Peter Wehner, "What Wouldn’t Jesus Do?": Discuss Anal Sex on the Radio?

Tweet

Labeling Donald Trump a "moral degenerate" in a New York Times op-ed entitled "What Wouldn’t Jesus Do?," Peter Wehner says of the Republican front-runner:

"This visionary and inspiring man humiliated his first wife by conducting a very public affair, chronically bullies and demeans people, and says he has never asked God for forgiveness. His name is emblazoned on a casino that features a strip club; he has discussed anal sex on the air with Howard Stern and, after complimenting his daughter Ivanka’s figure, pointed out that if she 'weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.'"

Ouch!

If you are troubled by talk of anal sex on the radio, you better start getting used to it: If Trump is elected, the US will be taking it up the @$$.

On a more serious note, compare Pete's narrative with that of George Will in a Chicago Tribune opinion piece entitled "George Will: Who dares to endorse Donald Trump next?." Attacking Trump's "demagogic cynicism and anti-constitutional authoritarianism," Will says of Rubio's belated verbal assault on Trump during the debate in Houston:

"Unfortunately, Rubio recognized reality and found his voice 254 days after Trump's scabrous announcement of his candidacy to rescue America from Mexican rapists. And 222 days after Trump disparaged John McCain's war service ("I like people that weren't captured"). And 95 days after Trump said that maybe a protester at his rally "should have been roughed up." And 95 days after Trump retweeted that 81 percent of white murder victims are killed by blacks (82 percent are killed by whites). And 94 days after Trump said he supports torture "even if it doesn't work." And 79 days after Trump said he might have approved the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. And 72 days after Trump proved that he does not know the nuclear triad from the Nutcracker ballet. And 70 days after Trump, having been praised by Vladimir Putin, reciprocated by praising the Russian murderer and dictator. And so on."

Yup, Will doesn't seem to care much for the Donald. Republicans, nevertheless, appear hungry to hand Hillary the White House.

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Peter Wehner, "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria": The Commander-in Chief Who Likes to Watch

Tweet

"I like to watch."

- Chance the Gardener, "Being There" (1979)

As I observed yesterday, with Russian deployment of S-400 missile systems in Latakia, which are capable of downing aircraft 250 miles away (including planes landing at and departing from Israel's Ben Gurion Airport), President Obama has ceded control over the entire Syrian theater of operations to Putin. Thus, it should come as no surprise that RT is today gloating:

"Both the American and Turkish air forces halted their strikes on Syrian territory around the time Russia deployed S-400 air defense complexes at the Khmeimim airbase, from which it stages its own incursions against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

A spokesperson of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) told Sputnik on Friday that the absence of anti-IS coalition airstrikes 'has nothing to do with the S400 deployment' in Syria."

Nothing to do with the deployment of the S-400 systems? Yeah, right.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria," Peter Wehner writes:

"In 2012 Mr. Obama rebuffed plans to arm Syrian rebels despite the fact that his former secretaries of defense and state, his C.I.A. director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported them. He repeatedly insisted he would not put American soldiers in Syria or pursue a prolonged air campaign. He refused to declare safe havens or no-fly zones. And it was also in 2012 that Mr. Obama warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that using chemical weapons would cross a 'red line.' Yet when Mr. Assad did just that, Mr. Obama did nothing.

The president, perhaps fearful of offending the pro-Assad Iranian government with which he was trying to negotiate a nuclear arms deal, chose to sit by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolded. As Walter Russell Mead wrote in The American Interest, 'This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn.'"

Pete's right; however, I believe that America's credibility and deterrent power have also crashed and burned under a commander-in-chief who likes to watch.

David Brooks, "The New Right": In Fact, There Is Nothing New Under the Sun

"There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight"

The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The New Right" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/opinion/brooks-the-new-right.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks pays homage to Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin before informing us:

"The nanny state may have drained civil society, but simply removing the nanny state will not restore it. There have to be programs that encourage local paternalism: early education programs with wraparound services to reinforce parenting skills, social entrepreneurship funds to reweave community, paternalistic welfare rules to encourage work."

