Perfect and Imperfect

We had a perfect man become a perfect president.

And a perfect man become an imperfect president.

Then we had an imperfect man become a perfect president.

Are we now going to fill out our dance card and have an imperfect man become an imperfect president?

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

Reader Contribution

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he
asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money
from you, I'm doing community service this week.’

The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a
'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill,
the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing
community service this week.’

The cop was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank
you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his
bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm
doing community service this week.’

The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen
Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the
citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

As Ronald Reagan said: "Both politicians and diapers need to be changed
often and for the same reason.

Thanks Rick ...

Tough Decisions

All our presidents have faced making difficult decisions. Here might be the toughest tests for our last 14 presidents:

FDR - Declaring war on Japan AND Germany

Truman - Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan

Ike - Agreeing to an armistice in Korea

JFK - Embargo on Cuba during the missile crisis

LBJ - Handling the Vietnam war protests

Nixon - Watergate and his eventual resigning

Ford - Pardoning Nixon

Carter - Trying to rescue our Iran hostages

Reagan - Walking away from Helsinki meeting with Gorbachev

Bush 41 - Desert Storm war

Bill Clinton - Impeachment and fessing up to Monica Lewinsky affair

Bush 43 - America’s response to 9/11

Obama - Osama Ben Laden raid

Trump - Restarting the economy after the coronavirus shutdown

Praying Mantis

Was the US’s killing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard General Soleimani in Iraq justified? The Smerconish program on CNN this morning asked this question of its viewers. Surprisingly, 72% of respondents said it was NOT justified. This suggests that Liberals in general do not approve of this Trump decision ... not a surprise. But, was this a never-Trump knee-jerk or, perhaps, an indication of fear of Iranian retaliation?

Probably a bit of both. And yes, Iran might respond in kind. But the repercussions of Trump’s boldness will likely be felt in other spheres: North Korea, China, Syria, Venezuela ... maybe even Russia. And remember that Iran went quiescent for a number of years after President Reagan destroyed half its navy in 1988 after it had mined the Persian Gulf ... see: Operation Praying Mantis.

Maybe Reagan’s boldness was a template for Trump’s decision?

Cross

Donald Trump is a cross between Ronald Reagan and Wallace Beery.

Trump’s Legacy

I know it’s rather early to start considering what Trump’s legacy will be. But there are some rather clear things that he has changed that will live on after he has departed the White House. Here are my takes:

- The president’s “magic wand” of tax cuts and regulation reforms has kicked up the rate of economic growth to above 3% from the previous “new normal” of below 2%. And the stock market is up over 50% combined with energy independence, strong consumer confidence, employment and domestic manufacturing. And inflation has been modest to boot. Not bad!

- The U.S.’s national image will have flipped from apologizing for our success to being proud of it ... and resolving to return to our past glories. We will have recaptured our greatness ... and be proud of it.

- Like Ronald Reagan did to restore our defense dominance, so Donald Trump will be equally lauded ... but he will also be praised for his restraint in using this military might. In the process, he has put, at least for the moment, North Korea and Iran in a box. If either of these countries capitulates, it will be the first sentence in his history book write up.

- Exactly opposite to the current media narrative, NATO will have been substantially strengthened by Trump’s insistence that our European partners live up to their financial and troop obligations under this decades-old pact.

- Although Trump will not have destroyed terrorism, he likely will have partially defanged it.

- Despite enormous sticky resistance in Congress and in the courts, Trump has made some progress in securing our borders and reforming our immigration process ... less than the majority of Americans want ... but still progress.

- Trump’s agenda has pushed the Democrat party to show its colors as being far more radical left in its actions than its deceptive rhetoric.

- If nothing else, President Trump will be remembered for his focusing on how China has become a hegemonic threat to America ... and his developing strategies to counter same. So far his success here has been modest but, if re-elected, I expect much more progress.

Dutch

A butterfly dutchman

Dutch treat — everyone pays one’s own way

In Dutch — in trouble with someone

Dutch uncle — a friend giving firm but benevolent advice

Double Dutch — jumping rope with two long ropes going in opposite directions

“Durch” — Ronald Reagan

Dutch widow — a prostitute

Dutch oven — a heavy cooking pot often used for braising meat

Dutch door — a door which can be opened at the top and not the bottom

Dutch wife — a pillow or booster used to keep warm or cool with

“It’s Dutch to me” — “I don’t understand”

Dutchman — a wooden insert to cover a flaw in a exposed board

Loyalty

We all have our loyalties ... to the world, to our country, our state, our community, to our family, our ancestors, our mate, our friends, the poor, to our school, our political party, our social organizations, our religion, the environment, to our stomach, to our libido, our ego. Mostly we have mixed localities but, there is usually one or two localities that dominate ... and this can you be judged. And you cannot depend on what people say their loyalty priorities are ... you need to watch their actions.

