the United States –Described in promotional materials as "the most ambitious American miniseries ever created," Amerika aired for 14½ hours (including commercials) over seven nights (beginning February 8, 1987), and reportedly cost US$40 million to produce. The program was filmed in Toronto, London, and Hamilton, Ontario,[1] as well as various locations in Nebraska – most notably the small town of Tecumseh and Milford, the setting for most of the action of the series. Donald Wrye was the executive producer, director, and sole writer of Amerika, while composer Basil Poledouris was hired to score the miniseries, ultimately recording (with the Hollywood Symphony Orchestra) eight hours of music – the equivalent of four feature films.(1)>>ABC aired a seven-night. As the brainchild of writer-director-producer Donald Wrye, the 14 1/2 hour ABC movie event Amerika marked one of the most expensive and controversial miniseries in the history of prime time television when it bowed over the course of seven nights in February of 1987. Regarded as something of a conservative counterpoint to Nicholas Meyer's The Day After (which screened on ABC, four years prior and allegedly demonstrated leftwing bias - prompting very outspoken criticisms from Republican pundit Ben Stein), this $40 million production imagines a dystopian future set in the late 1990s. When the drama opens in May of 1997, the Russians have effectively won the Cold War by wresting control over the United States, with the backing of a U.N. Peacekeeping Force. Although the initial takeover was not annihilative or even apparently violent, the consequences are overwhelming; a puppet leader holds court in the Oval Office, the American economy has fallen to pieces with Midwesterners lining up for vegetables, and gulag prisons are scattered across the land; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of refugees have hit the countryside and wander aimlessly. The majority of the action unfurls in a rural Nebraska community, where onetime antiwar protester and presidential candidate Devin Milford (Kris Kristofferson) has just been released from a gulag, and now discovers his family farm being whittled away by the Russians. Meanwhile, his childhood friend Peter Bradford has somehow landed a position in the government hierarchy and finds himself being drawn in more deeply. Across the land, Russian stormtroopers engage in acts of violent intimidation, such as burning farmhouses and brainwashing abductees, while the Russian occupiers systematically maneuver on the political front to bring the once-powerful republic tumbling down. The supporting cast includes Christine Lahti, Wendy Hughes, Sam Neill, Armin Mueller-Stahl and many others; the title, of course, was intended to reflect "America" as modified to a slightly more Russian spelling. (2)>>''The Day After,''.  Another "crazy" film of the cold war times . ABC’s TV movie The Day After runs a mere two hours—edited, clumsily at times, down from a sprawling four. But as a cultural touchstone, whose reputation for leaving an entire generation traumatized and jaded, it’s endured far longer. President Ronald Reagan watched the film several days before its screening, on November 5, 1983. He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed," and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war". The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone." Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing. Reagan supposedly later sent Meyer a telegram after the summit, saying, "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did." However, in a 2010 interview, Meyer said that this telegram was a myth, and that the sentiment stemmed from a friend's letter to Meyer; he suggested the story had origins in editing notes received from the White House during the production, which "...may have been a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me, him being an old Hollywood guy."The film also had impact outside the U.S. In 1987, during the era of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms, the film was shown on Soviet television. Four years earlier, Georgia Rep. Elliott Levitas and 91 co-sponsors introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives "[expressing] the sense of the Congress that the American Broadcasting Company, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency should work to have the television movie The Day After aired to the Soviet public. (2.1)>>Peter Bradford (Robert Urich). Peter Bradford (Robert Urich) is Milford`s former roommate, a politician caught up in the occupation, a pragmatist or a collaborator, depending on your perspective. His wife, Amanda (Cindy Pickett), is Devin Milford`s former lover, a woman who grows to hate the occupation and her husband`s role in it. Set down in this community is Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill), a soldier destined to take control of the five-state ``Heartland`` region but a man torn by his own fascination with and love for the America he knew before the occupation.  (2.2)>>Devin Milford.   Devin Milford, meanwhile, has had enough of the communists and escapes his exile, traveling the revived underground railroad to Chicago, where he attempts to kidnap his two children, Billy and Caleb. Billy knows how his mother got where she is and wants to know more about his father, whom he hasn`t seen in six years. Caleb, meanwhile, turns Devin into the police. When Devin is arrested, Billy returns to his grandfather and uncle in Milford County.Peter Bradford accepts Denisov`s invitation to share a national political office with Devin`s ex-wife. As a result, Amanda Bradford leaves him. (``You just neglected to tell me that you and the Russians were starting another country?`` she asks.) Devin escapes his captors and disappears into the underground and the stage is set for the final confrontation, a full-scale national revolution to regain control of the country.Will Devin Milford succeed in leading the revolution, or will he be stopped by the communists and his old pal Peter Bradford? Is there a happy ending? Or will ``Amerika`` become a weekly series, much like NBC`s space alien/Nazi allegory, ``V`` was? (Two characters, Devin Milford`s sons, could carry on the fight each week, if it does become a series.) Do the Russians win? Or is the audience, after more than 14 hours, left holding the bag? ABC`s 82-minute condensation doesn`t say. (3)>>Russian Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill). Seeing Sam Neill in this film as Andrei Denisov was the complex one, the enemy and not the enemy, the KGB colonel who harbored a love for America that the Americans themselves had lost. Neill is known for his Damian Omen III portrait as the Anti- Christ . I can see that he never quit the same smirk on his face as in the Omen . Neill's cultural infamy as a character is better played by his Col . Denisov . Who is struggling a thin line with his Soviet bosses , though he tells Peter Bradford -Urich that he can best "preserve" what was left of America since the Soviet occupiers desire to leave , make a America into separate nations  . Neill's character is the only redeeming part of the Soviet occupiers .