Yup, we need early education programs such as Head Start, even if they don't work (see: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html), and we need to force meals on children that go uneaten (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/2/michelle-obamas-school-lunch-program-leaves-childr/).

More to the point, we need to encourage "paternalism" at a time when "[f]ifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/?page=all)? Sounds more like we need to encourage "maternalism."

Or is it all simply spinning out of control and destined for the garbage pail, akin to a Michelle Obama school lunch?

Don't get me wrong: I enjoy reading Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin, yet I have no faith in the likes of Rand Paul and Rick Perry.

The new right? The new left? How about the new nothing? As far as I'm concerned, Ecclesiastes 1:9 has had it right for considerably more than two thousand years: "That which hath been is that which shall be, and that which hath been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun."

David Brooks, "Fake Putin Diary!": Did America Win the Cold War?

Did the United States win the Cold War when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down? Perhaps. But we now have an American president struggling hand over fist to cede Western power and influence to a Russian strongman, intent upon restoring Soviet glory.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Fake Putin Diary!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/opinion/brooks-fake-putin-diary.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks finally wakes up to Vladimir Putin's grotesque ambition, evidenced by:

• the 2014 winter Olympics games in Sochi, which highlighted Putin's fear and hatred of homosexuals;
• Putin's failed attempt to restore the Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence, which brought rioting and death to the streets of Kiev;
• Putin's "cooperation" with Obama involving plans, never to be consumated, for the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Brooks concludes his ersatz diary entry by writing:

"It’s easy to govern when you’ve got the winds of history at your back. I’ve got the wolves of chaos growling in my face. Capital flight is accelerating. The ruble is devaluing. Social media, the youth culture, the tides of mass protest, democracy and capitalism undermine the authoritarian mind-set.

Yet I impose my will with the beauty of gold and the wisdom of sapphire. I don’t 'evolve,' as everybody suggests. Evolution leads to chaos. I learned that from Gorby!

The events of the 1990s gave the world one narrative, the Velvet Revolution narrative. But I’m going to teach another narrative: that what begins with people massing in a city square ends with a strongman triumphing in a palace. In my own way, I will define this age."

Putin will "define this age"? Perhaps. But only because a foreign affairs naif, occupying the Oval Office, chose to empower this former KGB officer. It's again time to recollect Obama's open microphone gaffe, in which the American president asked outgoing Russian president Medvedev to convey to incoming president Putin a promise of future "flexibility" during Obama's second term.

Well, Putin sure as heck got the message and has been acting on it. The agreement for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, brokered by Putin, is not being implemented (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130), and talks with Iran concerning the cessation of its nuclear weapons program are going nowhere, although economic sanctions imposed against the Khamenei regime have crumbled (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/24/iranian-oil-exports-rise-markedly-since-interim-deal/?hpid=z3).

Affording Putin even greater comfort, we now have US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel telling us that American military dominance can "no longer be taken for granted" and that budget cuts will place "additional risks" upon the US military (see: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hagel-american-military-dominance-can-no-longer-be-taken-for-granted/). Yesterday, Peter Wehner wrote regarding the dismantling and enfeeblement of America's military (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/24/obama-consciously-engineering-americas-decline/):

"More than any president in my lifetime, Barack Obama has damaged virtually everything he’s touched. When it comes to American interests, he’s a one-man wrecking ball."

"Wrecking Ball"? Bruce Springsteen? I'm thinking more in terms of the Rolling Stones' "You Make a Grown Man Cry."

Thomas Friedman, "The Man With Pink Hair": Nectarines and Baldness

Shuffling down Schifflaube Street on a mission to buy nectarines, Thomas Friedman, tells us how he encountered a cashier with neon pink hair. So begins Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Man With Pink Hair" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html). Yup, this is almost as fascinating as what's atop Friedman's own pate.

