Nicholas Kristof, "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?": Do You Need to Vomit?

Tweet

You ate something unsavory and you need to vomit? Well, there is no need to stick a finger down your throat. Instead, you can read Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?" in order to achieve the same emetic effect. In his opinion piece, Kristof informs us (my emphasis in red):

"One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards."

How reassuring! Half of what Hillary tells us is true or mostly true! Needless to say, there is no mention by Kristof of Ed Morrissey's Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss" from which we learned (my emphasis in red):

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

A liar who "conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds kind of serious.

Kristof goes on to say:

"As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated. As President Obama put it, 'she has not jeopardized America’s national security.'"

And we all know that Obama never lies. What difference does it make that PolitiFact (cited by Kristof above) named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" the Lie of the Year for 2013. But more to the point, as observed by Myra Adams in a National Review article entitled "The Clinton E-mail Case Transcends Hillary’s Presidential Campaign":

"'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security,' Obama said recently on Fox News Sunday. However, Obama added, 'what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.' This leaves one to wonder whether 'carelessness' will become a new defense to be invoked when an elected official, intelligence-community member, government bureaucrat, contractor, or someone in the military is accused of mishandling classified information.

Obama neglected to add that Clinton’s 'carelessness' included 22 e-mails with the highest level of classification found on her private server. Worse, as the New York Post reported, these e-mails 'revealed names of CIA officers serving overseas and foreigners who are on the spy agency’s payroll – potentially endangering their lives.' Moreover, and with lasting consequences, President Obama in defending Clinton has set the bar very high for determining whether classified information 'jeopardizes America’s national security.'"

Yup, Kristof has outdone himself this time, surpassing even his classic, vomit inducing opinion piece entitled "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun." Attaboy, Nick!

Paul Krugman, "Trade, Labor, and Politics": No Mention of Child Labor by the Conscience of a Liberal

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Trade, Labor, and Politics," Paul Krugman lectures us on international trade:

"It’s probably bad politics to talk right now about what a trade war would do to, say, Bangladesh. But any responsible future president would have to think hard about such matters.

. . . .

If you’re generally a supporter of open world markets — which you should be, mainly because market access is so important to poor countries — you need to know that whatever they may say, politicians who espouse rigid free-market ideology are not on your side."

Bangladesh? Fascinating! As reported in a February 6, 2014 Guardian article entitled "Bangladesh garment factories still exploiting child labour for UK products" by Miles Brignall and Sarah Butler:

"Bangladesh garment factories producing clothes for British retailers are forcing girls as young as 13 to work up to 11 hours a day in appalling conditions, according to an ITV documentary to be shown on Thursday night.

Undercover filming by the Exposure programme found clothes produced for Lee Cooper, BHS and other UK retailers in factories where workers were physically and verbally abused and fire safety ignored.

Despite promises made by retailers to improve conditions following last year's Rana Plaza factory collapse in Dhaka, where at least 1,130 people died and thousands more were injured, staff as young as 13 are filmed in factories being kicked, slapped and hit with a used fabric roll as well as abused with physical threats and insults.

Fire escapes at one factory, Vase Apparel, are shown padlocked, even though hundreds of garment workers have died in fires after being trapped in similar factories over the past few years."

Mention of child labor in Krugman's opinion piece? None.

Also no mention by Krugman of slave labor in, for example, China. As reported in a December 13, 2014 National Review article entitled "China's Slaves" by Josh Gelernter:

"China’s Communist dictators operate more than a thousand 1,000 slave-labor camps.

The camps are called “laogai,” a contraction of 'láodòng gǎizào,' which means 'reform through labor.' They were conceived under Mao; unlike Stalin’s gulags, they never closed — though the CCP has tried to abolish the name 'laogai.' In the Nineties, it redesignated the camps 'prisons.' The conditions, though, don’t seem to have changed.