Whose DREAM is it now ? On DACA , other misconceptions .

President Donald J Trump this week . Gutting the DACA Act, putting  an expiration date on the legal protections granted to roughly 800,000 people known as (1)>>"DREAMers," who entered the country illegally as children.  Could become just as difficult .  It's interesting that President Trump tweeted that the Dreamers don't have to worry about being deported , thanks to Nancy Pelosi putting pressure on him while cutting a deal over the Debt Ceiling .  We should also note that DACA did not grant any citizenship, or path to citizenship, or even legal status to Dreamers. It simply protected them from deportation, and allowed them to get work permits and drivers licenses.  For 16 years, advocates for legalizing young immigrants brought here illegally by their parents have tried to pass legislation to shield them from deportation. First of all , people are going crazy over it. Not many know its' background .  Second of all former President Obama never wrote the bill which he is given credit to have enacted .  The Dream Act first of all is not exactly what DACA was originally meant to be . . Here is what one source tells me :

On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would stop deporting illegal immigrants who match certain criteria included in the proposed DREAM Act. On August 15, 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS) began accepting applications under the Obama administration's new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Thousands applied for the new program. Because DACA was designed in large measure to address the immigration status of the same people as the DREAM Act, the two programs are often debated together, with some making little distinction between them and others focusing on the difference between the DREAM Act's legislative approach in contrast to the implementation of DACA through executive action. As of January 2017, 740,000 people have registered through DACA..

I don't want to take the side of Trump on this one  . As MUCH as WE LOVE TO HATE 'EM , Donald Trump threw a foul ball to the much nothing a do Congress . For decades , Congress failed to enact immigration reform. They have kicked the can . Trump's actions though seem worthy of criticism  has to , some how  stir s the issue of immigration policy that is fair for all who want to be American . DACA was not for legal immigration. DACA is for kids whose parents brought them here either legally or illegally and they have lived here ever since, as Americans, speaking English, sharing in our culture.  It’s not clear whether Republican - Democratic lawmakers, who have struggled for years to agree on an immigration reform package and who face a series of other high-stakes deadlines this fall, will be able to score a legislative solution by March. (2)>>And Trump appears to have dramatically upped the stakes, with the White House saying Congress needs to pass “responsible immigration reform" that not only addresses former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but also improves the green card system and establishes a merit-based immigration framework.


Wake up People . DACA was "temporary"  !
So DACA is a "program" , its not exactly any kind of legislation  . The original Dream Act never became a law that passed Congress . The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001. As a result, young undocumented immigrants have since been called Dreamers. Over the last 16 years, numerous versions of the Dream Act have been introduced, all of which would have provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to this country as children. Some versions have garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House.Despite bipartisan support for each bill, none have become law. The bill came closest to passage in 2010 when the House of Representatives passed the bill and the Senate came five votes short of the 60 Senators needed to proceed to vote on the bill. Before there was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, there was Mr. Durbin’s Dream. In 2007, a version of the measure won the support of a majority of senators but fell victim to a bipartisan filibuster that included eight Democrats. Three years later, the bill passed the House but again did not get through the Senate. And in 2013, language allowing dreamers to stay in this country and work or attend school was included in a broader immigration package that passed the Senate with 68 votes — then failed in the House.Frustrated after years of failings,  (3)>>President Barack Obama signed DACA as a temporary order in the hope that Congress would eventually pass the Dream Act and broader immigration changes. But with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the Dream Act stalled once again.

The DACA & DREAM ACT a real path to immigration "reform".

Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people from around the world are waiting patiently for their backlogged visa and green-card applications to be reviewed. Imagine their frustration. Why don’t their dreams come first? The American system of immigration is needed to be reformed , it like the Department of Veterans Affairs need a overhaul . Getting into this country is a slow process , its vary expensive , less inviting . Nancy Pelosi called on House Republicans to help her “safeguard our young DREAMers from the senseless cruelty of deportation and shield families from separation and heartbreak.” Never has this Bay Area elitist called on House Republicans to join her in shielding native-born and law-abiding immigrant families from the senseless and preventable violence committed by criminals in this country illegally who’ve caused immeasurable heartbreak for decades in her overrun California sanctuary. In 2014 , The Washington Post put some conclusions forth on our immigration policy  the dark side of the Dreamers act { see full article here -http://wapo.st/2xWf08p ) DACA  has improved the lives of undocumented young people and their families and has also had a positive impact on the economy generally. (4)>>Multiple studies from across the political spectrum have demonstrated that ending DACA would the cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars.  Still, it’s primarily a matter of fairness and humanity. That the benefits of DACA be utilized to help those who want to enter the nation LEGALLY .  These young people have been here all their lives. They are, in every way, American kids. The BIG question is why for so long the parents of the Dreamers did not become / try to become US citizens through a amnesty program ?.  Our outdated immigration policies create enormous legal barriers and make becoming legal impossible for many undocumented immigrants.  This goes to the grain of immigration reform .  Now it falls to Congress to keep DACA in place until legislators can pass a DREAM Act or immigration reform bill that ensures that these hardworking young people { anyone who wishes to immigrate legally }  can continue to pursue their aspirations and contribute to America’s future.

DACA considerations to note :

There are many, interlocking/interleaving reasons. Some are:Rewarding people who committed a crime introduces a moral hazard.For every person who gets citizenship for their children under DREAM act, there are (literally) tens of thousands, if not millions, out there, who - seeing the end result - will want to do the same for THEIR descendants.Yes, in a narrow technical sense, the children didn't commit the crime. But, the child getting a citizenship is a reward to the parents just as much as to the child.Rewarding people who committed a crime destroys the country's fabric in general.People see that some people commit a crime and instead of punishment, get rewarded. And those who are more sociopathic on average will take that as a nudge that crime is not such a bad idea.Rule of law is one of the main things distinguishing civilization from barbarism. Throw that out, and you erode the civilization significantly.Speaking of "fairness" - amnesty is patently unfair to many other people - both the legal immigrants; as well as those who chose not to break the US law and thus didn't illegally immigrate.As with many other marginal measures on polarizing political divide topics, it's seen as problematic by one side to allow another side ANY victory, no matter how small or sensible. This has several reasons:It moves the Overton windowIt up-moralizes the opposition side and demoralizes your sideIt gives the opposite side momentum, in general, in all facets of political life (fundraising, morale, participation, enthusiasm, perception).There is a long and sordid history of breaking promises on compromises, especially on the side that is pro-amnesty/pro-illegals. This is true both in general political life on various topics, and even on the immigration topic (the last large amnesty was done by Reagan, under the promised compromise to fix border security. The latter not just didn't happen, but got worse).Some measures are way too broad as far as how many people are affected.E.g. DACA's Wikipedia page says "At the program's start, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible". That's just at the start.Some measures (DACA extension) raise constitutional/separation of powers concern.Mostly over executive branch's actions that "should" be done by legislative.Tactical political calculations.For a host of reasons, most people who would become citizens under the amnesty are largely likely to vote "Democrat" (I don't have the poll ready to prove it, but it has almost nothing to do with the parties' respective stances on immigration, by the way).As such, it's self-defeating for many Republicans to support any amnesty, since it decreases their political power, even if they aren't opposed to amnesty for reasons listed above.For the sake of completeness, there are accusations that some do it out of racism. Given the weight of accusation, the onus is on the Dream act proponents to prove that - for example by showing that the opposition to the act disappears if it's restricted to non-latino (or also non-asian) illegals.

1. 
   

   What the LAW really says :

   
   

   how can it be such people are considered "illegal" even though their presence here is no fault of their own? What "crime" did they commit?

