President Obama Lectures on Need for Courage and Generosity, Without Even a Hint of Irony

President Barack Obama gave his Thanksgiving Day lecture yesterday, giving us some insight into how the Commander-in-Chief views the shortcomings of the citizenry of the United States.

A few weeks ago, the president announced his intention to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement in the U.S., to the great joy of no one. There is a hot debate in the country about immigration, particularly illegal immigration, and general unease on the topic of Islamic terrorism. For once, the public, the courts, Congress, and the governors are generally aligned in their wish to approach these topics cautiously.


The president is on a different wavelength. and after his executive order allowing five million illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. was blocked by a federal court a week ago, his angry reaction was uncontrolled.

After the brutal attacks in Paris, concern about Obama’s plan to accept thousands of refugees increased substantially. The administration has been embarrassed by President Obama’s repeated errors in judgement concerning ISIS, but that has in no way impaired his confidence. Obama said the refugees are coming and that’s all there is to it. Actually, Congress may have a veto-proof majority, but the president hasn’t acknowledged that.

To the president’s intense irritation, two proposals surfaced: 1) increase screenings before allowing refugees in 2) stop them from coming altogether. At each stop on his trip abroad last week, he bitterly mocked his political foes, accusing them of being afraid of widows and orphans. He didn’t say the name Republican, he spat it. (There was no mention of the 47 Democrats who agreed with putting the brakes on the Syrian refugees.) Ted Cruz earned an extra verbal grenade, thanks to his suggestion the U.S. limit the refugees to Christians. “That’s not American,” the president snapped.

But why was the president so angry? At the root of Obama’s angst is a belief that there are only two reasons to disagree with him and neither is legitimate. On the charitable side, you could just be poorly informed. But if you have the information and persist in disagreeing, you can only be motivated by malevolence. It isn’t possible for a good person with a clear understanding to disagree with the plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees here.


Continue reading

Is 2016 the Year of the Game Changer? Trump, Sanders, and Cruz sure hope so

As long as I can remember, there’s never been a non-Establishment nominee, let alone a president. Maybe it’s an idea whose time has finally come: the 2016 presidential race is a battle of ideologies. People are sick of the Establishment and ready for change.

Leaders of the free world await the Establishment's orders

This post is about not about Establishment candidates (sorry, Rubio). Fiorina and Carson aren’t Establishment but they’re no Game Changers. I’m putting aside the No-Chancers, where Rand Paul landed. I’m not a fan but if he was a better candidate, he would be a Game Changer.

Game Changer: Someone who plans to make major changes in at least 5 key areas. Realistically, they may effect change in 3 areas, but that’s enough to shake things up. 

There’s usually one Game Changer per election who fizzles early as the media boycotts or ridicules them out of business. This time, of the 7 viable candidates (Bush, Sanders, Rubio, Clinton, Cruz, Carson, Trump), there are three Game Changers who poll well. That’s Cruz, the Donald, and Colonel Bernie Sanders. Ha! I know Bernie isn’t a colonel, but he bears an eerie resemblance to KFC’s Colonel Sanders.

Electing any of these guys would guarantee rapid change. They are despised by their own parties, who ardently wish they would go light themselves on fire.


Let’s start with Trump, the least extreme of the three. According to non-partisan, Trump is more moderate than Cruz or Sanders. Or Clinton, for that matter.


Trump would make major changes in education, free trade, immigration, drug policy, and foreign policy, and he has two unique advantages.

Continue reading

A Post-Mortem of the Democratic Debate

The Democratic debate was a magical evening in which Lincoln Chaffee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb congregated to listen to Sanders and Clinton talk.

Let’s start with Lincoln Chaffee. His terrible performance seemed to be necessary only to boost the other candidates’ self-perceptions and will to live. Did the DNC accept walk-ons, or how did Chaffee even get on stage? Seriously: Google “Chaffee”. He doesn’t show up until the bottom of page 5! Ted Cruz could probably score the Democratic nomination before Chaffee.


Then there was Clinton, who had two highlights: 1) When she was reduced to giggling at how stupid Sanders was to defend her, and 2) When she explained her presidency would differ from Obama’s because she’s a woman. Yawn.

Martin O’Malley looked especially oily, didn’t he? He’s slippery like an eel, and wildly exaggerated his record in Maryland. Anderson Cooper even pointed out that the Attorney General blamed the Baltimore riots on two of his policies. Whether true or not, that’s how Democrats perceive him.

The oiliest of them all

The oiliest of them all

Let’s move on to Jim Webb, who struck me as one of two honest people on stage, and the only sensible person. Obviously, the media has rejected him for the latter reason, which is too bad for the Dems. If they were looking for a good candidate, they just raced past him. Webb is pretty liberal compared to the average American, just not way off in outer space like his counterparts. He didn’t leap on the red meat Anderson Cooper threw out about Sanders registering as a conscientious objector, instead of serving in the military, which seemed generous. Military men find it difficult to respect guys like Sanders.


Bernie Sanders has his appeal. He’s an unpolished, consistent, tell-it-like-it-is type of guy that provides a welcome contrast to the Clintons and O’Malleys of the world. His appeal is his honesty and his lack of political correctness, and maybe his rumpled appearance. He really believes what he is saying, in stark contrast to say, Clinton. That’s why he was the other honest candidate on the stage, but Jim Webb’s monopoly on common sense is safe from Sanders.

I don’t think he has a chance, though the crowd loved it when he said Black Lives Matter, instead of All Lives Matter. It was the right answer for a room of people who believe only the lives of one race can matter at any given time. Does Bernie believe it? Probably. Or perhaps he was watching as O’Malley squirmed and apologized for saying All Lives Matter (oily).

Continue reading