Follow by Email

Friday, July 1, 2016

David Brooks, "The Coming Political Realignment": Lynch Prepared to Meet With the Spouses of All Persons Under FBI Investigation?



In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Coming Political Realignment," David Brooks discusses Donald Trump's chances of winning the presidential election. Brooks writes:

"Trump’s only hope is to change the debate from size of government to open/closed. His only hope is to cast his opponents as the right-left establishment that supports open borders, free trade, cosmopolitan culture and global intervention. He would stand as a right-left populist who supports closed borders, trade barriers, local and nationalistic culture and an America First foreign policy."

"Open/closed"? I'm no fan of Trump, but a more important issue arose when US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton on Monday. No discussion by the two of the email server in Hillary and Bill's Chappaqua home? Talk only of grandchildren, travel and golf? Why do I have my doubts?

Care to undergo a polygraph test, Loretta?

But even if they only spoke about grandchildren, this would be inappropriate given the investigation of the email server that Lynch is supervising and the decision faced by her concerning a possible indictment of Hillary.

I would contend that Lynch is now obligated to meet with the spouses of all persons whom the FBI is investigating to talk about grandchildren, travel and golf. Fair is fair.

That, or she should resign.

But she won't resign. Indeed, the rule of law has collapsed in the United States. There is one set of rules for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi.

The coming political realignment? It's bigger than you think, David. In fact, it's all about how the United States became a banana republic on a Phoenix tarmac.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Maureen Dowd, "Trump in the Dumps": At Least There's No Problem With His Penis



Maureen Dowd concludes her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump in the Dumps" by observing (my emphasis in red):

"Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president."

Now? Maureen, I suggest you listen again to Trump's defense of the size of his penis at the March 3, 2016 Fox News Republican debate in Detroit:

"Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

As far as I'm concerned, Trump's little hands should not be allowed anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal. Not then, not now, not ever.

Friday, June 17, 2016

David Brooks, "Religion’s Wicked Neighbor": Insulting Our Intelligence



In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Religion’s Wicked Neighbor," David Brooks takes President Obama to task for "refus[ing] to use the word 'Islam' in reference to Islamist terrorism." Brooks writes:

"Obama is using language to engineer a reaction rather than to tell the truth, which is the definition of propaganda. Most world leaders talk about Islamist terror, but Obama apparently thinks that if he uses the phrase 'Islamic radicalism' the rest of us will be too dim to be able to distinguish between the terrorists and the millions of good-hearted Muslims who want only to live in fellowship and peace.

Worst of all, his decision to dance around an unpleasant reality is part of the enveloping cloud of political correctness that drives people to Donald Trump."

Brooks goes on to say that religious terrorists act on their own behalf, not on account of God:

"For the terrorist, a sense of humiliation is the primary reality. Terrorism emerges from a psychic state, not a spiritual one. This turns into a grievance, the belief that some external enemy is the cause of this injury, rather than some internal weakness.

. . . .

For the religious person it’s about God. For the terrorist, it’s about himself. When Omar Mateen was in the midst of his rampage, he was posting on Facebook and calling a TV station. His audience was us, not the Divine.

Omar Mateen wanted us to think he was martyring himself in the name of holiness. He was actually a sad loser obliterating himself for the sake of revenge."

Islamic terrorists are "sad losers" acting from a "psychic state, not a spiritual one"? It's about themselves? It's about revenge? Sorry, but this is a grotesque oversimplification.

Brooks would do well to read "The Age of Sacred Terror," a 2002 New York Times "Notable Book," by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon. Benjamin and Simon write in relevant part:

"Religious violence is typically different from any other kind of warfare - for the simple reason that for a true believer, there is no compromise about the sacred. Or, to put it in a more monotheistic key: One God, one truth. Tolerance is not an intrinsic part of any of the monotheistic religions. For some believers, the outcome of a conflict cannot be ambiguous.

