Krauthammer Washington Post column on "The Donald"

Krauthammer is a very, very smart man. Besides reading his April 23,'11 Washington Post column, I also saw his interview on TV when he waxed Trump. But, I am not interested in evaluating people based on their personalities. Too much of that already; in fact that is pretty much all we get from the media coverage. It would be refreshing if we could receive a truthful debate on issues.

For example, if Obama wants to raise the tax rate on the wealthy to 39.5% from the current 35%, how much more will it mean in revenue? Will it cover the $1.6 trillion deficit? Or is this just another shot at promoting class warfare? Fact is, if the feds took all of the income from the “wealthy” it would not cover the deficit. I am sick of reading in newspapers or seeing on TV this partisan crap. Who was it that said “the truth will set you free?" I believe it was an extremely wise man named Jesus.

Personally, I like larger than life people. Bill Clinton is one of my favorites. The larger than life tend to be mavericks, some of whom I owe my career, like John Kluge, Barry Diller, Ted Turner, Roger King, etc. I believe that mavericks like Trump provide the creativity on this Earth; and because of that I would never discourage them from reaching or dreaming. I believe an idea is good until it doesn’t work.

As for Trump running for president, or having the “qualifications”, seems to me that we have elected “qualified” people who have been shamed out of office as high as the presidency and Congress right down to our city council members. Those “qualified” members of the federal government have decided it is perfectly OK to amass a $14trillion debt and operate annually with $1.6trillion deficits. Could the Donald do any worse? Zippy the Monkey could have made decisions by throwing darts at a list of decision choices and not have done any worse than the bozos currently in office; and that goes for both parties. The politics are embarrassing.

I’d like a Constitutional amendment to state that if the fed government does not prepare a budget and have it signed by the Pres by the first day of the fiscal year for which it was drawn, then all of those in office, including Members of the Congress and Pres forfeit their right to run for re-election.

Trump is just a maverick who is apparently shameless who might embarrass not just himself but those whom he might debate. He has no party, no sacred cows, no boxes. I would pay to see him debate the other GOP candidates and should a miracle happen and Trump wins the nomination, his debate against President Obama would be the highest rated TV program in history.

The current Congressional genteel crap, “the gentleman from...” has put the country in a bind. I want the gloves taken off and bare knuckles knocking the smug, self-satisfied expressions of the faces of those we refer to as our federal “leaders.”

Hopefully from that would emerge a real leader with vision, not just another packaged electable hack.

Happy Easter!

Albiwan..

Hillary Dissed...not really.

A Coalition of Youth Groups declined an invitation for Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to speak at a gathering in Cairo, Egypt. Surprising? No, not after the way the Administration remained conspicuously in the shadows while the demonstrations were at their precarious hight and in need of a US safety net.

The USA, under Obama, has separated itself from the international fighters for democracy and it has become obvious to those who fought the fight that they owe the US nothing because the US did nothing to help. They have every right to dis any representative of the US who shows up after the fact to take undeserved credit. in actuality, Hillary was not being dissed; it was her office as a US representative for the President that was dissed.

Albiwan..

JFK's legacy to the Democrats

In the context of JFK's foreign policy, Obama's response to the uprising in Iran was embarrassing. Here was an enemy government to the US whose people, not an enemy to the US, clearly wanted support. Obama should have climbed up and down the Iranian government’s back and used the kind of language he used against Mubarak, a former ally. Figures that Obama would chastise an "ally" and insist on his stepping down but practically kissed our enemy’s ring for not wanting to offend or upset him.
One has to be on a different planet to not perceive what happened and to not understand the obvious differences in how Obama handled the situations. Although initially clumsy, Obama eventually did the right thing in Egypt and I’m sure his words gave the Egyptian’s heart. It should have been the same with the Iranian people but O was new to the job and his ego told him he could talk with Ahmadinajad and make him change his ruthless ways. Big mistake. Had the Iranian people succeeded perhaps we and the world would not feel so threatened by the probability of a terrorist state with a bomb.
And one cannot argue that it’s not Obama’s responsibility...because it is his responsibility as the most powerful man in the world to speak up on behalf of the oppressed. It’s what America stands for and what JFK so famously emphasized in his inaugural speech, one that Democrats and President Obama apparently have forgotten. President Kennedy intoned:

“We will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....”

Albiwan

Those Who Do Not Learn From History....

Point is, while the Iranians were protesting, the President missed an historic opportunity to pitch democracy. Any idiot could have “deplored” the Iranian government’s heavy hand suppressing the protest. Encouragement, as he did with the Egyptian protestors, could have moved the Iranians to greater achievement. Having the US support is a valuable psychological lift for the disenfranchised. The President did not give it to the Iranians so where were they to turn? Nowhere, so they gave up.

Without Obama offering US help, will the Libyan protestors seeking democracy be the next to give up?

Albiwan..

the Bush Doctrine?

As for Egypt, I am thrilled that it's military maintained its dignity and allowed the people to continue their protests. Now the good news is that the military is organizing for democratic elections. But the trick will be to keep el Baradai out of the mix because he’s not a friend of the US and would likely bring the Muslim Bros into the process. If that happens the new govt will not be secular and that means sharia law and bye-bye democracy.

What the media is not reporting, and it's no surprise, is that Egypt is an example of a benefit coming from the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democratic Iraq. But that would imply that something good came of the Bush Doctrine. The liberal media would rather swallow battery acid than give Bush credit for having done anything good. He was clumsy but his policy was smart. Now that Egypt has the possibility of becoming the second Arab Democracy look for other Arab dictatorships to fall. Miracles apparently can happen.

