Sunday, September 30, 2012

Obama & Impeachment

Perhaps the most amusing thing I’ve heard on TV news lately was a remark by Defense Secretary Panetta when asked why he thought the recent deadly attack on the consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. His answer was that he knew it was terrorism because it was carried out by terrorists. Has anyone ever stated the obvious to a greater extent than that? He might have mentioned methods, type of ammo, a leader or two (if known). He did later, to be fair.

It’s strange that he was providing the information, in the first place. It would appear that CIA Director Petraeus, not the head of the DOD, would be the go-to guy for intel, or maybe the head honcho of the president’s National Security Council or, certainly, the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr. Has anyone seen or heard anything out of these folks lately? Is the whole sordid affair such a hot potato that no one in the intel community wants to touch it, ergo, tell Panetta to handle the cover-up.

The president was so concerned about the attack involving four murdered Americans that he took off for Las Vegas the next day to make speeches after blaming some sort of movie (made by an American, of course) for the whole thing. It seemed to him that an insult to Mohammad, who was indeed a monster, should be cause for most anything, including murder, and that Americans, especially, should therefore abridge their freedom of speech. Muslims in this country could call Jesus a cockroach and the public might yawn.

The girls at NBC Nightly News, Guthrie and Mitchell, gaily put what they likely hoped will be the final spin on the affair on 28 September, noting that the intel agencies had apologized for making a mistake, when it was the intel folks who within 24 hours of the event recognized it as a terror attack having nothing to do with a movie (but just didn’t mention that to the White House gang?), according to news sources such as Yahoo News. Indeed, the girls cited a release from Clapper’s office defending Obama’s spurious account of the Benghazi massacre and indicating that the terrorism became clear only in the aftermath (when?) of the carnage. Clapper was appointed to his position by Obama in 2010, and anyone who believes this “news report” reflected truth is ripe to buy a bridge.

Clapper is remembered for his testimony in a House intelligence hearing in February 2011 noting that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely secular and not particularly extreme, a statement accruing to an incomprehensible naivete, ignorance, or pushing an agenda, especially for anyone in the intel community. A DNI apparatchik tried later in the hearing to clean up the remark but Clapper became a joke.

The Egyptian Muslim brotherhood now owns Egypt and its head beheader, Mohamed Morsi (oh yes, Democratically elected, okay… laugh), in his recent UN speech, urged the UN to crack down on expressions that defame religions. This was his way of excusing all protests and outright violence whenever any Muslim claims that Mohammad, the “prophet,” has been defamed, not to mention his consequent position that freedom of speech is not a “right.” Just a cursory look at the history books will confirm the fact that the “prophet” was a murderous scoundrel/pedophile who created the Koran “holy” book calling for “death to the infidels.”

A cover-up of the magnitude regarding Benghazi is mind-boggling, especially since four Americans were killed, though warnings had been issued concerning violence before the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. The Americans had virtually no security, the result of intolerable ineptitude by the State Department. Secretary Clinton should resign. For her part in the cover-up, UN Ambassador Rice should also resign, as should press-prattler Carney. The president should, too, but that ain’t gonna happen.

One is reminded of President Nixon in 1974. He attempted to cover-up a mere break-in at the Watergate complex that involved no loss of life or damage. He was hounded out of office, resigning to avoid impeachment and possible conviction. Obama committed an impeachable offense in March 2011 when, in direct violation of the Constitution concerning war-making, he ordered the U.S. military to attack a sovereign nation, Libya, that represented no threat to the U.S. or any other nation. Many Libyans have died as a result.

In short, Obama should be impeached by the House no later than yesterday for the well-documented cover-up of an episode costing the life of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. To do the honorable thing, he would resign.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Bringing Town Branch Topside

The downtown area of Lexington, Ky., population close to 300,000, is an attractive setting for the usual downtown elements these days – financial and other institutions, restaurants, bars, churches, specialty stores and government office-buildings. The area, established around 1775, was/is bisected by a small stream called the “Town Branch.” The stream perhaps was a problem for obvious reasons such as flooding and necessary bridges, so it was encapsulated in a tunnel before 1900, allowing for building and street-structure to take place on solid foundations without fear of being inundated.

There’s always a group in Lexington, apparently totally oblivious to history, which plugs for changes to make downtown “more attractive.” Last year, an architecture firm in Norway was engaged to “redo” Lexington, one of its ideas being to expose the waterway as something called a “linear park” that would openly slither its way through downtown. One can only wonder at the jack-hammering that would take place under all those buildings and streets to bring this off. You can’t make up this stuff.

One never ceases to be amazed at the irresponsibility, if not sheer stupidity, of government. The local solons have entered the city into a partnership with something called the Downtown Development Authority (sounds threatening enough) and something else called the Lexington Center Corporation in a push to get entities to submit ideas for this new “linear park,” which would, as one example among many, completely destroy the city’s widest, most easily traveled and busiest thoroughfare.

The mayor is on record as proclaiming that such a “linear park” would provide a great reason to work downtown, as if the workers had a choice in the first place. He also said this new and exciting “linear park,” of necessity being something unique – water, would bring business and residents downtown, or provide for folks to forsake the suburbs, visit and have fun.

There are already many venues, large and small, for entertainment, as well as apartment buildings, just like in every city, but this water extravaganza – at least in non-flood season – would simply enhance everything…fun, especially, as if the downtown and all the rest of the city were not already covered over with bars/joints of both high and low esteem.

After all the “ideas” are in, this partnership will then – yep, you guessed it – engage an urban-design firm. This is a quote by a mover-and-shaker in the Lexington Herald Leader of 26 September: “We are not looking for construction drawings right now but for ideas of what could be imagined, either a re-interpretation of Town Branch or a renovation of Town Branch.

How one might re-interpret a small stream into anything but a small stream seems problematic, as well as how one might renovate it. Cleaning it? Yeah…but it would still be a small stream.

One wonders about the connection between ideas and imaginations, which seem to be about the same thing. Another pooh-bah, president of something called the Fayette Alliance, according to the H-L, remarked the possibility of economic development potential “in improving the quality of life needed to attract knowledge-based professionals and retirees essential for the prosperity and growth of Lexington.