Think about it. What dominated Bill Clinton's and JFK's lives? Their libidos. (JFK said he would get a headache if he didn't have sex every day.) FDR, his family and his country. Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter kept their religion and the poor foremost in their minds, To Ronald Reagan, our country was the "shining city on the hill" that was his  primary motivation. Truman and Eisenhower, their country. Obama, the environment or his ego. The Bushes, their family. Nixon, the world. Hillary, herself.

What about Trump? He says, and I believe him, he is a nationalist ... which means he puts his country first. And, if you think about things, it is those presidents who put their country at the top of their loyalty pyramids who we now consider great.

Perhaps?

Headlines

Trump casts North Korea summit as just a first date

The Fed has a surprise in store that could mean the end to interest rate hikes

John Kelly calls White House 'miserable place to work' ...

Giuliani warns Mueller bot to pull 'a Comey' and 'interfere' with midterms

France blasts 'incoherent' Trump after G-7 fiasco

A failed US-North Korea summit could make armed conflict more likely

AMAZON blasted over China factory conditions ...

Endogan predicts 'war between cross and crescent'

Kudlow: Trudeau 'stabbed us in the back'

Trump's stimulus will fade in 2020, when Wile E. Coyote will 'go off the cliff,' Bernanke says

Trump approval tops Obama, Reagan at same time in presidency ...

Justify wins Belmont Stakes to become 13th Triple Crown winner

Headlines

[Jared] Kushner loses access to top-secret intelligence

Poll: More Americans blame government failures than guns in Florida shootings

Schiff has given 227 TV interviews -- in year!

Judge rejects lawsuit seeking to stop border wall ...

Mueller drops charges against Gates, court OKs spring break trip

Kevin Spacey's Foundation to close

Deems flip two more [state] seats, 39 since Trump elected ...

Rasmussen: Trump approval 7% higher than Obama at same time in presidency ...

Trump hasn't directed NSA chief to strike back at Russian hackers

Officials from four countries tried to figure out how to manipulate Jared Kushner

Consumer confidence [at] 17-year high ...

Heritage Foundation: 2/3 of [Trump] agenda already done, faster than Reagan ...

Open Borders

"A nation that cannot control its borders, is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

A devoted reader, who happens to agree with us that global warming is a scam, however does believe that the United States needs to open our boarders to anyone and everyone who wants to settle here. Now, I can understand and even admire that someone whose ancestors have benefited from past liberal immigration policies, might want to extend such a benefit today to the less fortunate of the world (a number in the billions). However, the U.S. is filling up. We now have hundreds of millions more people than during past immigration surges. And today we also have an incentive almost as powerful as the past immigrant draw, freedom ... lots of free stuff ... free stuff that liberal states love to provide illegally to these newcomers ... whether here legally or not. The impetus to provide this largess too often comes with a quid pro quo -- give us your (often illegal) votes.

We lock the front doors of our homes for a good reason ... because, if we don't, bad actors will likely invade our homes and take what is our family's ... or worse. And since we all want the fruits of our labors to go to our own and we like our charity to be voluntary, not forced, we don't want our neighbors to force us to open our houses to possible mischief or even mayhem. I strongly suspect those advocating for open borders also lock their own home doors. They may want me to leave my portals open, but I chose to ignore them unless they leave their doors open too ... at which point I will be forced to question their sanity ... and mine.

When we do invite people into our homes, I think at a minimum we have to know that:

- this is voluntary and not compulsory
- our guests would not harm us
- they would not steal from us
- they would not be exposing us to disease
- if they are staying, that we have the necessary space and accommodations
- if they are staying, that they would eventually leave if we asked
- if they are staying, that they would be contributing to the commonweal
- if they were staying, they could not invite in others
- and finally, they could not take possession of our home

Cannot we ask the same of immigrants to our country?

Headlines

All from Internet news sites. Guess which are from Politico?

Motion Picture Academy expels movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein

Weinstein's sex scandal may hurt Michael Moore, Quentin Tarentino

George Lopez booed off stage after Trump jokes flop at gala ...

Former political prisoner: Sound reported in Cuba sonic attacks similar to prison torture

Trump opposes bipartisan Obamacare rescue plan

Obamacare architect: Trump is making the country worse just because of 'anger at Obama'

German soccer team kneels in solidarity with NFL ...

