A Tale of Two Presidents

Jihad in Paris, France

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, President Francois Hollande vows a "merciless response" on the "barbarians of ISIS."



Jihad in San Bernardino, California

In the aftermath of yesterday's attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, Barack Obama, as is his wont, offered a calibrated, nuanced, tepid, analytical response, offering his "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of this "tragedy," speculating about motive ("possibly related to terrorism, but might also be workplace related"), and decrying once again the ease with which people can get guns in America.

Two attacks. Two responses. A study in contrasts. 

 


#leadershipfail

Links:

"Paris Terror Attacks: Francois Holland Vows Merciless Response to ISIS Barbarity" (Independent) 

"Obama: Still too Easy to Buy Guns in America" (Politico) 

"Obama on San Bernadino Attack: 'Possible This is Terrorist Related' but Could Also be 'Workplace Related" (The Blaze)

San Bernadino Shooting Live Updates (Los Angeles Times)

Random Thoughts on Happiness

WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF HAPPINESS?

AND OTHER (UNANSWERABLE?) QUESTIONS

DISCUSS!

Is happiness the absence of pain or grief, or can one be “happy” even while experiencing a loss?

Someone is kind to me, and I’m happy. Someone is mean to me, and I’m not happy. Does happiness depend on circumstances or is happiness a state of mind that doesn’t necessarily alter as circumstances change?

Is it possible to be “happy” when it’s not all about me? When I somehow make other people’s lives better, or take care of someone less fortunate, or more helpless (babies, for example)?

It doesn’t make me “happy” that I have to clean my own toilets. It would make me “happy” if I had a maid. On the other hand, I’m “happy” I have running water, flushing toilets, a nice house, good food to eat. Compared to 80% of the world’s population, I’m a millionaire. Is happiness relative?

It doesn’t make me “happy” that I have to clean my own toilets. However, I’m “happy” when the job is done and my house is clean. Is happiness a sense of accomplishment for having done something productive? This is an analogy. We could be talking about any project.

Which makes you “happier”—the planning (anticipation) of something, or the actual doing of something? When the planned event is over, are you still “happy,” or do you need now something else to plan for and look forward to? Would you still be happy if you never had something to look forward to?

Single, in search of the perfect partner. Married, fantasizing about what it would be like to be single. Is it the pursuit of something and not the apprehension that makes us happy?

Eating makes me “happy,” but eating too much makes me gain weight. I don’t feel happy when I gain a few pounds, so I stop eating at a certain point. Am I “happier” eating or refraining from eating? This is an analogy but I’m not exactly sure what I’m analogizing.

What is the opposite of happiness? Put another way, is happiness an emotion? A state of being? A choice?

************ 

Comment: The above questions I started generating after a conversation with a friend about the topic led to no answers and even more questions. We promised to continue the conversation over a bottle of wine or two next time we got together. Which we did (sort of). Let's keep the conversation going, shall we?

This morning, a podcast that I started listening to recently (Question of the Day, with James Altucher and Stephen Dubner, the latter of Freakonomics fame), addressed similar questions, only better. I link it here. It's Episode 35, "Fleeting Happiness," if you need to do a search.  

"Take That, Bibi"? So Much for Objective Journalism

Big news yesterday having to do with the Iran nuclear "deal," a foreign policy decision of far-reaching and possibly existential ramifications for Israel in particular but the entire region in general. Unfortunately, this "deal," which truth should have been viewed as a treaty and not a deal (a treaty requiring a higher standard for passage in Congress), has become yet another political football, dividing the "usses" from the "thems," and devolving eventually into partisan brinksmanship, invective, and even slander. None of which is surprising, this being Obama's transformed America. 

The "news" was that Obama got his final nostril in the nose-counting that substitutes as debate when Maryland Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski announced she would support the deal, giving Obama a veto-proof majority when Congress votes this month on whether to accept or reject this deal.  