Obama eliminates Carter's Insidious policy...

Dear readers, for family reasons I have been away for a while. This is the first of several thoughts that I'll add to this site, some of which are a few weeks old but are compelling enough to be expressed.

Breaking News Alert: Obama administration proposes higher fees, down payments for homebuyers; replacing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
February 11, 2011 8:35:09 AM Washington Post
----------------------------------------
The Obama administration on Friday proposed raising fees for borrowers and requiring large down payments for mortgages in an effort to reduce the government's outsize footprint in the housing market.

It also proposed three options for eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but warned that abolishing the mortgage giants without replacing them could have "particularly acute costs in its potential impact on access to credit for many Americans."

Well can you imagine that! After 33 years, a politician finally gets the credit for pulling his head out of his butt long enough to do the right thing and get rid of Jimmy Carter's 1978 CRA law that began the erosion at the foundations of our economy, an erosion so insidious that it nearly brought the US to the brink of economic collapse!!!

Reagan, Bush 41, Bubba, and Bush 43 didn’t have the courage to be the one to tell the lower income population, “sorry, but if you can’t afford to make the down payment on a house you will have to rent.” But Obama has finally done it and should get considerable credit for having done so. Hurray!

But even though Obama the liberal was the one to tie the bell around the cat's neck, don't you think it's interesting how little press was given to the story by the liberal media and also that the story broke quietly on the end of the work week, Friday, with no fanfare? I have the feeling that I am the only one who noticed.

Nevertheless, it's poetic that Carter, a stupid, bigoted old man, lived long enough to see his disastrous CRA effectively eliminated by Obama, a black man.

Albiwan..

Finally, or should I say in the nick of time?

By the way, so it shouldn’t go unnoticed because of the holiday distractions, the Democrats and the President are spinning that they had a great week prior to Christmas because they passed the three bills, DADT, START, and 9/11, all of which at least conceptually I am in agreement. But I would be remiss if I didn’t add a little perspective as I see it.

Reality is that if the tax law (is it now referred to as the Obama tax cuts?) was extended a year or more ago the economy and unemployment would be in better stead than they currently are. And the 9/11, START, and DADT laws probably would have been passed that much sooner thus relieving many Americans of the excess stress caused by the unnecessary delays due to partisan politics on both sides of the isle.

The President and his people are all smiley for the cameras this week, but for their intransigence the country would now be in far better shape. In the final analysis, it was President Obama’s and the Majority Democrat Congress’ strategy of relentlessly trying to bury the GOP politically that ultimately, perhaps unwittingly, sacrificed the well being of the country.

In fact, (yes those pesky FACTS) for the past two years the Democrats offered up bills that they knew the GOP could not vote for because of the politics or because they were lousy bills. Had the President and the Democrat Congress moved to the middle sooner, which is what frustrated citizens and moderate politicians from both sides of the isle had been imploring them to do for more than a year, this pathetic Congress could have produced far more than it finally did in the last week of its session.

Democrat partisan politics delayed actions that could have gone into effect months ago but party members were transfixed on the President’s vengeful post 2008 election words “elections have consequences and I won.” This egotistical mindset (adopted as their mantra by the Congressional Democrats) hurt the USA. And, there is no question that the Democrats never missed an opportunity to shout about “GOP obstructionism” regarding non-passage of various bills and a Congress that was on track to being labeled "do nothing."

However, the Democrats mistakenly presumed that its strategy of branding the GOP as "obstructionist" would better the Democrat's political position. Well, on 11/2/10 the Democrats learned how poorly that strategy worked because the voters clearly expressed their collective belief that in fact it was the Democrats who were the “obstructionists” to getting the work of the 111th Congress done. Proof of this is the three bills approved this past week; generally agreed upon is that it was the “lame duck” majority Democrat Party, not the GOP, that made the necessary policy moves and compromised to the middle, thus leaving the Republican lawmakers no political option but to vote with the Democrats to pass the bills into law. The Democrats could have accomplished these same compromises to the middle several months ago but didn't because even to a casual observer it was clear that their priority was the good of the their party ahead of the good of the country.

Interesting that in the wake of 11/2 the Far Left/ Progressives were outspokenly blaming Obama for the disastrous election results; in their minds and rhetoric the poor results were indicative of the President’s not being left-leaning enough. The Far Left also blamed the President’s allowing the single-payer provision to be excluded from Obamacare thus giving voters on the left yet another reason for voting against the Democrats. Of course, the Far Left was wrong on both criticisms of Obama. The 11/2 election thrashing of the Democrats, to an objective observer, was a result of voters’ dissatisfaction with the continuing weak economy, high unemployment, and, the coup de gras, the undignified passage of Obamacare through the use of unprecedented nefarious political tactics that were endorsed if not encouraged by the President. Arguably, the Democrats marginalizing, ridiculing and labeling the Tea Party members as "an unruly mob of white, right wing nuts and bigots" also energized voters to go to the polls to vote for "change." In the end, a majority of Americans entered the voting booths with a very sour taste in their mouths for Democrat candidates.

But, after all is said and done, I give President Obama credit that he finally, or should I say in the nick of time, saw the light, probably realizing that if he did not move quickly and significantly to the middle that his presidency would surely end in 2012. Nevertheless, the damage he and his Party did to the country by wasting precious time is done, and you can't turn back the clock or take back stupid; but, because of his policy moves to the center his presidential future has probably been saved unless he gets caught with a White House page in the Oval Office, or the GOP miraculously produces an electable candidate in the next few months.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!

Albiwan..