Trust me

Airbnb in the early days.
Shorter David Brooks, "The Evolution of Trust", July 1 2014:
Well, it turns out deregulating the economy had some unexpected consequences, like millions of liberal arts graduates and non-graduates too, I imagine, don't have stable living arrangements or steady full-time jobs and have to rent out their apartments and cars and hustle freelance gigs to stay afloat, but that's helped them all to learn to trust one another and enjoy fast pseudo-intimacy, easy-come easy-go fluid relationships, and flexible ad-hoc arrangements. So it's all good! Who needs government?

Why can't we have nice things?

Because James Pethokoukis thinks nice things are so old-fashioned, that's why.
"Women voting? Get out of here with your tired old 1920s liberal prescriptions. How about harems, huh?" AP/Ishtiaq Mehsud, via.
Pethokoukis is a little concerned that we haven't had a 21st-century president yet:
How would a 21st century American president deal with America’s 21st century economic problems? More than a decade in, we really don’t know.
I guess young Bush was too busy being a 19th-century president, sending out the gunboats?
The Bush administration was consumed, by necessity, with war.
Necessity, really? I'm truly sympathetic to the idea that there was a political necessity for some kind of expedition to Afghanistan after 9/11, but not even the worst of the Iraq war hawks would claim the whole thing was necessary (the closest they come is along the lines of "we did the best we could with the intelligence we had" without noting that the intelligence was specially ordered—can we get some extra casus belli on that pizza?). The necessary part was over by December 2001, or would have been, had the Bush administration not taken steps to ensure that it would never end (in particular the refusal to allow the Taliban into the negotiations of their own surrender).

And then they did have time to start up some 21st-century economic problems, wouldn't you say? And deal with them after a fashion?
The Obama administration [was consumed, in invidious contrast], by choice, with preserving the FDR-LBJ welfare state and adding a key missing component: nationalized healthcare.
Because the War on Poverty was really a war of choice, wasn't it? We assaulted that poverty without even giving it a chance to propose a peaceful way out!

I'd just like to pause to
  1. ask Dr. Pethokoukis if the Republicans did indeed mean at the time to not preserve, i.e. destroy, the "FDR-LBJ welfare state", overwhelmingly consisting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Because they spent an awful lot of time denying that, if memory serves;
  2. note that it was Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s that nationalized healthcare: the Obama legislation modestly extended those benefits to a few million more people and provided health security for a few million more by means of not nationalizing it, as Dr. Pethokoukis understands, I believe, very clearly; and
  3. remind the gentle reader that the Obama administration did have some necessity items on its plate, like the 2007 collapse of the US economy adverted to above.
Child labor laws? "Are you kidding? Hey, everybody, 1904 called. They said they want their editorial back!" Via Hum-Coolie.
    Obamanomics has been an expensive effort in economic nostalgia to recreate the supposedly prosperous, egalitarian 1950s. The Obamacrat obsession with bullet trains, the latest in 1960s transportation thinking, is illustrative and telling.
    Obamacrat? Is that a thing? Recreate the 1950s? (Don't recollect they had Medicare then, Edna, do you?). Obsession with bullet trains? Atrios for president!!!

    But really, somebody needs to do something about this new theme of tired old Democrat ideas vs. fresh new Republican ideas.

    In the first place, the age of an idea is not an argument. An idea can be stupid on its face (like Laffer supply-side tax policy) or it can have been tried and failed (like allowing the market to allocate health care), but it can't be bad just because it's old. A lot of ideas have stayed on the Democratic list all these years specifically because they've been tried elsewhere and they work. Bullet trains save carbon and time and they're more fun than driving! To say nothing of air travel. And the same can be said paribus ceteris for paid maternity leave and union representation on corporate boards and dozens or hundreds of others.

    In the second place, how new are those Republican ideas anyway? Pethokoukis is, of course, pimping young Senator Rubio: what's he got? Pethokoukis doesn't even bother to give us a link, but he gives us a quote:
     if we reform our taxes and regulations, we can create millions of higher paying jobs by winning the global competition for talent, investment, and innovation.
    And if we modernize our outdated safety net programs and revolutionize how we acquire and pay for education, millions of people will have the skills they need for the higher paying jobs of the new economy.
    It's the same old garbage of taking our government away and leaving us on our own, meaning leaving our overlords of capital on their own, back to 1928 or 1892, and that's old enough, and stupid enough, and well enough tested, that we shouldn't really need to think about it any more. However many "reform" and "modernizing" and "revolutionary" labels you stick on it.
    "Thou shalt not kill? Love thy neighbor? You know the Bronze Age ended a couple of centuries ago?" Via.

    Sunday morning Friedman trolling



    Shorter Thomas L. Friedman, "Arsonists and Firefighters: Who is Setting the Sectarian Fires in the Middle East?" New York Times, June 20 2014:
    The problem in the Middle East isn't some kind of intrinsic ethnic or religious hostility, ancient hatreds that can never be wiped out, it's bad people starting trouble for their own apparently psychopathic purposes. No, I don't have any mirrors in my house, why do you ask?
    I deposited the following in the comments:

    David Bloom

     New York, NY 
    Not so bad as far as it goes, but as many readers have noted there is an awfully big elephant in the room and it is us. We could argue forever about who out there is good and who out there is bad, but nosce te ipsum! We must always ask whether we are putting out flames or spreading them. Too much of what the US has done in the Middle East, especially since 2001, has made things worse in ways that were entirely predictable and indeed predicted because the policy makers thought they were firefighters and didn't understand their hoses were filled with gasoline instead of water. For one thing, to push the analogy a little harder, firefighters concern themselves with life before property, and get everybody out of the building before they save the building itself. We should be assuring the safety of refugees before we even think about contributing to military action that inevitably endangers civilians. The fact that we have done so little for Syrian and Iraqi and going back to Palestinian refugees convinces the world that we aren't serious about our compassion. Thomas Friedman is himself regarded by many as an egregious arsonist for his support for the Iraq invasion of 2003.

