Opuscula Trump done in By own mouth, Foolish tweets

THERE IS AN OLD EXPRESSION: a foolish person “shot himself in the foot.”

In Donald Trump’s case, he shot himself in the tongue.

While the Yellow Pages — anyone remember THEM? — suggested to “Let your fingers do the walking,” Trump’s fingers were busy tweeting.

Unfortunately, both his unscripted spoken words and his often outrageous tweets ended his political career and damaged his professional life as well.

Fair weather friends — financing organizations — abandoned him like rats leaving a sinking ship.

The monster companies that control so-called “social media” have banned Trump, effectively silencing him and making a mockery of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

The media, which long ago gave up objective reporting for politically biased screeds, largely twisted everything Trump said or did to suit those opposing Trump.

 

TRUMP WAS HIS OWN WORST ENEMY, especially in his final days in office.

Even staunch supporters — this scrivener included — were embarrassed by him and for him.

Mike Huckabee (right), an ardent supporter of Trump since dropping his own 2016 Republican bid for the White House, has also criticized the president for his rhetoric in recent days.

The former governor told Just the News (https://tinyurl.com/yx8m73ee) last week, “We have to be honest, the last month has not been a good one for President Trump, he has sullied his own good reputation.

“Instead of using the last few weeks to celebrate the successes of his administration, and make the country really wish he was still going to be president, I think some of the rhetoric — and some of it wasn’t all his fault, but still, he’s being blamed, and the net result is people are going to be glad that he’s not on the stage, creating the kind of the discord.

“So he’s going to have to do some work of repair before he can come back and lead,” Huckabee continued. “Could he run again? I don’t know. Only if he can sort of show that he can be that above-it-all leader and not just deal with his hurts. And I have said to him personally, and I’ve said this about him, when he is at his best is when he’s fighting for the people. When he is at his worst, it’s when he’s fighting for himself.”

If the Democrats win the day and manage to convict Trump of something, anything in the now Democrat senate, he will be precluded from ever running for president again.

Trump has many accomplishments.

He would have had many more had his efforts not been blocked by the “progressives” of the Democrat party.

Is it “Democrat” or “Democratic” party? A quick search of “Democrat or Democratic Party” suggests that even they don’t know. Is it a noun (democrat) or a verb (democratic)?

Trump never was known for diplomatic speech. He is crude and pugnacious. But then, in private, most presidents, at least dating back to Harry S have had their “crude” and “impolitic” moments.

But, to be fair, the media in the days of Harry S, Ike, and JFK tended to turn a blind eye to presidential peccadilloes. Likewise, “important families” misdemeanors and felonies quickly went from “below the fold on Page 1” to being buried some place near advertisements for tvs and used cars. (How long did Chappaquiddick remain a Page 1 story? Does the name William Kennedy Smith ring a bell?)

It might be said that the media — both social and allegedly professional — turned on Trump after the 2016 election, but that would be untrue — “fake news.”

One would have thought ! that Trump would have been the darling of the liberal media when he told the Justice Department NOT to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her illegal server or her role in the death of four Americans in Benghazi during a “spontaneous” attack that evidence determined was well planned.

As I was searching for Clinton’s quote (ibid.) I stumbled across the Snopes entry (https://tinyurl.com/yyxtq4cs) about Mrs. Clinton claiming that we (the U.S.) "didn't lose a single person in Libya." Snopes ruled that the claim was Mostly False

Why was it “mostly false”? Because she “forgot” or “declined to mention” the four American’s murdered in the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi.

Snopes excusing Clinton’s faux pas about four murdered Americans in Benghazi Libya (https://tinyurl.com/yyxtq4cs)

I’M NOT SURE I would have managed my composure as well as Trump against the many proven false accusations, but then I am not POTUS (nor would I want to be). Likewise, I am sure my composure would have slipped when the crimes Trump allegedly committed were proven to be crimes committed by Biden et Fil for which there appears to be ample evidence, e.g., China, Ukraine.

For all that, Trump’s end-of-term histrionics are not just “unfortunate” but “deplorable.” Unpresidential.

As POTUS, Trump accomplished many things; things his predecessors repeatedly failed to even try.