The press--and by "press," I mean the dominant news outlets--reported the story as a great victory for Obama. As noted in the NewsBuster piece linked below, news anchors were nothing if not giddy when reporting the story. And PBS NewsHour anchor Gwen Ifill descended notch lower with her snarky tweet following the announcement: 

Not surprisingly, the Twittersphere erupted in protest, resulting in this condescending response from Ifill:

Later she tried to downplay the original tweet by claiming to be merely re-tweeting the State Department's talking points. But, as Aaron Goldstein notes in his blog at The American Spectator, "By saying 'Take that, Bibi,' she might as well have tweeted, 'F U Israel." 

Fortunately, there's a residue of objectivity at NPR in the person of ombudsman Michael Getler who faulted Ifill for the tweet and scolded her for her poor judgment. "One would have to lean way over backwards to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was simply shedding light on the administration's view of portions of Netanyahu's arguments," Getler writes. "But to personalize it by saying, 'Take that, Bibi" is, in my book, inexcusable for an experienced journalist who is the co-anchor of a nightly news program watched by millions of people over the course of any week."

Personally, I would go further and suggest that Ifill has basically disqualified herself from any further reporting on the Iran deal. It's one thing to have partisan views; it's another to reveal them publicly. It would be interesting to hear what pundits Mark Shields and David Brooks, regulars on PBS NewsHour, have to say on this issue; Brooks, in particular, being Jewish, and also having a son currently serving in the Israeli armed forces. He's a gentleman and would never critique his colleague (the issue is moot since there's no chance of Judy Woodruff bringing it up, anyway). But how could Brooks not be at least privately appalled by Ifill's shameful tweet?

Sources

"Media Hand Obama 'Major Victory' as Most Oppose Iran Deal" (Kyle Drennan, MRC NewsBusters, September 2, 2015).

"PBS's Gwen Ifill Stands by 'Take That, Bibi' Tweet" (Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, September 2, 2015).

"Take That, Gwen Ifill" (Aaron Goldstein, The Spectacle Blog, The American Spectator, 9/2/15). 

"More Self-Inflicted Wounds" (PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, September 2, 2015).

"Senator Bob Corker Rails Against the Iran Deal" (Lauren Fox, National Journal, July 23, 2015).

"We Can Thank Bob Corker for Ratifying Obama's Iran Deal" (Aaron Goldstein, The Spectacle Blog, The American Spectator, 9/2/15).

"Obama Doubles Down on Comparing GOP to Iranian Hardliners"(CNN)

#whitelivesmatter, too

Yesterday, in Roanoke, Virginia, a 41-year old black man named Vester Lee Flanagan II, stalked, shot, and murdered two white people, 24-year old Allison Parker and her cameraman, 27-year old Adam Ward, in cold blood and on live T.V. while Parker was conducting an interview on live T.V. Flanagan not only videotaped the murder, he immediately tweeted about it and posted the video on Facebook, sent a 21-page manifesto-type suicide note to the media. Shortly thereafter, he shot himself and died in the hospital. 

Those reporting on the story reveal that the killer was a disturbed, angry, difficult man with a history of violence. Though he accused everyone around him of being racist, including the young woman he murdered (whom he may have once dated), it's clear that he himself was the racist. 

If this were a normal world, today's top stories would have something to do with #whitelivesmatter. But I'm not hearing much about race-related murder. Instead, all everyone's talking about, including Barack Obama, is gun control. Gun control. Not about an angry, bitter black man whose sense of victimization, no doubt fueled by the Left's divisive identify politics and the incendiary rhetoric of race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan, whose July 30th speech called for "10,000 men to rise up and stalk them and kill them," led to him stalking and murdering two beautiful talented young people in cold blood. 

Will Barack Obama repudiate Farrakhan's repugnant words? Is this a trick question? Of course Barack Obama won't repudiate Farrakhan. Nor will he pontificate about black racism. Nor will he appeal to the higher nature of both blacks and whites in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., that all lives matter.

