June 16, 2016--Orlando and Trump's America

In a dark column two days ago in the New York Times, Roger Cohen writes--

Omar Mateen, the Florida shooter who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, just ushered Donald Trump to the White House, Britain out of the European Union, Marine Le Pen to the French presidency, and the world into a downward spiral of escalating violence. . .
Like the 19-year-old Bosnian Serb nationalist whose bullets ignited World War I, Mateen has set a spark to a time of inflammable anger.

Cohen continues--

Of course these somber imaginings may prove to be no more than that. But there is no question that the largest mass shooting in American history comes at a time of particular unease. In both the United States and Europe, political and economic frustrations have produced a groundswell against the status quo and an apparent readiness to make a leap in the dark. Washington and Brussels have become bywords for paralysis.

Anyone doubting this only needs to replay the video of President Obama's reaction. He wasn't reading from a teleprompter, but he might as well have been.

After seven and a half years in office and with all the violence from Newtown, Connecticut to San Bernardino, California, he is out of gas. Out of outrage. Out of motivation to one more time prod Congress to do something to control assault weapons. "Paralysis" captures it.

So we're left with Donald Trump to articulate what many Americans feel--enough is enough.

Even if he has no better chance to do anything more than Obama or Hillary Clinton, he is the channel through which so much anger, fear, and rage is being ventilated.

And do we not assume that ISIS and its spawn want Donald Trump to become our president? It would help confirm their heinous anti-Western ideology to have an angry xenophobe as our leader.

So expect additional massacres between now and November. Two or three more and Cohen's dystopian vision may well metastasize into our reality.

Breaking News--Or if Trump strikes a deal with the NRA to ban guns sales to those on the FBI watch list or the government's no-fly list. The NRA seems eager to talk with him about that. It is in each of their own self-interest. Just when you thought . . .

February 25, 2015--Two of a Kind

Appearing on CBS's Sunday show, Face the Nation, Senator John McCain said that he is "ashamed of my country" for allowing Vladimir Putin to annex Crimea and push militarily to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

Host Bob Shieffer was stunned. "I'll say this, senator, I've known you for a long, long time, interviewed you many, many times, and I've never heard you say I'm ashamed of my country."

McCain added, "I'm ashamed of my president and I'm ashamed of myself that I haven't done more to help these people."

Adding himself to the list of who to be ashamed of softened his otherwise outrageous characterization of his president. It is not appropriate for a senior senator to express these divisive and mean-spirited feelings. Yes, disagree, disagree strenuously, disagree fundamentally, disagree profoundly, whatever; but to be ashamed crosses the line and thus stunned veteran journalist Shieffer.

McCain was trumped in mean-spiritedness last week by Rudy Giuliani, formerly known as America's Mayor. Over the weekend at a Scott Walker fundraiser at New York's 21 Club, he said, "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn't love you. And he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country."

And he didn't walk it back, reiterating later that he was merely expressing his feelings.

Giuliani, and to a lesser extent, John McCain are suffering from Dick Morris Syndrome. Sensing that they are both aging and losing influence and power. For Rudy, who ran disastrous campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, to see rising empty-suit political stars such as Scott Walker grabbing attention and headlines, it is hard because of his kind of colossal ego. Ditto for McCain who still can't accept the fact that he lost the national election in 2008 and that Barack Obama is president.

In Dick Morris' case, he began his professional political career working for Upper-Westside liberal Manhattan Democrats and then moved into the center of the Bill Clinton reelection campaign until he was forced out when he got into a scandal involving a prostitute. Next stop for him was Fox News and after making a fool of himself there (predicting on air a landslide victory for Mitt Romney), he descended further and is left now pandering to that 20-30 percent of the GOP base that takes Glenn Beck, Russ Limbaugh, and black helicopters seriously. There's money to be made there by writing books about how Obama is seeking to turn America into a totalitarian state with him self-imposed as president-for-life.

These same dead-enders are now the people with whom Giuliani is left to cavort. What a sad fate.

February 9, 2015--Equal Opportunity Offender

Somehow President Obama managed to offend nearly everyone Friday during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast--the Chinese, Indians, Muslims, Jews, and especially Christians.

To agnostic me this suggested it was a good speech.

To offend or minimally agitate those who hold and are guided by powerful belief systems is a good thing to do every once in awhile to shake them up, especially at a time in world history when radical religious forces are roiling nations and regions.

It was a speech Obama impressively didn't paddle back from, even after the predictable chorus of outrage and criticism. These days even a few raised eyebrows will get pandering politicians to
"clarify" in the afternoon what they in the morning said about, say, the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.

But first, what is this Breakfast anyway?