Not only was Trump “robbed” of a second term in White House, he also was “robbed” of a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize.

A “social worker” who became president got the Nobel (right) because the prize committee wanted to promote him (Politics in the Nobel committee? Never.) Trump, on the other hand, DID get a peace agreement between warring European nations (Serbia and Kosovo) and “normalization” agreements between Israel and several of its Muslim neighbors. He accomplished the Middle East agreements by ignoring the Democrat’s darlings, the terrorists PFLP and Hamas.

He moved the U.S. embassy to Israel’s capital to confirm with all other embassies. This move was authorized by Congress in October 25, 1995 but all president’s since were in bed with terrorists Arafat and Abu Mazen.

When it was obvious Iran failed to comply with international agreements, Trump pulled the U.S. out and instituted sanctions against the war-mongering country, a country whose leaders attacked U.S. “assets” with impunity prior to Trump’s election.

Trump seemed to make progress with North Korea.

Trump also had the “chutzpah” to insist European NATO members pick up more of the financial load.

Obama over two terms failed to do any of these things.

Trump also managed to draw-down the number of troops on foreign soil, unlike his predecessors.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Obama DID put juvenile illegal immigrants in cages (ignored by the media) and provided support to Mexico to shore up its southern border with Guatemala (yet he did nothing to halt illegal entry from Mexico nor did he propose laws to punish the people employing the immigrants, often at sub-standard wages). Again, nothing in the media.

Trump HAS a case against the media.

But Trump also is his own worst enemy. I hoped Mike Pence could mitigate Trump’s bellicose behavior. He either could not or would not control his boss. Because of this, Pence may have put “30” to his political career.

Trump DID accomplish a lot. He COULD have accomplished more in a second term.

Unfortunately, his lack of control has cost him the election and the support of many of America’s conservative majority.

---

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 Trump’s life

Opuscula Libyan turmoil After Obama’s “Arab Spring”

U.S. TROOPS AND INDIAN POLICE ARE being pulled out of Libya due to a conflict ignited by Obama’s “Arab Spring” that caused the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

According to the Associated Press (AP), The United States has temporarily withdrawn some of its forces from Libya due to “security conditions on the ground,” a top military official said Sunday as a Libyan commander’s forces advanced toward the capital of Tripoli and clashed with rival militias.
(See http://tinyurl.com/yxlol456)

Gadhafi, Libya’s dictator accepted responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. The bomb was placed in a portable radio carried by a female passenger; the radio was a gift from her Muslim lover. (See http://tinyurl.com/njgh7w2 )

Also under Obama’s watch, with Hillary Clinton in charge of the State Department, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked; US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US nationals are killed in the attack.(See http://tinyurl.com/y5oz6rej )
Right: Obama and Hillary

In the end, what did Obama’s “Arab Spring” accomplish?

Gadhafi was deposed (murdered).

Bashar Hafez al-Assad still controls Syria.

Saudi Arabia still is controlled with an iron hand by the descendants of Muhammad bin Saud.

Iran still is controlled by the mullahs.

Iraq is controlled by Iran.

Lebanon is under the Syrian/Iranian thumb.

Jordan’s king is still on the throne, albeit shakily as the Palestinians want to replace him with what? Islamic Brotherhood? ISIS?

Egypt still is controlled by the Army, as is Algeria.

Yemen is engaged in an on-going civil war, as is Sudan, and Uganda.

Turkey is on a short fuse to a powder keg.

In “Palestine,” Abu Mazen continues to rule, although Hamas usurped his power in Gaza.

Only Morocco was and remains a stable government under the Alaouite dynasty.

Bottom line: A few Muslim dictators were removed and, in most cases, replaced not by democratic governments intent on peace and their countries’ welfare, but on corruption and violence.

Where Obama’s followers were prevented from overthrowing governments, the countries remain, for the most part, stable.

Israel’s government, in the middle of all this, remains stable and democratic (lower case “d”). Although American presidents have a (continuing) history of interfering in Israeli elections, the country still maintains its democracy.

Did Obama’s “Arab Spring” win any friends for the U.S.?

If it did, will someone please tell me who likes the U.S. in the Muslim world.

