Opuscula It’s not 1984: Big Brother Has Arrived

THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING to protect us.

The question is: Who is protecting us from the government?

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is deciding to protect us from ourselves. Ronald Reagan

 

IT STARTED WITH FDR.

Before Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR, people generally took care of each other.

Granted, the country found itself in a depression brought on by greed and lack of concern for our neighbors. The whole world suffered.

So FDR initiated a number of social programs, including Social Security, the TVA, WPA, and a host of more “alphabet soup” organizations, many of which linger on even today.

(At the same time FDR was creating “make work” programs for Americans, he kept Jewish refugees from Germany at bay by closing the borders to them.)

Another three-initial president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, LBJ, gave us Medicare, a social service into which citizens pay and pay and then, when retired, CONTINUE to pay — more every year.

Unfortunately, we — Americans — brought some of this on ourselves.

We allowed technology — that “miracle” that was supposed to save us time and money — to take over our lives . . . and our wallets.

Doctors DON’T know best

I am about to travel overseas for six months.

My Spouse and I have a Medicare Advantage plan that is SUPPOSED cover our prescription medicines, BUT when my Spouse tried to get a Vacation Override so she could get two 90-day supplies — enough to last six months (180 days by my count) she was denied.

The insurer also claims we will have emergency coverage while out of the insurer’s coverage area. But only for five (5) months. I’ll bet the insurer collects from CMS for the sixth month!

After going around and around with the insurance company, she discovered that the most she could get would be a 5 month supply of medications. The insurer told my Spouse that it would terminate her coverage if she was outside of the company’s service area for six months.

Understand, that she could be back on day 179 and needed her pills until she could get a refill from the pharmacy.

ONE DAY and the insurer refused to give the override.

None of her medications are narcotics.

To be fair, there was a person at the insurance company and another at the pharmacy that did their best to help my Spouse. The insurance clerk was about the 15th clerk with whom my wife spoke. Getting to the helpful clerk was a several-day process.

MEANWHILE, SEEING THE PROBLEMS MY Spouse encountered, and knowing that I have far less patience that she, I contacted my Primary Care Physician (PCP) and asked that he write a script for double the number of pills — from one-a-day to two-a-day. That way, my normal 90-day supply would last 180 days.

The pharmacy refused to honor my doctor’s order.

The insurer told the pharmacy that what my doctor did was “unethical.”

Again, no narcotics. Nothing to sell and I’m certainly not about to OD on a diabetes pill.

Still, it failed to meet some esoteric law in place to protect me.

The insurer knows better than my doctor how many pills I need? My insurer has never examined me and I doubt it ever has seem my laboratory results.

I’m 78 years old and I don’t think I need protection from myself; but I’m not so sure I don’t need protection from The Powers That Be.

Something new? Hardly

There was a time when a committee of prudes determined what made-in-America movies could include. Married couples had to sleep in twin beds or, Hollywood forbid, if they managed to share a double bed, each bed partner had to have one foot on the floor. (How did movies ever have babies in them?)

Opuscula Joe Biden ads Show he plans To clone Trump

ONE OF “SLEEPY JOE’S” tv ads has him telling us that when elected (not “if” but “when”) he will restore America to its former greatness.

Does he mean the “greatness” of the Obama-Biden administration or the “greatness” of the Trump administration before the Chinese virus?

He speaks of buying American.

His president bought a campaign bus, not from a U.S. company, but one in Canada.

He says he will have U.S. firms make Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Trump already did that.

He talks of reducing Chinese influence.

Trump already is doing that.

He promises to help small businesses.

Trump already is doing that.

Never mind that he also promises to raise taxes.

 

JOE’S AD WRITERS must either have a sense of humor OR they are unusually stupid.

While President Donald Trump is hardly a shining example of leadership — at least he IS awake and his speech coherent — he managed to convince U.S. manufacturers to make PPE and to revamp production lines to make ventilators.

This in itself supports businesses both large and small.

He “encouraged” U.S. manufacturers to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. Ghost factories are now coming back to life.

He has — if you take a negative (a/k/a Democratic) approach — fired the first shots in a “trade war” with China. In reality, he is trying to put both trading partners on an equal footing.

Trump has not promised to raise taxes. On that Biden stands alone.