    Exchange

    Tonle Sap, Cambodia. Via.
    At Corey Robin's blog, an important post on an important problem for us in the post-Vietnam more-or-less pacifist more-or-less left, the question of the sense of a moral imperative to "do" something military in the face of mass slaughter and horror, against our hard-won knowledge that we don't want to be violent ourselves, whether from fear of the karma or the understanding that it just doesn't make anything better. Out of embarrassment at an unserious response, I tacked on something I hope is more thoughtful, and reproduce it below:

    1. Ross WolfeJune 28, 2014 at 6:06 pm #
      If it makes you feel any better, I regard Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia as one of the only successful “humanitarian interventions” in history.
      • YastreblyanskyJune 28, 2014 at 6:23 pm #
        Also Tanzania in Uganda 1978. Nobody’s ever really thanked them either.
        • Corey RobinJune 28, 2014 at 7:52 pm #
          Among liberal humanitarian interventionists, Vietnam/Cambodia and Tanzania/Uganda have long functioned as precedent-setting justifications for more general arguments re intervention. It’s an old trope in that literature.
        • yastreblyanskyJune 28, 2014 at 11:17 pm #
          Sorry, I didn’t mean to be flip. The actions certainly do not provide a useful precedent. What they were was more or less justifiable, at least in conventional international-relations terms, in a way no US action is ever likely to be.
          They were “successful”, I imagine, mainly because they were as unlike a US action as imaginable. They weren’t even meant as humanitarian interventions in the first place, but as conventionally legitimate national security actions: DK had been actively waging war against Vietnam from 1975 onwards, Uganda invaded Tanzania first to go after the encamped Ugandan rebel forces there before. There were no coalitions of the willing, Vietnam and Tanzania both acted in complete isolation from ASEAN/China and the OAS respectively. The armies were too poor for shock and awe. Wikipedia says it took Tanzania almost 30 years to recover financially.
          And then, how successful? It took seven or eight years after the war for Uganda to achieve any kind of stability; a repressive government that is always better than the Amin dictatorship no doubt, but hardly satisfactory, and still dealing today with the LRA insurgency. The Vietnamese invasion defeated the Khmers Rouges and stopped the terror, but stabilizing the situation took ASEAN diplomacy and civil war lasting until 1989. Many Cambodians still hate Vietnamese for liberating them from the killing fields, suspecting that it was only because of their wicked hegemonic designs  http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/vietnam-view-cambodia-3 , a suspicion that is not exactly groundless.
          It may be that “we” should just resign ourselves to not being able to “do” anything at all about emergencies like these. We could also be looking for peaceful ways of changing situations like Syria (at least the way it was a couple of years ago, before it was just another front in a generalized Mesopotamia war), like providing for refugees in a big enough way to depopulate the area under the dictatorship’s control: “Suppose they gave a war and everybody left.” Our overlords would say taking care of millions is too expensive, meaning there’s not enough money in it for the MIC cut, but of course it would be a lot cheaper than heavy munitions, air strikes, and operating bases, and we’d be able to sleep at night.

    Cheap shots and bright sparks

    Psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow explaining his support for presidential candidate Newt Gingrich a couple of years ago, in psychiatric terms.
    Via Kilgore:
    “I’m suspect,” Dr. Keith Ablow said Thursday on “Outnumbered” as the US men’s national team faced off against Germany. “I am suspect because, here’s the thing. Why, at a time when there are so many national and international issues of such prominence — I’m a little suspicious of yet another bread-and-circus routine. Let’s roll out the marijuana, pull back the laws, and get people even more crazy about yet another entertainment event.”
    Yes, Dr. Ablow, you've discovered a fairly vast conspiracy here: in March 2003, State Senator Obama, realizing he might have a Benghazi scandal to deal with by the time he got to his second term as president, secretly sent emissaries to FIFA asking the [jump]
    association to stage the 2014 World Cup in South America for the first time since 1978, to make it close enough for Americans to notice it was there, in the hope of distracting them from two-year-old stories from faraway North Africa. I mean, how else could you explain it?

    Timothy Ray Murray.
    So you can have Timothy Ray Murray of Oklahoma, who just lost his Republican primary challenge to House Agriculture chairman Frank Lucas and now claims that Lucas has been dead for three years and is being represented by a body double and should therefore not be regarded as having won the primary (the real Lucas was apparently publicly executed in Kiev, by the International Court of Justice—it was televised but only Murray saw it, presumably with his special TV receiver where he had his root canal), but let's face it, he's a loser (5.7% of the vote).

    My favorite Republican candidate, in contrast, is a winner, Michigan's Jordan D. Haskins, running for the Saginaw seat in the State House of Representatives, who will totally be finished with his parole well over a week before Election Day (11 days before Election Day, to be exact) and has already been out of jail for literally months since his last conviction on his preferred felony, an activity called "cranking", which involves cranking the engine of somebody's vehicle with the spark plug wires pulled out and masturbating to the, um, well, whatever. He was just a kid of 22 then, and now he's 24, and, he says,
    "That isn't even me anymore. I'm not sure what really changed or what happened. I don't know what it is about when you get into your 20s. Your chemistry changes. You get wiser and smarter a little bit. That's what happened to me....
    "I want to be the Republican, the conservative candidate that says, you know, conservatism is for you. Because conservatism, real conservatism, true red-blooded American conservatism is about grit, hard work, loyalty and traditional values. Your family values. The three values that make up my stool of conservatism are faith, family and freedom."
    I'm not making up any "stool" jokes here and I'd appreciate if you all would show similar restraint. (mlive Saginaw, via Mediaite)

    And—Hai Kathryn Jean, it's been so long, wotcher been up to?
    Uh, his housekeeper got an IUD on her insurance card?