Of course, it goes without saying, if Flanagan had been white and his victims black, there would be 24/7 hand-wringing on cable news and riots in Roanoake, Virginia. Yet while Obama et al are exploiting this tragedy for their own political agenda, let the record show that not only was Vester Lee Flanagan II black, he was also gay, he was a Democrat, and he was an Obama supporter. His sense of grievance, his sense of victimization, his claims of bigotry and racism directed towards him, were validated and reinforced by the #blacklivesmatter movement promulgated by the Left. In simple terms, Vester Lee Flanagan II is a product of this poisonous message. 

Hence, the silence from the talking heads about what was clearly a hate crime committed by a black racist. Had he lived (the coward committed suicide), it is likely he would eventually have been lionized by the left. A new #blacklivesmatter meme would have been created to justify his actions, much the same as the left made up the hands-up-don't-shoot meme after the Michael Brown shooting, even though Michael Brown not only never raised his hands in surrende, it was he who was the aggressor. It was all a total lie, but truth doesn't matter to the left, only the message. So in that regard, I'm glad glad glad Vester Lee Flanagan died yesterday. All we have now are the facts. His suicide note. His video. His tweets. His work history. His Facebook rants. And the blood of Allison Parker and Adam Ward staining his wicked, depraved soul.

What's next? More of the same? Is it too much to hope, for Parker and Ward's sake, at least, that this tragedy will usher in a new conversation, a conversation not about white lives or black lives mattering but all lives mattering? It like such a cliche, but it's not. The phrase "all lives matter" is now on the hit list of politically incorrect things to say. So, unfortunately, I don't think that particular conversation will take place until Obama is out of office and until a man or woman with integrity, courage, and conservative values is elected president. I believe Barack Obama has done more to divide this country along racial lines than unite it. And until he rebukes radical racists like Louis Farrakhan, it's safe to say Obama bears some responsibility for what happened yesterday morning.

Rest in peace, Allison Parker and Adam Ward.

Dissidents Not Welcome at the Flag Raising Ceremony in Cuba

It's what's missing from this scene that's most disturbing, and the cartoonist captures it beautifully. Dissidents are not welcome. 

"In Cuba," writes Armando Valladares in his August 20 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "to ask for a man's basic rights is to ask for intimidation, incarceration, torture, and death." Vallardares would know. He says he spent eight years naked in solitary confinement (he refused to wear a prison uniform) as a conscientious objector to the Castro regime. He witnessed the torture and execution of those he knew, those who dared to protest. 

The American flag was raised at the American embassy in Cuba. But dissidents were not invited. And children of murdered dissidents were not allowed to speak. As was the case of Rosa Maria Payá, whose father Oswaldo Payá was murdered in 2012 by the regime ("official" version--it was a car accident). 

Rosa was at the flag raising. She even had a press pass. But here's the story you won't read in the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times or the Washington Post: Rosa wasn't allowed to ask questions. 

But this is Cuba, you say. Of course she wouldn't be permitted to speak. 

Ah, but it wasn't the Cuban authorities who silenced her. It was the Kerry people. The Kerry people. The American authorities. 

Because it's not about principle. It's not about human rights. It's not about freedom of expression. It's not about freedom at all. It's the show. It's the display. It's the stagecraft. Dissidents? Sorry, you're not welcome. Dissidents? Sorry, can't speak. Dissidents? Sorry, this isn't about you. It's about politicians and their egos, presidents and their legacies. The show must go on. Pictures must be taken for posterity. Dissidents must be silent, invisible, even at the American Embassy in Cuba.

(Mr. Kirby asked me not to ask questions today in John Kerry's press conference or [they would] use force to [remove] me.)

For Further Reading

"In Historic Cuba Visit, Kerry Presides Over Raising of U.S. Flag Over Embassy in Havana" (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, August 15, 2015)

"To Embrace Cuba's Regime, State Department Doesn't Have ot Behave Like It" (Capitol Hill Cubans) 

More on Rosa Maria Payá's father, Oswaldo Payá here.  