Biden insists that everyone in the U.S. must wear a mask. So much for States Rights. Washington under the Democrats has consistently whittled away at the rights of states to make their own laws.

To be fair, Biden promises citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. while Trump still is trying to build a wall. These people will be entitled to all the benefits of America’s legal citizens without paying into the system (Social Security, Medicare, state Medicaid).

Biden complains that Trump has “divided America with his divisiveness.”

The gentleman should hold up a mirror to his own party — starting with Mrs. Clinton.

The divisiveness started with her behavior after the 2016 election.

Even in bitterly fought campaigns, losers — until Mrs. Clinton — congratulated their opponent.

The divisiveness is magnified by the Democrat “progressives” in congress: The Squad, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler in the House and Schumer in the Senate.

Biden was Obama’s VP when the U.S. allowed the liberal and Muslim-dominated UN screed on Israel. He also was part of the administration that sent billions of dollar to the terrorists' intransigent PLO “leader” Abu Mazen on Obama’s last day in power.

Biden, who claims to be a Catholic, is in bed with Planned Parenthood abortion advocates. Planned Parenthood is anathema to the church.

Biden claims he will leave the U.S. embassy in Israel’s capital. However, during the Obama-Biden rule, the progressives kowtowed to Abu Mazen. For all their support of the terrorist, they could not — or perhaps did not want — to bring the PLO to the table with Israel.

Trump, on the other hand, moved the embassy and canceled U.S. payments to the PLO for its “slay for pay” programs.

The Obama-Biden administration gave the Muslims in North Africa and the Middle East the so-called “Arab Spring” that destabilized the region.

It was during the Obama-Biden administration than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allowed a “spontaneous” attack on the consulate in Benghazi that resulted in Americans’ murder. There is proof that Clinton knew the Americans were in danger but refused to send defenders.

This is the same Hillary Clinton kept illegal servers on which she kept classified emails; the servers were not secure. Trump gave her a pass and kept Justice from bringing her up on charges.

Neither Biden nor his boss could get Abu Mazen’s cooperation, even after giving the terrorists billions of taxpayer dollars. They didn’t learn from past administrations that put away the “stick” and only offered the “carrot.”

Trump took a different approach. He stopped the “carrot” to the PLO and offered carrots to other Muslim states in the area, e.g., UAE.

Admittedly, Iran is playing a large part in weaning the PLO’s benefactors from Abu Mazen. Iran is about the only Muslim country solidly behind the PLO and Hamas in Gaza. Qatar still funds the terrorists, but will that continue for much longer? Hamas is demanding that Qatar deliver ever more money — money that somehow rarely reaches the average Mahmud and Aisha of Gaza.

Trump’s moves have not brought the PLO to the table, but his actions HAVE gotten other Muslim nations to consider the benefits of an economic peace with Israel that already is costing Abu Mazen support. That is a great deal more than accomplished by the Obama-Biden administration. Again, credit must be shared with the PLO and Hamas one steady friend: Iran.

Biden is in the mold of his mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

It was said of English prime minister Winston Churchill that his sign was two fingers raised in a “V for victory” sign.

FDR’s sign was a wet raised finger, testing which way the (political) wind was blowing.

Both Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris Emhoff, are said to be in FDR’s mold. If the far left makes the most noise, they will bow to the far left and its demands.

Four words and a date about riots.

Chicago, Democratic National Convention, 1968

Talk about divisive.

---

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Web sites (URLs) beginning https://tinyurl.com/ are generated by the free Tiny URL utility and reduce lengthy URLs to manageable size.

 

Comment on Biden clones Trump

Opuscula Racist ! Xenophobe ! Ignoramuses

THE MEDIA AND DEMOCRATS in Congress are proving they missed out on Vocabulary 101 in elementary (a/k/a primary) school.

For example: Anyone who says anything about a “person of color” is a racist.

I was mugged.

The police ask me to describe the attacker.

I cannot.

If I report that I was attacked by a man, that is sexist, so I cannot use that descriptive.

If I report that I was attacked by a “person of color” (e.g., anyone other than a Caucasian) that’s racist. (Could I tell the Oriental cop that a “person of color” came to my aid? Or is that, too, racist?)