Friedman goes on to tell us:

"Everyone is focusing on Obama’s unimpressive leadership in this crisis, but for my money the two main players who shaped the outcome — in ways that would not have been predicted but will have huge long-term implications — were Putin and the American people. Obama got blindsided by both."

That's right: Don't blame Obama for the degradation of American credibility and stature around the globe - Putin and the American populace are to blame.

But wait, Friedman also acknowledges that Obama had just a little something to do with this chaos:

"I also think the public picked up on Obama’s ambivalence — his Churchillian, this-must-not-stand rhetoric, clashed with his 'On second thought, I’m going to ask Congress’s permission before I make a stand, and I won’t call lawmakers back from vacation to do so.' The bombing was going to be bigger than a 'pinprick' but also 'unbelievably small.' It just did not add up."

It didn't "add up"? Oh really? Consider Peter Wehner's piece in Commentary entitled "The Obama Mythology Has Been Shattered" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/16/the-obama-mythology-has-been-shattered/#more-833252), which lists a "few" other contradictions which go missing from Friedman's op-ed:

"Taking in new information is fine; pursuing a policy characterized by head-snapping shifts, ambivalence, ineptness, and bipolarity is not.

Let’s see if we can help [White House press secretary Jay Carney] out by summarizing for him some (but hardly all) of his boss’s epic incompetence, starting with declaring that Bashar al-Assad must leave–and now taking steps that secure Assad’s grip on power. Then there’s the president warning the Syrian regime not to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons–and doing nothing when it did (on several different occasions).

But there’s more, including President Obama promising to arm rebels attempting to overthrow Assad–and delaying doing so for many crucial months; indicating he’d by-pass Congress when it came to seeking a use-of-force resolution–and then shocking everyone, including his entire staff, by reversing direction; putting British Prime Minister Cameron in a position where he needed to go to Parliament for a vote in order to approve an imminent strike–and then pulling back from the strike, leaving Mr. Cameron hung out to dry; insisting that Assad must be militarily punished for using chemical weapons–and now pursuing a fruitless diplomatic strategy in which Assad will not be on the receiving end of a military strike. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, who framed the conflict with Syria as (a) a 'Munich moment' before (b) assuring people that a strike against our modern-day Hitler would be 'incredibly small' followed by (c) engaging in negotiations destined to fail with the man he called 'thug' and 'murderer' who is guilty of committing a 'moral obscenity.'"

But heck, let's not hold the president accountable for this farce. After all, if we don't support the president's absurd pact with Putin, Friedman concludes that "Obama’s hair will not just be turned gray by the Middle East these next three years, he’ll go bald."

And so, a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary is born . . .

Ruth Marcus, "Obama’s Style on Syria Needs Refashioning": Obama's "Scary" Presidential Conviction

The Obama presidency is fast coming apart at the seams when uber-liberal columnist Ruth Marcus terms Obama's thought processes "scary."

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s style on Syria needs refashioning" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-obamas-style-on-syria-needs-refashioning/2013/09/16/861b8bba-1efb-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html?hpid=z4), Marcus focuses on the president's claim that his Syria policy is being graded on "style" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html) and not on its outcome. Marcus writes:

"Style points? Seriously? Style points? That’s what President Obama thinks the criticism of his zigzag Syria policy amounts to?

As presidential spin, this is insulting. As presidential conviction — if this is what he really believes — it’s scary."

Well, no one better psychoanalyzes that "style" than Peter Wehner over at Commentary. In a piece entitled "The Obama Mythology Has Been Shattered" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/16/the-obama-mythology-has-been-shattered/#more-833252), Wehner observes:

"Taking in new information is fine; pursuing a policy characterized by head-snapping shifts, ambivalence, ineptness, and bipolarity is not.

Let’s see if we can help [White House press secretary Jay Carney] out by summarizing for him some (but hardly all) of his boss’s epic incompetence, starting with declaring that Bashar al-Assad must leave–and now taking steps that secure Assad’s grip on power. Then there’s the president warning the Syrian regime not to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons–and doing nothing when it did (on several different occasions).