Exactly what is a knowledge-based professional as compared to a plain, ol’ professional? Maybe only the Shadow knows. Could it be that the professionals who run the government may not be (gasp) knowledge-based, operating on instinct only? That seems quite possible. One wonders how the retirees fit into the “essential” picture. Maybe by bringing their pensions downtown and fomenting prosperity thereby?

The elitists who come up with this stuff are a pain. A few years ago, the Commission actually voted once to close Vine Street, the most important street in the downtown. The second reading to make it official never took place, so loud was the outcry. That was about the time somebody (maybe the architecture department at the university) dreamed up a “linear topside park” in the middle of Vine Street amongst the 18-wheelers and city buses. Didn’t happen.

Most recently, the elitists have pushed to make the one-way streets into two-way streets, the better to absolutely guarantee traffic gridlock on narrow streets laid out in the horse-and-buggy days and consequently totally unsusceptible to reconfiguration without knocking down a bunch of multi-storied buildings and tearing up sidewalks…get the picture? The outcry over this has been long and hard, not to mention over the bother and delay connected to parking-garages and the cost of using them as well as feeding on-street meters.

There was a day when the hub of every community large and small was “downtown.” This was the case until well after WWII. Even grocery stores were downtown, as well as those offering clothing, hardware – just about everything. That time has long since passed as populations expanded communities and made it necessary for entrepreneurs to set up where the people lived, not where gridlock stared them in the face, and toting groceries to the fifth level seemed unseemly.

So…there goes another slug of tax-money that could be better used than paying someone to violate the serenity of Town Branch, a perfectly innocent and quiet body of water.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Enough Egg-on-Face to Go Around!

Never has an administration had as much egg on its face as concerning the “Benghazi Affaire,” resulting in the brutal deaths of four Americans (and possible torture), one of them the ambassador to Libya. There’s plenty of egg to go around. State Secretary Clinton appeared before the cameras to blame the carnage on protesters reacting to a film that had been made in this country exposing Mohammad for the monster that he was. To be the actual scapegoat pushing this lie, she appointed UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared all over TV unequivocally claiming that such was the case.

The president has his share of face-egg since neither Clinton nor Rice would have mouthed their untruths absent his approval. For his further part, he indicated the day after the attack something about intolerance in this country for anyone’s faith…or something like that, his personal opinion that the film was the culprit. Now, everyone knows that the protesters were fictional and that the attack was meticulously planned by al Qaeda, which, for all practical purposes, has taken over the country.

Perhaps goaded by Senators McCain, Graham and Lieberman – or at least with their “bi-partisan” encouragement – the president meant to waste Qaddafi, his contribution to the Arab Spring last year since it was apparent that the Libyan insurrectionists were not going to be able to unseat Qaddafi, and Obama had done nothing but orate, especially ordering the likes of Mubarak (Egypt), Qaddafi (Libya), Saleh (Yemen) and Assad (Syria) to jump off their thrones and get out of Dodge. Significantly, he hasn’t pursued a Libya-policy regarding Assad, perhaps not least because that would be a military undertaking that would make the seven-month Libyan bloodletting look like a girl scout meeting.

This is from al Jazeera via You-Tube of 24 February 2011: “Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has said in a speech on state television that al-Qaeda is responsible for the uprising in his country. Speaking on the phone from an undisclosed location, Gaddafi said the protesters were young people who were being manipulated by al-Qaeda, and that many were under the influence of drugs.” Nobody in Washington listened, including the self-righteous senators, even though Qadaffi was telling the truth, as everyone now knows. Al Qaeda calls the shots in Libya because terrorism wins.

In his rambling speech at the UN in September 2009, Qaddafi referred to President Obama as “our son Obama” and said he wished Obama could stay forever as president. This was one Muslim talking about someone he considered also to be a Muslim. Obama proved him right when he attacked Libya – one at least supposed Muslim attacking another, something that happens routinely in the Middle East. Right now in Iraq, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are waging their own three-sided civil war. The Muslim Brotherhood is taking over Egypt and will install an unblievably repressive Sharia government, engaging a civil war if necessary.

According to the New York Times of 24 April 2011, McCain expressed fear that the vacuum that might happen as a result of a Libyan stalemate (the stalemate happened just a month or so after Obama’s war started) al Qaeda might be let in. In that same column, Senator Graham was reported to have told CNN that NATO forces should bomb Qaddafi’s inner circle. Did he think that crowd was somewhere out in the boonies or right in the middle of residential areas?

According to Bloomberg of 27 February 2011, Lieberman was in favor of a no-fly zone and McCain wondered how many people would be massacred before Qaddafi was offed and that the U.S. should shorten that time period. Obama’s war, which he said would be over in days, not weeks, lasted seven long months and it’s doubtful that McCain ever bothered to enumerate the bodies involved in the massacre that ensued.

There was plenty of warning – significantly including from Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen – that “doing” Libya would be a horrible mistake. These guys, not the senators or Obama, knew what they were talking about…and they were right. Libya is now al Qaeda territory, with its attack and destruction and murders on American soil at the Benghazi consulate the proof. This took place on Obama’s watch, with apparently little if any intel or security regarding the danger and even less consequent action.

This is from the Associated Press of 23 October 2011: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday [apparently on a visit to Jordan] that military action to protect civilians in Syria might be considered now that NATO’s air campaign [and the bloodbath] in Libya is ending.” You can’t make up this stuff. Some people never learn. Anyhow, the term “terrorism” is back. Homeland Security pooh-ba Napolitano (certainly at the behest of Obama) indicated in March 2009 that the term “man-caused disaster” would replace “terrorism” because “terrorism” is/was such a dirty word. Is it any wonder this leaderless country is the laughing-stock of much of the world?

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, September 20, 2012

The Editorial, University & Bourbon Banalities

The Lexington Herald-Leader had as its leading editorial on 20 September a piece sort of praising University of Kentucky President Capilouto for taking note of – and visiting appropriate neighborhoods damned by – the “drinking problems” presented by UK students living in off-campus housing. UK banned on-campus alcohol-consumption in 1998, the same year a dead-drunk football player wrecked his pickup just hours after a game, killing two friends (his passengers) but only injuring himself, though not seriously.

Ironically, the player received shock probation and even tried out for the NFL. For the same offense, an “ordinary guy” (most any other student, for instance) would have served serious time under the law. In Kentucky, a basketball/football player at UK is considered just short of the status of one of Michael’s archangels.