Define “racist.”

 


Above image from Merriam-Webster ¹

 

THERE IS NO question that the president is “thin skinned” and that his tweets are, more often than not, a knee-jerk reaction to taunts from Democrats still smarting from Hillary’s defeat.

But “racist”?

True he suggested that at least four of his tormentors should go “back where they came from.” One of his loudest detractors was rescued by America from civil strife in Somalia; the remaining three members of “The Squad” are U.S. citizens by birth, but they should be removed from the House and sent back to their congressional districts as simple citizens.

These women, calling them “ladies” is more than I can manage, have abused the office in most unladylike terms — at least in language that this geezer find inappropriate. So much for the “gentler sex.”

Or is that sexist?

The president might be labeled “xenophobic,” but given how he treats legally admitted foreigners and people from different cultures — he manages to deal with North Korea’s dictator — and finally strangers. According to the Dictionary.com² as shown in the following image.

 



 

The president seems to do well with leaders from many countries. So far I have not heard of him inviting someone to a state dinner and then not showing (a la Obama and Netanyahu).

If I am not mistaken, the current Mrs. Trump is a naturalized American.

With the exception of the negative Washington Post that headlined What Trump has not done for African-Americans and Hispanics, most web sites credit the president for doing a good job for blacks — hardly the mark of a racist.

I was unable to read the WashPost article so my assumption is based on the headline. Sites that acknowledge Trump’s efforts include
Voters Say Trump Better for Blacks Than Obama, But More Is Needed³
Alveda King: Trump has done more for African Americans than Biden⁴
Trump's real record on race may surprise you⁵

There is no argument that the president has tried, and been repeatedly thwarted by Democrats in the House, to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. from Mexico (and points south).

It is worth noting that Trump’s predecessor gave Mexico US$75 million to help it control illegal immigration from countries to Mexico’s south. No complaints from the media or Congress for that use of taxpayer dollars.⁶

It is my opinion that in conjunction with that the Feds ought to crack down on the people hiring the illegals at sub-standard wages. Make hiring an illegal alien an offense with real teeth — $10,000 fines per illegal AND no less than 90 days at the country farm (jail where inmates are expected to work). Failure to provide an I-9 form for each employee already is a Federal crime with stiff penalties.⁷

Between what Trump has done for blacks and the reason behind the clamp down on illegal aliens, it is hard to charge the president with either racism or xenophobia.

Anti-Muslim?

That also “doesn’t wash.”

He DID try to restrict unlimited access of all citizens from seven predominately Muslim countries. He did try to insist on strict vetting of these citizens. (His predecessor had put similar vetting requirements in place, but no one complained.)

There are 50 Muslim dominated countries around the globe.⁸ Trump was concerned with only seven.

Unlike Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Trump has NOT refused sanctuary to any Muslims who might be headed to a death camp⁹

While Trump HAS put illegals in camps, FDR put American citizens into concentration camps. Who ordered the current separation of families is open to debate; it should not have happened, but when children are sent into a country illegally or abandoned by their parents, what are the options?

 

Trump’s biggest problem is finding someone to rein in his tweeting. His reaction to the Democrats’ constant baiting only encourages additional attacks.

Restraint on the president’s part will gain respect both for the man and the office while showing the ignorance of his attackers.

 


Cartoon by Bruce Plante in the Tulsa (OK) World July 6, 2017

 

---

Sources

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/xenophobe

3. Rasmussen Reports, http://tinyurl.com/y5lqfwgm

4. Des Moines Register, http://tinyurl.com/y2h6ct5z

5. Chicago Tribune, http://tinyurl.com/y3rbcaus

6. Mexican wall, http://tinyurl.com/yb9d3uej

7. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, http://tinyurl.com/y2x7c57o

8. Muslim countries, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

9. FDR & death camps, http://tinyurl.com/ycm2yztn

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Trump’s “Racism”

Opuscula TREASON

IF THE JERUSALEM (nee “Palestine”) POST IS CORRECT then Israelis need to consider treason in high places.

