Columnist.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has broken just about every political rule and precedent this election cycle, so what difference would it make if he broke one more? If Trump wants to gain credibility with voters who are either wary of or vehemently opposed to him becoming president, he should borrow from the British system and name a shadow cabinet.
"It isn't hard to understand the attraction of socialism in the U.S. No one has had to live under it."
Given its track record, one wonders why socialism is gaining in popularity in the U.S. and what appeal it has to a generation that, apparently, knows little about it. A recent survey from Harvard University has found that 51 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent support the economic system that has allowed even the poorest American to live better and to have more opportunity for advancement than most of the rest of the world. Thirty-three percent of those surveyed support socialism.
Dr. Frankenstein created the monster that bore his name and if Dr. Jekyll had not conducted those experiments in his laboratory, Mr. Hyde would never have emerged to terrorize London. In literature, we know whom to blame for the monsters, but who is to blame for the rise of Donald Trump? Is he the "monster" the elites say he is? I am no fan of Trump and wish there were better candidates for president from both parties, but the major fault for his rise as the "presumptive nominee" of the Republican Party in 2016 can be laid at the feet of the very elites who are so vociferous in their condemnation of him.
Religion and politics are again at the forefront of this year's presidential race. Yet, in this campaign, self-described evangelicals don't seem as concerned as they once were about a candidate's personal faith. Otherwise, more of them might support the openly Christian candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, rather than Donald Trump, whose familiarity with the Bible, not to mention the lifestyle it recommends, places him among biblical illiterates.
Thanks to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.) 200,000 convicted felons in the state of Virginia may now register to vote. Writes The Washington Post, "The change applies to all felons who have completed their sentences and been released from supervised probation or parole. The Democratic governor's decision particularly affects black residents of Virginia: 1 in 4 African Americans in the state has been permanently banned from voting because of laws restricting the rights of those with convictions."
They called it the Celtic Tiger, a period of prosperity between 1995 and 2008, during which everything in Ireland appeared to come up shamrocks. According to Wikipedia, between 1995 and 2000, the long-dormant Irish economy took off, expanding by a startling 9.4 percent. There was a building boom; roads were widened to accommodate more traffic; newly confident people started buying things they had long denied themselves, including bigger and nicer houses, which, it turns out, many could not afford.
The Mafia, in its heyday, ran lucrative protection rackets. Pay them and your business would be kept safe from "unforeseen" threats. Don't pay them and your business might go up in smoke with you inside. Today, things are more sophisticated. The New York Times reports that Saudi Arabia, playing the role of Mafia extortionist, has threatened to "...sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
As the tax deadline approaches it's once again time to consider how the federal government wastes our money. Remember the spending caps that were supposed to keep Congress from overspending? Gone with the wind. How about the promise Republicans made about no more earmarks on spending bills? It disappeared almost as fast as a gold coin in a magician's hands. Of course, they are not calling these new and improved earmarks earmarks. They call them something else, so they can claim they are keeping their promise. Is it any wonder this political season is characterized by voter anger?
It's called Frontex and, according to its website, the agency "promotes, coordinates and develops European border management in line with the (European Union) fundamental rights charter applying the concept of Integrated Border Management." Except that it isn't. As reported by the UK Daily Mail, "Mass immigration is allowing terrorists to sneak into the EU." In a devastating report, the agency hired by the EU to keep member countries safe from jihadists has admitted what should have been obvious to anyone paying attention and taking seriously their threats.
"Who will rescue us from this moral quagmire? It won't be anyone running for president."
In a recent interview for the BBC2 series âInside Obamaâs White House," President Obama sounded somewhat wistful as he spoke to an interviewer about how he has tried to use his voice "to move things toward a more ethical and moral outcome." The question of morals and ethics has been debated since the dawn of humanity. It won't be settled by the shifting winds of politics, because not everyone can agree on what is moral and what is not. Dictionary.com defines morality: "Conformity to the rules of right conduct."
Occasionally I am asked if I ever considered running for political office. My response: "I did once, but I took two aspirin, lay down for a while and the feeling went away." Besides not wanting to accept a pay cut, why would I want to put myself through the agony of exposing the smallest misdeed and bad decision to political opponents and a ravenous media who could turn my public image into something no family member would recognize? Not to mention the amount of money I would have to raise that would go up exponentially the higher the office sought. With each donated dollar a little piece of my soul, character and integrity must ultimately be exchanged. Why else do people donate if they don't expect something in return? Might that something somehow dilute whatever virtues I am perceived to possess?
Neither political party can lay claim to purity when it comes to hypocrisy, but Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as others in her party, has taken hypocrisy to new depths. While campaigning in Wisconsin before next week's presidential primary, Clinton said that as president she would have a litmus test for any Supreme Court nominee. "I would not appoint someone who didn't think Roe v. Wade is settled law," she declared. Her nominee(s) would also have to show that they support overturning the Citizens United decision that established free speech rights for interest groups.
Are the increasing incidents of terrorist attacks in Europe the "new normal"? Must Europeans and Americans become resigned to the inevitability of regular jihadist assaults? Must we endure more meaningless bromides about not "overreacting" because we might offend the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, playing into the hands of terrorists who promote the notion that the "Christian" West is at war with Islam?
At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama traveled to Cairo, Europe and the United Nations to "apologize" for past American actions and attitudes, which he claimed helped create divisions between countries. At a town hall meeting before a mix of French and German citizens in Strasbourg, France on April 3, 2009, the president said the United States was partially to blame for increased tensions with Europe following the Iraq war: "there have been times where America (has) shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe.
Whenever I hear the words "centrist" or "moderate," especially when they come from The New York Times and The Washington Post, the words "liberal" and "cover-up" immediately come to mind. Since President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, a confirmed conservative, the words "centrist" and "moderate" have been repeated ad nauseam. They were repeated so often, in fact, that they resembled the sound of a skipping needle across a vinyl LP with dust in its grooves.
It seems like only yesterday — and in diplomatic terms it was — that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress were assuring us the nuclear deal with Iran was something to celebrate, as one might laud the winning of a Nobel Peace Prize. More sober thinkers, fearing Tehran would never comply with the agreement, envisioned Iran gaining access to $100 billion in frozen assets and using it to underwrite terrorism. When Iran's radical leaders believe they get their marching orders directly from Allah, there is no way they would violate those instructions, which include the eradication of Israel and the defeat of the "Great Satan," which would be America.
Why does it take death to bring us together? Why not life? Watching Nancy Reagan's funeral on television, the front-row tableau was a picture of unity, in form, if not in substance. There was Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat, Michelle Obama (D), former President George Bush (R), Laura Bush (R), Hillary Clinton (D), Rosalyn Carter (D) and Caroline Kennedy (D). Democrats and Republicans sat together in common purpose, if not on common ground.
In his continuing effort to pit races and classes against each other, Democratic presidential candidate and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has said that if you are white, "you don't know what it's like to be poor." He should drive some of the roads I've driven in West Virginia, among other places. Some of the homes of the white poor look like throwbacks from an earlier time. Sanders attempted to "clarify" his comment (a political synonym for walking it back when it didn't play well) during a town hall meeting Monday night in Detroit. Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked him about his remark and Sanders replied, "I know about white poverty. There is no candidate in this race who has talked more about poverty than I have."