The editorialist claimed to be “glad” to hear that the UK prez wants to explore ways to help “students learn to behave and drink responsibly,” something the editorialist considered “an appropriate role for the university.” One wonders how long and demanding a course titled “Drinking Responsibly 101” might be, as well as the level of academic achievement a professor should aspire to in order to hold class, maybe a Ph.D. in Neutralizing Inebriation, surely a complicated subject, like 1500 ways how not to uncork a bottle.

Obviously, this is not an academic matter – the supposed raison d’etra of university endeavor – so one actually wonders if the paper is hinting to the prez that on-campus drinking is now in order, if only for the requirements of this course. Lab-time would be impossible without the needed substances and students, with maybe 20,000 signing up for the first class.

Ironically concerning this subject, the paper published an Op-Ed piece by the president of the Kentucky Distillers Association on 10 September titled “Join in celebrating state’s bourbon heritage.” Bourbon heritage – something to celebrate? That’s like gathering at the cemeteries of the dead “friends” mentioned above and singing, “Gimme That Old Bourbon Religion.”

The Distiller-in-Chief laid out ten ways to carry out this marvelous celebration: tour a distillery (even mentioned free T-shirts and locations); visit a whiskey-history museum (but make a donation); volunteer for the “Bourbon Chase” (an overnight relay race with stops at distilleries); hold one’s own bourbon-tasting activity for friends and family (age not mentioned, though peer-impression was); visit a craft distillery (locations furnished); join the BWA (not Baptist World Alliance but the Bourbon Women Association.

Four to go: Explore “bourbon cuisine” around Lexington and Louisville (rest of the state simply not hip enough – sophistication has its place); don’t miss the huge Kentucky Bourbon Festival (all biggie distillers “under one roof,” with visitors hopefully not under many tables); look for the perfect gift to surprise a “bourbon connoisseur.” Anyone for a custom-made breathalyzer?

This last “celebration-item” has me still laughing: “Be a designated driver. Let someone else rejoice and celebrate Bourbon Heritage Month [why not a whole year?] while you stay sober and make sure everyone gets home safely.” You can’t make up this stuff! This item makes the distiller-prexy’s entire epitome-of-wisdom piece into a colossal oxymoron. In other words, celebrate but don’t take a chance on drinking any of the stuff and endangering the society! Only in Kentucky!

So…what’s a university president to do? He’s already damned in the neighborhoods for forcing the drunk students to party off-campus but he’ll be damned by reasonable people, not to mention law enforcement officers, for allowing the students, most of whom are underage anyway, for allowing alcohol-consumption in the dorms or most anywhere else where vomit can be easily cleaned up…or not. The answer: Nothing! Stop wasting time attempting to placate either the newspaper or the landlords. Stick to running the university.

The obvious answer is to simply inform the landlords that it’s their responsibility to take care of their own neighborhoods, not that of the university or the police, or any other entity. These people have turned their houses into apartments, some of them adding on huge additions indiscriminately until the laws stopped that, but continue to renege on their responsibility to keep their areas clean and quiet. This is not even to mention the traffic/parking/general-filth problems.

Lest anyone caterwaul about privacy (the usual politically correct whine), it’s surely the inordinately stupid landlord who doesn’t inspect his apartments regularly to guarantee that they aren’t torn apart, filthy, or otherwise offensive. He can – or not – ban alcohol and/or parties/orgies…his choice, his responsibility.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Romney's "Gaffe" Simple Truth?

Romney’s recent “gaffe” made at a private fundraiser came through like a breath of fresh air since it was an accurate description of the voting blocs in this country. It had already been said in this corner but Romney reiterated the fact that since 47% of households paid no federal income taxes (and probably not much in state income taxes, either), one could count on 47% of the voters to vote democratic, i.e., for the welfare-state approach to governance.

Considering the fact that virtually 100% of the black vote (though not racist, of course – little joke there), much if not most of it included in that 47%, as well as a sizeable majority of the Latino vote, is automatically locked-up for Obama, as Romney said, he is forced to gain any leverage through adding the “independent” vote to the republican vote. The “mainstream media,” otherwise known as the Obama propaganda arm, has spun Romney’s truth-telling into making him an “unlikeable/insensitive” ogre.

The statement was not for public consumption, just as wasn’t Obama’s charge at a private Hollywood fundraiser in 2008 concerning Pennsylvanians’ grasping of their Bibles and shotguns and chasing after Mexican immigrants. Romney’s statement could have sounded harsh, especially if taken out of context (as it was), but Obama’s statement was plainly insulting and anti-religion, totally without defense. He might as well have said “Allah, Akbar,” a la Major Hasan at Ft. Hood, which may have been what he was thinking, considering his childhood background in Islam and his strange performances in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2009.

Romney’s allusion to “accepted-victimhood as personal condition” works in probably most cases but not with respect to retirees on Social Security and Medicare or with many of those working-poor. The fact that he didn’t have them in mind doesn’t matter when the “spin” is on, however. No one has divided the nation along “class-lines” more than Obama, but he’ll get a pass by the propagandists while they skewer Romney for being “uncaring.”

As a practical matter, the fact that the “takers” can now vote to determine how much can be confiscated from the “producers” (givers) and redistributed to them poses a serious problem. In the current recession, far from over notwithstanding Obama’s claim to the contrary, the middle class, whatever that is these days, is stuck more than ever with trying to stay afloat while keeping a seemingly perpetual underclass afloat, gratis.

On CNN of 17 Feb. 2012 was the information that $434 billion had been spent on unemployment payments over the last four years, $185 billion by the federal government. People who are unemployed can vote, nevertheless, so they will vote for the “redistribution folks” – Obama’s, in other words. This may or may not apply to retirees, depending upon how much faith they have in the government and pension systems. Obama made it plain as recently as 2008 that he faults the U.S. Constitution for not providing for redistribution of wealth.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, federal food assistance, including food stamps, amounted to $60.6 billion in 2008. In 2010, it grew to $95.3 billion under the Obama administration, an increase of 57%. The food stamp program alone during 2007-2011 grew by 135% to some $78 billion, with the number of participants increasing by 70% to 45 million, or about one-in-seven Americans.