ACCORDING TO THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE POST, the IDF struck

1. Several Hamas military compounds in the Gaza City neighborhoods of Tel Alawah and Shajiya used for training and manufacturing weapons.
2. Targets belonging to Hamas’ naval force and a joint military compound used by Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO) in Beit Lahiya.
3. Targets belonging to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) including military compounds in Deir al-Balah, Tel Sultan, Shati and Khan Yunis.
4. Two high-trajectory launchers, and several observation posts along the border
5. A multi-story building in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City that Israel said was being used by the Hamas intelligence service. The building reportedly also housed the Gaza offices of Turkey’s Anadolu News Agency.
6. A PIJ cross-border attack tunnel in the Rafiah area of the southern Gaza Strip which, according to IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Ronen Manelis, was intended by the group to be used to carry out a terrorist attack.
7. Other targets included an underground Hamas rocket manufacturing facility, which the military said was “unique in its production abilities, and a mainstay of the organization’s ability to manufacture rockets.”
8. The command center of Hamas’ Bureij troops, which included sites for manufacturing weapons.
9. A military compound in Tel al-Hawa, which served as a training center for Hamas’ naval wing.
10. Several military compounds in Jabalia, Shuja’iyya and Tel al-Hawa.
11. Two Beit Lahia military compounds shared by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were also targeted.
12. Houses of Islamic Jihad commanders.

 

SOMEONE NEEDS TO ASK

If Israel — IDF commanders and their political masters — KNEW of these sites before Hamas once again broke cease-fire agreements, WHY didn’t Israel “eliminate” the targets before Israeli civilians and soldiers were endangered?

I will NOT accept as a satisfactory answer “Because of worldwide public opinion” or “Because the UN would criticize Israel” — the world and the UN do that anyway even when Israelis are murdered by terrorists.

One word comes to mind.

TREASON

Treason at government level. Treason at IDF command level.

This lack of pre-emptive strikes is as treasonous as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, despite ample evidence that the Japanese were planning the attack.

2403 people — military and civilian — perished on the “Day that will live in infamy” (albeit all but forgotten by the current generation of Americans, already forgetting the 2,977 innocent Americans murdered by 19 Islamists on 9-11-2001).¹

Fortunately for Israel, if not for its citizens, the attacks came only from Gaza; unlike the Yom Kippor attacks from multiple Muslim-dominated states.

However, akin to Yom Kippor, the Muslims of Hamas, the PLO, and PIJ opened their attack on the Jewish Shabat (Saturday). Unlike Kippor, incoming missiles loudly alerted the IDF so any surprise was short lived. Had the highly touted Israeli intelligence been awake, perhaps the attacks could have been stopped after the first series of missile launches.

It seems obvious to this scrivener that both government and military intelligence knew where the Hamas-PLO-PIJ targets were located; it is not reasonable to believe the IDF “discovered” the targets after the missiles began falling.

Israel just had an election and, basically, returned the same people who served in the previous governments.

Perhaps it is time for Likud, once a party of strong people, to rethink its current philosophy. Likud no longer is the party of Began and (David) Levy, men of decision and action. The current leader changes his direction more often than the wind and, in doing so, gives Israel’s enemies — both political (UN, leftists inside and outside Israel) and military (Hamas, PLO, PIJ, et al) — confidence to attack with impunity.

Israel does strike back, but at what cost? Loss of civilian lives and property. Loss of IDF lives.

Israel still cannot recover soldiers lost in previous battles.

Israel has reverted back to the days of Labor governments when Israel repeatedly was attacked by multiple enemies that, although it managed to prevail, always paid a high price.

 

GAZA, A UNIQUE PROBLEM

Both the IDF and the Egyptian military could go into Gaza and crush Hamas et al.

Thousand’s of civilians would be killed — “collateral damage.” That is unfortunate, but it is the price of war.

The real problem of Gaza is “Who is willing to control Gaza until it can establish a government that is willing to have peaceful relations with both Egypt and Israel?"

Neither country wants so take over Gaza, yet sans control by one, or both, countries, Gaza will slip back into the hands of despots and flunkies of Iran.

Gaza once had a thriving, growing economy. When Ariel Sharon kicked the Israelis out of Gaza, the local Muslims promptly destroyed the infrastructure, including profitable hot houses, and sent the strip’s economy into decline. It’s on-going battles with Israel, and to a lesser extant, Egypt, allowed Hamas to oust the PLO, itself never a valid peace partner, and to take a more aggressive stand against the one country that could, had it been allowed, have helped Gaza return to a reasonable economy.