It did cost the lives of four Americans (in Benghazi).

---

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 Arab Spring

Opuscula Politicians Need to put America first

HAVING WATCHED TOO MUCH OF the Brett Kavanaugh dog and pony show I came to the conclusion that America needs law makers of both parties to “put America First.”

Not the President Trump “America First,” but the real thing – to do what is best for America regardless of party affiliation.

I’VE SEEN A NUMBER of elections, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, but I cannot recall ever seeing one that ended up so dividing a nation.

I blame America’s current condition on both Hillary Clinton and her cronies, and Donald Trump and his knee-jerk tweets.

I’ll ignore the numerous scandals attached to Mrs. Clinton and focus on the election results.

She conceded but never congratulated Trump on the victory; she encouraged her followers to riot and destroy on her behalf.

In every other election in which I voted, and that’s more than a few, the loser congratulates the winner and encourages his or her followers to work with the winner. Not only did Mrs. Clinton NOT do that, she encouraged anarchy.

Mr. Trump is not better.

Even though he let Mrs. Clinton “off the hook” for numerous possible crimes – emails, Benghazi to name but two – he has used Twitter as his main weapon from a bully pulpit. His tweets frequently – all too frequently – have been knee-jerk reactions, often incorrect, and just plain uncivilized; hardly worthy of America’s president.

As their “leaders” go, so go the followers – the Democrat and Republican politicians.

There ARE exceptions, but they are few and far between.

There ARE a few reasoned heads in both parties, but they are a very small minority.

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford

As President Nixon would say, “Let me be perfectly clear,” I do NOT condone sexual assault. I was offended as much by Wm. Jefferson Clinton’s under-the-desk escapade with an underling as I was by his disregard for “that woman”; not even dignifying Ms. Lewinsky by calling her by name.

I believe the only decent president we’ve had in my lifetime was Harry S Truman. No scandal – certainly no sexual scandal -- was attached to his political career. There may be others similarly free of sexual pecados, but the list of presidents who “behaved badly” is long.

I have to wonder – and I’ve heard the stories – why it took Mrs. Ford 38 years to come forward with her claim. Her “coming out” to Dianne Feinstein late in the vetting process – and Sen. Feinstein’s releasing the letter at the last minute suggests a witch hunt.

Kavanaugh claims the Ford-Feinstein charge is fabricated. Other than “he said-she said” claims, was there ANY “suitable for a courtroom” evidence submitted?

Sen. Jeff Flake called for a brief, focused FBI investigation in an effort to bring the nation together. He noted in front of the cameras that the nation has been divided by the Kavanaugh hearing and other events and needs to heal. Flake is a Democrat.

The FBI already has performed a background investigation of the Supreme Court nominee. If it found anything, it would be reported to the nominating committee.

Sen. Flake wants to re-open the background inquisition and told the cameras he will ask President Trump to order the FBI to do a “brief and focused” (re-)investigation.

In my opinion, President Trump would be foolish to deny the senator’s request. It’s a matter of “image,” both his and Kavanaugh’s.

The episode should NOT be a Democrat vs. Republican or even a female vs. male issue, although it seems to boil down to those two warring factions – or perhaps the media is fomenting the war between the sexes.

When I was much younger I was a print reporter and editor. Even then some media made the news rather than reported the news. Now, I’m glad I no longer am associated with the media.

---

Sources

**

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-Ford

OpusculaWhy don’t Dems Attack Trump For Clinton’s crimes

I HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT Democrat mentality.

When Trump took office he did two things:

One, he told the fibbies to lay off Hillary and her illegal email servers

Two, he fired Obama appointee flip-flopping fibbie director James Comey

Actually, there was one other “first days” action that riled the Democrats: Trump fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Bharara, thumbing his nose at long-established protocol, refused to submit his resignation when the new president took office as all presidential appointees who serve at the president’s pleasure are expected to do. (This rolls downhill all the way to the municipal level. Usually the resignations are refused, but the formality remains.)

Now, whatever Trump – or his supporters – do is a grievous sin to be headlined in the media. Good grief, if Ivanka Trump stands in the same way the former first lady stood, that’s worthy of media contempt.