Our picture of life in the laogai is murky, but here’s what has been reported: The prisoners are given uniforms and shoes. They have to purchase their own socks, underwear, and jackets. There are no showers, no baths, and no beds. Prisoners sleep on the floor, in spaces less than a foot wide. They work 15-hour days, followed by two hours of evening indoctrination; at night they’re not allowed to move from their sleeping-spots till 5:30 rolls around, when they’re woken for another day of hard labor. Fleas, bedbugs, and parasites are ubiquitous. The prisoners starve on meager supplies of bread, gruel, and vegetable soup. Once every two weeks they get a meal of pork broth."

I should be a supporter of open world markets "because market access is so important to poor countries"? Think again, Krugman.

Jackson Diehl, "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him": A Narcissistic President's Denial of Reality

Tweet

In a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him," Jackson Diehl excoriates Obama's hapless policy shifts in Syria. Declaring that Obama is "fundamentally clueless — or in denial — about the consequences of what historians will surely regard as one of his most fateful errors," i.e. his decision not to respond militarily in 2013 to Assad's use of chemical weapons, Diehl observes:

"Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and even Indians confided that they were convinced that Obama’s failure to use force against the regime of Bashar al-Assad was directly responsible for China’s subsequent burst of aggression in territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Poles, Lithuanians and French drew a line between the backdown and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. As for the Sunni Arabs, Turks and Israelis, it is an article of faith that Obama’s decision accelerated the catastrophe that Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East, has become. They have an obvious point: Hundreds of thousands are dead, the European Union is in danger of crumbling under an onslaught of refugees, and the Islamic State and Assad remain unvanquished."

Diehl goes on to observe that Obama is alone in dismissing this criticism. Referring to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article entitled "The Obama Doctrine," Diehl continues:

"As Goldberg describes it, the president now regards August 2013 as his 'liberation' from a U.S. foreign policy establishment he holds in contempt, along with a 'Washington playbook' that demands military action to uphold American 'credibility.'

. . . .

In fact, despite his protestations, Obama seems to be haunted by his Syrian retreat — so much so that he has concocted a kind of negative doctrine around it. It is, says Goldberg, that the Middle East 'is no longer terribly important to American interests'; that even if it is, there is little the United States can do 'to make it a better place'; and that any attempt to do so leads only to war and 'the eventual hemorrhaging of U.S. credibility and power.'"

Diehl's devastating conclusion:

"Obama is now obliged to fight the Islamic State’s multiplying iterations across the region without any prospect of viable states to replace it. He has few allies and no exit strategy. The 'liberation' from the Middle East that he now celebrates has created a quagmire that the next president will inherit."

However, Diehl fails to provide the reason for Obama's vehement rejection of all this criticism. In fact, the reason is simple: Persons suffering from narcissistic personality disorders are entirely incapable of accepting criticism, and although Obama's problem is not nearly as severe as that of Donald Trump, it is nevertheless unmistakable. As observed by Matthew Continetti in a National Review article entitled "President Obama Is a Political Narcissist":

"Russia announces the withdrawal of its forces from Syria. The decision is a surprise — President Obama is shocked. This is a feeling he experiences often.

He was astonished when Vladimir Putin intervened in the Syrian conflict in 2015. He was startled when ISIS conquered a fair portion of Mesopotamia in 2014. He was jarred when Putin invaded Crimea, and launched a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that same year. Rogue states pursue policies contrary to what Obama the Wise sees as their self-interest, and the presidential response never varies. He is stunned. He is saddened. He is filled with sangfroid.

Bewilderment happens when reality dispels illusions. I used to think President Obama’s illusions were simply the product of his ideology, of his faith in the universality of human reason, in the idea of historical progress, of his ambivalence toward American power. But after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s epic, absorbing, revealing interview with the president in The Atlantic, I have come to a different conclusion. It’s not just ideology that drives Obama’s cluelessness. It’s narcissism."

Yes, Obama was completely taken by surprise by Putin's announcement of Russia's withdrawal from Syria. But more to the point, unbeknownst to Washington, there is a well-reasoned rationale for Putin's decision. Syria and Iraq no longer exist as nations. Moreover, 30 million stateless Kurds, long persecuted in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, are aching for freedom. It would appear that Putin, unlike Obama, is aware that the Kurds are destined to gain their independence and is seeking an alliance with the Kurds against Turkey, Russia's longtime enemy.