There are those who will argue that forcing Jews out of Gaza was Sharon’s second major mistake; the first being his “incursion” into Lebanon.

 

One final thought: It is almost noon on Sunday May 5th, 2019.

Aside from a few Israeli on-line “news” outlets, I have heard nothing — zero, nada — about the attacks on Israel civilians or missiles falling on Israeli communities. More interesting, I have heard very little about Israel’s retaliation against Hamas & friends. A mother and her baby were killed, but by what and by whom is questionable. For Hamas & friends, they are just (a) “collateral damage” and (b) good PR.

Why is the world silent?

Does “the world” finally realize that Hamas & friends are the instigators of death and destruction?

Doubtful.

---

1. 9-11-2001 was not “treason,” it was territorial stupidity on the part of government agencies, notably the FBI, that refused to share information that might have prevented the disaster.

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Treason

Opuscula High school stupidity Haunts candidate Twenty years later

PERHAPS THIS SHOULD BE CALLED “Grasping at straws.” What it is NOT is a pass for bad behavior.

THE DEMOCRAT party’s leadership, more and more similar to Dilbert’s “PHB,” says it found a woman who, 20 years ago, claims Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the SCOTUS, molested a young woman while they in high school. He, allegedly in a drunken moment, (no excuse) tried to undress her in a bedroom at a “party.”¹

At least that is the part of the story the “leadership” presented to the “unbiased” media that ran to publish the disgraceful behavior and, both Democrats and media hope, derail Kavanaugh’s candidacy . . . at least until the mid-term elections in which the “out” party has high hopes of becoming the “in” party.

This is not the first time the Democrats have accused a GOP-sponsored SCOTUS candidate of sexual misconduct. Previously, they fought Clarence Thomas’s nomination, by President George H. W. Bush, and, at the time, lost by the narrowest margin to date: 52 yeas to 48 nays. Thomas is a conservative, as is Kavanaugh, and Thomas was accused of sexual misconduct.²

As with Kavanaugh, the misconduct was a last minute “eureka moment” for the Democrats. According to CNN³, Reports surface two days before the scheduled Senate vote on Thomas's confirmation that law professor Anita Hill told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked with him at the Education Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Assuming the leftists again will lose and Kavanaugh will be confirmed, their next move, particularly if they take control of the House and Senate, will be to bring impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh and, possibly, Thomas.

It’s interesting that no one uttered a word about FDR’s infidelity or JFK’s womanizing; even Teddy Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick accident that took the life of Mary Jo Kopechne was quickly dismissed and he was easily re-elected.⁴ Even Wm. J. “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton was unscathed, as was his wife’s tenure as Secretary of State for which she is justly infamous for Benghazi and emails.

If Georgie Porgie⁵ ran for office in the U.S. he would be pilloried for his sexual escapade.

I suppose that in all the alleged instances of sexual misconduct – I am NOT considering rape or child molestation as “misconduct”; these are reprehensible crimes – the female took no part nor did she provoke the attack by any means. All the females are absolutely innocent victims, dressed like nuns going to meet the pope. I am suggesting that the male should have controlled himself despite any provocation. In Kavanaugh’s case, if the assault really happened, than his first mistake was getting drunk and losing control.

I’m curious why this alleged victim of Kavanaugh’s lust waited 20 years before going public. I’m always suspicious of very belated accusations. This sudden recall of things long past seems to be a Democrat trademark.

What has Kavanaugh done as a jurist; has he ruled fairly? Are his decisions reasonable based on the facts before him? Have his rulings been over-turned? These are the things the inquisitors should be considering. Sexual misconduct as a teenager 20 years ago? How doe that define the SCOTUS candidate today?

It’s time for the Democrats to get real and to vote on his judicial record.

In Hebrew the term for teenagers is “Te-pesh-esray.” Rough translation: Stupidteen.

Only a fool would condemn an adult for something he – or she – did as a teenager. That’s why the books are sealed on juveniles’ crimes.