   They're "illegal" in the sense that they don't (prior to any amnesty being granted) have any lawful right to reside in the USA, but they are residing in the USA. "Legal" and "not legal" aren't matters of "fault", they're matters of legal definition. To slightly misapply criminal terminology, there is no mens rea for "not having legal status to reside in the US", it's a strict-liability thing.Anyway, it's not the case that everything illegal is "criminal". Especially in US terminology, where "criminal" is often reserved to mean "felonious", therefore excluding "misdemeanour" crimes.I'm not a lawyer, but for example one relevant law might be 8 U.S. Code § 1227 (a) (1) (A) "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable". This alone doesn't assert that they've committed a crime. That whole section of USC is about people who have no legal grounds to remain in the USA, since they legally can be deported. These people who never had residency or who had a time-limited residency which has expired, are often informally referred to as "illegals" regardless of whether they've committed any criminal offence that can be prosecuted.In addition, they may actively have committed crimes once they reached the age of criminal responsibility, and/or once they reached the age of adulthood, and continued to reside in the USA without having legal status to do so. AFAIK it's not an offence merely to reside in the USA without status, so many or most "illegals" are not criminals in that sense, but a diligent prosecutor might be able to establish in particular cases that someone has "harbored" other illegal aliens or whatever. There could, I suppose, be offences related to employment or tax: it's certainly possible for an undocumented immigrant to pay tax, and many do, but many don't. So it would not be correct to assume than an "illegal" necessarily is a criminal.So far as the law is concerned, deporting a person who has no legal status to reside is not punishment, at least no more than evicting someone from private land where they have no right to live would be "punishment". Deportation is not considered a criminal matter. So, those who oppose DACA do not agree that, when someone does not have right to reside in the USA, "the least that can be done" is to let them stay in the country. They think the least that can be done is to deport them or ignore them, and any more is a kindness that they choose not to extend.Of course you are quite correct that many Dreamers have no practical ability to live productively anywhere else. But those who want them deported, or at least who believe that the state should reserve the right to deport them, do not necessarily feel that compassion towards non-US citizens is their highest moral imperative or political priority. Some proportion of them might feel that a person with no right to reside in the USA, is morally obliged to leave the USA at the first opportunity, regardless of their prospects in their country of nationality. However, that's not the legal situation.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>"DREAMers,"  Right now the Left is having a meltdown over Trump's ridding of DACA , but here is what "we" are not being told . According to Wiki-pedia , The DREAM Act (acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) is an American legislative proposal for a multi-phase process for qualifying alien minors in the United States that would first grant conditional residency and, upon meeting further qualifications, permanent residency.The bill was first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, SB-129 by United States Senators Dick Durbin (D- Illinois) and Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), and has since been reintroduced several times  but has failed to pass.  Why is it SO CONTROVERSIAL  , here is a illustration . One key point to remember is that someone is in Daca because their parents did an illegal act in the first place. Their entire status here is based on an an illegal act done by their parent. They jumped the line of immigration, without any consequences. Giving amnesty to them is rewarding a crime Imagine someone robs a house, pushes out its original owner and take over it. His son lives here for his whole life. Is good mannered, faithful, does a decent job and is loved in the society . But that still means that his entire lifestyle and the money that supports it comes from a crime.Meanwhile the original owner and his son have to live in poverty and hardship. His son is not the ideal citizen, he has to fight for living. But this life wouldn't have been theirs if the original crime wouldn't have been committed.The original crime, unfairly swapped the lives of the two families. The original criminal parent lived in poverty and hardship and took over someone else's property and money to prosper his own life.  (2)>>And Trump appears to have dramatically upped the stakes. In announcing the end of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asserted that the 2012 action “contributed” to the massive influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America that peaked in 2014.The president’s written statement on ending DACA echoed this claim — that it “helped spur a humanitarian crisis” involving the Central American children. The statement then tried to tie that crisis to violence by MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, a Central American gang that has been operating in the United States since the 1980s. A White House fact sheet was slightly more nuanced: “Partly because of DACA, the United States saw a surge in illegal immigration by minors in 2013-2014, because they hoped to take advantage of the program.” (3)>>President Barack Obama signed DACA as a temporary order . Essentially, Obama was ordering a program of “prosecutorial discretion” that would not target for deportation undocumented aliens who meet these qualifications. When Obama announced the program, he said it was intended as a temporary action — and not a pathway to citizenship — because Congress had failed to pass legislation accomplishing the same goals.  "The main reason the migrants had crossed into the United States was “to take advantage of the ‘new’ U.S. law that grants a free pass or permit” from the government, referred to in their home countries as “permisos,” the memo stated."  Of Course the Trump administration linked the Dreamers with a surge in crime . The president’s written statement on ending DACA echoed this claim — that it “helped spur a humanitarian crisis” involving the Central American children. The statement then tried to tie that crisis to violence by MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, a Central American gang that has been operating in the United States since the 1980s. A White House fact sheet was slightly more nuanced: “Partly because of DACA, the United States saw a surge in illegal immigration by minors in 2013-2014, because they hoped to take advantage of the program.”  (4)>>Multiple studies from across the political spectrum have demonstrated that ending DACA would the cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. The United States could lose up to 700,000 jobs and suffer billions of dollars in lost economic output . The report examines the potential economic consequences of cancelling the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. Under DACA, undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as minors are eligible to apply for a renewable work permit protecting them from deportation. Approximately 800,000 people, sometimes called "dreamers," have benefitted from DACA, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.An average of 30,000 workers could lose their jobs every month if DACA were repealed or permit renewals were held up, the report found. It also estimated that the loss of those workers could cost the country $460.3 billion in economic output over the next decade, with Medicare and Social Security contributions dropping by $24.6 billion.