The Democrat Debate

The much anticipated Democrat debate aired at 8:30am here in the Philippines so I adjusted my schedule to stay home and watch it. I probably didn't need to waste my time, except that I was curious to see if there would be any attempt to take down Hillary. There wasn't. In fact, there wasn't anything really unexpected in the two-and-a-half hour socialist love fest. It was almost a race to see who could promise to give away more: free college tuition, paid maternity leave, and Obamacare for illegal immigrants. Coldly missing from all their promises was anything for veterans.

The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.

It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.

I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.

That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.

They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.

Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.

You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.

In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.

Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.

James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.

They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.

On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?

Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.

Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.

Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.

O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.

But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.

On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."

After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.

When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.

In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.

Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.

Cold War 2

I make no claim to being a prophet but I published a comment July 6, 2009 about Obama's sniveling to then Russian president Medvedev and said, "My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War." Here's the comment:

I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.

This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.

The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.

Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.

In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.

And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.

So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?

I hope not.

Should a Muslim be President

What is overlooked in this debate on whether or not a Muslim should be president is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the only religion of any consequence in the country was Christianity. The Christian founders guaranteed freedom of religion to all religions, but they never expected to see a day when Islam or any other non-Christian religion would have been dominant. This is clear in their own writings and comments. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and author of five of The Federalist articles, said that it is the duty of Christians in a Christian nation to elect Christians to the nation's highest offices. The Founders, while granting freedom of worship to all religions, expected that America would be a Christian nation in perpetuity. The reason someone adhering to Sharia Law should not be president, even if the Constitution would allow it to happen, is that in Islam there can be no loyalty to any entity other than Allah. A Muslim president could not honestly take the oath of office because his only loyalty would be to Islam and an Islamic takeover and overthrow of the Constitution he would be swearing to defend.