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/y8ubca9r

2. http://tinyurl.com/ybvn5oyc

3. http://tinyurl.com/ydffatcd

4. http://tinyurl.com/yaqqw58w

5. http://tinyurl.com/ycu8fvfs

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Kavanaugh

Opuscula Silent Dems bow As GOP’s Trump Speaks and acts

ALL GENERALITIES ARE LIES.
However, there is a grain of truth in all generalities; smoke and fire if you will.

THERE ARE MANY WHO condemn President Trump for everything he says and does – and a few who condemn him for things he does NOT say or do.

But unlike some of his Democratic predecessors in the White House, Trump DOES what he says he will do (if the Congress and the Courts don’t overrule him).

AMERICA AS “RODNEY DANGERFIELD”

American lost the world’s respect starting with one-termer Jimmy Carter who gave in to the Iranians and allowed them to capture and humiliate U.S. diplomats when the embassy was seized.

What did Mr. Carter do?

Nothing.

Mr. Clinton was no better.

When the Iranians – same folks that should have caused Mr. Carter a red face – successfully attacked the USS Cole, what did Mr. Clinton do?

Same as Mr. Carter: Nothing.

There are equally silent Republicans.

Ex-president Geo. W. Bush, a/k/a Bush 2, not only was silent after Muslim terrorists brought down the Twin Towers (9-11-2001), along with more than 3,000 innocents (including those who died in the disaster and the aftermath), but was a propagandist for the Muslims.

Geo. W also famously told the world that the invasion of Iraq was “successfully completed.” As the world knows, it wasn’t completed.

On the flip side, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson usually did what he promised; sometimes to the nation’s benefit (e.g., Head Start) and sometimes not (e.g., Vietnam). Granted, Vietnam was not LBJ’s war.

BOWING OBAMA

Two-term leftist president Barack Obama kowtowed to his Muslim friends and declared an “Arab spring,” but then did nothing when he and his secretary of state allowed Muslims to murder Americans during a planned “spontaneous” uprising in Benghazi. It was the secretary’s “do nothing” attitude before the “spontaneous” attack that directly led to the American deaths. (Imagine if she became president!)

Bowing, showing submission to someone or something¹ is Mr. Obama’s trademark.

According to The Atlantic², the ex-president has bowed to

1. 2009: Obama bows to the Saudi King
2. 2009: Obama bows to the Queen of England
3. 2009: Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor
4. 2010: Obama bows to a Republican
5. 2010: Obama bows to the mayor of Tampa
6. 2010: Obama bows to the Chinese
7. 2012: Obama bows to Felipe Calderon
8. 2013: Obama bows to a Communist

TRADITION

It’s a grand Democrat tradition to do nothing – at least until the polls and soothsayers approve an action. This goes back at least to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) who preferred to violate U.S. citizens basic rights (by putting them into concentration camps) while sending a boatload of Jews back to Germany and death. FDR also forbade American bomber crews from dropping bombs on railroad tracks beneath them on their way to and from bomb runs on "approved" nazi targets.

Once the polls and soothsayers said it was OK – and with a little help from the Imperial Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor (allegedly known to the White House BEFORE the attack) – FDR finally allowed Americans to save Europe (once again).

WHERE THE BUCK STOPS

President Harry S (no period) Truman proved that some Democrats are doers.

FDR had plans in motion to create and use an atomic bomb. Would he or wouldn’t he?

He failed to share his thoughts with his vice-president.

Mr. Truman who, having served in WW 1 knew the horrors of war first hand, decided “the bomb” could end the war in the Pacific and save American and allied lives. He ordered the bombing of two Japanese cities. That led to the surrender.

Mr. Truman, protecting the sovereignty of the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief, cashiered a popular general for disobeying orders. The president was roundly criticized for his action, an act that preserved presidential (civilian) control of the military and one that may have cost him election to a full four-year term. (He lost to a general.)

---

Sources

1. http://kencarlson.org/bible/worship/we-bow-down-2/

2. http://tinyurl.com/y9qodvk8

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Comments on Do vs. Don’t do

Opuscula Good for goose Not for gander: Media madness

I CAN’T COMPREHEND WHY suddenly it is unethical, perhaps illegal, to try and persuade voters to vote for this candidate or that amendment.

Trying to convince voters to vote this way or that is what

• advertisements
• political rallies
• polls
• whistle stop stump speeches

are all about.