But there’s more, including President Obama promising to arm rebels attempting to overthrow Assad–and delaying doing so for many crucial months; indicating he’d by-pass Congress when it came to seeking a use-of-force resolution–and then shocking everyone, including his entire staff, by reversing direction; putting British Prime Minister Cameron in a position where he needed to go to Parliament for a vote in order to approve an imminent strike–and then pulling back from the strike, leaving Mr. Cameron hung out to dry; insisting that Assad must be militarily punished for using chemical weapons–and now pursuing a fruitless diplomatic strategy in which Assad will not be on the receiving end of a military strike. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, who framed the conflict with Syria as (a) a 'Munich moment' before (b) assuring people that a strike against our modern-day Hitler would be 'incredibly small' followed by (c) engaging in negotiations destined to fail with the man he called 'thug' and 'murderer' who is guilty of committing a 'moral obscenity.'"

In my prior blog entry, I asked, regarding Obama's reference to "style" during his interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, whether the president was "delusional or just deceitful?" The answer to my own question is that I don't know.

But if Ruth Marcus is scared by Obama's behavior, how should the rest of us feel?

Gail Collins, "Michele, Here’s the Bell": Red Herring

A definition of "red herring" from Merriam-Webster:

2. [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs]: something that distracts attention from the real issue.

What the heck is wrong with Minnesota? In ancient times, I used to like Walter Mondale, and going back to the stone age, I also cared for Hubert Humphrey. But that was then. Today, Minnesota has brought us the likes of Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum (who once compared Hamas rockets fired at Israel with "drive by shootings," see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/open-letter-to-congresswoman-betty.html) and Michele Bachmann to Congress.

Michele Bachmann of Tea Party fame will not be running for reelection in 2014. Do I care? No.

But Gail Collins cares, and so does Charles Blow.

Today, Collins, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Michele, Here’s the Bell" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/collins-michele-heres-the-bell.html?_r=0), and Charles Blow, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Bachmann Bows Out" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/blow-bachmann-bows-out.html), both get their knickers into a knot over Bachmann.

Sorry, but grumpy old man that I've become, I just don't give a damn. Why? Simple: There's still the Benghazi scandal, something which still demands answers, and whereas Obama is busy playing "What I don't know can't hurt me," and Hillary is in hiding deep underground until it all blows over, it just doesn't want to go away.

Yes, I know that I should not also be reading nefarious right-wing journals, but as Peter Wehner writes in The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-ll-always-love-obama_729022.html):

"Take the New York Times. On May 17, in a story about how President Obama is trying to move beyond his current problems, the Times declared, 'In the last few days, the administration appears to have stopped the bleeding. The release of internal e-mails on Benghazi largely confirmed the White House’s account.'

Except it did no such thing. The White House’s account was that neither it nor the State Department made any substantive changes to the talking points related to the Benghazi attacks. We have irrefutable evidence—actual documents—that they did. The White House’s account was that a YouTube video critical of Muhammad sparked a spontaneous assault on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. Except this is a fabrication. The White House’s account was that the administration had no idea Islamic terrorists were responsible for the attack until many days later. Except we have emails that prove high-ranking State Department officials knew Ansar al Sharia was involved within 24 hours of the attacks. The White House has not come clean on any of these matters."

And Colonel David Hunt writes in Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/29/Blame-the-President-for-Benghazi):

"When the American mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked on September 11th, 2012, only one person had the positional authority, legal mandate, and communications apparatus to give the order to defend our personnel on the ground: the President of the United States.

The President did not give that order, and four Americans died in Benghazi that day. All the rest of the nonsense to which we have been treated–from prepared talking points, congressional hearings, and finally to the outright lies–matter not when compared to the ignominious moments in which the President of the United States refused to do his job.