Armando Valladares' article (in Capitol Hill Cubans blog) here.

Take That, Straw Man!

There he goes again, beating up Mr. Straw Man. One of these days, I hope someone writes a book analyzing the frequency of this fallacy in Obama's speeches. Working title: Take That, Straw Man!

Regarding the speech the president gave the other day at American University? I agree with Jonah Goldberg (copied below). Obama's comments were pretty abhorrent, particularly the one about Republicans who oppose the Iran deal as having "common cause" with those who chant "Death to America" in Iran. In my view, anyone who still supports this president is either willfully blind, woefully partisan, or profoundly deceived. 

Obama’s Iran Speech

(from The Goldberg File, by Jonah Goldberg, 8/7/15) 

For reasons I will get to in a moment, this was an absolutely terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. So I couldn’t get my normal Friday column done yesterday. That was particularly vexing because it was on Obama’s Iran speech, which I thought was not only bad, but outrageous. It was petulant, small, nasty, partisan, wildly hypocritical, and dishonorable in almost every regard. People who celebrated it should be ashamed of themselves. And the press’s ho-hum reporting on it as if it were just another presidential speech is a searing indictment of not just their news judgment but their partisanship. 

The president of the United States said critics of the Iran deal were finding common cause with a murderous Iranian regime -- a regime that he has coddled, accommodated, and apologized for time and again. He imputed to his domestic political opponents a none-too-vague whiff of cowardice, dual loyalty, and dishonor. In vintage Obama mode, he condemned the partisanship of his critics while delivering a searing partisan attack. He once again bragged about his opposition to the Iraq War while denigrating all those who supported it -- including both of his secretaries of state and his vice president -- as if that proves the rightness of everything he does. But this time he went further, basically suggesting that if you don’t support this deal, you are rewarding this evil fifth column in our midst. It was disgusting. 

Last, he threatened that if you don’t support his deal, it will mean war. 

This is a lie. First of all, if Congress votes down the deal tomorrow, who here believes that Obama will say, “Well, we have no choice now. We have to go to war.” 

Anyone? 

Who here believes that the people cheering his speech as powerful and impressive will apply its logic if it fails? Will David Axelrod -- who loved the speech, of course -- suddenly say, “Diplomacy has failed, alas. Now we have no choice but to bomb Iran.”? 

They are fear-mongering and lying while denouncing their opponents as fear-mongerers and liars. 

They are dishonestly threatening war because war is the only option less preferable than this unbelievably bad deal. It’s a magic-beans deal, minus the magic. It’s the equivalent of giving the Clintons millions in exchange for Mrs. Clinton attending your wedding. 

It was the most shameful presidential speech on foreign policy in my lifetime. Shame on him and his fans.

For Further Reading

"Obama Blasts Opponents of Iran Deal" (Kevin Liptak, CNN Politics, August 5, 2015).

"Obama's Crass Cynicism Exposes the Iran Deal's Shaky Foundations" (Noah Rothman, Commentary Magazine, August 6, 2015). 

"Who is the One Actually Making Common CAuse with Iran's Hard-liners, Mr. President?" (Charles Krauthammer, National Review Online, August 6, 2015).

Full text of the speech can be found here.

"Society Will Be Judged by How it Treats its Weakest Members"

Stunning. Simply stunning. These are our "supposed" lawmakers. But to their great shame, they are derelict. Derelict in every way imaginable. They make their arrogant statements, vote "no" without even so much as deigning to watch the videos. Taking their marching orders from the powerful lobbyists because they don't have a mind of their own. Even the Los Angeles Times parrots their message. The so-called judge bangs his gavel, because, guess what? His wife is an anti-abortion activist! But of course! Who thinks for themselves anymore? 