During the last four years, unemployment has increased exponentially as employers have made deep cuts, thus curtailing the number of jobs available, and people by the millions have simply left the work force, so that the rate is not 8.3% as advertised officially but probably in the 16% range. This circumstance accounts for the inordinate drain on the Treasury for social benefits. Obama’s answer currently is to simply print more money. The Congress, as vapid as ever, agrees, tweaking the system occasionally as it has just done, knowing that it can un-tweak it any time it feels the need.

So, while his choice of words may have seemed harsh, Romney spoke the truth, not just about his chances at being elected but about the direction in which the nation is headed. By economic definition, the population can’t bear the entitlement burden as currently designed. Romney (actually Ryan) has tried to make this point, calling for modifications that will not penalize people over age 55 (concerning Medicare) but will affect those under 55. Social Security is already being modified. The only alternative is to increase the tax rates to prohibitive levels, starting, as Obama would have it, with the wealthy but, as everyone knows, soon affecting the entire population.

What Obama offers (actually prefers) is the status quo that leads directly to Olde Europe socialism, with the people dependent upon government for everything, cradle-to-grave. Romney offers a revival of the entrepreneurship that has made this country the economic marvel of the world. It’s job-creating and it’s that simple. In the process, some will grow wealthier than others – for a lot of reasons – but so what! The tax-break-system is the creature of Congress and the president, not the folks who take risks and create employment.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Monday, September 17, 2012

Innocence of Muslims NOT the Reason!

Any control the Obama White House might have had over Middle East affairs is spiraling downward rapidly, not least because of its wrong-headed insistence that a movie supposedly smearing the memory of Mohammad has “hurt Muslim feelings,” the poor darlings, and caused them to do mean things – even commit murder – against Americans and American embassies. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice appeared on all three morning-TV talk-clambakes 16 September, without equivocation making this claim, though at least part of the film has been on the Internet since July.

So…one has to wonder about the precedents, especially against embassies. In 1989, Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini (remember him, the taker of American hostages?) declared a fatwa (put out a contract) on writer Salman Rushdie because he slandered dear Mohammad in a novel titled Satanic Verses. Rushdie was born into Islam himself in India but the Indian Embassy was not attacked in Tehran, if there was one. He went to school in England (was a resident there) but the Indian embassy wasn’t attacked there, either.

Though the fatwa was lifted by the Iranians in 1998, according to CBS News web-site of 16 September Iranian newspapers were reporting that a religious foundation, apparently incensed by the recent movie Innocence of Muslims made in the U.S. but not by the government, had raised the bounty on Rushdie from $2.8 million to $3.3 million. I don’t doubt that Rushdie might have made Mohammad look bad, though I haven’t read Satanic Verses. I tried reading one of his other novels a few years back but gave it up soon after beginning it, growing tired of Rushdie’s multiple paragraphs (if not pages) describing the pubic hair of some guy’s mistress. Garbage!

In November 2004, Theo Van Gogh, who was connected to a film titled Submission that was about the Islam-oriented abuse of women, was murdered in the Netherlands by a Moroccan Muslim – shot multiple times, then stabbed multiple times, and was found with a note stabbed into his body. The Dutch embassy was not burned to the ground in Morocco, if memory serves, though I don’t remember if any Netherlands flags were burned.

Or, take the infamous case of the “flushed Korans at Gitmo,” as reported by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and John Barry in May 2005. This infuriated Muslims so intensely that they protested (actually rioted) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with 17 deaths ensuing, apparently Muslims killing Muslims or maybe just committing religious suicide. The account was untrue but the damage was done. As a result, however, no American ambassador was killed in Kabul for just being in the wrong place at the right time.

Terry Jones, the Florida pastor, burned a Koran last year but there was no embassy-burning in Cairo or Tripoli. The obvious question: Why does the administration insist that this recent movie caused all the current problems, especially with the embassies, when these other examples of “hurting Muslim religious feelings” did not?

The answer: It shouldn’t, notwithstanding Ambassador Rice’s (actually the president’s) claim and the fact that some of the mainstream media folks have constantly referred to the movie as an “American movie,” as if it were sponsored by the Obama government. The president should be outraged, but these newsies are his propagandists.

For her part, State Secretary Clinton has presented a colossal pout, while she and Ambassador Rice seem to have forgotten that they harangued the Security Council into a resolution allowing Obama to rape Libya last year, though totally unprovoked, with the current events in Libya being what the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah (God damn America) Wright would categorize as the “chickens coming home to roost,” sort of like payback for taking seven months to swat a gnat with a Sherman tank.

The Muslims are “mad as hell and obviously won’t take it anymore,” the “anymore” being Obama’s constant meddling in their world without any bona fides to do so. He gave all the insurrectionists false hope, al Qaeda butchers included, by his constant calls for the expulsion of dictators who actually kept a semblance of order in their bailiwicks, with the obvious implication being that he would be in full support, i.e., with at least all the weapons needed, if not boots on the ground. His words were as “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The rebels DO have a grievance, enhanced unambiguously by Obama’s absolute refusal to do anything – and with good reason – about Syria, where the indigenous/incestuous bloodshed makes all of the local bloodshed throughout the rest of the region look like a routine Saturday-night hospital ER. Never has an emperor been so completely without clothes.

NO! The Innocence of Muslims has nothing to do with the problem, which has been building exponentially during Obama’s tenure, never mind all the mega-billions of taxpayer dollars spent on trying to “democratize” Iraq and Afghanistan and buy-off Egypt. This has represented a huge bribe but is now inoperative.

As for the film, it couldn’t possibly show the degree of venality regarding Mohammad, the historic cult-leader of Islam. The history books do. Americans should read them and discover the fate Mohammad would have his people deliver to the infidels…Americans.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Friday, September 14, 2012

Romney-gate Plotters

The setting is a conference call set up by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, connecting ABC’s Jake Tapper, NBC/MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and Lawrence O’Donnell, and retired CBS newsman Dan Rather, recently recalled by CBS to cover the campaigns for president of Obama and Romney. Hereinafter, they will be referenced as J, C, L, and D, respectively.

**J: Did Wolf tell any of you guys why he wanted us to have this conflab? I’ve got enough to do without being bothered by the guy who lets John Sununu run on and on sometimes for as long as 30 seconds without interrupting…disgraceful!