That same day, two other American embassies in the Middle East were also under attack in Sana, Yemen and Cairo, Egypt. As a result, our intelligence systems were on high alert. When the calls, satellite and drone feeds, faxes, and reports began bombarding every command center from Germany to the United States, our nation, already at war for eleven years, was again under siege. Staffs from Africa Command, European Command, the National Military Command Center, the CIA Operations Center, the State Department Operations Center, and the White House Situation Room were fully operational.

. . . .

The road to that indecision is littered with policy and leadership failures that culminated in an American mission and clandestine CIA base being attacked and the murder of our Ambassador and three dedicated Americans doing their jobs. However, the one person responsible for it all is the one man who could have, but refused to, even try to stop the carnage... the President of the United States.

All the President had to say within the first two hours while being briefed by the Secretary of Defense was, 'Send in a response force.' This command, followed by his signature on a paper called Cross Border Authority, would have ordered the Department of Defense to do everything and anything to save lives in Benghazi, Libya."

Interesting. Hunt is saying more or less what that nasty neocon, Maureen Dowd, also concluded in The New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/maureen-dowd-when-myths-collide-in.html).

Yup, I'm waiting to learn hear what Obama and Hillary discussed that evening at 10 p.m. when those men were being butchered (see: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/28/Krauthammer-Says-the-Obama-Clinton-10-00-PM-Phone-Call-May-Be-The-Biggest-Scandal-Of-All). Will we ever know? Not if Obama and friends, who once were committed to transparency in government, can help it.

The IRS and AP/Rosen scandals? Also frightening, but let's start with answers regarding Benghazi, where brave Americans were needlessly sacrificed so that Obama could be reelected without us ever knowing about the resurgence of al-Qaeda.

Gail Collins, "Mr. Edwards and the Shrimp": No Mention of Jobs, No Mention of Seamus

I ordinarily don't read Gail Collins's New York Times opinion pieces anymore, which have become tedious, vacuous and repetitive. Today, however, I made an exception and read "Mr. Edwards and the Shrimp" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/john-edwards-and-the-shrimp.html). I was curious whether Collins would relate to the horrifying May jobs report (see: http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/may-jobs-report/index.htm) and/or again regale us with her lame running "joke" concerning the Romney family dog. Needless to say, no mention of the economy, and this time no mention of Seamus.

How bad is the economy? No one sums it up better than Peter Wehner at Commentary (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/01/obama-overmatched-by-events/):

"It’s not simply that the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent, or that it’s remained above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months, or that in May we gained less than 70,000 new jobs. Nor is it simply the fact that in May the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) increased from 5.1 million to 5.4 million. Or that the average work week fell to 34.4 hours. Or that, as John [Steele Gordon] points out, March and April’s jobs reports were revised downward. Or that in May, stocks suffered through their worst month in two years."

So what did Collins tell us about John Edwards in her op-ed?:

"But, somehow, the public realized that this guy who looked so good and sounded so glib was really a fraud."

Peculiar, but I can think of someone else who also "looked so good" and "sounded so glib," who managed to be elected in 2008.

Thomas Friedman, "Obama Should Seize the High Ground": More Advice from He-Who-Knows-Best

Thank goodness, Thomas Friedman always has a simple remedy for all that pains us, including the economy, the Middle East, and Democratic campaign strategy!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama Should Seize the High Ground" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-president-obama-should-seize-the-high-ground.html), Tom ponders how Obama "would do if he ran for re-election on all the things he’s accomplished but rarely speaks about." Among the achievements cited by Friedman:

• Obamacare
• Significantly increased mileage for vehicle fleets by 2025
• Obama's "rescue" of the economy

My goodness, why didn't Axelrod & Co., supreme masters of vapid political packaging, think of this? Maybe because the constitutionality of Obamacare is facing a serious challenge, its crushing costs were significantly misrepresented by the Obama administration, and it is extremely unpopular. In fact, according to an April 11, 2012 ABC News/Washington Post poll, Obamacare has never been more unpopular: 53% of Americans oppose the law, while only 39% support it, and two-thirds of Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire law or at least the part that requires most individuals to to obtain insurance coverage (see: http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1136a4HealthCare.pdf).