Millions – perhaps BILLIONS of local currency are spent to win over voters. In some places, political parties still literally buy votes. The old saw “Vote early and often” still applies in some corrupt areas.

So why is Trump being excoriated¹ because someone on his campaign allegedly hired an English company to collect information and filter it to find potential supporters and their “hot button” issues.

No one has accused the Trump campaign (yet) of buying votes; undoubtedly that will be the next unfounded charge.

Does anyone REALLY think a campaign – for anything: person, amendment, whatever – does not try to sway voters?

Get real.

Media gets rich during campaigns selling advertisements for this or that candidate or cause.

Volunteers spend hours calling people to to influence people to support their candidate or cause.

Fund raisers are hired at great expense to fill campaign war chests to fund advertisements, travel, and campaign “experts.”

Campaign managers and their teams are paid to give the candidate or cause a popular “image.”

Pollsters are paid to

• find out how the candidate or cause is perceived
• to find out how to “market” the candidate or cause to the voters
• to determine the voters’ hot button issues; issues that really matter to this or that voter.

I have to ask Hillary’s hangers-on and the media (is that redundant?) why the big deal about the foreign company buying Facebook subscriber information.

Most of the Facebook information is available free – all that’s needed is time to read posters' comments about themselves and others.

Are the Democrats mad because Trump’s campaign apparently utilized the English firm’s findings or, as I suspect, are they upset because they didn’t think of it first.

There is a long history of nasty campaigns in the United States, dating almost to the country’s founding. Two web sites, CNN politics² and Owleation³ report on political exchanges from the past.

Reading some of the attacks suggests that modern politicians have lost a great deal of imagination and command of the language. A sample from the CNN site: "That hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." The “daze” of golden oratory.

With rare exception, the acrimony ceases when the final ballot is counted and a winner declared – or in the Clinton-Trump campaign, when the Mrs. Clinton stopped congratulating herself for a win that escaped her and conceded that Mr. Trump had trumped her. (No hanging chads in this election.)

Did Mr. Nixon reveal Mr.. Kennedy's sexual peccadilloes? He did not. Gentler times? Perhaps.

Were there complaints – long and load – after Kennedy pere bought his sons’ elections. As with JFK’s liaisons with the ladies, the media and the opposing party were silent.

So why, now, do we have the media attempting to pillory the president at every turn?

Granted, he is not a liberal, albeit there are those who claim neither is he a conservative.

He did win the election and, despite the media madness, by legal means.

He has made good on some of his campaign promises; others have been blocked by liberal judges who seem to mimic the three famous monkeys.

The judges objected to his executive order banning immigration – of all residents – of several specific countries known to export terrorism, yet Democrat FDR refused entry of Jews⁴ trying to escape slaughter at the hands of the nazis and their cohorts simply because there might – MIGHT – be a spy in their midst. To be fair, the media also was silent when FDR imprisoned thousands of Americans of Japanese descent with an executive order⁵. (He also sent a handful of German-Americans and Italian-Americans to concentration camps⁶, also sans the benefit of legal proceedings. Again, the media was silent.)

Maybe I’m blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other, but I fail to see that, even if the Trump campaign engaged the English firm, how that is (a) illegal, (b) unethical, or (c) has not been done before sans media madness?

Perhaps Facebook’s owner, a liberal, needs to be charged with selling personal information to the English company. But similar information has been gathered and sold before (and continues to be gathered ans sold – just look at any bank or insurance agreement).

---

Sources>

1. This is a word a local talking head was unable to pronounce; she probably doesn’t know the meaning of the word so someone else wrote her script. The word is defined, with audio pronunciation, at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excoriate

2. http://tinyurl.com/ybleb6pv

3. http://tinyurl.com/yccvufh2

4. http://tinyurl.com/j4lclsz

5. http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

6. http://tinyurl.com/y8up58ya

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Comments on Good for goose

Opuscula Dear TR, Petty Tyrant unafraid Of the Big Stick

THOSE OF US OLD ENOUGH to have read history in school know the story of Theo. (Teddy) Roosevelt and his Great White Fleet. (Lest anyone be offended, the ships were painted white; ergo “The Great White Fleet.” See http://tinyurl.com/bpwybcu)