I’m not a “Trump can do no wrong” person; he can, and has, and assuredly will do things to which I take exception.

His knee-jerk reaction tweets (that seem to be more thoughtful lately)

His push to replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act without input from (a) Democrats who might have some good ideas – assuming they can actually think without attacking, and (b) the people who use the Affordable Care Act: patients and practitioners. I suppose he also must kowtow to the courts that seem to be making America’s laws.

The PROBLEM with replacing the Affordable Care Act is that Americans quickly became accustomed to the benefits. Once a benefit program is in place, it is very hard to cancel or modify.

Social Security, which the former president raped along with Medicare, was supposed to be “phased out” and replaced with – what?

We did not always have Social Security, the Railroad Retirement, of even the Federal employees’ retirement plan, (FERS) and when it was instituted – when Eleanor Roosevelt was first lady – it was not intended as a retirement fund. It became a retirement fund – for which I am grateful – but that was not its intent. Still, akin to Medicare, every working American paid into Social Security, sometimes willingly, sometimes not. How much depended on how much the covered American made; how much a covered American receives in his or her dotage depends on what they paid in. (There was a period when employers rewarded their loyal employees with pensions, but most pensions are gone now.)

There also was a time when employers funded the majority of the employees’ health and medical insurance – that was a time when insurance was more reasonably priced. Insurance is a business, lest we forget, and the cost of getting sick has risen greatly – faster than inflation.

I am not writing that “all Democrats are dummies and all Republicans are brilliant.” That is absurd. There ARE Democrats who should be tossed out on their ears and there are Republicans who should end up with them.

Trump and the GOP in congress should write off the “media” and focus on the jobs at hand – and that means working with the Democrats who use their brains. A better-than-Obamacare plan is possible, but it must be crafted with input from the Democrats and the end users – both patients and practitioners. A good start would be to force all those in government — elected and appointed — to depend on Obamacare and its replacement; THEN improvements would be made in short order.

While they are at it, those in Congress should vote to convert their Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) to Social Security.

Back to Hillary and her illegal server

When, shortly after Mrs. Clinton conceded the election, Trump said he would, as president, order the Justice Department not to pursue allegations that Mrs. Clinton violated a number of Federal laws when, as Secretary of State, she sent and received emails – some at least “sensitive” and bearing on national security – via her personal and private server, and there was no farther discussion of her role in the deaths of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate in Libya during a well-planned “spontaneous” uprising. Nor did Trump ask the fibbies to investigate the defeated candidate over her incendiary post-election comments that urged her followers to hit the streets; some of her fans making their point by destroying their own neighborhoods in Hillary’s name.

Interestingly, no Democrats objected to Trump’s decisions regarding Mrs. Clinton and there were no riots in the streets.

The media made little mention of Mrs. Clinton’s illegal and improper behavior, and quickly moved onto “Dump Trump” news as soon as the pressure on Mrs. Clinton was removed.

Almost everything the president or his associates – or even his family – do is scrutinized by the media in an effort to find fault. When there is no fault to be found, the media invents it – hence “fake news.”

TO BE FAIR, lately some “journalists” have been caught writing news they want to be heard/read, regardless of its veracity. A few have been fired. More interesting, some cartoonists – editorial and otherwise – are, it seems, trying to be more balanced; to admit maybe Trump has his moments. (I have no problems with editorials and cartoons that attack issues regardless of the party behind the issue.)

President Trump and his associates are fair game for criticism, but the media should treat all politicians – regardless of party – equally. So far, the media has been strictly in “Attack the President” mode.

Mrs. Clinton lost the election. Although Obama assured Americans that he could win, like FDR, a third and maybe a fourth term in the White House, the country was spared that threat.

The U.S. suffered through eight years of Obama; it can suffer through 4 to 8 years of Trump. Perhaps by then, the pendulum swinging from far left to far right will have settled someplace near the middle and we can elect people who will listen to the opposition and make – or unmake – laws that benefit all Americans, laws that won’t automatically be struck down by the courts.

Or perhaps that’s just wishful thinking.

---

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: Comments on Attacking Trump.

Opuscula Hillary Clinton Dumb & dumber

IF, AS HARRY S TRUMAN famously said, “the buck stops here” (with the president) than Hillary Clinton must accept responsibility for her tv advertisements.