    Apropos of Dr. Ablow's bizarre misuse of "suspect", there was a strange but impassioned linguistic controversy over at Booman's the other day as to whether it could be legitimate to use the word "nauseous" to mean "feeling nausea" as well as the historically correct meaning of "inspiring nausea", Booman himself being surprisingly starchy and conservative on the issue, and I speaking for the inevitability of language change. Since this is the rare subject I actually know something about, I can't let it go.

    Boo came up with a bunch of annoying examples of -ous adjectives that could only be used his object-oriented way: "adventurous" (which is wrong, come to think of it, you can have "an adventurous girl" who has adventures alongside "an adventurous day" that provides adventures), "advantageous", "abstentious". (Wut?) The only counterexample I could come up with with "gracious" meaning "conferring grace" (God is gracious) and "manifesting grace" (a gracious lady).

    Anyway here's one more: "Suspicious", the word old Ablow wanted here, is a much better example than any of us came up with of how it can go both ways (feeling suspicion vs. inspiring suspicion in others). There's also "curious" (a curious child, a curious story, the latter I guess chiefly Brit. and presumably historically earlier too).

    Mark Liberman at Language Log ably handles "suspect" (a much less rare usage than I would have imagined) and "nauseous" (without a Booman reference) in a single post.

    Update:

    Comic paranoid Lyle Zapato reports Timothy Ray Murray's solemn promise to the Oklahoma voters:
    Murray makes clear that these are robotic A.I. replacements, not mere actors, and that he wants no part in this:
    I will NEVER use Artificial Intelligence look alike to voice what The Representative’s Office is doing nor own a robot look alike. The World knows the truth, and We must always share the truth.

    The spiritual boom-and-bust cycle

    After the War a Medal and Maybe a Job, antiwar cartoon by John French Sloan, 1914. Digitally restored. Via Wikipedia.
    David Brooks seems to have decided that he's married to us now, and of course it's a bad marriage, that is he's really upset about something but he won't tell us what it is, like, "If you really cared about me you'd know." It seems to have something to do with our never helping out with the democracy spreading:
    When the U.S. became a superpower, Americans felt responsible for creating a global order that would nurture the spread of democracy. But now the nation is tired, distrustful, divided and withdrawing.
    Henry, did you take delivery on that load of democracy we were supposed to bring down to the lower forty?

    Or maybe his feelings were hurt by Mark Lilla in the New Republic, who is a little bit patronizing over the recent democracy-spreading project Brooks was involved in:
    I am beginning to feel some sympathy for those American officials who led the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq ten years ago and immediately began destroying existing political parties, standing armies, and traditional institutions of political consultation and authority. The deepest reason for this colossal blunder was not American hubris or naïveté, though there was plenty of that. It was that they had no way of thinking about alternatives...
    Brooks replies, with some asperity, that thinking about alternatives would have been heretical:
    Lilla’s piece both describes and unfortunately exemplifies the current mood. He argues that the notion of history as a march toward universal democracy is a pipe dream. Arab nations are not going to be democratic anytime soon. The world is an aviary of different systems — autocracy, mercantile despotism — and always will be. Instead of worrying about spreading democracy, we’d be better off trying to make theocracies less beastly.
    Such is life in a spiritual recession. Americans have lost faith in their own gospel. This loss of faith is ruinous from any practical standpoint.
    O ye of little faith! We're supposed to believe in the march to universal democracy not because of any evidence that it exists, but because it's our American religion, not an ideology but as Lilla himself says a "dogma"! It's in the Bible!
    On the other side [from collectivism] was the dream of universal democracy. Human progress was seen as a one-way march toward democratic capitalism. Societies would be held together by shared biblical morality. They would be invigorated by economic competition. They would be guided by a democratic state, where power was in the hands of the masses and dispersed through checks and balances.
    Lolwut? In the hands of the masses and dispersed to whom? And how via checks ("check" in American political theory is a denial of power to some agent, not a check written on your balance in the power bank)?

    But if we're in a spiritual recession, that might suggest we are crashing out of a spiritual bubble, where we were maybe vested too heavily in some over-leveraged democracy-spreading futures that turned out not to be backed by anything. Like from Ronald Reagan's victory over collectivism to George W. Bush's mission accomplished in Mesopotamia. Perhaps we'd be better off now if we'd hedged our portfolios with some of those socialist municipal bonds.

    Personally I don't see democracy quite the way Brooks does, as inextricably tied to dog-eat-dog struggle in a capitalist economy, in opposition to ideals of equality and the dread "rational planning". It's extremely un-Burkean or un-Oakeshottian or immodest to assume the universal validity of Reagan's understanding of democracy for all times and places. I think equality is half of democracy, at least as important as liberty, and possibly more so—there's no necessary limit to equality, but liberty must end, as we are supposed to know, where the other guy's nose begins.

    And in that sense I might be more aligned with Lilla, who sees the problem of our time as an ill-considered, unchecked, dogmatic libertarianism on the right (compromised, of course, with that biblical morality—a commitment to freedom of money, not of life) and some of the self-denominated left (what I would call the dudebros) as well; at least if Lilla would address the equality question, which he never does, as far as Dr. Google can determine from a quick check.

    I was very annoyed at Brooks's quoting from a leftist I'd never heard of, Leon Samson, as having said in the 1930s that
    Americans never went in big for socialism because they already had a creed, which made them happy, gave them work and made history meaningful. “Every concept in socialism has its substitutive counter-concept in Americanism,” Samson wrote, “and that is why the socialist argument falls so fruitlessly on the American ear. ... The American does not want to listen to socialism because he thinks he already has it.”
    He should have gotten this from a 2000 book by Seymour Lipset and Gary Marks, It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States; from the first chapter, of course, which I can get online, but he uses a bit of it that they didn't have. So he must have taken it from some fuller version, of which the best I can find is in a source Brooks couldn't possibly have looked at very carefully or at all, Michael Denning's radical reinterpretation of The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century (1998). Perhaps he found it in a student paper and used it without crediting it by seigneurial privilege.