In short, blinded by his would-be omniscience, Obama is driving his golf cart across the rough and into a sand trap. It remains to be seen who inherits this ugly wreck.

Fareed Zakaria, "How the GOP’s dishonesty led to the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz": From the Pen of a Plagiarizer

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the GOP’s dishonesty led to the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz," Fareed Zakaria would have us know "that the [Republican] party is facing two separate but simultaneous revolts: one led by Ted Cruz, the other by Donald Trump." Zakaria's conclusion:

"Could these revolts have been prevented? Perhaps, if the Republican Party had been honest with its voters and explained that the welfare state was here to stay, that free markets need government regulation, and that the empowerment of minorities and women was inevitable and beneficial. Its role was to manage these changes so that they develop organically, are not excessive and preserve enduring American values. But that is the role for a party that is genuinely conservative, rather than radical."

Remarkable! A self-confessed plagiarizer is lecturing us on honesty.

But more to the point, is it GOP dishonesty or Obama's dishonesty that has led to the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz? As observed by Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. in a National Review article entitled "The Many Lies Paving the Way to Obama’s Legacy":

"On the Iranian threat to Israel: 'The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat. . . . Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.'

On health care: 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.'

On Syria’s WMD: 'We have been very clear to the Assad regime — but also to other players on the ground — that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.'

On capitalism: 'If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

On religious freedom: 'Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.'

On immigration: 'They’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol, or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.'

On world public opinion: 'People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia, and today once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth.'

On Benghazi: 'Here’s what happened. . . . You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam . . . making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.'

I don’t believe him."

Neither does much of the American electorate. (For several more pages of Obama's lies, have a look at PolitiFact's "All False statements involving Barack Obama.")

Sorry, Fareed, but any explanation of the rise of Trump and Cruz begins with Obama's chicanery.

David Brooks, "The Age of Small Terror": Anti-Liberalism Most Noticeable on the Right?

Tweet

Writing of the terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Boston, Fort Hood and Israel in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Small Terror," David Brooks describes a resultant anxiety that challenges the "liberal order":

"In country after country this anxiety is challenging the liberal order. I mean philosophic Enlightenment liberalism, not partisan liberalism. It’s the basic belief in open society, free speech, egalitarianism and meliorism (gradual progress). It’s a belief that through reasoned conversation values cohere and fanaticism recedes. It’s the belief that people of all creeds merit tolerance and respect.

These liberal assumptions have been challenged from the top for years — by dictators. But now they are challenged from the bottom, by populist anti-liberals who support the National Front in France, UKIP in Britain, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia and, in some guises, Donald Trump in the U.S.

. . . .

Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right."

"Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right"? Horsefeathers! You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to acknowledge the war being waged by the left on free speech at American universities. Have a look at an Atlantic article entitled "Campus Activists Weaponize ‘Safe Space’" by Conor Friedersdorf, a U.S. News & World Report article entitled "From Megaphones to Muzzles" by Susan Milligan, a New York Times article entitled "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas" by Judith Shulevitz, and a National Review article entitled "Leftist Universities Will Never Stop Trying to Stifle Free Speech" by David French.

Today's left appears unwilling to be confronted with alien or antagonistic ideas. On the other hand, if someone like President Obama believes she/he is the "smartest person in the room," why should she/he need to be confronted with contrary views, which are only apt to disturb her/him?

New York Times Editorial, "Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Gang": Who Cares If Hillary Lied to the Victims' Families?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Gang," The New York Times claims that yesterday's questioning of Hillary Clinton by the House Select Committee on Benghazi "yielded no new information about the attacks." The editorial would have us know:

"The pointless grilling of Mrs. Clinton, who fielded a barrage of questions that have long been answered and settled, served only to embarrass the Republican lawmakers who have spent millions of dollars on a political crusade. In recent days, some prominent Republicans have even admitted as much.

If there was any notion that the Select Committee on Benghazi might be on to something, it was quickly dispelled. In a flailing performance, the committee’s chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, made it evident that he and his colleagues have squandered more than $4.6 million and countless hours poring over State Department records and Mrs. Clinton’s email. They produced no damning evidence, elicited no confessions and didn’t succeed in getting an angry reaction from Mrs. Clinton."