Proving, at least to this scrivener, that she is not qualified to lead the nation, she “approves” the message shown throughout the day, including “prime time” that shows her opponent setting a “terrible example for children.”

View the Clinton advertisement at http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-ad-donald-trump-not-good-role-model-for-children-video/

QUESTION: If Trump’s behavior is so bad children should not be exposed to it, why is Mrs. Clinton repeatedly putting it in front of the children she allegedly is trying to protect?

You can call it an oxymoron or, if your computer centric, you might say “it does not compute,” but either way, she is blatantly showing SHE cares nothing for the sensitivities of our children.

This is a person who wants to lead our country?

Unless her opponent actually is paying for this advertisement, the Democrat seems to be blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other.

It is an unfortunate truth that American voters in recent years have had to choose the lesser of two evils rather than the better of two good candidates. The 2016 elections will be a continuation of that sad state of affairs.

Mrs. Clinton, who already and repeatedly has shown very bad judgment, is in her attempt to damage her opponent, paying to air a commercial showing her opponent saying things she contends children should not see or hear.

It might be acceptable for late night television, but the commercials run in the afternoon and during so-called prime time; times when children are out of school and have access to the tv. (True they ought to be doing homework or, if too young, watching altogether too violent cartoons. I have a five-year-old grand-daughter so I have some firsthand knowledge of the cartoons’ contents.)

I’m not happy with much of Trump’s behavior, but in my opinion, he still would be a better president that Mrs. Clinton.

I thought Harry S was a pretty good – and honest – president. I liked Ike. LBJ was progressive where it counted. Nixon made too major mistakes: he opened up trade with China – and now China owns the U.S. – and he stuck by his people even when they acted without his knowledge (Watergate). Most presidents would have quickly distanced themselves from the burglars.

It should be clear to both left and right that when it comes to who resides in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I base my choice on the person, not the party.

Based on Mrs. Clinton’s “terrible example for children” tv advertisement, she is NOT fit to take up residence in the White House.

Perhaps Trump also is unfit, but he is less “unfit” than Mrs. Clinton.

Opuscula Does Trump need GOP establishment?

 

A CARTOON I SAW SUGGESTS THAT "The Donald" might be bettered off WITHOUT the backing of the Republican establishment.

Since many of the "Old Guard" Republicans find it hard to get behind the candidate who, based on his vote count, clearly is the choice of the rank-and-file - or alternatively, seeing that the "Old Guard's preferences* were rejected by the rank and file - perhaps Trump SHOULD thumb his nose at the establishment.

Cartoon from Yaakov Kirschen's Dry Bones blog

Which "establishment" pols are, as of May 9, 2016, either attacking Trump or pretending they can't make up their minds, include

Geo. Romney, failed candidate,
Jeb Bush, failed candidate,
John Kasich, failed candidate,
and Ted Cruz, failed candidate

The remaining GOP dropouts may think silence is the better part of political posturing, perhaps eyeing a possible Trump invitation to be on the ticket as vice president. Failing that, there will be a plethora of cabinet positions to fill.

Marco Rubio might being some Latino voters into Trump's camp, along with those Mexicans who understand Mexican criminals only turn other Americans against them - unjust, perhaps, but that's human nature. The same should hold true for American Muslims, albeit there are no Muslim candidates to run with Trump.

Ben Carson and Chris Christie, both failed candidates, have had some kind words for Trump, but I have not heard any failed Republican candidate tell his supporters to go with Trump; to tell his (or her, in Carly Florina's case) to cast their ballots for Trump if the convention is rigged to prevent his nomination by the establishment.

The U.S. has had other "blustering" presidents - Theo. (TR) Roosevelt comes to mind. We have had some "outrageous" presidents - my favorite is LBJ. We have had some presidents whose language was often "colorful" - Richard M. Nixon most notably We also have had presidents who were womanizers and who cheated on their spouses, some more than others. No one has accused Trump of cheating on a spouse - or being cheated on BY a spouse.