    He gets his quote's meaning entirely wrong, as you'd expect: Samson wasn't suggesting that the American worker didn't need socialism because Americanism provided him with everything he needed. He was complaining about how the conservative dogma of Americanism misappropriated socialist vocabulary, falsely claiming to have created a classless society already. As Lipset and Marks comment,
    Samson noted that conservatives, Republicans, and businessmen, whom he preferred to quote to illustrate his own observations, adopted language, concepts, and goals for American society which in Europe were voiced only by socialists. Writing in the early 1930s, he pointed out that Herbert Hoover took Europe as a negative model, saying that in America, "we resent class distinction because there can be no rise for the individual through the frozen strata of classes."
    What might be politically exciting at the moment, which seems both to Brooks and Lilla so intellectually fatigued and impoverished, is how more and more Americans are coming to realize the emptiness of those claims and to understand how the ruling class betrayed American ideals to reconstitute themselves as an old-world aristocracy.
    Matt Bors, May 30. The whole strip is here.
    I couldn't find out much about Leon Samson except that he wrote a good deal, was born around 1896 or 1897, and got busted as a Columbia student in anti-draft protests in 1917, alongside Emma Goldman, which is kind of cool.

    Get me rewrite

    Harold Lloyd, in top hat, implements conservative policy ideas on Sammy Brooks with the assistance of Snub Pollard. From "I’m On My Way" (1919), via F*** Yeah Harold Lloyd.

    "The Editors", at National Review:
    For some time now, a number of conservatives — including the editors of this publication — have been calling for Republican politicians to do a better job of explaining how implementing conservative ideas will make life better for most Americans, countering the widespread impression that their agenda offers benefits only for the rich.
    Hey, I was just wondering about that myself. "How," I asked myself, "will conservative ideas like privatizing social services, making the tax regime more regressive, and punishing sexual and reproductive behavior of which the US Roman Catholic bishops' conference disapproves make life better for most Americans? Why don't Republican politicians explain this better?"

    Senator Marco Rubio has made a habit of making the case that conservative reforms will indeed work for everyone. In a speech Wednesday at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington, sponsored by the YG Network, he... highlighted a single mother struggling with the cost of living, students burdened with higher-ed debt and no worthwhile degree to show for it, and a family held back by the cost of health care.
    Now you're talking, conservatives. What are your policies going to do for these folks?
    Besides a constant commitment to growth, Rubio has a long list of legislative ideas that he has laid out in other speeches: Modernize Medicare and Social Security; open up the accreditation process to increase choices for higher education; hold colleges accountable for their results; expand the child tax credit to make raising children more affordable; and more.
    So you're going to take care of that single mother by cutting taxes she doesn't pay, cheapen the cost of family health care by making seniors pay more for privatized plans on a lower fixed income, and make that student's degree a worthwhile one by making it easier for more for-profit colleges to get phony accreditation? Not to mention, since you didn't mention them, preventing them all from getting health insurance by dumping the Affordable Care Act and favoring crowd-sourced student loans garnishing your wages and the traditional bank loans at interest rates from over 6% to around 18% over federal loans at 4 or 5% because FREEDOM. Thanks, Marco, that was very clarifying.

    Oh, and he opposes marijuana liberalization though he seems unsure whether he ever tried it or not, one of a few sure signs that he may have inhaled. Via Democratic Underground.

    Cheap shot: Michael Oakeshott

    "Theoretically, darling, I could never be unfaithful to you, of course, but you see I got stuck in one of those mental fogs of practical experience, and you know how that always ends up..." Via.

    According to Jesse Norman (not the great soprano, spelled "Jessye", but the male and I assume Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire) writing in the New Statesman, Michael Oakeshott, guide to political modesty and sweet, cozy tradition, beau idéal of our conservative "public intellectuals" like Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks,
    was married three times and had an extensive but often unsuccessful and rackety love life. A man of enormous charm, brilliant conversation and few pretensions, he admired and respected many women, yet had periods in which he behaved with great cruelty to those who loved and depended on him....
    Oakeshott rejected philosophy as a guide to human conduct and tried at times to compartmentalise the two sides of his own character, the Apollonian and the Dionysian, but he never disavowed them. His ideal was always that of the self-chosen life, the life lived in the full expression of one’s individuality. About that there could be no compromise, whatever the consequences – for him or others.
    He "rejected philosophy as a guide to human conduct"! The Tory majesty of that offhandedness! And the "self-chosen life" regardless of the consequences to others, including obviously their ability to choose their own lives! Because I do the choosing, born to it, and you just trouble the waters with your ineffectual, low-class struggling. Isn't it kind of what conservatism is all about, profoundly, seen at the domestic level?

    I've trying to place this uncredited YouTube of Mahler's Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen (Rückert Lieder no. 5) without success, but I think it must be from a radio broadcast with Seiji Ozawa and the Boston Symphony, Tanglewood 1978, mentioned by this person. Bet Oakeshott would have hated it. 

    Return of the Master

    Guess I should spend a little more time reading the comics.

    Like a lot of folks, my time with the funny papers begins--and ends--with Dilbert.  Simply stated, Scott Adams is the best comic strip artist and writer of his generation; if you can't relate to Dilbert, Wally, Dogbert, the Pointy-Haired Boss and the rest of the gang, you've never worked in a cubicle, or been part of some soul-stealing corporation or government bureaucracy.