Not surprisingly, in an editorial entitled "The GOP’s unfortunate Benghazi hearing," The Washington Post took the same line and went even a step further - all but endorsing Hillary for president:

"THE HOUSE Select Committee on Benghazi further discredited itself on Thursday as its Republican members attempted to fuel largely insubstantial suspicions about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Grilling Ms. Clinton all day, they elicited little new information and offered little hope that their inquiry would find anything significant that seven previous investigations didn’t.

. . . .

As she has on the campaign trail, Ms. Clinton hinted Thursday that she would use America’s international toolbox with ambition — 'I believe, lead with diplomacy, support with development and, as a last resort, defense' — and probably more confidently than President Obama has. If the hearing was useful at all, it was in filling out her larger vision for U.S. foreign policy."

"No new information"? "Little new information"? Odd. As reported by Brendan Bordelon in a National Review article entitled "Benghazi Committee Bombshell: Clinton Knew ‘Attack Had Nothing to Do with the Film’":

"In the course of his questioning of Clinton on her conduct surrounding the 2012 Benghazi attack, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan revealed several new, previously overlooked e-mails indicating the Obama administration, the State Department, and Clinton herself all knew the assault was driven by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists — even while they all told the American people and the families of victims that a riot sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video was responsible.

. . . .

E-mails and phone transcripts unveiled by Jordan show that Clinton herself knew the attacks were driven by terrorists, even while she continued to tell the American people it was a spontaneous, video-driven assault. Approximately one hour after she signed off on a State Department release blaming the video on the night of the attack, Clinton e-mailed her family. 'Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group,' she wrote.

The night of the attack, Clinton also called the prime minister of Libya, explaining that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility. And in a call with Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil, Clinton deliberately rejected the video idea. 'We know the attack had nothing to do with the film,' she says. 'It was a planned attack, not a protest . . . Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda.'"

Also worth listening to The Weekly Standard's podcast with Stephen F. Hayes entitled "The Committee Had the Facts, Hillary Has the Press."

Bottom line: Yesterday, it was proven by the House Select Committee on Benghazi that Hillary brazenly lied to the American people and the victims' families concerning those responsible for the attacks, but this has been deemed irrelevant by both the Times and WaPo. Let's see what the American people has to say about this issue in November 2016. My belief is that Hillary is no longer electable, unless, of course, we have entered a new era in which doublespeak is all the rage.

New York Times Editorial, "The Facts About Benghazi": The Gray Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Lady Gertrude, "Hamlet," Act III, Scene II

Has The New York Times "screwed up" (as Shakespeare might have worded it) again? In an editorial entitled "The Facts About Benghazi" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), The Times declares:

"An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

. . . .

The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016."

Similarly, Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal goes on record as saying in "Taking Note" (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/republicans-react-to-benghazi-news/?ref=opinion):

"For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Republicans that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack — or how the Obama administration described the attack in its immediate aftermath — the answer is simple. The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously. They also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016.

Which brings us to one particularly hilarious theme in the response to the Times investigation. According to Mr. Rogers, the article was intended to “clear the deck” for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said today that The Times was 'already laying the groundwork' for a Clinton campaign. Other Republicans referred to Mrs. Clinton as our 'candidate of choice.'

Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday."

In a rational world, a determination of The Times settles a dispute? Criticism of Kirkpatrick's article is all a Republican conspiracy? There is no evidence of al-Qaeda involvement in the September 11 attack on the Benghazi mission? The Times has not yet chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Fascinating.

But then there is also David French explaining to us in a piece entitled "The Good, the Bad, and the Pathetic of the New York Times’ Benghazi Report" in the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367224/good-bad-and-pathetic-new-york-times-benghazi-report-david-french#!):

"It’s pathetic that we keep circling back to a YouTube video to explain Benghazi. Did the YouTube video motivate previous attacks in Benghazi, including a previous attack on our own compound? Did a YouTube video motivate Libyan militias to shows of force under the black al-Qaeda flag? Did a YouTube video enable the militias to so carefully scout American positions that they were able to land multiple direct hits on the American CIA annex? At best (and this is being charitable to the reporting), the available evidence indicates the video may have influenced the attack’s timing, but not its motivations nor the capabilities of the attackers.