Trump IS an opportunist, and for America, that may be just what the country needs to restore our pride in ourselves, if not restore the U.S. to a leadership position. He apparently is pragmatic - he has admittedly given financial support to both Democratic and Republican politicians, and he has been known to revisit - or "backtrack" - on positions that might prove unattainable.

Mrs. Clinton can justly claim she has a wealth of international experience as Secretary of State under Obama - Arab Spring, Iran nuke deal, and Benghazi come to mind. But Trump also has international experience, dealing with governments and businesses alike. Certainly his overseas investments fly in the ace of his "bring jobs back to the U.S.A " position, but perhaps if he is elected he will set an example by doing just that - bringing back jobs to America.

What Trump - so far - is not is in the "establishment's" pocket, be the "establishment" the GOP (questionable) leadership, the D.C. politicians' club, or the lobbyists clique.

Maybe cartoonist Yaakov Kirschen is right; Trump may be better off without the support of the failed candidates and a still undecided Paul Ryan.

Opuscula One issue voters Bain of elections

 

AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS approach I am sadly reminded that most Americans who vote or "single-issue" voters.

Most voters in the U.S. reading this have Israel as THE issue.

Never mind any other issues such as (alphabetically)

    Abrogation of civil rights

    Economy

    Education

    Military spending

    Social justice

And one hundred and one others.

THERE ARE MORE issues for each candidate than the one each voter has as "THE" issue.

As citizens, we SHOULD be more than "one issue" voters; we need to consider more than just our particular pet issue.

In truth, usually several issues are related; intertwined with one another like the strings on a tallit or the braids of a girl's hair.

Israel, for example, is tied to the economy - military expenditures, direct financial aid. It is connected to the nation's defense - does the U.S. put "boots on the ground" to chase after ISIS and the like or does it train and arm potential enemies of the U.S. (and Israel) as it did in Afghanistan. The economy again - what will the government steal from the "protected" Social Security budget and Medicare, funds already reduced thanks to Obama Care.

Government is not a one-issue affair and it behooves voters to expand their awareness of the things that impact on their personal pet issue. It is not simple and taking a simplistic approach probably will generate dissatisfaction with whomever is elected.

While there are niche media - some focusing on Israel, others on the economy, still others on Constitutional guarantees - it pays to take time to heed more than just the issue that is at the top of your personal list.

 

MEANWHILE , if you want to hear how the DNC chair defines the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgnqRxtZrtI&feature=youtu.be. The lady really knows how to answer the question.

Opuscula Open mouth, Insert foot

 

"THE DONALD" (TRUMP) should recall the old saw about "throwing stones when you live in a glass house."

Trump recently belittled non-candidate Sen. John McCain's military service, noting that in his opinion, McCain was no hero for spending time as a Prisoner of War (POW) in Vietnam.

Maybe McCain is not a hero for surviving the war. McCain fought his war from a Navy attack aircraft. (Wikipedia) His plane was shot down over Hanoi in 1967.

The question is: What did YOU do in the war, Donald?

While John McCain, Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Jim Webb were in uniform - with Webb, a Marine, on the ground in 'Nam - were was "The Donald"?

It may not be "heroic" to spend years as a Viet Cong prisoner, as McCain did, but at least he served, and he served in a combat area, albeit from the relative safety of the skies.

According to the Daily Caller web site, both Graham and Perry wore Air Force blue; Graham as a lawyer and Perry in the air.

Webb, a Marine, ended the war with a Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. Were I unkind, I could picture The Donald telling everyone that Webb's Purple Hearts were because he "forgot to duck" or "got in the way" of the bullets.

Because of Webb's service, he isn't likely to casually send Americans into danger; his son, a Marine Corps sergeant, served in Iraq.

To be fair, the U.S. has had presidents who served in the military and did a really lousy job as president - Jimmy Carter is a prime example - and presidents who avoided military service and did OK; Thom. Jefferson comes to mind.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton, having watched as Americans were murdered in Libya on her watch (as Secretary of State) might - or might not - have some second thoughts about sending Americans into danger.

Trump is correct that Mexico exports crime to the U.S., but his broad brush attack on all Mexicans is outrageous. The man lets his mouth overload his … posterior. Apparently Trump took umbrage at remarks McCain made at Trump's expense and that prompted his ill-advised attack on the senator from Arizona.

