I HAVE QUESTIONS

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Does that oath expire at the end of a President's term? Does the duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution last for no more than the four years in office? Do our past Presidents pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor with a sell-by date?

I have questions. 

If Trump can incite a couple of thousand people to scare the shit out of Congress, how many people can Barack and Bill bring to Washington to choke the streets and the halls of Congress to demand an end to the destruction of our democracy? Are there other men or women who could spearhead such a movement? Newsome? AOC? Seriously?

I have questions.

Is preoccupation with the construction of a Presidential Library a sufficient excuse for Barack's relative absence? Does Barack fear the wrath of Michelle if he jumps back on the stage? Is an occasional endorsement of a candidate or a genteel answer to an interviewers questions a sufficient contribution of his sacred honor?

I have questions.

Does Bill fear publicly exposing himself at a time when his predilection for exposing himself is a hot issue? Is the best stemwinding speechifier in the Democrats' arsenal capable of one last burst of glory? Or has the wealthiest modern President after Trump already drunk the Kool-Aid?

I really only have one question.

If not now, when? 

 

 

 

BIDEN, HARRIS, TRUMP, OBAMA AND AMERICAN POLITICS 2024

I wouldn't be much of an American who blogs his opinions if I didn't chime in on the events of the past week or two in American politics. FULL DISCLOSURE: I believe Trump to be an existential threat to sanity and civility in public life. His picture appears in the OED in the definition of egotistical narcissist. Anyway, here are my quick takes:

* During the recent televised debate, Biden looked like a tired and deflated old man. Trump presented as a confident and unapologetic liar. In other words, both men came across true to their respective natures. 

* I'm 75 years old. I ain't what I used to be. The excuse that Biden was tired after flights and meetings just doesn't cut it. Presidents are not allowed to fail on the world stage at critical times because they are tired. Yes, we expect too much of the mere humans that we elect to that office. Tough cookies. That's the minimum requirement. When the phone rings at 2am, you'd better damn well be wide awake and ready to eat raw meat.

* Harris was the obvious choice. An open Democrat convention would have been a disaster. Uncontrolled chaos. Everybody who mattered understood that Harris was inevitable except, apparently, for the Obamas. If nothing else, that proves that Obama was never an executive type. A true executive makes reality-based decisions, even if their preference would be a different reality. Harris is the reality. Not acceding to that reality after 48 hours is either pettiness or delusion. Now, today, her election prospects are not an issue. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. (By the way, that's not a quote about politics uttered by some wag like Churchill. It was a drill created by a typing instructor a century ago.) EDIT: The endorsement from the Obamas has come. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

* Speaking of Obama, can you tell that I found him a disappointment? In today's world, nuance is not an option. The education system has failed. Analytical thought is missing in action, even on elite college campuses. Netanyahu, for all that I dislike him, was correct in his speech to Congress when he likened Gays for Gaza to Chickens for KFC. We now live in a bumper sticker world in which Obama's careful attempts to walk the lines do not bear electoral fruit. Championing a law called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) cannot compete with chanting Build the Wall. At the other end of the spectrum. the 900 pages of the Affordable Care Act cannot satisfy those who advocate Medicare for All. One can wish for a better world. One can work to create a better world. But in order to do so, it's necessary to navigate the world as it exists with open eyes and effective strategies.

* Trump will get his votes. That can't be helped. The Kool-Aid has been drunk. The election will hinge on the turnout on the Democrat side. If Harris energizes women, people of color, and those whites who have resisted the Kool-Aid, even in states that are trying to make that difficult for them, she wins. Especially in states that are trying to make it difficult. Energy and enthusiasm will decide this election. Harris' task is to create that energy and enthusiasm among her constituency. Or she will lose.

A HEALTHCARE STRATEGY FOR THE AGES

Every once in a while, you do something that is so stupid that even your best friends wonder if your head is screwed on straight. And sometimes, rarely but sometimes, things turn out better than you could ever have imagined. You stepped in the poop and only through good luck and the grace of God you came out smelling like strawberries.

Many of us wondered why Obama didn't push for Medicare For All when he had the votes in Congress back in 2009. Single-payer healthcare had been proven throughout the industrialized world to provide better health outcomes, had been proven to be cost-effective - half the cost per capita of the American insurance-based system. How could Obama cede America's first stab at universal healthcare to an industry that had strangled the life out of the American economy for far too long? Insurance exchanges? Subsidies for insurance companies?

Madness.

Crazy.

Crazy like a fox...

If there are not enough votes for Medicare For All, get as many people covered as possible. Cash in as many chips as you can. Even lure in the insurance companies. But get people covered. And guess what. Once people get coverage, they don't want to lose it.

So, for seven years the Republicans screamed REPEAL. More recently, REPEAL AND REPLACE. Now? HOW DO WE FIX THIS THING. And there really is only one way to fix the ACA. The states - those places that the Republicans are fond of calling the labs of democracy - the states that went for expansion of Medicare are leading the way.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

Obama. Smarter than all of us.

LIE, DAMNED LIE, AND STATISTIC

I refuse to live in a post-truth world. We can argue about policies and their potential outcomes but I refuse to argue about facts.

Earth is not 6,000 years old. I don't have to prove it. You either get it or you don't.

Early humans did not ride dinosaurs like primitive cowboys. The Flintstones is a cartoon, not a documentary. Sorry to disappoint you.

Which brings us to President Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer's first official press conference. Spicer said:

1. The pictures showing the difference in the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration as compared to Obama's were flawed because it was the first time that white flooring had been put down to protect the grass on The Mall.

That's a lie. It was not the first time.

2. Magnetometers were used for the first time at entry points to The Mall, slowing the formation of the crowd.

That's a damned lie. Magnetometers were not used at all.

3. DC Metro rider numbers during Trump's inauguration compared favorably to the numbers for Obama.

The statistics say otherwise. The numbers for the subsequent protest did compare favorably, being the second highest ridership ever after Obama's record-setting first inaugural. The ridership numbers for Trump's inaugural were half that.

Presidential Counselor Kellyanne Conway says that Spicer was presenting 'alternative facts'. Get out your Newspeak dictionaries, boys and girls. Alternative Facts = Lies

(I just love the meme: This is what you look like when gay designers refuse to dress you.)

#EmolumentEqualsImpeachment

FIVE STUPID THINGS - MID JULY, 2016

FIVE STUPID THINGS may not be enough for the kind of week that it's been, but it's a start.

1. Democratic National Committee rules required that Bernie endorse Hillary so that his delegates could attend the convention. A real-life, actual friend of mine (pre Facebook) reposted a link to an article by some dodo...excuse me...rabid supporter of Bernie Sanders contending that if Bernie hadn't endorsed Hillary, his delegates couldn't have attended the Democratic convention. Having endorsed her, they can attend, there will be an outpouring of support for Bernie, and he will win the nomination through the sheer force of his righteous indignation.

You can't make this stuff up. Well, in fact, this particular dodo did make this stuff up.

2. May picks Boris to be the UK's ambassador to the world. That says it all. The sun has finally set on the British Empire.

3. Trump picks Pence, apparently in order to create a phallic penetration logo with a toilet paper reference. The Republican standard bearer has apparently decided that he can win without a majority of women, the LGBTQ community, or people of color. I'm pretty certain that there aren't enough pissed off white guys to make up the difference. We'll see.

4. In the wake of the tragedy in Nice, TIME Europe proclaimed that if we just start beating back Daesh, the recruitment of lone wolf terrorists will end because no one will want to be on the losing side. I presume that someone was actually paid for coming up with that analysis. Someone from the West. Someone who believes that terrorism against soft targets is about winning and losing. Someone who doesn't understand the Eastern concept of revenge. Someone who hasn't noticed that these lone wolf attacks have increased at the precise time that Daesh is being beaten back. Someone who doesn't recognize the letters I, R, and A. Where do I apply for the opportunity to get paid to write that kind of garbage?

5. After the horrendous killings of police officers this week, an official of the Cleveland police officers union has said that Obama has blood on his hands. Thus, in one quote to the media, we learn that an official representative of Cleveland's police officers is either an idiot or a racist. Probably both. On the other hand, this is the same guy who wants 'open carry' suspended for the Republican national convention. Maybe not so stupid after all...

BONUS: Melania Trump channels Michelle Obama in speech to the Republican convention. In my view, a wise move. She couldn't have picked a better role model. If only it wasn't so darn obvious.

THE OBAMA/FARAGE TREATY

In a stunning turn of events, President Barack Obama and UKIP's Nigel Farage will announce that they have brokered a deal that will provide the answers to the most pressing problems that face each of their countries.

Obama has been confounded by the problem of Texas, a state that is home to George Bush and Rick Perry, a state that embraces the idea of a huge wall separating it from its southern neighbor, a state that has threatened to secede from the Union.

On the other side of the Pond, how can Farage expect to govern a country in which at least half of the population think that he is Satan incarnate, a country that already has a wall along its northern border, a country that has in fact already voted to secede from the Union?

The answer?

Swap places.

Obama will use eminent domain to confiscate the life-sized model of Noah's Ark that is being built in Kentucky. "If it was capable of carrying the Biblical dinosaurs to safety, it should be able to accommodate all the Texans that we want to get rid of," says Obama. "On the return trip, England can send along folks who voted Remain and bring them home to where they belong, the common market known as the USofA."

When asked about the Royal Family, Obama said,"We'll take Queen Elizabeth and her brood. They'd be perfect fodder for a reality television show. And Betty White has agreed to take her place in England. They're about the same age, Betty can handle anything that the newly transplanted Texans can throw at her, and she likes dogs almost as much as Elizabeth."

#16 - BEATLES OR STONES, HIROSHIMA, DROUGHT

BEATLES OR STONES
Keith Richards is quoted in a recent interview as saying of Sgt. Pepper, “Some people think it’s a genius album, but I think it’s a mishmash of rubbish.”

Well, the First Amendment guarantees that even elderly, slightly confused Brits have a right to their opinions. And I will not dispute that The Stones are the most enduring bar band in history. (I would cede them the title of Greatest Bar Band if it weren't for the fact that Springsteen and I are both Jersey boys.) But The Beatles were different.

The Beatles were a band that honed their skills in clubs and could hold their own with kick-butt versions of tunes like Roll Over, Beethoven and You Really Got A Hold On Me and Twist and Shout and Money. But then they went a step further. They created or heavily influenced entire genres, from acid rock to thrash metal to casino crooners. Steps further. And oddly enough, those steps included paying back their roots influences by giving folks like Stevie Wonder tunes like We Can Work It Out.

I'm glad that Keith Richards is still capable of walking and chewing gum. (Kidding. He can still lay down a fine groove, too.) But let's not get huffy over a competition for hearts and minds that was over nearly 50 years ago.

HIROSHIMA
As the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima approaches, folks are questioning anew the need to have dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese homeland. Self-examination is generally a good thing. But let's be clearheaded in our review of history.

I have no doubt that history will not look kindly on the scientists who created The Bomb and Truman for having authorized its use. "I am become Death," said Oppenheimer. Einstein rued both his scientific and political contributions to Hiroshima, however peripheral. And Truman was clearly conflicted. He had experienced war first-hand and knew its horrors. His later writings suggest that he became fully aware of how Hiroshima would shape his legacy and the future of international conflict.

But Truman viewed the Japanese through the lens of Pearl Harbor and through the Japanese treatment of prisoners of war. He had been briefed extensively on the projected cost of an American invasion of the Japanese home islands, 200,000 or more American casualties. And contrary to the current narrative, no credible proof exists that the Japanese were ready to surrender unconditionally. True, feelers from dissident Japanese had been received. But they were never officially sanctioned, never included unconditional surrender - necessary after Germany's total capitulation, never panned out, and in retrospect smelled a tad like the unofficial and ill-fated mission of  Rudolf Hess to England. The official Japanese response to peace feelers at the time was to treat them with contempt. Until Hiroshima, all the evidence points to the Japanese military planning a final, if fruitless, mortal struggle on Japanese soil.

I have often said that Americans have memories equivalent to that of fruit flies. In this case, that's assuming that they've ever heard or participated in a serious discussion of this issue at all. Our young people have difficulty locating their own navels in the dark, much less islands in the Pacific. And of all academic regimens subject to periodic mass testing, history always fares the worst. So the question should not be reduced to polling that asks random Americans their opinion of whether Hiroshima was necessary. Rather, we should do our due diligence to determine whether Truman's decision was justified by the information that he had at hand in 1945.

Yes, I think that it was. And may no American President, no world leader, no sophisticated dissident with a grudge and a handful of plutonium ever be tempted to enforce his/her will in a similar way in future.

DROUGHT
In 2014, President Obama and Governor Jerry Brown visited the farm of Joe and Maria Del Bosque in California's Central Valley. Due to the persistent California drought, portions of Del Bosque's 'viable farmland' (as described in an article on Yahoo! Politics) lay fallow. Now, one year later, Del Bosque is reportedly wondering if Obama understood his problem. Why has nothing been done? Why must he refrain from planting additional fields due to lack of water for irrigation?

Putting aside for the moment the history of rampant corruption when it comes to water policy in America's West, we have in microcosm the coming major cultural upheaval that shifting weather patterns will cause around the country and around the world. The agricultural 'viability' of Del Bosque's land was predicated on the availability of water for irrigation in a part of California where that water was not naturally available through rainfall or the aquifer. Just exactly what is government supposed to do about that? What is government capable of doing about that? And what will government be able to do when seawater pollutes the freshwater aquifer in south Florida?

'Viable' farmland will no longer be viable. Expecting politicians to bring rain or deepen the snow pack is ludicrous.

RANDOM THOUGHTS #2 - JUDGES/CITIZENS UNITED, GW BUSH/MIDDLE EAST & GAY MARRIAGE/SCOTUS

JUDGES/CITIZENS UNITED
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has just ruled that it is Constitutional for states to limit campaign contributions in judicial elections. Let's see if I understand.

In the case of judicial elections, SCOTUS reasoned that money in and of itself is a corrupting influence.

In Citizens United regarding federal elections, SCOTUS reasoned that money in and of itself is not a corrupting influence.

Huh?

OK. I understand that there are nuances to both decisions. For instance, in the decision concerning judicial elections, SCOTUS reasoned that money (and money is speech according to SCOTUS) could unduly influence judges who are beholden to the facts of a case and the letter of the law. But politicians are obliged to listen to constituents. It's part of the job. So influencing a politician through speech (and money is speech, according to SCOTUS) is a protected right of constituents.

Forget for a moment the tortured logic that influencing a judge's interpretation of the law through money is corrupt but influencing the writer of those laws through money is not. And forget for a moment that a politician represents all constituents including those without the means to donate enough speech (money) to be heard. And forget for a moment that politicians can solicit money (speech) from donors outside of his/her constituency. And forget for a moment...

I'll tell you what. Just forget it.

GW BUSH/MIDDLE EAST

Former President George W. Bush recently spoke at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, criticizing President Obama heavily for his handling of Middle East foreign policy. Like Dick Cheney saying that Obama is the worst President ever, there is so much that is absurd about Bush's opinions on Middle East policy that any commentary on my part would be a waste of energy.

GAY MARRIAGE #1
The ignorance displayed by the members of the Supreme Court during the oral arguments in the recent gay marriage case is simply astonishing. As quoted in the NY Times, Roberts stated, “Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife.”

“The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Those quotes demonstrate the need for those guys to take refresher courses in history, civics, and religion. The statements only hold true if you consider millennia to be a word meaning a few hundred years and if you confine your investigations to Western Europe. Otherwise, from Biblical times to the present day, marriage can more accurately be defined as the union between a man and as many women as law and custom allow, not a (one) man and a (one) woman. And let's not get into questions about procreation or the legal rights of women within a marriage. In fact, until very recently, wives were basically property and, as anyone who has seen Downton Abbey or read Pride and Prejudice knows, a wife couldn't claim an inheritance by right from her husband. Historically, marriage has been about male power. But we are a society today that sees the genders as equals, ergo...

I have no problem with those who want to define religious marriage in purely heterosexual terms. Let them join congregations with like-minded people led by pastors who refuse to officiate at gay weddings. I have no interest in forcing my views upon religionists. But as long as the State bestows public sector benefits to married couples, the definition of marriage must be broad enough to include homosexuals.

When you go to City Hall to get a marriage license, religious considerations should not play a part.

GAY MARRIAGE #2
Anyone who wonders whether or not the Voting Rights Act is still necessary to insure the rights of voters need look no further than Louisiana and Governor Jindl. According to Jindl, Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should recuse themselves from the gay marriage case because they had officiated at gay weddings in states that had already given gays the right to marry. All perfectly legal and what any judge or justice of the peace or religious pastor could have done in those states.

But not good enough, said  a Jindl spokesperson. Having participated in (perfectly legal) gay marriages indicates bias. In fact, Jindl would prefer that the liberal judges simply recused themselves from every case before the Court because...well...because they are liberals. In simple terms, according to Jindl, you have no right to vote if Jindl doesn't think that you'll agree with him. That's a pretty clear illustration of despotism - my way or the highway. And the Supreme Court says that minority voters in states like Louisiana are no longer in jeopardy from state-sponsored discrimination requiring federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act. And Jindl is running for President...

RANDOM #1 - CRUZ/CHRISTIANITY, SNOWDEN/OLIVER/WIKILEAKS/SONY & REAGAN/CLINTON/OBAMA

CRUZ/CHRISTIANITY

Ted Cruz is reported to have said that there is no longer room in the Democratic Party for Christians. If I were a practicing Christian, I would be pissed that the litmus test for being a Christian has become adherence to the laws of the Old Testament rather than an understanding of Christ's message of grace.

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

SNOWDEN/OLIVER/WIKILEAKS/SONY
Folks like Jon Stewart and John Oliver appear to delight in insisting that they are not journalists, even as they do the very jobs that journalists ought to be doing but are not. For instance, it took Oliver just minutes to burst the bubble of righteousness Eric Snowden and his admirers have erected around his actions. Having admitted to Oliver that he hadn't read all of the documents that he leaked and that it is at least possible, perhaps likely, that bad things will happen to good people as a result, Snowden admitted to having to own causing collateral damage. One has to suppose that those canonizing Snowden would be among the first to condemn the military when a drone strike harms the innocent. What about Snowden, then?

Transparency can be a bitch when it applies to you, can't it?

And now we know that transparency applies to anyone and everyone. The personal information of thousands of Sony employees are publicly available - in a searchable database, no less - thanks to the determination by the folks at WikiLeaks that Sony, like the US government, qualifies as a suitable target for transparency. Who's next? Certainly not the folks at WikiLeaks. Why not? Good question. Maybe John Oliver will get to ask it one of these days.

REAGAN/CLINTON/OBAMA
On an internet discussion board recently, one writer gave Bill Clinton credit for presiding over the best American economy in a good long while. One naysayer insisted Clinton was not responsible. Rather, a Republican majority in Congress was responsible for the good times in the late 90s. One wonders if the same writer would be as quick to credit a Democratic Congress for Reagan's successes. Of course, just as Clinton's good times have grown better than they actually were when viewed through the lens of history, so have Reagan's good times...if indeed a judicious look at the Reagan years can be characterized as good times.

And what of Obama? By the numbers, Obama has presided over the best times of all. Which just goes to show, modern history is written by those with the most powerful microphones.

NETANYAHU, CONGRESS, AND A PALESTINIAN-ARAB STATE

I believe in Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbors.

Is peace possible when the charters of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas call for Israel's destruction, when regional despots like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei call for death to Israeli Jews? There are those who would tell you to ignore the charters and the speeches, that they are just words. But Jews have come to understand, after centuries of being taught by example, that when a political movement or a government official says that they will kill Jews, they are to be believed. The original Zionists made that assumption and the Israeli government continues to operate on that premise.

Ask yourself a simple question: Which hypothetical circumstance would be most likely to lead to peace in the region, disarming the Palestinians Arabs or disarming the Israelis? As Golda Meir is reputed to have said, though she certainly wasn't the first: Disarming the Palestinians Arabs would lead to peace. Disarming the Israelis would lead to the destruction of Israel.

Step back for a moment and look at history. There are those who will tell you that history doesn't matter, that we should focus on the present. Those people don't understand either the Jewish or the Arab mentality. Events that took place centuries ago are to both peoples as fresh today as a cool morning breeze. We can dispute whether or not the Palestinian Arabs were in the main chased from Israel by Zionists in 1948 or if the bulk of them left their homes at the urging of Arab armies promising a swift return once the Jews were pushed into the sea. Either way, certain subsequent events cannot be disputed:

1. The Palestinian Arab refugee camps were built by their Arab brothers who, with the exception of Jordan, refused to allow the refugees basic civil rights and a path to a normal life within the host country. As a result, while in other countries Palestinian Arabs have been radicalized and promised a right of return that has not been and in all probabilities will not be granted, the bulk of Palestinian Arabs in Jordan are fully integrated and say that they wouldn't return even if given the opportunity.

2. From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands. A Palestinian Arab state could have been declared without Israel's involvement. Israel would no doubt have had security questions. In the central part of the country, before 1967 you could have taken a flying leap from Israel's eastern border and landed hip deep in the Med. But if the neighboring Arab states had prepared for peace instead of war, those questions could have been answered.

3. After 1967 and after Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist, Israel traded land, valuable land, to Egypt in turn for peace. That peace has held for close to 50 years. I repeat. Peace with Egypt - as well as Jordan - has held for 50 years. The prerequisite? Simply recognizing Israel's right to exist and establishing diplomatic relations.

I believe in a two-state solution. I believe that Israel's settlement policy is misguided, primarily in place as a sop to the Israeli political Right. But I support Israel against such uninformed charges as genocide against the Palestinian Arabs. Israel could level Gaza and bounce the ashes. It restrains itself from doing so even if its recent actions in Gaza do not lend themselves to the term 'restraint'. Ask yourself the outcome if such military asymmetry were reversed.

And now we come to Netanyahu. Why shouldn't Netanyahu address the US Congress?

Let me count the ways...

1. The Constitution clearly gives the Executive responsibility for the bulk of the conduct of foreign affairs including the negotiation of treaties. Yes, Congress must approve. But the Founders understood that there should only be one voice at the table during negotiations with foreign powers. That voice belongs to the Executive. Negotiation by committee, and therefore this foray into the negotiations with Iran by Congress, is just stupid.

2. We know what Netanyahu will say. He will say that Iran is an existential threat. That Iran cannot be trusted. That Israel cannot allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. There. I've given Netanyahu's speech for him. He can save the time and the jet fuel it will take to get here and back to Israel to continue campaigning for reelection.

3. Speaking of campaigning, the US has a longstanding policy of not interfering in democratic elections conducted by its friends. Well, except for the CIA. But since the Mossad is better at covert ops than the CIA, the Israelis don't have to worry on that score. They should worry, however, that Netanyahu thinks that it's a good idea to drag the US Congress into Israeli politics. Our Congress has an approval rating only slightly higher than Boko Haram's. And there is reason to believe that the fear tactics Netanyahu is using may backfire, that his political opposition is coalescing. Is Netanyahu desperate or just clueless?

4. And speaking of politics, Americans have a saying that politics ends at the border. Not any more, apparently. If speaking before Congress makes Netanyahu look silly, John Boehner conducting foreign affairs behind the President's back makes John Boehner look silly - or sillier, depending on what you think of his tanning spray.

There's more, but that's enough. The proposed speech is bad for the negotiations with Iran, bad for Netanyahu, and bad for Congress. What's the point?

IMMIGRATION, OBAMA, AND REPUBLICANS

I try not to comment on the politics of the moment too often. I abhor the effect of the HG Wells News Cycle, requiring analysis of events before they happen rather than after. And after an event, the floodgates open and we all drown in a tsunami of shouted opinions. Witness that today, two days after Obama's immigration speech, a Google search concerning the legality of Obama's proposed Executive Order on immigration law enforcement turns up over 15,600,000 results. Everybody has an opinion and everybody's opinion is on the interweb.

So who am I to buck that trend?

First of all, IMHO what Obama proposes to do is legal and not without precedent. Do the research and believe what you will. I go back to the actions of that darling of the Right, Ronald Reagan. You know, the guy who couldn't get elected dogcatcher as a Republican today. (He'd be swift-boated by conservatives in his own party.) Anyway, Reagan's Executive Order after the Congressional passage of immigration reform in 1986, the Order that extended the rights contained in that bill to the families of those who were eligible for legalization, directly contravened Congressional intent that was on the record and unequivocal. Congress had specifically excluded families. No question. Reagan thought that excluding families was unfair and so he included them by Presidential fiat. As did HW Bush subsequently.

Simple. Clear cut. Not debatable. But we're talking today about an action taken by Obama. So in the eyes of Congressional Republicans beholden to the fringe one-third of their party, Obama's actions are illegal, immoral, completely different than the actions of Reagan/Bush, and will lead to the decline of Western Civilization as we know it.

Speaking of the decline of Western Civilization for the moment, consider Congress. Surveys indicate that the American public has a higher opinion of cockroaches than they do of Congress. And Americans are more likely to invite a cockroach to dinner. So what are the stirrings that we hear from our newly minted Republican majority these days? Confrontation. Law suits. Even...yes...wait for
it...impeachment. Lessons of the past be damned. Government is the problem. We'll waste American's time and tax dollars. We'll shut the sucker down.

Incredible.

I wish that I could credit the commentator who pointed out that it is mind boggling that a black man with the middle name of Hussein thought that he had a chance to be elected President so soon after 9/11. Credulity strains to the max with the realization that he not only achieved his party's nomination, but that he actually became President.

How could anyone have thought that it could turn out well?

THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH AND OBAMA IS A MUSLIM: WHY AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS

In 1999, 18% of Americans polled said that the Sun revolved around Earth. In 2012, 29% of Americans believed that cloud computing involved real clouds. Are we really all idiots? Read more on the Political Page.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS EXPLAINED

Now that I live in France, I'm often asked about American politics. HERE is a quick primer on American political parties that appears on the Political Page. It's basic but it's a start.

THE TRUTH ABOUT BENGHAZI - IF YOU CAN HANDLE IT

I am sick to the death of the calls for the Truth About Benghazi. Here is the Truth About Benghazi - if you can handle it.

Beginning in 1955, American political elites and the military-industrial complex put bulls eyes on the backs of American sons and daughters in service and sent them to southeast Asia. It was a place that they didn't belong, a place where no European has ever belonged. 20 years later, 60,000 Americans were dead.

In 1983, American political elites and the military-industrial complex put bulls eyes on the backs of American Marines and Navy personnel and sent them to Lebanon. It was a place that they didn't belong, a place where no European has ever belonged. 250 Marines and sailors died.

In 2001, American political elites and the military-industrial complex put bulls eyes on the backs of American sons and daughters in service and sent them to Afghanistan. It was a place that they didn't belong, a place where no European has ever belonged. 10 years later, 2,300 Americans were dead.

In 2003, American political elites and the military-industrial complex put bulls eyes on the backs of American sons and daughters in service and sent them to Iraq. It was a place that they didn't belong, a place where no European has ever belonged. 10 years later, 4,500 Americans were dead.

In 2012, American political elites and the military-industrial complex put bulls eyes on the backs of American sons and daughters in service and sent them to Libya. It was a place that they didn't belong, a place where no European has ever belonged. 4 Americans died.

And since 1955, American political elites and the military-industrial complex have participated in the deaths of millions - that's MILLIONS - of civilians in southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

The Truth About Benghazi? The Truth About Benghazi is that it was the least egregious blunder in a history of American blunders that goes back 50 years and continues today. The Truth About Benghazi is that OUR American political elites and OUR military-industrial complex are at fault. And, having been warned by Eisenhower before these events unfolded of the dangers inherent in the military-industrial complex, and having participated in the American political process to one degree or another over the interim, WE are at fault.

Can you handle that Truth?