How long must we chase our own tails? Jihadists attack us, and yet we think if only a Florida preacher didn’t burn a Koran, or if only Danish cartoonists put down their pens, if only cranky felons didn’t make cheap YouTube videos, or if only our soldiers didn’t commit one of the innumerable warned-against slights while deployed downrange, then the haters won’t hate, jihad will truly become an 'inner struggle,' and peace will reign."

And then there is Thomas Joscelyn's piece in The Weekly Standard entitled "The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html), where we learn:

"Left out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network.

For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian, in Kirkpatrick’s retelling. This is odd, for many reasons.

On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): 'Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.'

. . . .

Since the New York Times and other press outlets first reported on the Jamal network’s involvement, both the U.S. State Department and the United Nations have designated Jamal and his subordinates as terrorists. Both the U.S. and UN designations tie Jamal’s network directly to al Qaeda.

The State Department, for instance, notes that Jamal 'has developed connections with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), AQ senior leadership, and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leadership.' Jamal not only received funds from AQAP, but has also 'used the AQAP network to smuggle fighters into training camps.'"

So, was Kirkpatrick's New York Times article truly "exhaustive"? Did it resolve "any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi"?

The Gray Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Gail Collins, "Congress Cracks Up": Does America Have a "Debt Problem and a Failure of Leadership"?

Threaten the full faith and credit of the US by refusing to raise the debt ceiling? Yes, I know, US debt is on the path to becoming unsustainable. As stated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this month with regard to America's financial future (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521):

"Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely."

But threaten a crack-up of the none-too-strong economy with such a measure? Who would be foolish enough to engage in such brinkmanship?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Congress Cracks Up" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/opinion/collins-congress-cracks-up.html?_r=0), Gail Collins chastises US House Republicans for engaging in such dangerous games. Collins writes:

"So, what do you think is wrong with these people? Thanks to gerrymandered Congressional districts and the Tea Party, we do seem to have a surprising number of elected officials who actually don’t believe that raising the debt limit so the government can pay its bills is a good plan."

But consider Senator Obama’s Floor Speech on March 20, 2006, before he voted against raising the debt ceiling:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

As we were told in January 2011 by Andrew McCarthy in his National Review column "The Corner" (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca), regarding this declaration by Senator Obama:

"At the time, Senator Obama was urging Congress not to tolerate an increase that would bring the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Under President Obama, the debt ceiling has been raised to $14.3 trillion. Even without counting most unfunded liabilities, the national debt is now calculated to be nearing $14.1 trillion."

Well, we are no longer in 2006, when US national debt was nearing $9 trillion. We are no longer in 2011, when US national debt was some $14 trillion. Rather, we are now late into 2013, and US national debt is just a whisker under $17 trillion.

Does "America have a debt problem and a failure of leadership"? Do "Americans deserve better"? How about some answers, Gail.

Elliott Abrams, "Questioning Hagel": Can American Jews Voice Their Opinions Without Being Called "Jew Firsters"?

More than 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was being labeled the "Jew Deal" by American anti-Semites, and Charles Lindbergh was busy accusing the Jews of trying to drag America into the war against Hitler. Fast forward: Today's anti-Semites are blaming the Jews for America's declining economic fortunes, while claiming that AIPAC, the Zionists and the Israel Firsters are attempting to instigate a war between the US and Iran for Israel's benefit. There is nothing new under the sun.

In an opinion piece published by the National Review entitled "Questioning Hagel" (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337543/questioning-hagel-elliott-abrams), Elliott Abrams begins by telling us that Obama is entitled to choose his own cabinet:

"The primary argument against Hagel’s confirmation seems to be that his policy views are wrong, bad, and even dangerous — and of course contrary to those of whoever is lodging this criticism. Several senators have already said they would vote against Hagel, and others have jumped on the fence and are sitting there until the hearings — due to their policy disagreements with him, often over Iran policy and Israel policy. I completely agree with the typical criticisms of his policy views, but can’t say I find them to be persuasive grounds for opposing his confirmation.