Obama has significantly increased demands for fleet mileage? Great, but I wonder if I will be still alive in 2025 to see it, or whether the automobile industry, incapable of meeting this objective, will lobby for leniency as the deadline, more than a decade away, approaches. Personally, I would have been more pleased if Obama had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have instantly provided jobs and offered relief from dependency upon Middle East oil during our lifetimes.

Obama has "rescued" the economy? I would remind Friedman of Obama's August 2011 declaration that his re-election will hinge on the state of the economy (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-20095106.html):

"'It frustrates people, understandably, when you've got an unemployment rate that is still too high, an economy that's not growing fast enough. And for me to argue, 'Look, we've actually made the right decisions, things would have been much worse has we not made those decisions,' that's not that satisfying if you don't have a job right now,' the president said. 'And I understand that, and I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better.'"

However, as recently observed by Peter Wehner of Commentary (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/04/very-ugly-jobs-report-obama-economy/), unemployment has exceeded 8 percent for a record 39 months, the labor force participation rate (64.3 percent) is at its lowest level in more than 30 years, and the employment-population ratio (58.4 percent) is even lower.

Criticizing Obama for not demanding more stimulus paired with some version of the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan, Friedman concludes by observing:

"In sum, Obama’s campaign right now feels as though it were made in a test tube by political consultants. It’s not the Obama we admire. Rather than pounding the country with 'I have a plan' — a rebuilding stimulus plus Simpson-Bowles — which would be an Obama-like message of hope, leadership and unity that would put him on higher ground that Romney can’t reach because of the radical G.O.P. base, Obama is selling poll-tested wedge issues. I don’t think it’s a winner for him or America."

Well, Obama doesn't have a plan. In fact, he doesn't even have a clue, and there is a reason Axelrod is now "selling poll-tested wedge issues."

But as always, thanks for the advice, Tom. Where would we ever be without it?

Gail Collins, "Obama’s Wonderful Town": Obama Not Responsible

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Wonderful Town" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/opinion/collins-obamas-wonderful-town.html), Gail Collins wastes ink and paper on an excerpt from a biography of Obama, which includes interviews with former girlfriends. Yet another reference by Collins to the Romney "Seamus" story? Of course:

"Also eating dog meat when you are a child in Indonesia is not the same thing as driving to Canada with the family Irish setter strapped to the roof of the car when you are 36."

Or in other words, Obama bears no responsibility for eating dogs at age 10, but there can be no forgiving Romney for placing Seamus in a wind-protected crate atop his vehicle some 30 years ago. And in fact, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-puts-bo-on-the-trail/2012/04/30/gIQAgZrYsT_story.html) informs us that Obama is now prominently featuring Bo, his Portuguese water dog, in official campaign advertisements:

"President Obama has unleashed a particularly unusual fundraiser for his 2012 campaign.

One Internet ad starts with a two-toned blue background, like dozens of other pro-Obama spots. Then the furry star pops into the frame, tongue out and ready to frolic. 'Join Pet Lovers for Obama,' the ad implores.

The unlikely pitchman is Bo, the White House family pet, who may well be the first 'first dog' to emerge as a central player in a presidential reelection campaign."

Personally, I think it sad that Obama has so little else to run on, and is now relying on his pet for re-election.

But back to Collins: Even if Obama has no responsibility for eating dogs as a child in Indonesia, there was also that other government report released on Friday, showing that employers added fewer-than-expected jobs in April. As observed by Peter Wehner in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/04/very-ugly-jobs-report-obama-economy/#more-792893):

"It’s not simply that unemployment has been above 8 percent for a record 39 months, which is bad enough. While news stories report that 115,000 new jobs were added in April, the true picture is much worse. More than 340,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force last month. The total employment level for April fell 169,000.