**C: He phoned Andrea and explained that he was sure I might turn this down and would she mind explaining how important it is that we get our act together for Romney’s press conference tomorrow. So I called you and Dan.

**D: You sure he didn’t just ask Andrea to do this and she turned him down, huh, there, Chuck…sort of made you second choice…hoo-hah, second choice…

**L: Knock it off, Dan. Wolf knows that every Thursday evening is set aside by Andrea and Alan so they can count up the Greenspan green for the week. They call it Federal Reserve Redux! She couldn’t make it tonight with all that loot to…

**J: So…Wolf is too much commentator and not enough reporter for the job and wants us to do the dirty work while he sits around over there and strokes that awful beard. What color is it this week, by the way?

**D: Aw, don’t be catty, there, Jakie…

**C: Catty, huh! I remember the time back in the day when you came on the set with hair so bright red that the camera guys put on shades. You didn’t make it back for a week, tryin’ to get that red out…hahahahaha… (all laugh except Rather)

**D: Okay, we’ve had our fun. I’m the senior guy here so I guess I’ll chair this little…

**L: You’re outnumbered I’ll bet, Dan, but let’s just take a vote…we’ve got two to one from just our outfit.

**J: Yeah…never mind the vote, though. I’m throwin’ in with the NBC gang, Dan, and I’ll just volunteer to run this clambake.

**L: No way, Jake! I can see you teaming up with Dan now for gridlock against Chuck and me, just like in the Congress, so let’s just do odd-man-out. (Rather wins) Let me see that coin, Dan…it didn’t maybe come from the Texas Air National Guard bank account, did it…hoo-hah!

**D: Not funny, Larry! Not a damn bit funny…just like you were never funny when you tried to be funny on that miserable McLaughlin Group every Friday…you and Buchanan snarling at each other, with Buchanan snarling you under the table every time.

**L: (slight frothing at the mouth) If you’d like to meet me at the Mall tomorrow, Dan, we’ll just…

**J: Okay…that’s enough. We’re all honorable men here, so let’s get down to business. What’s the game here, Dan? How can we smear Romney and make sure Barry gets…

**C: Barry??? So now you’re on a first-name basis with the big guy, Jake. You know how that compromises you, I guess. Do you get in on the roundup every morning with Carney…you know, along with Stephanopolous and CNN and Matthews…to set the day’s agenda?

**J: Naw. You know better than that. I’m just a hired hand, same as you, Chuck. Georgie-boy is usually my highly placed official…egad, if they ever put us under oath…

**D: Back to business, guys. Romney hurt our man over that Libya thing, sounding all patriotic and claiming that free speech angle – works every time with the great unwashed…

**L: Hate to mention it but ol’ Par-breaker-claimer didn’t help matters when he flew off to sin-city for that big speech, with our guys all shot to hell and the embassy on fire in Libya…

**C: Yeah, they’re still laughing over at our affiliate in Las Vegas, and the conservative talk-radio guys are playing tapes of the Big O’s command to everybody not to go to Las Vegas and go broke in 2010 (all laughing) with Dingy Harry running the Senate and running for reelection from – you guessed it – Sin City! What a back-stabber!

**L: Watch it, Chuck…I may be your best friend but that remark came close to racist and…by the way, Dan, that Crawford gal from your outfit and the guy from NPR – Shapiro? – what were they thinking when they got caught on that open mike plotting how to trip up Romney in his next news conference? (wild laughter) You’d think they just got off the boat…

**D: Just got off the boat, just got off the boat, you got any idea how racist that is, Larry, JUST GOT OFF THE BOAT…sheesh

**L: Stop shouting, Dan, two kids just walked by and started screaming and running. Even over the phone, you try to intimidate…like that time you bragged about deep-sixing Bush-41 in 1988 on your nightly news gig and the old man stuck it to you over that six-minute hiatus you took when CBS gave women’s tennis priority over you and the Pope in Miami and CBS went dead – old temper- tantrum-Dan…hoo-hahahahaha…

**D: I was set up on that deal, Larry. But back to the subject! How about we just dig up some dirt…you know, maybe discover he went to strip joints when he was a missionary in Paris, something juicy? That kinda question would shake up even me and I’m known for…

**J: We tried that already…guy’s as clean as a hound’s tooth. We even tried to get Sam Donaldson in on it but he shouted back that he’d been ignored lately by ABC – especially on Sunday morning…mad as…

**D: How about his religion? That’s always good for something…maybe an Elmer Gantry charge…nothing juicier than that. He was a bishop of some kind for a while.

**L: Don’t even think about it! We took God all the way out of the Democrat Convention a few days ago…you want to remind people about religion? You crazy or something? The guy taking the vote had to lie to get God back in…made all the Muslims and homosexuals mad as…

**C: Speaking of which, didn’t you watch that ceremony at Andrews when those bodies were brought back from Libya? Hillary and the commander-in-chief couldn’t say “God” enough. They even had two prayers and the band didn’t exactly play There’ll Be a Hot Time in the Old Town Tonight. Stay off the religion thing. A lot of folks think the Big O’s a Muslim anyway.

**D: I got it. Why don’t I dig up a genuine document that proves Romney dodged the draft? I could get into the right office in Michigan…naw, that’s too much trouble. I got this guy who can make a facsimile document about anything, with the right date, signatures, everything to make it look authentic. After all, it’s the perception that matters, not the truth.

**J: That didn’t work out too well the last time you tried that back in 2004, did it?

**D: If there’s one thing I’ve learned from that, it’s to profit from mistakes. I got the right guy this time and no typewriters are in the picture – all state-of-the-art stuff…can’t miss.

**J: Sounds good enough for me. (click)

**C: I’m on. (click)

**L: (click)

**D: H-m-m-m. Happy days are here again. (click)

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Obama - Ever the Apologist?

As Obama mentor the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah (God damn America) Wright put it concerning the wasting of Hiroshima in August 1945, the “chickens have come home to roost,” this time concerning Obama’s attack upon Libya in March 2011 and his consequent annihilation of its government, including the murder of its leader. The difference between the two events, of course, is that President Truman had a reason for Hiroshima – the immediate ending of WWII and the saving of millions of lives – while President Barack Hussein Obama had no reason at all for engaging his Libyan atrocities…none, nada, zilch.