For one thing, the general rule should be that presidents get the policies and the appointees they want. I did not vote for President Obama, but he did win and he does get to make his own policy and choose his subordinates."

Abrams goes on to explain his "own argument against Senator Hagel’s suitability":

"Today most pressure from the organized Jewish community over foreign-policy issues is related to the security of Israel and the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. To be treated with indifference by an elected official is bad enough. To be told by a future nominee for very high office that, 'I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator,' and 'my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States' is insulting and unacceptable. It suggests that Senator Hagel believes such lobbying by American Jews to be illegitimate and offensive, and is indeed evidence of loyalty to another country."

Abrams observes the failure of American Jews, in the years leading up to World War II, to act on behalf of European Jewry. Many of these Jews were concerned with being accused of dual loyalties or of being accused, in today's terminology, of being "Jew firsters." Ultimately, half of Europe's Jews and a third of world Jewry would perish at Hitler's hands.

Abrams then notes that American Jews were subsequently more proactive in standing up for the freedom of Soviet Jewry, notwithstanding renewed claims that such advocacy ran counter to American interests.

Today, when voicing concern over repeated Iranian threats to annihilate Israel and when questioning Chuck Hagel's past conciliatory utterances regarding relations with Tehran, the loyalty of American Jews is again being questioned. As observed by Abrams, Hagel's assertion that he is an American senator, not an Israel senator, has exacerbated this persistent claim that American Jews care more deeply for Israel than the US.

In 2013, can American Jews voice concern over Iranian nuclear weapons development and threats to wipe Israel off the face of the map without being accused of dual loyalty or of being Jew firsters? Perhaps President Obama, who has so adamantly pushed Hagel's nomination ahead, notwithstanding Hagel's positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html) place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate," would care to weigh in on the topic.

Do you remember how Obama once vowed to heal a divided America? Yeah, right.

Jonah Goldberg, "Benghazi: No ‘October Surprise’": Jay Leno Levels the Playing Field

A Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman or Nicholas Kristof New York Times op-ed concerning events in Benghazi? No way.

A Washington Post opinion piece concerning the scandal? David Ignatius finally got around to acknowledging, "The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html).

In a National Review opinion piece entitled "Benghazi: No ‘October Surprise’" (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332103/benghazi-no-october-surprise-jonah-goldberg), Jonah Goldberg ponders the question why "Fox News is alone in covering the story." Goldberg's belief:

"If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable."

Well, all this may have just changed owing to Jay Leno. Notwithstanding Obama's October 24th appearance on "The Tonight Show," Leno, with a single witticism on October 30th, may have made a crack in the dam:

"Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

Regardless of the outcome on November 6, this scandal has not yet run its course.

Charles Blow, "Friend With Benefits": Obama the Benevolent

Charles Blow concludes his most recent New York Times op-ed, "Friend With Benefits" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/opinion/blow-friend-with-benefits.html?hp), by declaring:

"The Obama administration is far from perfect, and government is not beyond becoming bloated and being abused, but right is right and truth is truth: government can play a very positive role in protecting the less-well-off from the interests of the more-well-off, and this administration’s view of government is much more benevolent than those of the people who are seeking to unseat it.

That’s worth remembering."

Or in other words, Obama may have screwed up, but he's been "benevolent" to those that he's ground into the dirt. Ah, yes, Obama the Benevolent. Sounds to me like some Roman emperor, who, having wrought ruin upon the cives, distributes bread from the warehouses to prevent them from starving.

However, there are others who think it's also "worth remembering" Obama's promises to the nation. As observed by Veronique de Rugy (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276695/unemployment-rates-promised-vs-actual-veronique-de-rugy):

"In 2009, President Obama promised that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would 'create or save' 3.5 million jobs over the next two years and that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.5 percent. By the end of 2010, he promised, unemployment would have dropped to 7.25 percent."

In a nutshell, my response to Blow:

"Sine labore nihil!"

Translation from the Latin: "Nothing without work."