What Must De Gaulle Be Thinking?
My first reaction to the slaughter in Nice, France, was “Not again?!” My second was to wonder if that whirring sound I keep hearing is Charles De Gaulle spinning in his grave. I don’t believe that France’s wartime leader, the man who was so proud of France that he removed it from NATO, insisting that the nation must be solely responsible for its own defense, and who would go on to make France the fourth nation with a nuclear arsenal, would merely stand around like current President Hollande, seemingly content to wring his hands and deliver eulogies every few months.
My first reaction to the slaughter in Nice, France, was “Not again?!” My second was to wonder if that whirring sound I keep hearing is Charles De Gaulle spinning in his grave.
I don’t believe that France’s wartime leader, the man who was so proud of France that he removed it from NATO, insisting that the nation must be solely responsible for its own defense, and who would go on to make France the fourth nation with a nuclear arsenal, would merely stand around like current President Hollande, seemingly content to wring his hands and deliver eulogies every few months.
I would think that at the very least, after all the carnage committed in the name of Islam on French soil, De Gaulle would be demanding that Muslims living in France either convert or pack up and leave. To civil libertarians who would no doubt take offense at such a suggestion, might I remind you that it is not a choice that Islamists give others. Instead, beginning with Mohammad, the choice has always been to convert or die.
I also believe that De Gaulle would announce that the remains of any Muslim found responsible for the murder of a French citizen would be buried, even if it’s merely bits of his exploded carcass, wrapped in a pigskin.
Was anyone really surprised to learn that the creature who drove a truck over men, women and children, who moments before had been watching a fireworks display in honor of Bastille Day, was a 31-year-old Tunisian resident in France named Mohammad Bouhlel?
Although he was known to be a thief with violence on his record, he wasn’t on a watch list. But even if he had been, so what? Being on a watch list doesn’t mean anything. At most, it means that when the creep being watched eventually kills innocent people in the name of Allah, and the authorities are asked if he was being watched can honestly say: “Oui.”
It’s not all that different with Hillary Clinton. Although she was being watched by 320 million people and investigated for over a year by the F.B.I., it didn’t stop her from exposing state secrets to our enemies and then lying about it. It didn’t even preclude her from seeking the nomination and possibly being elected to the highest office in the land.
For all the moral outrage, the findings of the investigation didn’t end with a bang or even a whimper, but with nothing more than a bumper sticker: “Hillary: Too Big to Jail.”
Speaking of low people in high places, I keep wondering what Barack Obama, who, in 2008, admitted that the problem he had with the U.S. Constitution is that it never said anything about the redistribution of wealth, and has since shown his contempt for the document by constantly ignoring the restrictions on his authority, had to say about it in the classroom.
How is it that not a single student who sat taking notes when he lectured at the Chicago Law School has ever come forward to report on what he said at the time? A question that pops to mind is whether he would have failed young Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, if they’d taken his class.
It is nearly as big a mystery as the one about why no woman has ever come forward to cash in by writing a tell-all book about having dated young Barry Sortero in high school, college or law school. Are we really supposed to believe that until Michelle came along when he was approaching 30, he never went out on a date? For my part, I have always wondered why no man has ever come forward.
It was recently disclosed that the hairdresser of France’s President Francois Hollande is paid the equivalent of $10,000-a-month, and that the arrangement began when Hollande assumed office back in 2012. That means that the French taxpayers have been clipped to the tune of nearly half a million dollars by their socialist leader.
Still, what is it with left-wingers and their damn hair? In 2007, John Edwards had to reimburse his presidential campaign $800 for two haircuts. Fourteen years before that, Bill Clinton shut down two runways at LAX for an hour so that his Beverly Hills barber could come aboard and cut his presidential locks. No doubt he wanted to look his best when he returned to the White House and Monica Lewinsky.
As Professor Higgins lamented about women in “My Fair Lady,” it’s tragic that these left-wingers pay so much attention to the outside of their heads and so little to the mess that’s inside.
Someone sent me a one-liner worth sharing: If gun-owners were as violent as the anti-gun crowd claims, doesn’t it stand to reason there wouldn’t be any anti-gunners still hanging around?
The uberliberal justices on the Supreme Court might go “tsk-tsk” over Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s totally inappropriate and highly-partisan comments about Donald Trump, but I think it’s safe to assume that not one of them would file a dissenting opinion.
That, in a nutshell, is what I find so utterly remarkable about the Left — that no matter the issue, be it the Second Amendment, Planned Parenthood, open borders, sanctuary cities, re-settling Middle East Muslims, raising taxes, unlimited welfare, “free” college tuition, ObamaCare, capital punishment, caving to homosexual and transgenders demands or siding with the rabble against the police — they stand shoulder-to-shoulder, robot-like, in submission to their exalted leaders.
I recently had a few short exchanges with a friendly reader. Although we generally agree, he happened to mention that, as a Catholic, he respects Pope Francis, although he often objects to his statements and that, as an American, he respects the office of the presidency.
I let him know that I find the Pope’s socialistic response on every issue to be so reminiscent of Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama, so utterly offensive, that if I were a Catholic, I’d seriously consider converting.
As for the office of the presidency, I think respect must be earned. And not since 1988 have I had much respect — in some cases, none whatever — for the man who happened to be in the Oval Office. Not one of them, if he were standing on tiptoes, could touch the top of George Washington’s bootstrap.
Winning a popularity contest is no big deal. Pope Francis got the job because the cardinals realized that the only two places where the Church wasn’t losing membership were Africa and Latin America. In either place, the odds were they’d wind up electing a Socialist, so they flipped a coin and it came up Latin America.
Being elected president doesn’t confer anything, except that the victor had more money than his or her opponent or simply appealed to a dumber constituency.
Except in terms of numbers, winning a national election isn’t all that different from winning the class presidency in high school. If anything, winning in high school is tougher in a way because back then we voters actually knew the candidates personally and knew whether or not they were the sort of jerks who snapped wet towels in the locker room.
Speaking of elections, I don’t know how many times I will have to state between now and November that if you care the least little bit about Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration, the Supreme Court or the economy, you will have to vote for Donald Trump.
I honestly don’t know what I can legitimately expect of a Trump presidency. The reason, however, that I will be voting for him and urging everyone else to do the same is because I know all too well what to expect of a Clinton presidency.