The outrage over the massacre by jihad-crazy Muslims in Libya this week of four U.S. officials, including an ambassador, as expressed by State Secretary Clinton and Obama is so artificial and self-serving as to make them appear either incredibly naïve or incredibly stupid. They would be better served to say nothing.

None of the current mess in Libya would have happened if not for the inane or insane actions taken by these two warmongers in early 2011, when Barack Hussein Obama dispatched Clinton, US/UN Ambassador Rice and White House apparatchik Powers to the Security Council to get a resolution of war against Libya, with the “understanding” that a reluctant NATO would join the party while Barack Hussein Obama “led from behind.” Now, Clinton caterwauls on TV about the current Libyan violence but seems to have forgotten the violence she helped create last year. What disgusting hypocrisy!

Both Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen warned in televised Congressional hearings against this travesty of sovereign rights, but were brushed aside. Later, when Obama ordered good, decent Americans to bomb the innocent Libyans, Gates, in Russia and apparently unaware of this violation of the sovereignty of another nation, described Obama’s action as an “on the fly” operation, i.e., without much military input, planning, or execution. He was right, of course. Obama, as the all-wise, strategically superior commander-in-chief, said his war would last for days, not weeks. The action lasted for seven long months, with even neighborhoods being bloodied by bombs or missiles that can be aimed but with no guarantee of final destination.

Just as bad as the action itself was Barack Hussen Obama’s war-making-methodology, completely bypassing the Congress in an obvious declaration of war manifested more by deeds than by words and proclaimed in Brazil, not Washington. Instead, knowing that the Congress, though weak as water, would take time to sort out his folly and deep-six it, he simply delivered U.S. sovereignty to the vapid United Nations Security Council and violated his constitutional responsibilities vis-à-vis Congress concerning military action and violated the War Powers Act in the bargain. He should have been impeached by the House long ago for a crime much worse than that of Bill Clinton, who was impeached in 1999 for simply lying under oath. The Republican-led House sat on its hands in 2011, apparently afraid of a racism charge…or just too inept to do anything, probably the latter.

The administration and certainly the mainstream media, otherwise known as Obama’s propaganda machine, seem to believe that actions of Americans exercising free speech provide easily understandable reasons for Muslims to kill Americans, just as their holy book, the Quran, requires them to do at every opportunity with regard to the evil “infidel,” defined as anyone not a Muslim. President-candidate Romney is being castigated for making statements at odds with the administration’s approach. It’s their belief that (gasp, horrors and look-out-Gertrude!) no one should say anything about anything when the president is mulling a response to a massacre and getting someone to teleprompt it so as not to “hurt a Muslim’s feelings.”

Barack Hussein Obama’s totally illegal invasion of Libya has come back to haunt him, but this will not be brought out in the media, even the conservative media. Obama has made it a point to tell the Muslim leaders of Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria they had to go but made it plain that he wouldn’t lift a hand to bring that off – until LIBYA came along – and Obama realized that he was not only not participating in the “Arab Spring” that he had lionized but that he hadn’t even bothered to have his own war and prove his military bona fides, perhaps for the current election year, though his military prowess never materialized even though he picked out a military machine to attack that was among the weakest in the world – Libya’s, that of a country with a population two million LESS than that of New York City and troop-strength of 76,000 boots compared to that of the U.S. – about 1.5 million.

It’s doubtful that this country has ever been as poorly led as it is currently, by any measure – military, social, economic, international…including by Congress. It seems that the executive leadership, including the State Secretary, is desperately trying to mollify murderous Muslims by exhorting Americans not to speak their minds, while Romney calls for some spine to be exhibited. God help us…shades of Jimmy Carter and the hostages!

The media gives President Barack Hussein Obama an accolade of spine for deciding to off an already totally ineffective and virtually defenseless Osama but never mentions the total lack of it in attacking one of the weakest nations in the world and taking seven months to destroy it…for no reason. And now comes the reckoning and the apologies all around?

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Saturday, September 08, 2012

Convention Musings

Both the Republican and Democrat conventions had as central themes the virtual deifying of Woman and Latino, of whose language and/or personal appearances there was much use for the obvious reason. The democrats added a third virtual deification, that of the homosexual. Sadly, the vital factions seeking to control the government have operated on these themes in both their planning and operations. Try not to vomit.

In the process – by virtually ignoring them – the factions have made it plain that the most evil influences in the nation are the white Anglo-Saxon males, forces to be corralled before it is too late lest they somehow feel needed and therefore object…maybe even complain. So, the effort was made to “humanize” Romney (shades of Nixon) and enhance Obama’s stature as a “hunk” (shades of Bill Clinton). Shortly after the start of the demo clambake, a homosexual identified his “uniqueness” and addressed the crowd to great acceptance, setting a certain tone, perhaps an amalgamation of hedonism and perversion.

The democrats also provided an act of un-deification by taking any mention of God out of their platform. This was predictable since it could hardly be expected that God somehow could be lumped in importance with…yep…Obamessiah, immaculated [sic], as Limbaugh would have it, in January 2009. Two deities operating at the same time just blows the political mind, spiritually as well as materially.

Some members of the fair sex might actually have noticed that they were demeaned by all the inordinate attention…okay, actually inordinate attention to their voting power. To aid in their self-demeaning they took to the podiums in droves to announce that they will not be taken for granted, are mad as hell, and won’t take it anymore. This was proven by the appearance in the dem-fest by Sandra Fluke, otherwise known as the “Condom Lady,” example extraordinaire of the “liberated woman,” who campaigned vigorously with the commander-in-chief, epitome of the non-essential male.

White Anglo-Saxon males (the black guys get a pass) were not run over like deer staring into the headlights. Naw, they just circled the wagons, admitted that the gals are running things this year and must not be offended lest they feel accused of a traditional (but false, of course) trait called “fickleness.”

The republican gals (well…maybe 48% of them), no doubt disappointed that somebody like a reincarnation of Sarah Palin (without the brassiness, of course) was not nominated, at least for the veep spot a la the gimmickry of John McCain in 2008, will go for Romney on the basis of something neutral like “values,” but remain skittish about his approach(es) to abortion and maybe even just keep quiet on the economy since nobody, male or female, seems to have much of an idea of how to fix it, Obama having gotten it into a mess no one understands, especially him unless, of course, a mess was his intention all along on the wide road to socialism.