    But before Scott Adams, there was Bill Watterson and "Calvin and Hobbes."  The adventures of six-year-old Calvin and his imaginary tiger friend, Hobbes, were appointment reading for millions of fans around the world, beginning in the mid-1980s.  Almost thirty years later, most can recall a memorable strip (or strips); Calvin as Spaceman Spiff; battles with his rival, Susie Derkins, the long, boring hours in the classroom with his teacher, Miss Wormwood, or just the give-and-take with Hobbes.  Watterson had a genuine gift for poking fun at almost everyone--and everything--as illustrated by one of our favorite installments:


    The gags were clever, the artwork was often amazing, and effort was even more impressive when you consider that Watterson did everything himself.  No writers to help with the jokes; no art assistants to help with the drawing or inking. Bill Watterson remarked that "he put everything he had" into the strip, and no one could dispute that claim.

    Watterson was also unique among comic strip artists, refusing licensing deals for his characters, a decision that cost him tens of millions of dollars, though various collections of Calvin and Hobbes have sold extremely well.  For fans of the strip, those volumes are all we've had for the past 19 years; Watterson retired the strip at the height of its popularity in 1995.  Since then, he has focused on painting and music, declining all requests for interviews and new projects involving his characters. Legend has it that Watterson refused a call from Steven Spielberg.

    As for new strips, that appeared to be an impossibility.  When Calvin and Hobbes shoved off on that last toboggan run in 1995, Watterson signaledhat he was moving on as well.

    But in recent weeks, there have been a couple of unexpected events.  First, the reclusive Mr. Watterson contributed poster art (and an interview) for "Stripped," a new documentary exploring the migration of comics from print to on-line.  And this past week, readers of Pearls Before Swine got a real treat.  Stephan Pastis, the creator of the strip, supposed "surrendered" the art portion of his strip to a precocious second-grader named Lib (that's almost "Bill" spelled backwards, as he observed).
    Pastis, a former attorney, frequently makes fun of his artistic skills, so Lib's claims that she could do a better job was a riff on a long-running gag.

    The substitute artist bit was Watterson's idea, and predictably, Lib/Bill executed her portions of the strip in the unmistakable style of "Calvin and Hobbes."  You can see the strips here, here and here.

    Could this foretell a return by Watterson?  That's probably too much to hope for, but it was nice to catch a glimpse of the master.        

    Saving Kurdistan













    A convoy of ISIS fighters rolls toward the conquest of another Iraqi city.  As government security forces dissolve, the Kurdish Peshmerga may be the only military forces capable of defeating the terrorists.   


    Describing the current ground situation in Iraq as "grim" is tantamount to calling the Titanic disaster a minor boating mishap.  Fresh from their recent victories in western Iraq--and buttressed by thousands of fighters who poured across the border from Syria--the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has conquered wide swaths of Iraqi territory in only a matter of days.  Mosul, the nation's second-largest city, fell yesterday, prompting thousands to flee, including many of the Iraqi security forces assigned to protect the area.

    According to witnesses, U.S.-trained (and equipped) Iraqi soldiers and police offered no resistance in many cases; they simply dropped their weapons--or handed them to the terrorists--and ran.  Never mind that they far out-numbered the terrorists and were better armed.  In most cases, the conquest only required a call from gunmen to tribal leaders advising security forces to lay down their arms and surrender.  In the few areas where police and troops put up a fight, there were reports of mass beheadings.

    Since taking Mosul, ISIS formations have captured Tikrit (the citadel of Saddam Hussein's regime) and portions of Baiji, a major oil refining center and home to a powerplant that supplies Baghdad.  Looking at a map of the recently-taken areas, it's abundantly clear that the terrorists next objective will be the Iraqi capital.

    As the security forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continue to crumble, there is concern that no group in Iraq is capable of stopping the terrorists.  And it's hard to disagree; most of Shia-dominated police and military formations have melted away in the face of attacks by Sunni terrorists.  There are some elite units in Baghdad that may put up a fight, but they may be too few in number to stop the ISIS onslaught.  Indeed, press reporting from Baghdad indicates that Mr. Maliki has suggested passing out weapons to civilians--anyone--willing to take on the terrorists.  Sources told The New York Times that the Iraqi Prime Minister asked for U.S. airstrikes against the advancing ISIS formations, but that request was rebuffed.

    At this juncture, the only force believed capable of defeating the terrorists are the Peshmerga, which defend the semi-autonomous Kurdish homeland along Iraq's northern border.  Peshmerga units have intervened in the past to help the Iraqi government fight insurgents, but with the recent spat between Baghdad and Erbil, the Kurds may be less willing to help al-Maliki in a crisis they largely blame on the Prime Minister.

    But the Kurds also recognize the danger posed by the ISIS and have been working with the few, remaining "moderate" elements in Syria's civil war to blunt the terrorist surge.  They have also stepped up security along the border of their region in northern Iraq, turning away refugees from Mosul and other locations overrun by the ISIS, fearing that militants will infiltrate their territory.  Kurdish officials also claim they could have defeated the terrorists in Mosul, if the Maliki government had requested their assistance--and if the Iraqi leader had made a greater effort to resolve disputes with the Kurds.

    Which brings us to the salient point: the Peshmerga fought alongside U.S. forces in Iraq, and established themselves as a very competent military force (they claim that not a single American soldier died in territory defended by the Kurds) and this time around, they may be the only thing that can save Iraq from a complete collapse and takeover by the terrorists.  But given long-standing animosity between the Kurds and the Arab majority, it's unclear if Baghdad will give the Peshmerga the authority to do the job; additionally, the Kurds would face the challenge of deploying significant number of troops to other areas (read: Baghdad) while defending their home territory.  The Peshmerga would also lack the air cover and ISR support they enjoyed while U.S. troops were in Iraq.

