That is the question for president Obama. No doubt it is every bit as vexing as the one with which Prince Hamlet wrestled in the Shakespeare classic that bears his name.
In Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, he tries to decide if it would be better to commit suicide or struggle with the pains and unfairness of life. His dilemma is not that far removed from the one facing our 44th president. Obama’s choice is between political suicide or pubic ridicule.
Obama firmly believes that he was elected to avoid war at all cost, so much so, that he squandered our hard-fought victory in Iraq in order to declare peace, when there was no peace, and bring our troops home prematurely. But, alas, our enemy metastasized. It is slaughtering our friends in the region, openly beheading our citizens on the internet and threatening to spill blood in our streets.
Does Obama declare war on ISIS and take the necessary action to rid the world of this evil or does he simply invoke the Authorization for Use of Military Force given to his predecessor?
If he does the former, he would need permission from Congress, which likely would mean the political deaths of some dovish Democratic senators. If he does the latter, he will be exposed as a hypocrite. Read the rest of this entry »
After months of presidential promises on an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens (i.e. immigration reform), Obama punted. In June, he put us all on notice that, when he returned from his August vacation, he would use his pen to do what Congress would not do.
A strange thing happened during those weeks of endless golf rounds on Martha’s Vineyard. Public opinion polls tanked on the idea and Senate Democrats, worried about their reelections, began taking the president to task over his plan to by-pass Congress.
Last week, a Rasmussen poll found that 62 percent of likely voters are against the president’s proposed action. Furthermore, 57 percent believe this action to be illegal.
It is little wonder that Senate Democrats in conservative states began heading for the tall grass. It wasn’t long before the president followed. Read the rest of this entry »
Hillary Clinton would like to become the first woman president. Should she succeed, it likely would be a bit anticlimactic. We’ve already had a girly man president. More correctly, we’ve had a valley girly man president — an uppity little pampered princess who can’t, or won’t, be bothered with things in which he has no interest, like terrorism or foreign policy.
For six years now we’ve looked for an Obama doctrine. Finally we have one. Last April aboard Air Force One, he summed it up for reporters: “Don’t do stupid s – - t!” How very presidential! The only thing missing from that statement was “totally” and “whatever!”
Last week, Obama admitted that he hadn’t developed a policy on ISIS or ISIL in Syria yet, even though Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said it must be defeated there. So did Obama take advantage of the long holiday weekend to come up with one? No. In true valley girl (I’m privileged and don’t have to work) fashion, he spent his time partying with socialites and high rollers at a series of lavish fundraisers and attended an extravagant wedding.
Obama told his guests at the event in Westchester County, N.Y. “(Like) I promise you (like) things are (totally) much less dangerous now (I’m so sure) than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.(Rad!)” Nor was Obama the least bit worried about the growing crisis with Russia in the Ukraine. As if to drive home that point Obama added, “(Like) this is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War (Duh)!” Read the rest of this entry »
Recently, I received an email from a former television colleague. I’ll call him Jack (not his real name). Jack lamented the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, and invited me to read and post on his blog. It had been years since we’ve had any direct contact, but I have great respect for this man. Therefore, I went to Jack’s blog and began reading. It sickened me, so much so that I was, for one of the few times in my life, speechless.
It was one of the worst biased political rants I have ever seen.
It began with a personal story. As a young photographer, Jack covered a race riot in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., where he discovered that the local police chief had sent officers in blackface to stir up the rioters so he could crack down on them. After that, the “chief” ran for Congress as a Republican and won.
I don’t doubt Jack’s veracity. However, it was as if time has stood still for him. Therefore, he believes all Republicans (and tea party members and other conservative-leaning organizations like the Heritage Foundation) to be racist. Read the rest of this entry »
Suddenly, it’s 1964 again. Racial tension is in the air. Cries of “injustice” and “police brutality” occupy the headlines. However, the epicenter has moved from Mississippi and Harlem to Ferguson, Missouri, a small municipality which occupies a slice of northeastern St. Louis County.
Unfortunately for the peace-loving citizens in that community, those fanning the flames which have led to the violence are stuck in 1964. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and members of the New Black Panther Party have never moved on. They are in a time warp. In fact, their relevance depends on being able to make disadvantaged blacks believe that the system is rigged against them. That’s how they get their power and earn the money to buy their expensive suits and chauffeur-driven limousines. Read the rest of this entry »