Cerebrities refuse to appear on 'Megyn' as ratings collapse

Democrats see path to Senate victory in 2018

German city bans migrants from moving in

Update: NKorea 'readies missile launch' ahead of US-South naval drill

Bennett: Trump's cabinet 'more conservative cabinet' than Reagan's

Cloud of Suspicion

There is a growing cloud of suspicion surrounding our former National Security Advisor Susan Rice ... for her past escapades, including, it seems to be more and more obvious, her using our intelligence agencies to spy on Donald Trump's presidential campaign team. This is an extremely serious charge which may involve other Obama political appointees ... maybe even B.O. himself. President Trump has even suggested that Ms. Rice may be guilty of a crime ... particularly if she requested unmasking of more than two dozen intelligence intercepts that apparently had no national security or Russian contact references ... only political value and personal information.

I know. I know. It it quite early in this investigation to make these leaps of logic. But, like when President Reagan was embroiled in Iran-Contra, it is the seriousness of the charge that is paramount. We are peeling this onion ... and, like it has been over the last week, this obvious misfeasance is looking more and more like the early days of Watergate. ... serious malfeasance. I will not be surprised that, if over the next months, Susan Rice is joined in the docks by such luminaries as Rice's aide Ben Rhodes, Obama's confident Valarie Jarrett, the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA head John Brennan,  and even former AG Loretta Lynch (her meeting with Bill Clinton came shortly before the first FISA request to wiretap Trump Tower).

I suspect it might be a very entertaining summer of congressional TV hearings swirling around this spying on Trump and his people matter.

Headlines

These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites.

Dem convention transforms women's restrooms into 'all gender' ones

Dems build wall around [convention] podium

Charges to be dropped against remaining officers in Freddie Gray case

FACEBOOK fails to show up for 7th IRS tax audit

Massive Great White swimming in Cape Cod shallow waters

CIA Official: Foreign gov'ts have contents of Clinton server

Would-be Reagan assassin to be freed after 35 years

Obama expanding refugee program for Central Americans

[Black] Democrat Congressman compares Jews to termites

Soviet Flags, Palestinian Flag, no U.S. Flags [at Democrat Convention]

Commuters 'scared' by growing homeless encampments at NYC Penn Station ...

Normandy: Jihadist Mosque next door to beheaded priest's church

Women’s Suffrage

At a July 4^th party last night I made the comment, half in jest, that I thought giving women the vote was a mistake … to the startled gasps of most in the room. I say half in jest because, even though I know this is a losing cause, there are arguments that might still be made on both sides of this “settled law.”  Nothing has 100% positive results and I believe that the 19^th amendment is recently exhibiting its downside … in particular a relatively recent and persistent gender gap ... see: New York Times Article.

Yes, I know that many of you now have steam coming from your ears … and are vowing never to read another thing I write … including the rest of this blog.  But bear with me, please.

Clearly there were many excellent presidents who were elected because of the female vote; FDR, and JFK come to mind. But then again, I believe that females were also instrumental in electing Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (twice) … and, to my mind, as a result of knee-jerk feminism. One can also make the argument that Bill Clinton’s bad-boy image helped many females pull the voting lever for him two times too. Whether he was a good or bad president is still open for debate … but he clearly was better than the other two I have mentioned. And let us not forget that an all-male voting population did elect quite a number of presidential lemons before 1920 … Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce … to name just a few.

I know making generalizations is dangerous, but I believe that many … but clearly not all … women vote with their hearts and not with their heads. And I believe that politicians try to take advantage of this propensity when they callously put forward issues like “the war on women.” Perhaps I can be (wrongly) accused of being a misogynist, but no sane Republican politician cares to be tarred with that brush. If a female were to vote for a Democrat purely because she believes that she will have her birth control pills paid for by the government, then she is a silly and willing victim of this demagogy.

And I also know that, if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, millions of voters, including a number of males, will vote for her just because she is a woman. And, if she doesn’t run, which name comes up next most often? … the female Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, that woman with Amerind cheekbones … a double whammy for the emotional voter. Does this not prove that savvy political operatives feel that gender is now a bigger vote getter than experience and qualifications? (Just as race was, I firmly believe, a big political plus to the voters in 2008 and 2012 … and we see what a mare’s nest that this voter naiveté has caused.)

Does this mean that I would never vote for a woman? Of course not. I can name many woman politicians whom I have admired … Maggie Thatcher, Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir, Condoleezza Rice … probably just as many as I can name outstanding male solons.  But this does beg the question: Have we now a population of callow voters who do not know … nor care to know the issues confronting this country … and will let their emotions govern how they vote? And I do believe that a statistically significant higher percentage of this voting bloc is likely comprised of women? This is my point regarding women's suffrage.