Unfortunately for The Donald, he is becoming known less for his hair and more for his mouth.

At least when Muhammad Ali nee' Cassius Clay, ran off at the mouth, he could - and did -back it up. While Joseph Evans Brown had a big mouth, at least he was funny; Trump is not.

Donald, you are NOT Howard William Cohen and you do NOT "tell it like it is"; you tell it as you want it to be. You are not what I want in the White House.

Opuscula Why are the Moslems Silent on kidnappings?

 

Where is the AU to battle Islamists?

 

Headlines around the civilized world scream in outrage over the Boko Haram's kidnapping and murder of young people in Nigeria.

People, mostly - but hardly exclusively - blacks, are marching with signs reading #BringBackOurGirls .

Has anyone heard that

 *  ANY of the 57 Moslem nations in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has condemned Boko Haram?

 *  ANY of the 25 nations of the African Unity (AU) offer to aid Nigeria in its effort to eliminate the Islamist Boko Haram? (The AU is the successor to the Organisation for African Unity {AU}).

Anyone?

Now the U.S. - not a member of either the OIC or AU - is sending "personnel" to Nigeria to help its government.

Do we have "personnel" in the Sudan where Islamists enslave and murder non-Islamists?

Do we have "personnel" in Syria to side with the insurgents or government?

Do we have "personnel" any more in Lebanon to protect that country from the spillover of Syria's civil war?

As much as I wish for people such as those who make up the Boko Haram and similar organizations to be sent to an early death - and their bodies burned to deprive them of the promised 70 virgins - I don't want U.S. "personnel" on the ground.

If the Muslims want to prove to the world that they are truly a peaceful people, let the OIC organize a military to attack the Islamists who sully the good name of Islam.

If the Africans want to root out the Islamists from their midst, while perhaps recalling that it was Arab Muslim invaders who sold black Africans into slavery, let the AU states form a joint military to eliminate the Islamist scourge.

The problem with U.S. "personnel" on the ground in Nigeria - or Sudan or anyplace else for that matter - is that we will once again be sucked into a Korea or Vietnam situation. In both cases, the U.S. sent only a few "personnel" to advise the local governments. Korea cost the U.S. 33,686 killed and 128,650 wounded; Vietnam's body county was 47,424 with 211,650 injured. (Source: United States military casualties of war)

Apparently the U.S. has had an interest in Boko Haram going back at least to the time presidential want-to-be Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

According to a Daily Beast article dated May 7, 2014 and heded Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists, Clinton "fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls."

A May 8, 2014 article on the ThinkProgress site titled Here’s Why Hillary Clinton Resisted Designating Boko Haram As A Terrorist Organization apologizes for Clinton, reporting " there were multiple valid reasons for the State Department to disagree with the Justice Department and other agencies dealing with counterterrorism — such as the FBI and CIA — who urged State to place Boko Haram on the Foreign Terrorists Organization (FTO) list. “Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” a former State Department official told the Beast. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.” This includes boosting development aid to undercut the causes of unrest and deploying the FBI to assist in tracking down Boko Haram, both of which the U.S. actually did.

The article continued: In addition, Clinton didn’t act in a vacuum to determine not to designate Boko Haram back in 2011. Scholars on Twitter who focus on the region, terrorism broadly, and Islamist groups in particular were quick to point out that not only were there few benefits and many possible costs to designation, many of them had argued against listing Boko Haram several years ago. In a letter to the State Department dated May 2012, twenty prominent African studies scholars wrote Clinton to implore her to hold off on placing Boko Haram on the FTO list. Acknowledging the violence Boko Haram had perpetrated, the academics argued that “an FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram, legitimize abuses by Nigeria’s security services, limit the State Department’s latitude in shaping a long term strategy, and undermine the U.S. Government’s ability to receive effective independent analysis from the region.”

I'm hearing echoes of Neville Chamberlain's Peace in our time speech, this time coming from the mouths of "prominent African studies scholars ."

Back to the main questions:

Has anyone heard any OIC member state condemning the Boko Haram?

Has anyone heard any AU member state offer military support to Nigeria to eliminate the Boko Haram?

Silence reigned.