    Put more succinctly, it may be too late to stop an ISIS takeover of the capital.  What after that?  Iran may occupy southern Iraq, gaining territory--and the Shia population--it has long sought; the terrorists will control most of what's left, with the exception of Kurdistan in the north.  That's why Washington needs a Kurdish policy, and quickly.  Writing at Foreign Policy, John Hannah articulated the requirement very well, in an article published two years ago (emphasis ours).  A brief excerpt:

    Say what you will about the American project in Iraq, its application in Kurdistan was well down the path toward success. As happened in Germany, Japan and South Korea after World War II, a few decades of intense American engagement had begun working wonders for the Kurds. Excellent security -- indeed, not a single U.S. combat death in areas under Kurdish control. A booming economy with growing levels of foreign investment. And an emerging democracy that, while far from perfect, has seen real opposition parties emerge, as well as a burgeoning civil society and media. Yes, corruption, lack of accountability, and uneven development remain serious problems. But certainly no worse than, say, South Korea circa the 1970s, at a similar point in that country's experience under America's wing.  
      
    Properly nourished, Iraqi Kurdistan has all the makings of a U.S. strategic asset. Iraq's Arabs may have been profoundly ambivalent about a continued role for American troops. But not the Kurds, whose leaders loudly proclaimed their desire for a permanent U.S. presence, and whose population of some 5 million is overwhelmingly pro-American. Sharing borders with Iran and Syria, Kurdistan could play a vital role in U.S. strategy to combat the serious threats now emanating from those anti-American regimes. Kurdish security and intelligence forces are competent and battle-hardened, and after years of cooperation have built up excellent working relations with their U.S. counterparts, including in fighting Al Qaeda. And sitting atop 40-50 billion barrels of oil, Kurdistan is poised to become one of the world's largest petroleum producers, a major contributor to global energy security.  

    Confident in its U.S. backing, Kurdistan could serve as both engine and anchor for the rest of Iraq's democratic development. But America's precipitous retreat has left behind a dangerous vacuum, a potential breeding ground for destructive acts of self-help that could easily spiral out of control That vacuum urgently needs to be filled by a concerted American strategy to define a new, "special" relationship with Iraq's Kurds.

    At this juncture, it's not hard to imagine Kurdistan as one of our few, reliable allies in a very dangerous part of the world.  But Washington has always been reluctant to create such a relationship, for fear of complicating relations with Turkey (our erstwhile NATO ally); Iraq's Arab majority, or even countries like Iran and Syria.  

    And the Kurds are not without their faults; in a 2008 article, Michael Rubin did an excellent job detailing problems with Kurdish leadership, to include corruption, cronyism, and even past cooperation with tyrants like Saddam Hussein.  But in a more recent Wall Street Journal article (published four months ago), Mr. Rubin identified the Kurds as "best bet," both in Iraq and Syria.    

    Or perhaps we should say, our only bet.  The American experiment is apparently finished, thanks to the Obama Administration's unwillingness to maintain a U.S. military presence, and the corruption and incompetence of Mr. al-Maliki and his security forces.  But a secure and prosperous Kurdistan is worthy of our support and protection.  It is the one, shining success story of our long involvement in Iraq.  But, as the ISIS advances on Baghdad, the Kurds must rightly worry: what will Washington do when the terrorists (inevitably) come after them?  
    ***
    ADDENDUM:  Similar thoughts from former Ambassador Peter Galbraith, writing in Politico magazine; he observes that one long-standing barrier to a Kurdish state in northern Iraq has seemingly been removed:

    Ten years ago, the United States and Turkey opposed Kurdistan exercising even a fraction of the autonomy it has today. Bush administration plans for postwar Iraq (to the extent that there was any planning at all) envisioned Iraq as a centralized federal state of 18 governorates—where there would be Kurdish majority provinces but no Kurdistan government. Turkey had long opposed Kurdistan’s autonomy for fear of the example it might set for Turkey’s 15 million Kurds.

    Today, Kurdistan and Turkey are the closest of allies. Turkey is Kurdistan’s most important trading partner and Turkish companies are the largest investors in Kurdistan. Turkish intelligence and military officials consult regularly with their Kurdish counterparts. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a close personal relationship with KRG President Massoud Barzani and a poisonous one with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In advance of Turkish elections, Erdogan and Barzani jointly addressed a large public rally in Diyabakir, the largest city in Turkey’s Kurdish southeast and Kurdistan is playing a constructive role in support of Erdogan’s effort to make peace with Turkish Kurdish rebels.

    Earlier this week, a spokesman for Turkey's ruling party said Ankara would support the Kurds bid for self-rule, preferring an independent, secular, secure (and oil-rich) Kurdistan to the chaos that is The Rest of Iraq.  It should be noted that Mr. Galbraith is a long-time adviser to the Kurdish Regional Government and financial interests in the region.  But he's absolutely spot-on in regard to Kurdistan, and the role in must play in future U.S. relations in the Middle East.     

    Setting the Stage for Another Snowden

    It happens after every spy scandal, or inadvertent disclosure of classified material.  Congress passes a new law aimed at fixing the breach, the bureaucracy implements it, and....nothing really changes. 

    The latest example of this trend can be found in the pages of Government Executive (h/t: Chief Buddy).  One year after Edward Snowden leaked some of our intelligence "crown jewels" to the media--and his new friends in Beijing and Moscow--we discover that the process of awarding security clearances is as screwed up as ever:

    "The three main companies performing employee security clearance checks for the Office of Personnel Management need to improve their case reviews and training to curb the number of investigations being closed prematurely, a watchdog said on Thursday.

    The largest contractor, USIS, along with CACI and KSG, allow too many background check files to be submitted without review due to poor controls and staff training, according to a final audit dated June 4 by OPM’s Assistant Inspector General for Audits Michael Esser.

    One contractor completed 15,152 background investigation reviews in one month, the bulk within minutes of each other on different days, the IG said. At least 17 investigation reports were not reviewed by the contractor in charge before being sent to OPM."