Caveat: I watched perhaps three speeches through or nearly through and just snatches of the repub clambake, but only snatches of the activities at the demo-debacle, avoiding the horrendously long instances of sound and fury by windbags, signifying nothing. I contented myself with TV news and those snatches mentioned above pertaining to the rest of the boring sessions for my edification. For whatever it’s worth, Huckabee’s was by far the best speech I heard and best delivered.

The most entertaining moment came when the president reportedly discovered that someone, obviously following the convention’s emphasis on perversion, had erred in having God taken out of the democrat platform (not that this worthless document means anything) and the ensuing charade that he was surprised and furious at such a thing, all paraded as believable news by the gullible or propagandizing networks. The pooh-bas (press and government), as usual, figure the great unwashed to be so ignorant that they can’t see through the thoroughly transparent idiocies. What poor soul actually believes the president didn’t do the whole deed?

The actual vote(s) to have God placed back in the platform were reminiscent of many voice-votes in Congress and other conventions. The “NO” voters greatly out-voiced the “YES” voters on all three votes that were taken, so the chairman had to lie about the result and put God back in. After all, replacing God with the homosexual-glorification might have upset a few ignoramuses, who nevertheless can find the voting booths. Undoubtedly, God was scared literally to death in all of this, and people are still laughing at the silliness exhibited by both the leaders and the sheep being herded in an evangelical direction they wished to avoid.

Some of the democrat speakers forgot the new paradigm vis-à-vis God and unwittingly said something like “God bless America.” In the grand spirit of perversion/diversity, it would have been okay to say, “Allah Akbar” or render a Confucian axiom, perhaps, but to bludgeon people’s sensibilities with thoughts of God was…well, unpatriotic and dismissive of the new church-state protocol, to wit, the church is subversive and must be silenced.

I caught part of the beginning of Biden’s speech (hopefully not plagiarized from some nameless Irishman) in which he regaled and probably thoroughly embarrassed his wife with expressions of his deep and abiding love, and I wondered what that had to do with governance, but it was great theater, eaten up by the crowds. Obama and Biden still have the support of the media, however, as proven by the fact that the Washington Post team found only three lies by Obama and just five by Biden.

I caught the acts of a couple of democrat businessmen in which they extolled their virtues in establishing eminently successful enterprises, and I had to laugh since they either didn’t know better or were hypocritical enough to do that in light of Obama’s declaration a while back that people who did what they said they did actually didn’t. “You didn’t build that!” he said. Still laughing!

On the day after his convention, the president could revel in the fact that the unemployment rate fell from 8.3% in July quickly to just 8.1% in August, a statistical marvel since 96,000 (count ’em) jobs were created while only 368,000 folks quit looking for work. That just about says it all. The actual unemployment rate is probably approaching 20% by now but by November may be down to 2.3%, according to Obama-government figures.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Professorial Prevarications & Propaganda

Retired University of Kentucky professor Marty Solomon, a frequent contributor to the Op-Ed section of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., is on the ultra-left fringe of whatever party, if he claims one, and can be relied on to spout Democrat Party boilerplate, i.e., that the United States must become a socialist rather than a capitalist society.

Solomon’s main hang-up, understandable for class-warfare folks, seems to be that no one should make much money; however, if he/she should manage to do that, the gains, no matter how legally earned, should be confiscated by the government and given to someone else. This makes Solomon a soul-brother to President Obama, who has inveighed heavily against the U.S. Constitution because it does not allow for redistribution of wealth.

The founding document also doesn’t allow for unlimited access to condoms for women at government expense, as Obama seems to think it should as evidenced in his campaigning with Sandra Fluke (who allegedly insists upon government-provided “transgender” surgeries, also) concerning this matter, but that’s another story. Suffice it to say that Obama, if allowed to do so, as he did concerning his war on Libya, would pay absolutely no attention to the founding document and most laws, having claimed publicly, for instance, that his Judicial Department will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act of 1998 and has repudiated it further by claiming that homosexuals should marry each other. This is weird, unseemly and unnatural, but so be it.

In a column of 04 September, Solomon went through the usual litany of “progressive thought” and made some firm statements for which he gave no backing/explanations…sort of facts taken right out of thin air. One remembers when then-Defense Secretary Gates said of Obama’s campaign against Libya (of which Gates, the main man, was ignorant) that it was done “on the fly,” i.e., unplanned and poorly executed. Obama said the end of Libya would come in days, not weeks. The U.S. and NATO bombed Libya for seven months. Perhaps Solomon is as reliable as Obama.

Solomon said the republican plan for Medicare not affecting anyone age-55 or older is a wash since repeal of Obamacare would make it so. He didn’t mention logical legislation resulting from the repeal that could guarantee the “as is” element for the 55-and-older crowd and continuing provisions for prescription drugs as they stand now. In other words, he speculated.

Here is a statement by Solomon that has to do with his veracity or lack thereof: “Bush-era tax cuts, the largest in history, combined with sweeping government deregulation resulted in the largest drop in GDP ever.” Last item first: The GDP when Bush was elected in 2000 was less than $10 trillion. In 2008 when Obama was elected, the GDP was at $14.3 trillion, so there was no decrease at all, much less the largest in history. Instead, there was a 43% increase. These are facts, not speculation, and can be quickly and easily verified through examining government documents; so, either Solomon is woefully uninformed or willfully prevaricates.

The drop in the top tax rate between 2001 and 2003 under Bush was 10%. In 1963, the top rate was 91%. In 1964, it was 77%, meaning a drop of 15.4%, much larger than 10%. In 1986, the top rate was 50%. In 1987, it was 38.5%, a drop of 23%, much larger than Bush’s. Check it out…these are facts. So, Solomon is ignorant of tax history or he lies.

Solomon didn’t mention that under President Clinton the top rate went from 31% to 39.6%, a whopping increase of 27.7%. Clinton was lucky to have had the benefits of the Reagan cuts to fuel the economy of the 1990s but by the end of the decade, concomitant with his huge increase in taxes, the economy was spiraling downward and inherited by Bush, who did what Reagan did in order to turn it around. These are facts, not speculation, and can be easily checked by examining U.S. documents.