 If our nation is being judged by a righteous God who cares for the weakest of our society, so be it. We deserve it. To paraphrase from another despicable woman (yes, Michelle Obama, I'm referring to you), never have I been so ashamed of my country as I am today. Where are the real women? Where are the REAL women (because men are cowards) who will defend the WEAKEST of our society?




 

Oh, and "ladies"? Of course babies feel pain in the womb. 

Insanity. 

I'm so disgusted. Who will speak out for the helpless in our society? Because surely it is not these heartless, imbecilic, insane, foolish, arrogant so-called "women." 

Click on image to go to link. 

Oh, and by the way...

And, for those who have forgotten or who never learned. . . 

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). 

"A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization" (Samuel Johnson).

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped" (Hubert H. Humphrey).

 "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members" (Mahatma Ghandi). 

 "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest" (Cardinal Roger Mahony). 

"The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn" (Bill Federer). 

 "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying" (Pope John Paul II).

FOR FURTHER READING

"Democrats Who Voted Against Defunding Planned Parenthood Never Even Watched the Expose Videos" (InfoWars.com)

"Wife of Judge Who Blocked Pro-Life Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood is a Pro-Abortion Activist" (LifeNews.com)

"Political Grandstanding on Planned Parenthood" (Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 4, 2015).

Trigger Alert! "Ragged Old Flag"

Ah, how lovely. God bless you, Mr. Cash. Artists like you don't come around too often. 



One wonders, however, if he could even get away with performing this song today (not to mention his comment about shooting someone who tried to burn his flag) without "triggering" cries of "micro-aggression." 

Remember the controversy at University of California, Irvine, where members of UCI's Associated Students tried to get the American flag banned from their building's lobby because it "triggered" people? 

Such idiocy can only emanate from the far left. 

For Further Reading

"The Microagression Farce" (Heather MacDonald, Autumn 2014, City Journal).

"A New Hampshire University's Language Guide Says Students Should Avoid Using the Word 'American'" (Ted Siefer, July 20, 2015, Business Insider).

"Don't Sweat the Microagressions" (Amitai Etzioni, April 8, 2014, The Atlantic).

"Microaggression: Desperately Seeking Discrimination" (Viv Regan, December 29, 2014, spiked).

"UC Irvine Student: US Flag Banned to Avoid Triggering Hurt Feelings Among Illegals" (Adelle Nazarian, March 8, 2015, Breitbart)

For Further Viewing

Here's The Factual Feminist (AKA Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute) commenting on this issue.

"Iran's Bitch," or, How We Got Our Butts Kicked in Vienna

Ten . . . No Eleven . . . Make That Thirteen Reasons to Hate this Deal 

1. Any time, anywhere inspections? Not.

2. The deal obligates us to defend Iran against...Israel? 

3. Left and right-wing Jews in Israel are united against the deal, as are Israel's neighbors in the Middle East.

4. This deal makes the region more, not less, dangerous, and will very likely jump-start a nuclear arms race. Way to go, Mr. "Nobel Laureate" Obama!

6. Contrary to the phony indignation of Obama, Clinton, et al, in response to Mike Huckabee's bluntly-worded critique of the deal, a nuclear-armed Iran does, indeed, portend another Holocaust.

7. By lifting sanctions off Iran, the leading sponsor or terror in the Middle East, we are essentially co-sponsoring terrorism. 

8. Iran will be able to inspect itself! What the heck?

9. Four Americans remain jailed in Iran, including journalists and a pastor, but these hostages were never included in the so-called negotiations, even though we let their terrorists off the hook for no apparent reason other than the fact that we're their bitch.  

10. Cliché alert: We not only gave away the farm, we sold the store. 

11. Trust Iran? You've got to be kidding. And even if we could trust them to stick to the terms of the agreement, those terms suggest that the deal will delay Iran from developing nuclear weapons for ten years. Ten years may as well be ten minutes. 