    You don't need to be a Defense Security Service agent, or an investigator at OPM to see what's going on here.  The three contracting firms, under pressure to reduce backlogs of pending clearance investigations (for new personnel) and periodic updates (for those who already have clearances) is simply rubber-stamping background investigations, with little regard for what was discovered during that process.  When you're "completing" over 15,000 background investigation reviews in a few minutes, it's clear that contractors are pencil-whipping a lot of candidates through the system. 

    If you've ever held a clearance, you know the background investigation is the most critical part of the vetting process.  After the applicant (or current holder) completes an exhaustive survey, investigators are supposed to examine all elements of the individual's life for at least the 10 previous years--and longer, if necessary.  All aspects of their existence are open to query, including personal associations, family relations, finances, education, travel and military service, just to name a few.  Questions developed by the questionnaire or through the background investigation are supposed to receive additional scrutiny, and if deemed serious enough, they may prevent the individual from getting a clearance, or retaining one that was previously granted. 

    But that won't happen when you're closing thousands of investigations in only a few days, with little regard for required reviews and quality control checks.  According to the Washington Post, more than one million Americans have either a collateral (Secret) Top Secret or TS/SCI clearance, and with expected retirements in certain areas of the defense and intelligence communities, as many as 300,000 new applicants are awaiting initial adjudication, on top of current employees--and military personnel--who need to have their clearances renewed. 

    Private contractors were supposed to ease this logjam, adding more investigators to the process and completing background checks more rapidly.  But some of their work has been shoddy, to say the least.  USIS, the largest of the clearance contractors, is being sued in federal court for fraud, accused of submitting more than 600,000 faulty or poorly-reviewed background checks over a four-year period.  In case you're wondering, USIS is the same firm that conducted background investigations on Snowden and Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis. 

    Can this mess be fixed?  Congress is offering even more legislation, but we think there's a better approach.  First, end the privatization process.  Take clearance investigations away from OPM (which has demonstrated it can't handle the job) and give it back to DoD.  Expand the Defense Security Service and put them back in charge of clearance investigations.  The process was more efficient when DSS's predecessor (the Defense Investigative Service) was in charge, and the same level of professionalism and competence can be regained with the agency in charge. 

    It's a rare day when this blog calls for expansion of the federal bureaucracy.  But in this case, we believe, creating cadre of competent investigators (based on the old DIS model) would eliminate many of the problems being experienced through privatization scheme.  And one thing: it's time to end the "hurry up and get it done" approach to clearance adjudication.  Not long ago, it took an average of  six months to a year to clear someone for Secret material, and 18-24 months to grant a TS/SCI clearance.  With more Snowdens lurking out there, it's better to carefully examine someone's background, associations and beliefs before granting the clearance, instead of simply rubber-stamping a massive stack of background investigations to meet an arbitrary deadline. 
    ***
    ADDENDUM:  If all this isn't bad enough, there is at least one giant loophole in the clearance investigation process that remains open: social media.  Edward Snowden's on-line profile included frequent rants about privacy and intrusive government, but investigators never checked his presence on Facebook, Twitter and other social media forums.  The Washington Times reported earlier this year that investigators are still officially barred from looking at the social media profile of a clearance holder or applicant.  The Obama Administration has stated it will test social media (as a part of investigation process) in the near future.       

    Fighting Back--the Right Way

    Admittedly, we don't visit Wal-Mart's corporate blog very often.  But maybe we should; there's a recently-posted item that suggests the retailing giant may be taking a new approach with some of its critics and reminding us that "turning the corporate cheek" isn't always the best policy.

    The item we reference is Wal-Mart's response to a recent op-ed in The New York Times by Timothy Egan.  As you might expect, Mr. Egan's column on Wal-Mart is a litany of the usual complaints about the company; workers earn starvation wages while senior executives rake in the big bucks; profits are excessive (and the Walton family is too rich), while rank-and-file associates have to rely on welfare to make ends meet.

    Instead of ignoring the piece--or issuing some bland news release--Wal-Mart decided to do something a little different.  He critiqued Egan's piece much like an editor--or English instructor--pointing out factual errors, flawed sourcing and obvious distortions, all highlighted in red.

    The "fact check" was the work of David Tovar, the company's vice-president for corporate communications.  "Tim--thanks for sharing your first draft," Tovar scrawls across the top of his review. "Below are a few thoughts to ensure something inaccurate doesn't get published.  Hope this helps."

    For his clever takedown of the Grey Lady, we'd say Mr. Tovar deserves a bonus or a raise, giving Egan more fodder for a future column.  But we also hope that David Tovar's colleagues in the corporate communications and public relations business are paying attention.  Despite that overwhelming urge to ignore critics, or be "helpful" by gently pointing out the company's side of the story, there are occasions when media snarks and critics deserve a little slap across the face.  And, if you can do it with a little style and flair (like Mr. Tovar), so much the better.

    Clearly, Mr. Egan's column was an opinion piece, but it's equally obvious that he long ago abandoned any notion of fairness or objectivity towards Wal-Mart.  Indeed, we've always marveled that Sam Walton's big box chain has become the epitome of corporate exploitation and greed while competitors (helloooo....Target) get off scot-free.  Maybe it's because most of the political donations by Wal-Mart execs have gone to Republicans (or so we're told), while much of Target's political money finds its way to Democrats.  If Egan made a trip to Target, he probably find many of the same problems that are supposedly rampant at Wal-Mart.  But in the alternative universe of The New York Times editorial section, there is room for just one evil retailer, and that honor is reserved for the company in Bentonville, Arkansas.

    One final thought: had we been in Mr. Tovar's position, there would be a little addendum to our critique, something along the lines of "Hey Tim: at least we have a business model that works."  At last report, Wal-Mart was both the largest employer and tax payer in America, and its economic muscle to force lower prices amounts to a 6.5% boost in household income for the nation's poorest families.   And by the way, that statistic comes from the liberal economist Jason Furman, appointed last year as Chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.  Hardly a member of the Vast Right Wing conspiracy.