Battleship USS Maine

Teddy — “TR” — sent the battle group around the globe to impress other’s with America’s naval might. The journey lasted a little more than a year. This was long before air power, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, America’s military might failed to discourage Austria-Hungary from decaling war against Serbia (July 28, 1914) and Germany following by declaring war against Russia (August 1, 1914), France (August 3, 1914), and Belgium (August 4, 1914) to start World War 1, the “war to end war.” (See http://tinyurl.com/y88765m7)

A BIT MORE THAN A CENTURY LATER, Kim Jung-on, South Korea’s dictator, following in his father’s footsteps, is starving his people in order to develop ICBMs that, armed with mini-nuclear warheads, threaten the U.S. and its interests (e.g., Guam).

In the so-called “Cold War” era, when the U.S. and the then Soviet Union threatened “mutual destruction” on each other — and not a few countries in the way — both government’s leadership knew it was better to pick up a “red phone” connecting D.C. to the Kremlin than to push the red button that could destroy much of mankind. Sanity prevailed.

Now, dealing with North Korea’s megalomaniac Kim, sanity has become a thing of the past. Unfortunately for Kim, he is not dealing with a weak Obama but a man who insists on “putting America first.” Fortunately, so far — and inspite of of Kim’s missile tests and photo ops with a sphere said to be a mini-nuclear bomb, the only war is a war of words.

While Varvel’s cartoon portrays Trump and Kim and as two little boys in a sandbox, it pays to remember that words too frequently turn into unacceptable actions, e.g., war.

The problem for the U.S. is China.

During the UN’s Korean “policing action” — not a “war,” understand, although thousands of Americans died — Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted to invade China which was providing troops and materials to the North Koreans. The then Soviet Union ostensibly controlled North Korea.

President Harry S Truman, not prepared for World War 3, told MacArthur to cancel invasion plans. MacArthur insisted on going ahead and Truman recalled, and fired, MacArthur. Right decision? Wrong decision? Either way, Americans were tired of war. (The U.S. has been in some level of combat almost consistently since the end of World War 2, regardless of political party in power.)

China has, since World War 2, developed a modern military force on land, sea, and air. It has a global presence. Moreover, the U.S. is indebted to China; it holds billions of dollars of U.S. IOUs.

China is North Korea’s backer — possibly it’s only political friend.

If the U.S. attacks North Korea in a preventive strike — surely justified based on Kim’s rhetoric and actions— even if as surgically precise as Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the question is: “How will China react?”

Unlike the Soviet era, and now the Russian Federation era, Kim’s actions, and the inaction of the Chinese to reign him in, indicate that a threat of “mutual destruction” a non-issue.

Realistically, what can the U.S. do to temper Kim’s bellicose behavior? Sanctions are in place — with UN (including China) support — but what impact will they have on Kim. By most accounts, his people already are starving. Kim, on the other hand, looks well fed and clothed. Sanctions? They only will hurt his people.

Will China really join in the sanctions? Time will tell.

Will the UN-approved sanctions be observed by other nations and the EU? Even before Obama backed off sanctions on Iran, some EU countries already were trading with the ayatollah. North Korea, not surprisingly, was trading nuclear information with Iran as if sanctions did not exist.

Who is crazier: the ayatollah or Kim? They both are cut from the same cloth?

President Trump’s blustering may — or may not — be appropriate. Certainly it is not “presidential” in the eyes of the leftists in the U.S. and around the world. But how else could Trump respond to Kim?

A pre-emptive strike?

Or be like Franklin D. Roosevelt (TR’s cousin) and ignore the threat until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and thousands of American’s died, or behave, as Trump’s predecessor did with Iran, and pretend it will all go away?

With Kim, the U.S. is “between a rock and a hard place.” No action is not an option; sanctions don’t directly impact Kim so they are of little value.

China holds the answer. It has it within its power to prevent a disaster for not just North Korea and the U.S. but the world — nuclear fall-out respects no borders.

Trump’s blustering may only be for show while diplomatic language is used with China’s leadership.

---

If the links fail to work, see http://tinyurl.com/y82lye4d to learn how to find/access them. It's a Google problem.

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Comments on Big Stick

Finsert