. . . .

The labor force participation rate (64.3 percent) reached its lowest level in more than 30 years, while the employment-population ratio (58.4 percent) is lower still."

Obama ingesting dog meat in Indonesia as a child? Who cares? However, there can be no avoiding discussion of Obama's responsibility for the worrisome state of the US economy.

Paul Krugman, "G.O.P. Monetary Madness": "Great Depression, here we come"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "G.O.P. Monetary Madness" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?ref=opinion), Paul Krugman would have us know that expansion of the monetary base in recent years by the Federal Reserve has not resulted in significant inflation and debasement of the dollar, as predicted by Ron Paul and Paul Ryan. (That's a helluva lot of Pauls in one sentence.) Krugman asks, "Who could have predicted that printing so much money would cause so little inflation?" The Great and Powerful One's answer? You guessed it:

"Well, I could. And did."

Krugman concludes his opinion piece by observing:

"Now, it’s still very unlikely that Ron Paul will become president. But, as I said, his economic doctrine has, in effect, become the official G.O.P. line, despite having been proved utterly wrong by events. And what will happen if that doctrine actually ends up being put into action? Great Depression, here we come."

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't even want to imagine Ron Paul as president. On the other hand, I thought the US was already in something approximating a depression, and as acknowledged by Krugman in his prior op-ed, "Depression and Democracy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/krugman-depression-and-democracy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion):

"It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression."

As pointedly observed by Peter Wehner of Commentary in his August 2011 "Contentions" opinion piece entitled "Answering Jonathan Alter's Challenge" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/26/jonathan-alter-challenge/):

"* Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

. . . .

* America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago."

In many respects, this economic data points to a situation worse than the Great Depression.

True, as Krugman observes, over the past three years "consumer prices have risen just 4.5 percent, meaning an average annual inflation rate of only 1.5 percent." However, Krugman fails to factor into the equation how much less Americans have to spend, owing to persistent unemployment. By way of comparison, there was deflation during the Great Depression.

Looking ahead with respect to debasement of the dollar, I believe that if Obama oversees several more trillion dollar deficit years, the US currency will indeed lose much of its value. Moreover, if this happens, I, the Gray Wizard of Caesarea, can predict the next great growth industry: wheelbarrows, needed to haul dollar bills to the grocery store to purchase bread.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Big, Mr. Obama": More Flatulence From Friedman

Do you remember how, only four short months ago, Thomas Friedman was expressing his frustration with both Democrats and Republicans and advocating on behalf of a viable third party presidential candidate? In "Make Way for the Radical Center" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html), Friedman wrote:

"If this kind of idiocy by elected officials sends you into a hair-pulling rage and leaves you wishing that we had more options today than our two-party system is putting forward — for instance, a party that would have offered a grand bargain on the deficit two years ago, not on the eve of a Treasury default — not only are you not alone, but help may be on the way.

. . . .

Write it down: Americans Elect. What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in. Watch out."

Well, Tom, I wrote it down, but now see that you are back to kissing Obama's derrière.

Today, Friedman ignores the 10-year sentence for corruption and extortion handed out yesterday to Tony Rezko, who in the past served as an important fund raiser for Obama and also arranged the sweetheart deal that enabled Obama to purchase his home in Chicago. Instead, in his New York Times op-ed "Go Big, Mr. Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/friedman-go-big-mr-obama.html?ref=opinion), Friedman croaks paeans to the president:

"I voted for Barack Obama, and I don’t want my money back. He’s never gotten the credit he deserves for bringing the economy he inherited back from the brink of a depression. He’s fought the war on terrorism in a smart and effective way. He’s making health care possible for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, and he saved the auto industry. This is big stuff."

Friedman claims that Obama made a mistake by "spurning his own deficit reduction commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson," and concludes:

"Go big, Mr. President. You will win, and so will America."