It has been sponsored since 1953 by the Fellowship Foundation, otherwise known as "The Family," which is a secretive organization devoted to spreading Christian values and, through its many powerful congressional members, lobbies for legislation compatible with its mission. Many key members of Congress, mainly male conservative Republicans, are and have been active in The Family. Among many others, Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback, Strom Thurmond, Bill Nelson, and Mark (Appalachian Trail) Sanford.

In The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Jeff Sharlet described his experiences working for them as an intern. He provides evidence that The Family "fetishizes" power by comparing Jesus to "Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Bin Laden." Not that The Family or Jesus holds beliefs similar to these dictators but rather The Family takes note of and admires the ways in which they exercised power. Guided by these lessons in wielding authority, The Family also engages in below-the-radar international diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, that skirts what is permitted by law for religious-based, tax-exempt organizations.

And the Fellowship attempts to have its own version of influence on American society. They have been remarkable effective and powerful. As an example of their ability to mobilize support, since 1953 every President from Eisenhower to Obama has addressed the group at its annual Breakfast.

It was before this group last week that Obama intentionally stepped into the weeds.

His basic theme was to draw attention to how dangerous it is to use faith to justify violence. From his detractors' perspective, so far so good if he is talking exclusively about Islam. But his caution was more wide reaching than that. There's the rub. He not only indicted Muslim extremists but noted that people also "committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Particularly during the Crusades.

As might be imagined, that brought down a firestorm of criticism. The firebrand fringe was the first to react. Michelle Malkin, an ultra-conservative columnist said it is historically outrageous to compare ISIS with Christian Crusaders. On Twitter she wrote, "ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades." Not a word about what Christian crusaders perpetrated with the sword in the name of Christ.

According to the New York Times, semi-credible responses came from commentators who actually know a little about history--they defended the Crusades, noting that they were launched as a response to earlier Muslim advances across Europe. On the other hand, the best informed historians who study this era reject that view and offer evidence that the Crusades were motivated by attempts to reclaim sacred territory (Jerusalem) not Muslim dominated lands that resulted from incursions more than 400 year earlier.

As another example the President spoke about religious strife in India. In his words, though he called India "an incredibly beautiful country," irrelevant to his larger point, he also noted that it is "a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other people of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs--acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhi."

In spite of Obama noting this occurred in past years and only on occasion (some might say he was being kind considering the enmity and violence, some of it religiously-based, between millions of Indian Hindus and Muslims) Indian leaders reacted in unison and outrage. For example, the Finance Minster said that India "has a huge cultural history of tolerance. Any aberration doesn't alter history."

Obama committed another alleged faux pas at the Breakfast when he shook hands with the Dalai Lama and in his remarks noted how he is a "powerful example of what it means to practice compassion," one "who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.

A high-ranking Chinese spokesman reacted with public fury, saying, "We oppose any country using the issue of Tibet to interfere in Chins'a internal affairs."

It might have been politically wiser for Obama to have taken a pass on so publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama, but he did choose not to point out that Tibet is not a Chinese internal affair but rather an example of Chinese imperialism, their having conquered and occupied Tibet since 1950, including forcing the Dalai Lama into exile.

Again, instead of walking his comments back later in the day, Obama doubled-down, having a senior aide reiterate that he intended "to be provocative," wanting to connect how the brutality of ISIS is part of a sweep of global history that frequently calls forth "a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."

Our faith? Which one might that be?

That aside, one final question--

Ours is a free country, a secular country that protects our freedom to believe or not to believe, and, if religious, to worship as we choose. Since we are not a Christian nation, why then do our Presidents choose to attend this so-called National [Christian] Prayer Breakfast?

My recommendation--stay home and let former senator, Family member Jim De Mint, president of the Heritage Foundation run things.

June 5, 2014--Where's the Stretcher?

There are at least five interconnected issues that will eventually be unraveled regarding the prisoner swap with the Taliban.

None of them good.

First, was Sergeant Bergdahl a deserter, worthy of putting other American soldiers in grave danger as they attempted to free him?

Were any of his fellow platoon members killed or wounded in the process?

Do the high-ranking Taliban prisoners who were traded for Bergdahl present an on-going threat to Americans and our allies as we wind down our involvement in Afghanistan?

Did President Obama and his administration tell the truth about the situation--Did Bergdahl serve "honorably," as Susan Rice claimed on Sunday?

Did the prisoner trade need to occur urgently, as the administration asserted, because the sergeant was in "immediate danger" of dying and thus there was not sufficient time to consult with Congress as required by law?

It is too soon to know the answers to all these questions.

But I can put at least one to rest--the sergeant's physical condition.

I am not a physician and generally tend not to trust long-distance diagnoses, but viewing the Taliban-supplied videotape of Sergeant Bergdahl's release, it is clear that the Americans who came in by helicopter to pick him did not bring a stretcher with them.

If he was in such dire shape, wouldn't they have?

And if he was so physically endangered that it was necessary for the Obama administration to bring the deal to a swift conclusion, would he have been fit enough, unaided, to hop, as he did, into the waiting helicopter?

Questionable.

June 2, 2014--Negotiating With the Enemy

"Now you're the one who sounds like a Republican." I was happy to have the opportunity to turn the tables on Rona.

"You mean because I'm against the prisoner exchange with the Taliban?" I just smiled. "Well, I am against it so I that makes me a Republican, so be it."

"I'm just fooling with you," I said. "Some Democrats are raising questions too."

"Mainly those facing tough reelection challenges in November. Some of the same one who early on called for General Shinseki's resignation because of the VA debacle."

"I can see your point. At least, to some extent."

"You mean you're OK with us negotiating with the Taliban?" Rona asked, "The enemy?"

"I know that was the GOP talking-point way of discussing this on the Sunday talk shows."

"But they conveniently forgot that a Republican president, Richard Nixon, with Henry Kissinger, negotiated secretly for years with the Vietcong, the enemy, before finally making a deal to end the war in Vietnam."

"And, another Republican president, Eisenhower, agreed to negotiate with the enemy, the North Koreans, to end that war."

"To end wars, unless you can get away with demanding unconditional surrender, like at the end of World War II, you always negotiate with whom your fighting."

"And even with Japan, in WW II, we negotiated with them about keeping the emperor. Many in the U.S. wanted him deposed, but we allowed him to remain. So what's your problem this time?"

"I have a problem with exchanging prisoners before a larger deal can be struck with the Taliban."

"I have some trouble with that too," I conceded.

"A couple of things. First, I don't like the idea that we agreed to release five very bad guys who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo--hold off for a moment about that issue--allowing them to go to Qatar of all places. The deal calls for the Qatar government to keep an eye on them and not allow them to travel for a year--you know how much that agreement's worth--in exchange for an American soldier who has been held as a prisoner of war for five years."

"Among the five Taliban, according to the Times, which I have right here, so let me read what it says--two at least are 'senior military commanders said to be linked to operations that killed Americans and allied troops as well as implicated in murdering thousands of Shiites in Afghanistan.'"

"Correct. One was the head of the Taliban army. Bad enough guys to be held at Gitmo without trial for more than 10 years but OK to release for one American soldier. Which brings me to my other point."

"Which is?"

"About the soldier. When you sign up for combat, and all our troops are volunteers, you know the risks. You could be wounded, killed, and even taken prisoner. And the deal is that if you're captured you're likely to be held until the war is over, a full truce is worked out, and all prisoners are then exchanged. And in the particular case, to make matters worse, he may have been a deserter, going over to the Taliban side."

"But, Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel, on the same Sunday shows, implied that this may be a prelude to a larger agreement with the Taliban. We've been trying to engineer something like that for years."

"Which would be a good thing," Rona said, "But why can't we wait until a deal is struck, or at the minimum, when we're real close to having one, before exchanging prisoners? This feels very premature and, who knows, very political."

"Political?"

"You know, with the VA mess and the resulting bad political news for the Obama White House, maybe they wanted to do something that would show dramatic concern for the troops."

"And if the released Taliban get back into the fray, how many more Americans will they maim and kill? How good for our troops would that be?"

"Fair point. But I have another idea. Admittedly a crazy one."

"Shoot," Rona said.

"While we busy exchanging prisoners, why not release everyone we're holding in Guantanamo? You know, all 150. That way Obama would get to fulfill at least one of his campaign promises--to shut it down."

"Now, you're going too far."

"At least, I don't sound like a Republican!"

October 18, 2013--The Not-So-Grand Bargain

Didn't everyone know it would end this way?

The congressional adolescents would have their week or two of cable airtime where they would be permitted to have politically-motivated temper tantrums and then the adults would take over, send them to their rooms, and make a deal.

In this case the deal was to surrender unconditionally to the Democrats and especially President Obama since the focus of the Tea Party's fury was and remains the Affordable Care Act.

The deal is a pathetic one--to negotiate a long-term budget by mid-December and then in early January, since there will likely be no such deal, begin the process again of threatening to shut down the government and then in February begin to rally around the idea to not raise the debt ceiling.

We got a not-so-grand bargain but need a real one that controls spending and adds more revenue to the budget mix.

We need to see the Medicare and Social Security cost curves bend downward as Baby Boomers cascade toward retirement and put bankrupting pressure on those two programs.

If we do this seriously, next time around it will be the liberals doing the screaming.

In the process, we will find out if President Obama has starch in his shorts and is willing to take on his own party and constituency or was his tough stance this time around just about preserving his eponymous program--Obamacare?