12. The deal also permits the selling of ICBM's to Iran. The "I" and the "C" are pretty significant, don't you think? 

13. "Snap back sanctions?" Already this feature of the deal is being dismissed by the experts. Once Iran has its billions, and once other countries resume trade relations with Iran, there will be no snapping of anything, except maybe our bra strap.

What am I missing? 

The phrase "Iran's Bitch" comes from the podcast I've linked below (listen to it!) and is not my own (anyone who knows me knows I don't use vulgarity very often. In fact, I admit I was a little shocked when the speaker used the phrase). But when he described the way the Iranian negotiators treated John Kerry in the negotiating room (at one point, members of the Secret Service rushed in the room, thinking Kerry was in danger), berating, belittling, shouting, I got the picture. Even after being kicked, Kerry kept crawling back, like a dog to its master. What was his motivation for taking the abuse? Was there pressure from Obama? A deal at any cost? Play your last card? Give them anything, just get me a deal? Was that what was going on? 

One expert I listened to (maybe it was Mr. Rubin in this podcast, or maybe it was another podcast, I can't remember) admitted he was baffled by Obama's motivation. He could only think of two metaphors that might explain the president's behavior: Obama the battered wife, or, Obama the besotted teenager. Ouch. Neither one speaks well of America. 

What's apparent is this president was hell-bent on getting something, anything, in writing. Why? Is this about Valerie Jarrett, our "shadow president," who by the way is Iranian-born? Is she the puppet master here? Or is this about the president's celebrated ego? Is Obama searching for something previous administrations were unable to achieve? If it's really all about his legacy, what if he's wrong and the naysayers are right? His legacy would be destroyed beyond all repair. 

It is this point, above all others, that makes this whole situation so disturbing. That the leader of the world's most powerful nation could be so blinded by his own ambitions that he is literally unable to see the catastrophe looming, like a giant tsunami wave building behind him, while he sits on a sun-drenched beach, blithely basking in a fantasy of his own making. Equally disturbing, to me, are the foolish people who defend, excuse, justify, idolize him. 

KickAss Politics Podcast with Michael Rubin

"The Iran Nuke Deal with Guest Michael Rubin" (KickAss Politics with Ben Mathis, podcast). 

According to the synopsis, Michael Rubin is "a former Pentagon official specializing in Iran and a Middle East scholar with the American Enterprise Institute [who] has written extensively on the subject of rogue regimes and Iran's nuclear ambitions." Here's a link to Rubin's bio, which also includes links to articles he's written.

For Further Reading

"Sixteen Reasons the Iranian Nuke Deal is an Iranian Victory and a Western Catastrophe," by David Horovitz, The Times of Israel (July 14, 2015). 

"The Second Holocaust," by Benny Morris, The New York Sun (January 22, 2007).  Note date of publication.

"Obama Agrees to be Bodyguard for Iran's Nuclear Program," IranTruth Staff, IranTruth (July 15, 2015). 

"Iran Bombshell: It Will Inspect Itself," by Fred Fleitz, IranTruth (July 24, 2015).

"The Obama Whisperer," by Noam Scheiber, The New Republic (November 9, 2014). 

"FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett's Family," Judicial Watch (June 22, 2015).

What Left-Leaning People on Facebook Say About Iran Deal

Eavesdropping on the Lefties...they really are foolish. I'd venture to say they have no idea what they're talking about.

Addendum (July 31, 2015)

I happened to catch a Michael Medved segment today in which he interviews Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School about Dershowitz's brand new book called, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? Professor Dershowitz's opening remarks were telling: he clearly self-identifies as a man of the left, a Democrat, an Obama supporter, etc., and in doing so, indignantly repudiates any suggestion by the the president that those who oppose the deal are conservative or Republicans. 

Dershowitz had some pretty damning things to say. Pay attention, left-leaning people! I hope his book (currently available as an e-book) makes the rounds on Capitol Hill, especially among Democrats, some of whom seem more loyal to party than to country.