So, whereas four months ago, Friedman was lambasting Obama for taking us to the brink of a Treasury default, now Friedman would have us know that Obama "brought us back from the brink of a depression" and merely needs to cut the deficit. That's some handy op-ed legerdemain for you!

But let's have a closer look at Obama's economic achievements, which have already involved some mighty big thinking, or spending, if you will. As pointedly observed by Peter Wehner of Commentary in his August 2011 Contentions opinion piece entitled "Answering Jonathan Alter's Challenge" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/26/jonathan-alter-challenge/):

"* Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

. . . .

* America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago."

Sweet.

Regarding Friedman's contention that Obama has "fought the war on terrorism in a smart and effective way," I will limit myself to observing that Obama needlessly expanded American ground involvement in Afghanistan, which has also helped bring the US closer to bankruptcy. And although he has permitted the US military to engage in effective "targeted killing" of al-Qaeda leaders from the air (otherwise known as "unlawful assassination" when radicals from Hamas and Islamic Jihad are killed by Israel from above), he has ignored ongoing threats of terror against the US from Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/richard-dearlove-violent-islamism-has.html), while his belated and impotent sanctions have enabled Tehran to proceed undeterred with its program to construct nuclear weapons.

"Go big, Mr. President"? How about if he just goes quietly and returns to writing books about himself after 2012?

Paul Krugman's "To the Limit": "The Conscience of a Liberal" Loses Patience With Obama

As observed in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/david-brooks-convener-in-chief-can.html), the uber-left op-ed page of The New York Times is distancing itself from Obama. Earlier this week, Maureen Dowd ("Our president likes to be on both sides at once," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26dowd.html?ref=opinion), and Roger Cohen ("It’s past time for Obama to lead in these areas [energy and industrial policy]," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen28.html?ref=opinion) came down hard on the president. Today, in his column entitled "To the Limit" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp), it is Paul Krugman's turn to question Obama's ability to govern.

Krugman's message today is not new, i.e. stale: The U.S. needs to spend its way out of the recession, and to that end, the federal debt ceiling must be raised. Krugman again posits that Republican reluctance to accede to Obama's request amounts to partisan petulance, which amounts to playing with fire. Yawn. Novel, however, is Krugman's annoyance with Obama:

"The president’s response seemed clueless even then.

. . . .

Republicans believe, in short, that they’ve got Mr. Obama’s number, that he may still live in the White House but that for practical purposes his presidency is already over. It’s time — indeed, long past time [Italics added - observe the similarity to the Cohen quote, above] — for him to prove them wrong."

Apparently, even the patience of "The Conscience of a Liberal" has its limits. Yet, regardless of whether he is able to raise the debt limit, Obama's goose is cooked. As observed by Peter Wehner in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/30/the-economy-and-the-record-obama-owns/):

"With ownership comes responsibility, of course, so let’s run through, one more time, some of what the president owns:

•An unemployment rate of 9.1 percent;
•28 straight months of unemployment being above 8 percent, a post-World War II record;
•Chronic unemployment worse than during the Great Depression (about 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months);
•A nation in which 2.5 million fewer people are employed than when the president was sworn in and which has seen only 600,000 jobs created during our two-year “recovery”;
•A housing crisis that has recently entered a double dip and is now worse than the Great Depression;
•A record $1.65 trillion deficit this year;
•A record $14.3 trillion debt;
•First quarter growth in 2011 of only 1.8 percent;
•A presidency in which real annual growth in GDP averages 1.5 percent, just barely above what it was during the decade of the Great Depression (1.3 percent); and
•Gas prices roughly doubled what they were when Obama took office."

Obama's only option is to blame Bush and Republican billionaire-backed intransigence for the quandary and to claim that it would all be much worse had he not come to the rescue. Bush is ancient history, and Obama owned both houses of Congress for two years and still couldn't bring about "change."

With campaign season just around the corner, no economic voodoo is going to forestall the moving vans from arriving at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in January 2013. Obama's only prayer is that the Republican's nominate Sarah Palin as his opponent.