Perhaps, a 28^th amendment?  Just kidding …

Star Wars

Ronald Reagan first proposed the anti-ballistic-missile Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 … to which the liberal media promptly applied the mocking  pejorative “Star Wars” … and have ridiculed its tortoise-like progress ever since.  In 2009, President Obama, true to the Democrat tradition, abrogated existing agreements that we had with Poland and the Czech Republic to install these weapon shields on their soil (see: Swinging Gates) … much to these countries' annoyance and chagrin.  And he has just recently rubbed salt in these wounds by canceling what was to be the fourth phase of such installations … see: NY Times Story. (Remember Obama’s 2012 whispered aside to Russia's then-President Medvedev that he would have more disarmament flexibility after the next election. … see: Wink Wink Nudge Nudge).

Ah but here’s the rub … North Korea is now nuclear-saber rattling and the U.S.'s liberal West Coast is nervous.  So this Administration has decided that such a defense against nuclear-tipped ICBMs suddenly is a priority.  This is as a result of North Korea's Kim Jong-un threatening to press the nuclear-war button (Dennis Rodman notwithstanding).  So these defense weapons once destined for Eastern Europe will now be sited in Alaska.  One small problem … such a shield will not be operational until at least 2017 … see: US News/NBC News Story … hopefully not to late to matter.

Funny how oxen often get gored at the most inconvenient times.

Goldwater Redux

"Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater, in his acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1964

Barry Goldwater, with the above words, attempted to move the Republican Party back to the right after 35 years of "moderation" (read ideological coziness with the Democrats).  Unfortunately, it also cost him the 1964 Presidential election.  But, he did manage to re-plant the flag of conservatism that was then carried forward by the likes of William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan.  Now, Jeb Bush, has managed to throw Barack Obama a lifeline (after The Barry's few disastrous weeks in his quest for re-election.)  His poorly-timed comments in New York City at the Bloomberg LP were:

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party, and I don’t, as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,”

In response, the keeper of the conservative flame, Grover Norquist, riposted in the following quote from the Washington Post:: 

Grover Norquist is lashing out at former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) for his comments critical of Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. Bush has said in recent days that Republicans should accept a deal that includes $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. “There’s a guy who watched his father throw away his presidency on a 2:1 [ratio of spending cuts to tax increases] promise,” Norquist told Talking Points Memo . “And he thinks he’s sophisticated by saying that he’d take a 10:1 promise. ... You walk down that alley, you don’t come out. You certainly don’t come out with 2:1 or 10:1.”

Who is right in this internecine squabble?  Even though I kinda cringe at a lot of what Grover Norquist says, I do believe that the "radicalism" that is being exhibited by him and many many others in the Republican party is nothing more than a recognition of the squishiness that has seeped into the Republican ideology since Ronald Reagan's Presidency ... and the continued drift leftwards in our political ethos as a result of the ideological resolve of the radical left.  Let me offer three examples:

- President Richard Nixon in some ways was even more liberal than LBJ.  He called his approach "New Federalism" which included expansion of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the government's first affirmative action programs, and a proposal for comprehensive national health care (with an employer mandate!)

- President George W. Bush "43" prided himself as being a "compassionate conservative."  Yet, to some, he was in fact more of a "slow-walking liberal."  Witness his $4.8 trillion expansion in our national debt, his extreme ballooning of our federally-funded entitlement programs -- the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit of 2003, his huge increase in government regulations, and, with Ted Kennedy, the "No Child Left Behind" program.

- We now have the most radically-left President in our history.  Recent revelations of Barack Obama's membership in the socialist New Party (see: Breitbart Story) is just one indication of the hidden agenda that he brought with him into the White House.  Obama has been resolute in not compromising with the Republicans during his term in office.  Even when he got Speaker of the House John Boehner to agree to a $800 billion revenue (tax) increase, he reversed himself the next day and demanded $1.2 trillion.  Isn't this the kind of lack of finding a "common ground" that Jeb Bush might have highlighted?

Yes, I think we all agree that compromise should be part of politics.  But when one party is constantly and perniciously loath to move to the middle (read the Democrats) ... and this rigidity is lauded by many in the media ... this gives rise to the kind of radical mimicry that Grover Norquist represents.  The persistent and consistent take-no-prisoners attitude on the radical left is now being matched on the radical right ... and, in a way, I can't blame them.  And until there is a relenting on the left, I don't believe that there will be any relaxing on the right.  If compromise is always painted as being willing to move left, then, eventually, the body politic revolts and gives rise to the Tea Party and the kind of reaction we just witnessed in uber-liberal Wisconsin ... in its failure to recall its conservative Governor, Scott Walker.

This is why Grover Norquist, the modern-day Barry Goldwater, might indeed be a good thing for our nation in the long run ... even though he is a bit of an anathema currently.