    As for The New York Times Company, not long ago it was begging Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim for a loan.  While digital circulations are on the upswing, the company has been bleeding red ink for years, thanks to such savvy moves as buying the Boston Globe for a cool $1 billion in the early 90s, then unloading it last year, at a fire-sale price of only $70 million.    
    Cartoon used in a prior post but appropriate here as well!
    Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a partial list:
    ·        First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner. 

    ·        First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    ·        First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. 

    ·        First President to violate the War Powers Act. 

    ·        First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . 

    ·        First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    ·        First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

    ·        First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    ·        First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    ·        First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    ·        First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    ·        First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. 

    ·        First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    ·        First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation. 

    ·        First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    ·        First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. 

    ·        First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. 

    ·        First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory. 

    ·        First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). 

    ·        First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. 
    ·        First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal). 

    ·        First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. 

    ·        First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. 

    ·        First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. 

    ·        First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    ·        First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records. 

    ·        First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    ·        First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

    ·        First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date-nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    ·        First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    ·        First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    ·        First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    ·        First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    ·        First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ). 

    ·        First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    ·        Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.  (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)
    How is this hope and change' working out for you?
    It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!!!!  

    What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanche. It absolutely boggles my mind.

    Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#iyYlG6cA12chhgSx.99
    - See more at: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#sthash.58IWQVO9.dpuf
    Cartoon used in a prior post but appropriate here as well!
    Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a partial list:
    ·        First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner. 

    ·        First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    ·        First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. 

    ·        First President to violate the War Powers Act. 

    ·        First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . 

    ·        First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    ·        First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

    ·        First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    ·        First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    ·        First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    ·        First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    ·        First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. 

    ·        First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    ·        First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation. 

    ·        First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    ·        First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. 

    ·        First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. 

    ·        First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory. 

    ·        First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). 

    ·        First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. 
    ·        First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal). 

    ·        First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. 

    ·        First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. 

    ·        First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. 

    ·        First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    ·        First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records. 

    ·        First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    ·        First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

    ·        First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date-nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    ·        First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    ·        First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    ·        First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    ·        First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    ·        First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ). 

    ·        First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    ·        Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.  (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)
    How is this hope and change' working out for you?
    It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!!!!  

    What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanche. It absolutely boggles my mind.

    Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#iyYlG6cA12chhgSx.99
    - See more at: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#sthash.58IWQVO9.dpuf
    Cartoon used in a prior post but appropriate here as well!
    Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a partial list:
    ·        First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner. 

    ·        First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    ·        First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. 

    ·        First President to violate the War Powers Act. 

    ·        First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . 

    ·        First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    ·        First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

    ·        First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    ·        First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    ·        First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    ·        First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    ·        First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. 

    ·        First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    ·        First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation. 

    ·        First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    ·        First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. 

    ·        First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. 

    ·        First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory. 

    ·        First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). 

    ·        First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. 
    ·        First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal). 

    ·        First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. 

    ·        First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. 

    ·        First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. 

    ·        First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    ·        First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records. 

    ·        First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    ·        First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

    ·        First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date-nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    ·        First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    ·        First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    ·        First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    ·        First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    ·        First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ). 

    ·        First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    ·        Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.  (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)
    How is this hope and change' working out for you?
    It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!!!!  

    What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanche. It absolutely boggles my mind.

    And we are all "RACISTS"  for enumerating  his  INCOMPETENCE!!

    Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#iyYlG6cA12chhgSx.99
    - See more at: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#sthash.58IWQVO9.dpuf
    Cartoon used in a prior post but appropriate here as well!
    Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a partial list:
    ·        First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner. 

    ·        First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    ·        First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. 

    ·        First President to violate the War Powers Act. 

    ·        First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . 

    ·        First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    ·        First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

    ·        First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    ·        First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    ·        First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    ·        First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    ·        First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. 

    ·        First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    ·        First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation. 

    ·        First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    ·        First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. 

    ·        First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. 

    ·        First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory. 

    ·        First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). 

    ·        First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. 
    ·        First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal). 

    ·        First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. 

    ·        First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. 

    ·        First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. 

    ·        First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    ·        First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records. 

    ·        First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    ·        First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

    ·        First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date-nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    ·        First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    ·        First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    ·        First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    ·        First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    ·        First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ). 

    ·        First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    ·        Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.  (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)
    How is this hope and change' working out for you?
    It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!!!!  

    What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanche. It absolutely boggles my mind.

    And we are all "RACISTS"  for enumerating  his  INCOMPETENCE!!

    Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#iyYlG6cA12chhgSx.99
    - See more at: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#sthash.58IWQVO9.dpuf
    Cartoon used in a prior post but appropriate here as well!
    Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a partial list:
    ·        First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner. 

    ·        First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

    ·        First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. 

    ·        First President to violate the War Powers Act. 

    ·        First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . 

    ·        First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    ·        First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

    ·        First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    ·        First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    ·        First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

    ·        First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    ·        First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. 

    ·        First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

    ·        First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation. 

    ·        First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    ·        First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. 

    ·        First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. 

    ·        First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory. 

    ·        First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). 

    ·        First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. 
    ·        First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal). 

    ·        First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. 

    ·        First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. 

    ·        First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. 

    ·        First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
    ·        First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records. 

    ·        First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    ·        First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

    ·        First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date-nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    ·        First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    ·        First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    ·        First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
    ·        First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    ·        First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ). 

    ·        First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    ·        Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.  (Thank God he didn't get away with THIS one.)
    How is this hope and change' working out for you?
    It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!!!!  

    What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanche. It absolutely boggles my mind.

    And we are all "RACISTS"  for enumerating  his  INCOMPETENCE!!

    Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#iyYlG6cA12chhgSx.99
    - See more at: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/#sthash.58IWQVO9.dpuf
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...