When the issues are sacred demands, there can be no bargaining. The believer cannot compromise on the will of God. Killing becomes an end in itself, rather than one instrument arrayed among nonlethal instruments in a bargaining process. Such believers want a lot of people dead and may not care whether a lot of people are watching, as long as God sees what has been done in His name."

My advice, David: Take a flight from genteel Manhattan to the wilds of Guantanamo, arrange interviews with a cross-section of the Islamic terrorists being held there, and decide for yourself whether these monsters were acting for "themselves." You're apt to experience an epiphany.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Obama's True Legacy: The Age of Irresponsibility



Have a look at George Will's opinion piece entitled "Purdue has the president America needs." As noted by Mr. Will, President Obama declared at Howard University's commencement ceremony one month ago:

"People who have been successful and don’t realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did."

"Wasn't nothing"? Perhaps the president requires a remedial high school English course.

But more to the point, this remarkable take on human endeavor followed on the heels of the president's earlier pronouncement on July 13, 2012 in Roanoke, Virginia:

"If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Which brings me to Hillary's kindred assertion at an October 24, 2014 Boston rally:

"Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs."

Or stated otherwise, you owe it all to God and government, and God does not help those who help themselves.

Thanks, Barry and Hill. I'm taking the next three months off. Time to estivate and allow God and government to watch over the ship. See you in September.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Thomas Friedman, "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando": Iran Hangs Gay Men While Developing ICBMs



In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando," Thomas Friedman acknowledges the danger of radical Islam - something Obama refuses to do. Friedman writes (my emphasis in red):

"I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan."

The Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no mention of Iran (not part of the Arab world), which hangs homosexuals and which, as part of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, is now free to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles?

An oversight on Tom's part? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, Obama is opposing the appropriation of additional funds for the development of Israeli anti-missile systems intended to counter Iranian ICBMs and the some 130,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Mere coincidence?

Monday, June 6, 2016

Paul Krugman, "A Pause That Distresses": Don't Panic?



A mere month ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Diabetic Economy," Paul Krugman wrote from Lisbon:

"Things are terrible here in Portugal, but not quite as terrible as they were a couple of years ago. The same thing can be said about the European economy as a whole. That is, I guess, the good news.

The bad news is that eight years after what was supposed to be a temporary financial crisis, economic weakness just goes on and on, with no end in sight. And that’s something that should worry everyone, in Europe and beyond."

However, according to Paul, everything was hunky-dory in the US:

"Meanwhile, the overall economic and political situation in America gives ample grounds for hope, which is in very short supply over here."

Well, today, in a Times op-ed entitled "A Pause That Distresses," Krugman seems to have changed his tune. Labelling Friday’s employment report "a major disappointment," Krugman tells us:

"Should this pause worry you? Yes. Because if it does turn into a recession, or even if it goes on for a long time, it’s very hard to envision an effective policy response."

Krugman nevertheless proposes:

"For the simplest, most effective answer to a downturn would be fiscal stimulus — preferably government spending on much-needed infrastructure, but maybe also temporary tax cuts for lower- and middle-income households, who would spend the money. Infrastructure spending makes especially good sense given the federal government’s incredibly low borrowing costs: The interest rate on inflation-protected bonds is barely above zero."

Ah yes, infrastructure spending and tax cuts, which would all be well and fine if Obama had not taken American's national debt to an unsustainable $19.3 trillion, amounting to some $60,000 of debt per citizen or more than $161,000 per taxpayer.

Did you happen to see the movie "The Big Short," which tells the stories of those who foresaw the collapse of collateralized debt obligations, which in turn brought the American economy to its knees in 2008? In fact, the American economy is also teetering, but no one wants to acknowledge it.

Friday, May 27, 2016

New York Times Editorial, "Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email": Vote for Her Because He's Worse



In an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email," The New York Times writes:

"Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest."

Or stated otherwise, vote for her because he's worse.

The Times concludes:

"But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency."

And if she doesn't answer those questions thoroughly and candidly? In all honesty - something Hillary is incapable of - there are no good answers.

What a splendid way to elect the next president!