Strangely, since his kind of guy has been president for four years and is now being held accountable for his stewardship (including an outrageous unemployment rate of about an actual 16%), Solomon characterized the current financial situation as an “economic malaise.” Where has that term been used before? It was used to describe the administration of Jimmy Carter, which, though it took some time to straighten out, was turned around by Ronald Reagan. When Carter left office the top tax rate was 70%. At the end of Reagan’s term, it was 28%, for a drop of 60% and an introduction to prosperity. Bush 41’s slight increase (31% for just two years) meant virtually nothing.

There’s no excuse for the kind of misinformation – euphemistic term for “lies” – that Solomon has attempted to push off on the public. Perhaps he sees Obama flaming out in his attempt to bring a “transformation” to government, better defined as an in-your-face to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the nation. Senator Mitch McConnell was right years ago when he said the number-one job was to defeat Obama, who has done enough domestic damage and destroyed the credibility of this nation abroad.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Moyers & Nefarious Schemes

On 02 September, PBS gadfly Bill Moyers undertook a hatchet job on Ralph Reed, current head honcho of something called the Faith & Freedom Coalition, an organization with the aim of unseating President Obama. Moyers has worn a lot of hats, among which were a number for former president Lyndon Johnson, such as press secretary at one time and sort of chief of staff at another. Actually, he seemed to be numero uno gofer, among all the Johnson apparatchiks.

Followers of Johnson could understand how Moyers would know corruption when he sees it…or thinks he does. Reed has a history, too, as an evangelical politician, a sort of religious right-winger, who was closely associated at one time with Jack Abramoff, primo-lobbyist who went to the Big-House but is now out of prison, so Reed knows corruption when he sees it…or thinks he does. Both Moyers and Reed, one presumes, had a hand in various enterprises that were not all that savory, and so they can easily perform mutual hatchet jobs.

People with long memories can remember back to 1979, when Moyers devoted two of his PBS programs to then-professor Mansour Farhang (California State, Sacramento), an Iranian who appeared with Moyers to help Americans understand why the hostages were taken in Iran. Later, Farhang went home and became the Iranian ambassador to the UN but left Iran in 1981 – actually fled before being beheaded. To his credit, he was at least at odds with the fanatical Ayatollah Khomeini, who held on to the hostages until inauguration day, 1981, when he probably felt that Ronald Reagan would not waste words before laying waste his dollhouse.

Moyers might also be remembered for his non-part in Jimmy Carter’s New Baptist Covenant clambake, co-hosted by Bill Clinton, in January 2008 in Atlanta shortly before the Georgia Primary pitting Hillary against Obama. The speakers – like Bill Clinton (slight smell?) and Al Gore – were to be Baptists, Moyers included, having earned his M. Div. degree at Southwestern Baptist Seminary and been a one-time preacher. Problem: Moyers had long since left the Baptists and for decades had been a member of the United Church of Christ denomination (the denomination of President Obama and the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright).

Moyers was suddenly replaced – one forgets the reason given – by author John Grisham, a Baptist and Hillary Clinton-supporter and fundraiser. The conference was designed not to include the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, second only to the Roman Catholic denomination in membership, with whose pooh-bas Carter had had a falling-out over theology, such as that part concerning same-sex unions, which Carter insisted should be officially sanctioned. The SBC gang considered that to be approval of homosexual behavior, against which the scriptures inveigh mightily. Could the Carter-Clinton NBC be categorized as the joining of church & state? Oh yeah! Unfortunately or not, Hillary lost the Primary anyway.

Moyers made much of the fact that Reed’s outfit is a “501C-4” nonprofit and thus is not required to divulge information regarding its funding – a super-pac, in other words. Contributors may not claim exemptions vis-à-vis the IRS. There are lots of super-pacs, as Moyers knows, but he made an issue out of the FFC as if it were some nefarious scheme.

Speaking of such schemes, especially as related to religion, Moyers might have mentioned a scheme cooked-up in 2003-04 by former National Council of Churches VIP Albert Pennybacker and folks like Jesse Jackson and James Dunn, former director of the Baptist Joint Committee, an organization devoted to advancing the separation of church and state. The “scheme” was called the Clergy Leadership Network, operated by Pennybacker with offices in Washington, with Jackson and Dunn on its board.

The first paragraph of the CLN Mission Statement: “As clergy--pastors, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders, both men and women--we are deeply concerned about the well being of our country, we are committed to sweeping changes--changes in faltering political leadership and its increasing lack of credibility and rejection of public policies increasingly seen as not only failing but actually destructive of the quality of current life and America's future.” The CLN became the “Religious Left.”

The actors in the CLN were not identified as “citizens” concerned about the well-being of the country; rather, they were clearly identified as clergy and other religious leaders, so it would seem that their sole purpose was to tear down the wall that separates state and church (synagogue, mosque) by entering the elective process through religious convictions/actions only, else they would not have identified themselves unmistakably and solely as “religious leaders.” The CLN was also a PAC (501C-4) dedicated to one purpose, the election of a specific candidate, John Kerry. It was partly funded by George Soros, the liberal billionaire and world’s highest-profile atheist, bankroller of wacko-liberal, and darling of leftist causes.

Or…take the far-left-religious Sojourners organization, with presidential adviser Rev. Jim Wallis as its CEO and editor-in-chief of its magazine. Though Wallis lied about it at least once and admitted it, Sojourners was given a $200,000 grant by the Soros-funded Open Society Institute in 2004, after which Wallis received two more grants, with the Sojourners kitty growing from $1.6 million in 2001-02 to $5.3 million in 2008-09, not to mention another $100,000 in 2006 for the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign. One can guess what that was all about.

Soros funds groups advancing abortion, atheism, same-sex marriage and, of course, huge government, which can never touch anyone as wealthy as he is. This is another example of the Religious Left, except that Soros is anything but religious! He just “uses” religionists for his causes, and they, of course, desert biblical principles and theology for the money.

So…Moyers can flail away at those naughty “religious right” characters but those religionists of his ultra-liberal bent, like Carter, Pennybacker and Wallis, take a back seat to no one when it comes to nefarious schemes. Indeed, they have a readymade constituency in probably most if not all the so-called mainline denominations since these groups are either ambivalent on important issues or blatantly committed to politically correct theology rather than the unmistakable biblical mandates. They prefer shades of gray for everything, eschewing any notion of absolutes, i.e., if they believe anything at all.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark