Maureen Dowd, "Thanks, Obama": Will a Reptile Replace an Invertebrate as President?

Tweet

In yet another New York Times op-ed entitled "Thanks, Obama," Maureen Dowd compares Senator Barack Obama circa 2008 with the president Barry has become. Dowd writes of the idealistic senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary eight years ago:

"He presented himself as the ticket to the future. He made us feel good about ourselves, that we could be better, do better.

Making the case against Hillary, he said that America deserved more than triangulating and poll-driven positions and 'the same old Washington textbook campaign,' more than a candidate answering questions whatever way she thought would be popular and 'trying to sound or vote like Republicans, when it comes to national security issues.'

What about principles, he asked, what about a higher purpose?"

Well, I don't know about Obamacare ("If you like your health care plan, you can keep it") and the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran (whose secret add-on agreement reduces Iran's break-out time to six months), which were rammed down the throats of Americans notwithstanding majority opposition; however, I'm starting to feel almost giddy about Obama when considering the prospect of either Hillary or Donald as president. But I digress ...

Dowd concludes re Obama today:

"The president made his vote-for-Hillary-or-face-doom convention speech only 22 days after his F.B.I. director painted Hillary as reckless and untruthful.

He argued that there is no choice but to support Hillary against a 'self-declared savior' like Donald Trump, perhaps forgetting that Obama was once hailed as such a messiah that Oprah introduced him in 2007 as 'the one,' and it became his moniker.

In the end, Obama didn’t overthrow the Clinton machine. He enabled it."

Indeed, ignore Obamacare and the unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama's endorsement of Hillary could prove his true legacy. Imagine, a venomous reptile could replace a solipsistic invertebrate as president. Will wonders never cease?

Maureen Dowd, "Trump’s Thunderbolts": A Gathering of the Narcissists

Tweet

"Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if he were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse."

- William Wallace, "Braveheart," 1995

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump’s Thunderbolts," Maureen Dowd shares with us the content of her Friday night telephone conversation with Donald Trump. Regarding "Hillary's big night," Donald responded:

"I’m feeling she’s not going to get in. I have a strong feeling about it. I don’t think she has what it takes. I watched her last night. It was hard to watch. I was falling asleep. It beats Sominex every time. She could barely beat Bernie. The system is rigged. It’s a terrible thing."

Trump was falling asleep? It turns out, Bill completely nodded off during his sweetheart's speech.

Hey, Donald, how about a return Battle of the Billionaires wrestling match with Vince MacMahon in which the loser again has his head shaved? Or maybe you can join with Vince and make it a tag team match against Bill and Hillary. Go ahead, challenge them! This could only add to the grace and grandeur of this most fetid of elections.

David Brooks, "The Democrats Win the Summer": Winning the Battle, Losing the War?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Democrats Win the Summer," David Brooks blames Donald Trump for allowing the Democrats to conduct a more successful presidential convention. Brooks writes:

"Trump has abandoned the Judeo-Christian aspirations that have always represented America’s highest moral ideals: toward love, charity, humility, goodness, faith, temperance and gentleness."

Oh really? The American electorate is stupid enough to believe that the Clintons and their money sucking foundation embody "love, charity, humility, goodness, faith, temperance and gentleness"? Well, maybe love, as exemplified by Bill's incessant travel aboard the "Lolita Express." (We have yet to learn with whom Hillary has been sexually intimate in recent years - if anyone at all. Maybe if Donald discloses his tax returns, Hillary will tell us with whom she has been sleeping?)

Brooks continues:

"He left the ground open for Barack Obama to remind us that our founders wanted active engaged citizens, not a government run by a solipsistic and self-appointed savior who wants everything his way."

Whoa! Obama is not "a solipsistic and self-appointed savior who wants everything his way"? Obama went ahead with his unsigned nuclear deal with Iran despite overwhelming public disapproval. Same for Obamacare, although not by the same margins.

Brooks goes on to say:

"I almost don’t blame Trump. He is a morally untethered, spiritually vacuous man who appears haunted by multiple personality disorders. It is the 'sane' and 'reasonable' Republicans who deserve the shame — the ones who stood silently by, or worse, while Donald Trump gave away their party’s sacred inheritance."

Blame the Republicans for nominating Trump, and not blame the Democrats for nominating Hillary, the less dangerous of the two, but who is still a self-serving venomous reptile? Spare me.

New York Times Editorial, "President Obama and the Long March": Evoking the Ghost of Mao

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "President Obama and the Long March," The New York Times concludes:

"In his eight years in the White House — an entire lifetime for youngsters who have only known a president who is black — Mr. Obama wasn’t able to heal the racial and political divisions despite his efforts and his leadership. He has expressed his regret and disappointment about that failure. But a fundamental truth of history is that change comes slowly and is often recognizable only in retrospect."

"[A] fundamental truth of history is that change comes slowly"? Examples, when the Berlin Wall came down? When the Twin Towers were attacked on 9/11? When the "Arab Spring," which fast became the "Arab Winter," erupted? Who writes this crap?

Obama failed to heal America's racial divisions "despite his efforts and his leadership"? Maybe if he had spent a little less time on the golf course. Or maybe "leadership from behind" just doesn't cut it in this day and age. A pity he didn't fly into Dallas earlier this month after five policemen were gunned down.

More shocking is the title of this editorial. Is the anonymous author of this editorial, who sees fit to lecture us on history, unaware of Mao's Long March or of Mao's murder of 65 million people, making him the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century?

Disgusting.

Maureen Dowd, "Bill Clinton Pours on the Estrogen": Can Hillary Shapeshift From a Snake Into a Human Being?

Tweet

Covering the Democratic convention in Philadelphia where Soviet and Palestinian flags have been on proud display, Maureen Dowd writes in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bill Clinton Pours on the Estrogen":

"After the email shaming and a bloodless campaign, tonight it was Bill’s turn to rescue Hillary from being the most unknown known person in history. One of the most liked presidents was charged with humanizing one of the least liked presidential candidates."

The most unknown known person in history? One of the least liked presidential candidates? Maybe it would help if she were to hold a press conference after more than 200 days, but why should her royal highness want to face the music? Instead, let's trot out the Big Mutt, who took at least 26 trips aboard the 'Lolita Express.'" Indeed, I can't wait for Hillary to tell us which White House bedroom will be occupied by Bill if she wins in November - something which is no longer a certainty.

Dowd quotes Bill as saying that she "calls you when you’re sick, when your kid’s in trouble or when there’s a death in the family." A death in the family? Tell it to Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who died in the Benghazi attack.

Or better still, regarding Hillary's willingness to appear on the scene when there's a problem, note how she cancelled all campaign events immediately following the Dallas massacre, instead of flying into the troubled city (remember how she claimed to have flown into Bosnia under sniper fire).

Dowd observes:

"Starting tonight and through the fall as he tries to woo back white voters and older voters in the Rust Belt and the South, he is trying to conjure the halcyon days of Clinton peace and prosperity. He does not want to remind people of the shady days of Clinton avarice and deceit, or the parts of his presidency or post-presidency that haven’t aged well, like Nafta, the crime bill, deregulation of Wall Street and the Defense of Marriage Act, the Marc Rich pardon or the unseemly braiding of the Clinton Foundation with Hillary’s State Department."

Not to mention her persistent lies involving the email scandal and her willingness to place personal comfort and privacy over the interests of national security.

Yes, I know, Trump's even worse.

David Brooks, "Hillary, This Is Why Democrats Are Still Struggling": Honest Self-Appraisal From Hillary?

Tweet

In an open letter to Hillary Clinton in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary, This Is Why Democrats Are Still Struggling," David Brooks begins by saying:

"Donald Trump has presented you with an amazing opportunity to become a world historical figure! If you crush him in this election, you could create a new Democratic majority and reduce the G.O.P. to an ever-declining rump of ethnic nationalism. On the other hand, if you fail to beat Trump, you will go down as America’s most hapless political loser and be vilified forever for enabling an era of American Putinism."

Indeed, Hillary should be worried. As reported by CNN yesterday, Trump is now leading Clinton by five percentage points in a four-way matchup, and by three percentage points when matched head-to-head.

Brooks's conclusion:

"Imagine if you displayed honest self-appraisal and even moments of remorse. You’d have the world rooting for you, not against you."

Honest self-appraisal and remorse from Hillary, a narcissist who, like Trump (although perhaps not on the same order of magnitude), is consumed with feelings of entitlement? David, you cannot expect this from Hillary, as evidenced by her refusal to come to terms with FBI Director Comey's conclusions.

The world would be rooting for Hillary and not against her? Sorry, David, but it's too late. Maybe if she had flown into Dallas immediately after the massacre earlier this month (remember how she claimed to have flown into Bosnia under sniper fire), but instead she cancelled all campaign events.

Heck, Hillary has gone more than 200 days without a news conference. Honest self-appraisal simply isn't in the cards.

Paul Krugman, "Delusions of Chaos": Crime and Abortion

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Delusions of Chaos," Paul Krugman refutes Donald Trump's RNC claim that crime is running rampant throughout the US, although Krugman cannot provide the reason for this improvement. Paul writes:

"[A] funny thing happened: Crime plunged instead of continuing to rise. Other indicators also improved dramatically — for example, the teen birthrate has fallen 60 percent since 1991. Instead of societal collapse, we’ve seen what amounts to a mass outbreak of societal health. The truth is that we don’t know exactly why. Hypotheses range from the changing age distribution of the population to reduced lead poisoning; but in any case, the predicted apocalypse notably failed to arrive."

Well, allow me to help Paul regarding the decline in crime rates. As observed by John Donohue and Steven Levitt in the abstract of a National Bureau of Economic Research article entitled "Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime":

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime. "

Given this reduction in crime, Krugman would have us know of Trump supporters:

"America isn’t the country they remember from their youth, and in this case they’re right — it has gotten much better."

Much better, as evidenced by the nominations of Donald and Hillary? I don't think so.

And then there's America's national debt which has reached almost $20 trillion, or $162,000 per taxpayer. In fact, an economic apocalypse is well on its way.

Maureen Dowd, "Donald Trump’s Disturbia": Diss-topia or Piss-dopia?

Tweet

Maureen Dowd, covering the Republican convention in Cleveland, writes in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump’s Disturbia":

"LIKE any masterly comic book villain, Donald Trump is reveling in conjuring a dystopia. And it’s a natural progression, given that he got this far by reveling in conjuring a diss-topia.

. . . .

[H]is dystopia is fueled by diss-information and diss-tortion, insulting rivals with disturbing exaggerated and cherry-picked facts and unsubstantiated assertions and conspiracies."

Indeed, Trump suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder, and I continue to believe that he should be examined by a board of leading psychiatrists to determine if he is fit to serve as commander-in-chief with responsibility for America's nuclear arsenal.

Doubts about Trump's mental health? Have a look at a New Yorker article entitled "Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All" by Jane Mayer. Mayer quotes Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote Trump's "The Art of the Deal":

"'I put lipstick on a pig,' he said. 'I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.' He went on, 'I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.'

. . . .

If Trump is elected President, he warned, 'the millions of people who voted for him and believe that he represents their interests will learn what anyone who deals closely with him already knows—that he couldn’t care less about them.'"

But the problem extends far beyond Donald Trump. Twenty-first century America has descended into the abyss of piss-dopia, and both Donald and Hillary are mere symptoms of this life-threatening malaise.

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate": How Does Trump Differ From Obama?

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:

"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."

A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.

But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):

"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."

Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):

"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.

The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."

So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.

And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.

A sickening sign of the times.

By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.

SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."

David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis

Tweet

Writing of Ted Cruz's refusal to endorse Donald Trump in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Death of the Republican Party," David Brooks observes:

"I’m not a Cruz fan, but his naked ambition does fuel amazing courage. As the Republican Party is slouching off on a suicide march, at least Cruz is standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” When the Trump train implodes, the docile followers who are now booing and denouncing Cruz will claim they were on his side all along."

Agreed. But how is it that Brooks, Dowd and the rest of America's mainstream media are ignoring Erdogan's encirclement, following a failed military coup, of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS?

As reported today by Turkey's Hurriyet Daily News in an article entitled "Turbulence in Turkish-US ties: The İncirlik crisis" by Selin Nasi:

"U.S. President Barack Obama’s message that it supported Turkey’s democratically-elected government was largely dismissed after arriving late. According to daily Hürriyet’s Tolga Tanış, news that many experts in the U.S. had spoken in favor of the coup and that Erdoğan had already escaped abroad added fuel to the fire.

The tension between Ankara and Washington rose even further the day after when Labor and Social Security Minister Süleyman Soylu declared the U.S. to be behind the coup attempt.

. . . .

Those alleging U.S. involvement in the coup attempt have highlighted the role Brig. Gen. Bekir Ercan Van and nine officers at the base played in the attempt, the fact that Van requested asylum in the U.S. before being caught, the fact that jets taking off from İncirlik participated in the bombing of Ankara and the fact that airborne fuel supply planes for the jets also took off from İncirlik."

Now go to the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post and search for any mention of Incirlik: Nada.

Do you remember how Ben Rhodes said of the "sale" of Obama's duplicitous unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, "We created an echo chamber"? Well, Rhodes has conveniently disappeared from sight following this ugly admission, but an echo chamber, this time characterized by the silence of the lambs, is once again very much in evidence.

Maureen Dowd, "Remainder Night at the Convention": Cleveland or Incirlik? It's More Fun at the Circus!

Tweet

Yesterday, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman drew similarities between Turkish President Erdogan and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. No mention by Friedman of the standoff at the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which the US Air Force launches strikes against ISIS.

As reported in an NBC News article entitled "Incirlik Air Base: Post-Coup Power Cut Remains at U.S. Site" by F. Brinley Bruton, Abigail Williams and Courtney Kube:

"A Turkish air base widely believed to house U.S. nuclear weapons continued to rely on backup generators Wednesday, five days after a failed coup plunged the country into crisis.

Commercial power was cut to Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey and the airspace above it closed within hours of Friday's attempted military takeover in the NATO country. Turkish commanders at the site were later arrested and led away after they were accused of allowing at least one tanker aircraft to refuel jets involved in the thwarted mutiny.

. . . .

No one is locked anywhere on the base, which has about 2,700 Defense Department civilians and military personnel, officials said. But people were not permitted to leave Wednesday for security reasons."

Regarding this crisis, Erdogan declared yesterday:

"We must not confound the issue of extradition of Gulen and the relations with the United States over air base Incirlik. Relations with other countries should not be built on feelings and emotions, but based on logic. Of course, it would be a big mistake on the part of the United States not to extradite Gulen. We've sent all the necessary documents to the United States, we've begun the extradition process, and we will wait for the decision."

Yes, the US is being blackmailed, and yes, the US needs to remove the nukes from Incirlik ASAP.

Meanwhile, Maureen Dowd, covering the Republican convention in Cleveland, writes in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Remainder Night at the Convention":

"Suddenly Trump, certainly irritated at not hearing the glorious sound of his own name in an elongated address by a 'loser [Ted Cruz],' entered the arena. He was once more soaring in, drowning Cruz out.

All eyes went to Trump as they dimmed the lights on the stage and the nominee regally walked in, a procession of one, to sit with his family in his stadium box with gold-and-black striped railings. The crowd got even more feral toward the former rival suddenly trapped onstage, looking like he didn’t know how to finish and finally slinking off."

My suggestion to Maureen: Take the next flight to Istanbul and report back from Incirlik, which could have implications for future life on this planet. Yes, I know: It's so much more fun at the circus.

Thomas Friedman, "Trump and the Sultan": Obama's Best Friend Erdogan?

Tweet

Over the course of the first half of his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump and the Sultan," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman disparages Turkish President Erdogan. On the heels of the failed military coup in Turkey, Friedman writes:

"Anyone who has been following Turkey closely knows that Erdogan has been mounting a silent, drip-by-drip coup of his own against Turkish democracy for years — jailing reporters, hounding rivals with giant tax bills, reviving an internal war against Turkish Kurds to stoke nationalist passions to propel his efforts to grab more powers — and by generally making himself into a modern-day sultan for life."

I have no argument with Tom regarding any of the above. But hey, didn't Obama declare Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends? And didn't Obama attempt to force Turkish mediation upon Israel during its 2014 war with Hamas?

By the way, as reported today by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "Erdogan locks US airmen, nuclear arms in Incirlik":

"Some 1,500 US airmen and their families have been locked in the southern Turkish air base of Incirlik together with a stock [of] tactical nuclear bombs since President Reccep Erdogan crushed an attempted coup on Saturday, July 16. In the four days up until Wednesday, July 20, therefore, no air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq have been staged [from] that Turkish base."

Is this indeed an attempt to force the US to extradite Fethullah Gulen, as suggested by DEBKAfile? Why is this not headline news in The New York Times or The Washington Post?

Erdogan is indeed a monster. Where were you all this time, Tom?

In his opinion piece, Friedman next compares Erdogan with Trump:

"Trump relies on the same tactics: He fabricates facts and figures on an industrial scale. He regularly puts out conspiracy theories — his latest is that President Obama’s 'body language' suggests that 'there’s something going on' with the president — hinting that Obama is not comfortable condemning the killing of cops by African-American gunmen and has sympathy for radical Islamists."

Friedman's conclusion:

"If you like what’s going on in Turkey today, you’ll love Trump’s America."

Trump's nomination makes me want to retch. On the other hand, I don't think that I'll be that much happier with the US of Hillary, who is in full blown denial concerning FBI Director Comey's conclusions.

Back to my garden and my dogs.

David Brooks, "Trump Is Getting Even Trumpier!": Is Trump Dangerous?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Is Getting Even Trumpier!," David Brooks writes:

"It’s hard to know exactly what is going on in that brain, but science lends a clue. Psychologists wonder if narcissists are defined by extremely high self-esteem or by extremely low self-esteem that they are trying to mask. The current consensus seems to be that they are marked by unstable self-esteem. Their self-confidence can be both high and fragile, so they perceive ego threat all around."

Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder? Who would have ever guessed? More to the point, could he be dangerous as commander in chief of America's armed forces? Perhaps the answer to this last question is to be found in Brooks's conclusion:

"Suddenly the global climate favors a Trump candidacy. Some forms of disorder — like a financial crisis — send voters for the calm supple thinker. But other forms of disorder — blood in the streets — send them scurrying for the brutal strongman.

If the string of horrific events continues, Trump could win the presidency. And he could win it even though he has less and less control over himself."

My solution: All presidential candidates should be screened by a supreme court of psychiatrists, but then 90 percent of all candidates might be deemed unsuitable.

Make no mistake about it: Hillary is also narcissistic. Are her presidential ambitions about the good of the country? Not a chance. If she cared about the US, she would have given up the race after FBI Director Comey branded her as "extremely careless."

Obama? Also a narcissist, and the revelation yesterday that he hid from Congress a devastating codicil of his unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran attests to his willingness to promote his "legacy" at the expense of the world. And whereas the US State Department yesterday was quick to cast doubt upon the existence of this codicil, Iran today proudly confirmed that it was both real and binding.

All sickening.

Best to tend to my garden and walk my dogs.

Obama and the End of Days: The Secret Add-On Agreement With Iran

Tweet

My prior blog entry examined the issue, who is the bigger liar, Hillary or Donald. It now turns out that Obama puts them both in his little pocket.

In a Times of Israel article entitled "As secret accord is revealed, Israel complains: Iran deal ‘intensified’ nuke problem" by Raphael Ahren and AP, we learn of a newly leaked, secret add-on agreement supplementing Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. According to this addendum, after 11 years Iran is permitted to spin enriched uranium using advanced centrifuges. This would reduce nuclear weapons break out time to less than six months.

In addition, the addendum permits Iran to engage in large-scale nuclear testing prior to the expiration of the agreement.

Why did Obama feel the need to prevent Congress from seeing this codicil? I wonder ...

Yes, the world gets uglier with every passing day.

Paul Krugman, "Both Sides Now?": Hillary's Lies Are "Less Important" Than Trump's

Tweet

In what is probably his most despicable opinion piece ever, Paul Krugman informs us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Both Sides Now?":

"To be fair, some reporters and news organizations try to point out Trump statements that are false, frightening, or both. All too often, however, they still try to maintain their treasured balance by devoting equal time — and, as far as readers and viewers can tell, equal or greater passion — to denouncing far less important misstatements from Hillary Clinton."

Ah yes, Hillary's "misstatements," i.e. lies, are not as "important" as those of Trump.

Don't get me wrong: Notwithstanding the fact that Hillary is reptilian and venomous, she does not threaten all life on this planet. Given Trump's serious narcissistic personality disorder (even worse than that of Hillary), I wouldn't want his little fingers anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.

But more to the point, let's have a look at FBI Director Comey's responses to Rep. Trey Gowdy questions before the House Oversight Committee on July 7:

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy:”Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

How serious were these lies? As reported by Breitbart's Patrick Howley, "Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system." Yup, I would say they're pretty serious.

Hillary's lies are "less important" than those of Donald? Sorry, Paul. That's just plain BS.

But even if they were to be deemed "less important," should such  a determination form the basis for selecting America's next president? Frightening.

Maureen Dowd, "W., Borne Back Ceaselessly": No Undoing What's Been Done

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "W., Borne Back Ceaselessly," Maureen Dowd says of the 28 pages of a 2002 congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that have just been released:

"If the 28 pages had been released back in 2002, the revelations might have helped stop the Iraq invasion by refocusing attention where it belonged: on possible real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi royals, rather than the fantasy links between Al Qaeda and Saddam pushed by Dick Cheney."

Back when, I opposed the Second Gulf War because it was apt to destroy the delicate equilibrium between a Sunni-dominated Iraq and a Shiite Iran, both monstrous in their own right.

Saudi Arabia, which whips and incarcerates women who have been gang raped and decapitates persons convicted of witchcraft and sorcery, was and is no better. All of which did not prevent Maureen from hobnobbing with Saudi royalty back in March 2010.

If only George W. Bush had not been goaded into going to war with Saddam? If only ...

But that was 13 years ago. No point in kicking a dead horse. The US must look to the future.

Syria and Iraq have disintegrated, Turkey is shaky, and it's time to ensure that the Middle East's 30 million pro-Western Kurds (also living in Iran) be granted their independence and freedom.

Gail Collins, "Trump’s Celebrity Shortage": And Hillary's Credibility Shortage?

Tweet

Don't get me wrong: Hillary is reptilian and venomous, but she poses no threat to the world.

That said, have a look at Gail Collins's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump’s Celebrity Shortage" in which this Candy Crush Saga devotee informs us:

"Of course, none of us actually cares there aren’t going to be any quarterbacks at the Republican convention. But if Trump can’t negotiate some cheesy diversions, what makes anybody think he can negotiate a new trade deal with China?"

Well, I don't understand the connection between celebrity attendance at the Republican convention and a new trade deal with China. On the other hand, NFL quarterbacks are apparently smart enough to stay away from a party celebrating an electoral nightmare in the making.

Collins goes on to say:

"We’ll be hearing a lot about Hillary and her emails. The difference is that Clinton, like most people at the highest level in the American political system, can balance her disasters with a history of achievements."

Ah yes, Hillary's achievements. Do you remember State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki's April 2014 response to a request "to "identify one tangible achievement" while Hillary was secretary of state: "I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one." How reassuring.

But don't worry, Hillary fans. Others are prepared with answers:

• Bill Burton listed "Her role in killing Osama bin Laden." Yup, Hillary flew in a helicopter with the SEALs into Pakistan, and while under withering sniper fire, she administered the coup de grâce.
• Howard Dean tells us that "Hillary Clinton was the principal author of the sanction [one sanction?] on Iran that brought them to the table." In fact, there had been many rounds of sanctions against Iran by successive administrations, long before Obama became president and "made nice" to Iran, the chief perpetrator of terror around the globe.
• Chuck Schumer says, "She negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas ["the" Hamas?] from firing rocket after rocket into Israel." Hillary sure stopped Hamas cold in its tracks in 2012 ... until Hamas fired another 4,000 rockets into Israel in 2014.

Indeed, no achievements of any consequence, but she remains the lesser of the two evils in an election that marks the end of American exceptionalism.

David Brooks, "We Take Care of Our Own": Nice?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "We Take Care of Our Own," David Brooks concludes:

"Unfortunately, the forces of multiculturalism destroyed that commitment to cultural union. That has led to Trump, who has upended universalistic American nationalism and replaced it with European blood and soil nationalism in a stars and stripes disguise.

The way out of this debate is not to go nationalist or globalist. It’s to return to American nationalism — espoused by people like Walt Whitman — which combines an inclusive definition of who is Our Own with a fervent commitment to assimilate and Take Care of them."

Brooks fails to take into account the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, which left 130 dead and more than 360 wounded, and yesterday's attack in Nice, which left a death toll of 84.

France, once very much a party to "European blood and soil nationalism," attempted a pirouette and sought to assimilate Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. The consequences are plain to see.

Will France maintain its "fervent commitment" to assimilation? Stay tuned.

More to the point, notwithstanding Paris and Nice, should America reassess whether assimilation in all instances is possible? Assimilation, as also evidenced by the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, can also come with a price tag steeped in blood.

David Sanger, "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways": A Fool's Paradise

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways," David E. Sanger observes that although Iran appears to be abiding by the "strict parameters" of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, there are no celebrations at the White House. Sanger writes:

"Tehran is still sending its forces to support President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and to gain influence in Iraq, and now has begun to honor its fallen soldiers there as heroes. Taking advantage of a newly worded United Nations resolution that merely 'calls upon' Iran to limit its missile testing, it has kept up a steady pace of tests, with more and more capable weaponry. The United States has protested, but has recognized that Russia and China would never permit the imposition of sanctions."

Stated otherwise re missile testing, Obama's deal permits unimpeded work on the delivery systems for Iran's future atomic weapons.

And then there was the warning from Germany earlier this month that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program. As noted by Sanger:

"While Iran has not seriously tested the limits of the agreement, it made an effort, several months ago, to purchase carbon fiber from Germany, a high-technology product used in the production of advanced rotors for centrifuges that purify uranium."

Why the need for advanced rotors for centrifuges? Simple. As reported by the influential Iranian newspaper Kayhan, Iranian President Rouhani declared yesterday:

"If, some day, the P5+1 refuses to fulfill its commitments, we will be completely prepared, and, in terms of nuclear capabilities, we are at such a level so as to be able to reach our desired stage in a short period of time."

Or in other words, Iran's antiquated centrifuges have indeed been dismantled; however, Rouhani and friends are already making preparations to obtain the next generation of centrifuges, which enrich uranium more than 20 times faster.

Sanger cites Israeli satisfaction with the deal:

"By late January, even Israel’s top military officer said he was impressed. 'The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel’s existence for the foreseeable future,' Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, told a conference in Tel Aviv, 'and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.'"

Well, not exactly. On July 1, the deputy commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, threatened to "annihilate" Israel by launching the more than 100,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, Israel continues to face an existential threat, although for the time being, Hezbollah is preoccupied fighting rebel Sunni forces in Syria and cannot afford a two-front war.

Moreover, Iranian commanders have taken up positions opposite the Israel Defense Forces in the Golan Heights. In a July 8 DEBKAfile article entitled "Iranians & Walid suicide units on Golan border," we learn:

"Whereas Hizballah reported on July 5 that Israeli helicopters had attacked Syrian army positions near the Golan town of Quneitra, in fact, one of the two Israeli 'Tamuz' IDF rockets fired on July 4, in response to stray cross-border Syrian army mortar shells, struck the Syrian Ministry of Finance building near Quneitra, which housed Iranian Guards and Hizballah regional headquarters. An unknown number of Iranian officers were killed as a result."

The Middle East is more peaceful and secure as a consequence of Obama's deal with Khamenei? In fact, Obama and Kerry are living in a fool's paradise. Obama's agreement with Khamenei isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. 

Thomas Friedman, "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over": Absolving Hillary of Her Sins

Tweet

We now know that the US State Department funded an organization that used the money to oppose Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection in 2015. We also know that the US State Department yesterday expressed concern over Israeli legislation that would require Israeli NGOs receiving more than half of their funding from overseas to disclose this information in their advocacy literature or be fined some $7,500. The legislation primarily affects left-leaning organizations taking donations from European governments, and according to US State Department spokesman John Kirby, "We are deeply concerned that this law can have a chilling effect on the activities that these worthwhile organizations are trying to do."

Yup, 400,000 dead and 10 million refugees and displaced persons in neighboring Syria, yet Obama and friends are "deeply concerned" by this Israeli legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 ("FARA") is intended to "to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws."

The Israeli legislation, providing for a fine of $7,500, could have a "chilling effect"? Violations of FARA can result in a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.

Meanwhile, Obama is threatening to veto three bills aimed at enhancing sanctions against Iran and encumbering Iranian financial transactions, notwithstanding warnings from Germany that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program, and despite Iranian threats that 100,000 missiles will soon be launched against Israel.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman ignores this embarrassing treatment of an ally and instead turns his attention to America's presidential election. Without reference to FBI Director Comey's condemnation of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness involving her use of a home server while secretary of state, and ignoring the flagrant lies that she disseminated to the public over the past year to justify this abomination, Friedman sees fit to unequivocally endorse the Democratic candidate:

"Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party.

. . . .

The [Republican] party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing.

. . . .

A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left."

Don't misunderstand me: I regard Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. But for Friedman to claim that there is anything healthy about a center-left party nominating Hillary Clinton is nothing less than rank hypocrisy.

David Brooks, "Are We on the Path to National Ruin?": Yes

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Are We on the Path to National Ruin?," David Brooks questions whether America is at the edge of the abyss. Referencing both the violence in Dallas and the US presidential election, Brooks writes:

"[T]here are a lot of lonely, alienated young men seeking self-worth through violence. Some wear police badges; some sit in their rooms fantasizing of mass murder. When they act, the results can be convulsive."

. . . .

The F.B.I. director’s statements reminded us that Hillary Clinton is willing to blatantly lie to preserve her career. Donald Trump, of course, lies continually and without compunction. It’s very easy to see this country on a nightmare trajectory.

Brooks fails to mention how Obama lied and continues to lie about his unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which ultimately will allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons while now permitting Iran to perfect ICBM delivery systems.

Seeking a basis for optimism, Brooks draws our attention to the past:

"Back in the 1880s and 1890s, America faced crises as deep as the ones we face today. The economy was going through an epochal transition, then to industrialization. The political system was worse and more corrupt than ours is today.

Culturally things were bad, too. Racism and anti-immigrant feelings were at plague-like levels. Urban poverty was indescribable."

On the other hand, back in the 1880s and 1890s, elementary school children were not taking crack, narcissistic personality disorders were few and far between, and America's national debt was nowhere near today's unsustainable $20 trillion.

The answer to the title of Brooks's opinion piece? An unqualified "yes."

Paul Krugman, "Cheap Money Talks": Borrow, Baby, Borrow!

Tweet

Telling us just how low interest rates have become in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cheap Money Talks," Paul Krugman would again have the US take on more debt:

"Meanwhile, there are huge unmet demands for public investment on both sides of the Atlantic. America’s aging infrastructure is legendary, but not unique: years of austerity have left German roads and railways in worse shape than most people realize. So why not borrow money at these low, low rates and do some much-needed repair and renovation? This would be eminently worth doing even if it wouldn’t also create jobs, but it would do that too.

I know, deficit scolds would issue dire warnings about the evils of public debt. But they have been wrong about everything for at least the past eight years, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously."

All fine and good were it not for the fact that America's national debt now stands at some $19.4 trillion. Or stated otherwise, Obama and friends have effectively bankrupted the US. Do you remember how Obama declared in 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

Well, US debt now amounts to $60,000 "for every man, woman and child." That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. More to the point, it's unsustainable.

It hasn't exploded over the past eight years? Well, all bad habits ultimately catch up with you. It's only a matter of time.

Money is cheap? So are drugs, when the pusher tries to get you addicted.

What happens afterwards, when interest rates ultimately go up, and the US is forced to pay the piper? As already noted, US debt is not sustainable, and the world should expect a sorry awakening.

Maureen Dowd, "The Clinton Contamination": The End of American Exceptionalism

Tweet

In a scintillating opening to her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Clinton Contamination," Maureen Dowd lets us know:

"IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, 'extremely careless' with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion."

No mention, however, by Dowd how Comey struggled to make use of the terminology "extremely careless" to avoid using the words "gross negligence."

Also no mention by Dowd how Comey determined that there was no "intent," notwithstanding the fact that Hillary turned her emails over to a team of lawyers, who, lacking necessary security clearances, promptly "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and ... cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

And no mention by Dowd that Hillary is now unwilling to say whether she will cooperate with the investigation being reopened by State.

Maureen's conclusion:

"The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations."

Indeed, it's hard to fathom this nightmare, which marks total abnegation of the rule of law and the end of American exceptionalism.

Hillary Blows Her Chance at Redemption: Fails to Fly Into Dallas

Tweet

Hillary, who cancelled all campaign events scheduled for Friday, has just blown her chance at redemption. Do you remember how she flew into Bosnia under sniper fire? Well, Hillary had the chance to put paid to this lie (and perhaps all her other lies) by flying into Dallas. On the other hand, this might have entailed infinitesimal danger.

Or maybe she'll only do it when all the other candidates do it.

Charles Krauthammer, "Comey: A Theory": Welcome "Banana Republic Day," America's Newest National Holiday

Tweet

July 7, falling a mere three days after Independence Day, has become a US national holiday.

Yesterday, on July 7, 2016, FBI Director James Comey continued to claim before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, owing to a lack of intent on Clinton's part. However as noted by Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Comey: A theory," "it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or 'through gross negligence'" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 793(f). Krauthammer goes on to say regarding Comey's refusal to recommend prosecution because of a lack of intent:

"Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.

The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security."

More to the point, however, is Comey's acknowledgement yesterday, under questioning by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, that Hillary provided access to her home server and government emails to between 2 and 10 people without security clearances. As reported by Alana Goodman in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "FBI Director: Clinton Gave Non-Cleared People Access to Classified Information":

"The FBI director hedged when Chaffetz asked whether Clinton’s non-cleared attorneys ever read her classified emails.

'I don’t know the answer to that,' said Comey. 'I don’t know whether they read them at the time.' [Hillary's campaign has claimed that the attorneys read all of her emails.]

Chaffetz pressed the FBI director on the question of access.

'Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?' asked Chaffetz.

'Yes,' said Comey, before adding that he did not see evidence of criminal intent.

'Her intent was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,' added Comey. 'I don’t see the evidence there to make the case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.'

Chaffetz appeared confounded by Comey’s response, arguing that the act of giving an unsecured person access to classified information was a crime on its own.

'I read criminal intent as the idea that you allow someone without a security clearance access to classified information,' said Chaffetz. 'Everybody knows that, director. Everybody knows that.'"

Equally awful as previously admitted by Comey, Hillary's attorneys, who lacked security clearances, "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” This is not indicative of intent to mishandle classified information?

Will Nishimura now appeal his conviction?

Welcome "Banana Republic Day," celebrating yet another instance in which Hillary Clinton made a monkey of 323 million Americans.

[Do you have six minutes to spare? Watch Rep. Trey Gowdy destroy Comey's claim of "no intent" before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.]

Gail Collins, "Hillary, Beyond Email": Beyond Redemption

Tweet

Gail Collins declares in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary, Beyond Email":

"But nobody wants to be remembering 2016 as the year America elected its first woman president by default. Since at least she didn’t get indicted.

Clinton can spend the next four months listing all the ways Trump would be worse. Or she can use her intelligence, experience and fortitude to turn her story around."

Yup, disregard everything the State Department IG had to say. Ignore Comey. Hillary's now an honest human being!

Yeah, right. Collins's brain has obviously been addled by Candy Crush Saga.

New York Times Editorial, "Legal, but Not Political, Clarity on the Clinton Emails": Hillary Only Damaged Her "Reputation"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Legal, but Not Political, Clarity on the Clinton Emails," The New York Times concludes (my emphasis in red):

"As Mrs. Clinton said in the past, and her campaign reiterated on Tuesday, her decision to use private email was a mistake. She remains, far and away, the most experienced and knowledgeable candidate for the presidency, particularly when compared with Mr. Trump. But she has done damage to her reputation by failing to conform to the established security policies of the department she ran and by giving evasive or misleading answers about her actions and motivations. If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment."

Hillary only damaged her "reputation"? Heck, FBI Director Comey acknowledged (my emphasis in red):

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

In fact, Hillary damaged her country.

Now it's time for Hillary to be "forthright"? After lying to Americans about her home server and communication practices at every available opportunity over the past year? Isn't it a tad late?

America is in desperate need of a viable third party candidate.

David Brooks, "Choosing Leaders: Clueless or Crazy": One Set of Laws for the Clintons, Another for the Hoi Polloi

Tweet

Hands off Hillary!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Choosing Leaders: Clueless or Crazy," David Brooks points an accusing finger at Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn, and tells us of the rise of "crazy incompetence" in the US and the UK. Primarily concerning himself with Brexit, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove in the UK, Brooks goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"The big historical context is this: Something fundamental is shifting in our politics. The insiders can’t see it. Outsiders get thrown up amid the tumult, but they are too marginal, eccentric and inexperienced to lead effectively.

Without much enthusiasm, many voters seem to be flocking to tough, no-nonsense women who at least seem sensible: Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and, now, the Conservative Party front-runner, Theresa May."

Hillary Clinton is a "no-nonsense" woman who seems "sensible"? Grant it, I don't view Hillary as dangerous. (Donald's little fingers should not be allowed anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.) On the other hand, don't go telling me that Hillary's home email server was sensible. Rather, it stands as further stark evidence of her willingness to contravene governing rules of conduct that apply to all other Americans.

Bill's "chance" meeting with Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac? Yet another Clintonian scandal and further destruction of the rule of law in the US.

Commentary from Brooks regarding the charade in Phoenix? I'm still waiting, David.

Maureen Dowd, "In Paris With Boris, Donald and Lemon Tarts": Is Washington Burning?

Tweet

Maureen Dowd is eating "avocado and yuzu mousse, braised turbot with aniseed fragrance and maritime aster leaf," and "Italian lemon meringue," while writing tripe in Paris.

Bill Clinton is meeting with Loretta Lynch to discuss ... golf on a Phoenix tarmac. Did you happen to read the Times editorial concerning this tryst? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one.

And Hillary is conducting a "voluntary interview" with the FBI in Washington concerning her home server.

Yup, all is right in the world. It couldn't be finer.

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

Tweet

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.