Perfect Mindlessness: Angry Democrats

I always knew I was a grumpy guy; now I’m a grumpy old guy. But after being on Facebook for the last few weeks, I have come to realize that compared to more than half of the country, I have the temperament of a zen master who has achieved perfect “mindfulness.”

The Democratic masses are in dire need of anger management treatment. They claim to see Trump as Hitler and even worse (who could be worse than Hitler? Answer: Trump.). According to these people, an Orwellian regime has descended on America, and they employ every profanity imaginable to attack Big Brother and especially anyone with the chutzpah to disagree.

The members of the “I Feel Your Pain” Party are so angry that they cannot see their own obvious hypocrisy. An incredible example is a photo of Trump’s wife, probably dredged up from the subterranean depths of the internet, wearing a Santa Claus hat and a come hither expression on her face.. The caption in large letters reads “White House Whore.” Why, I ask myself, can’t they see how revolting that is? I wouldn’t be surprised if some bottom dweller has produced a photoshopped video of Trump’s wife strolling down 42nd Street during the 1970s dressed in “hot pants” and 12 inch high heels

Needless to say, what if the Republicans, who “summer” on Pluto,  produced a photo of  Kirsten Gillibrand in a similar pose with the caption “Senate Whore”? The Democratic Party Women’s Movement would go postal. Do you remember the outcry over the comments about Michelle Obama’s muscular shoulders? I really believe that a politician’s wife and children should not be fair game. Trump’s wife has kept a very low profile; she has performed a number charitable acts since becoming First Lady and  insists that the media be kept out of it. On the other hand, Obama’s wife engaged in controversial politics during her tenure and so was fair game for respectful rebuttal.

As of yet, I haven’t heard any Democratic feminist leaders like Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, or even Al Franken say a word about the White House Whore photo, and I assume that it must be all over the internet.  I wouldn’t wait too long for the New York Times to press them on that.

At the same time there are a number of things to be happy about : a strong economy, a record breaking stock market, and more than full employment. What’s not to like? You may disagree with Trump’s more hardline foreign policy, but he is the only President in recent years who recognizes that the kinder, gentler approach has been tried over and over again without success. The Democrats are predicting that the new tax reform bill will make a lot of underserving rich people even more rich while the rest of us are huddling on subway grates in the snow. But as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, “The purpose of economic forecasts is to make astrology look respectable.”

Given the Democratic Party media’s over-the-top campaign against Trump, it is not unlikely that they will win back the Congress and then move immediately to impeachment and removal from office. Today’s Democrats are like Islamists: they never ever concede that they lost.

 

 

The Emptiest Threat

Happy Malaysian

Angry Malaysians

Two days ago the Malaysian defense minister announced that his country’s armed forces “are ready to play a role” in the aftermath of Trump’s decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Not to underestimate the prowess of the Malaysian military, but what kind of “role” could they possibly be thinking of? Assuming that they plan to send troops to “liberate” Jerusalem, I wonder how they would pull it off.

Malaysia is approximately 5000 air miles from Israel. If they transported troops and equipment by water, they could reach the southern tip of Israel at Eilat; Jerusalem is 153 miles north of Eilat and the trip can take between 4 and 5 hours If they chose another route, they would have to pass through Saudi Arabia and then Jordan or Egypt. How likely is it that any of those countries would allow the Malaysians to use their territory to invade Israel?  Iran, which does not share a border with Israel, is content to use their Hamas proxies in Gaza to stir up trouble with Israel; and Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator is currently otherwise engaged in fighting his own insurgents. The Malaysian forces would be sitting ducks in the Red Sea, and it is highly doubtful that the Israelis would allow their ships to to get anywhere near Israel.

If they plan to airlift their troops and equipment, they would have to land in one of the aforementioned Arab countries or Iran.  In addition, the Global Firepower website ranks Israel at 15th in overall military power and Malaysia at 33rd (Iran comes in at 21st). If the Malaysians are serious about “playing a role” in Jerusalem, they ought to think about a role that doesn’t involve military action.

Empty threats are signs of weakness and reveal that there is very little that the Arabs and their allies can realistically do about Trump’s decision. Anytime the Arabs and their supporters look weak and unserious is a good time for Israel.

What “The World” Thinks

According to the New York Times “The World” is extremely upset over the President’s decision to actually implement the decades-old U.S. policy that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The headlines all scream that Trump has changed the policy. Wrong:  By deciding to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the President merely made what had been on paper a reality on the ground.  Of course, “world opinion” is really the view of the relatively tiny handful of those currently in power and their media mouthpieces, as well as violent street protestors. I might have missed it while I was out doing more productive things, but I haven’t yet heard about the reaction of the American people, but then again, what do they know? And I haven’t read in the Times what even the sophisticated citizens of New York City think.

I have heard what the Pope thinks: he’s not amused. I don’t know whether the current Pope’s opinion counts for very much since, amazingly, a number of Catholic bishops have publicly criticized him. But the Times thinks his view is very important, and who could argue with the so-called paper of record?

The official reason “The World”  is so upset is the claim that the President’s action will negatively affect the “peace process.” Of course the “peace process” has been bereft of life since Bill Clinton, at the very end of his tenure in office, offered what most Middle East mavens considered to be a fair and very generous settlement to Israeli prime minister Ehud Barack and PLO chairman Yasir Arafat. Barack accepted and Arafat rejected the plan. On his return to headquarters, Arafat ordered up another intifada. From then on, I believe, the words “Yasir Arafat” never publicly passed through Bill Clinton’s lips. (What he said in private is probably not appropriate for a family blog.)

Clinton, perhaps naively, spent a great deal of time and effort trying to end the Israeli-Arab conflict once and for all. First, he worked hard to defeat the incumbent prime minister Bibi Netanyahu by sending his very own political gunslingers, James Carville and Paul Begala, over to Israel to manage Barack’s campaign. (Talk about interfering in another country’s election; imagine any foreign leader dispatching his or her top political operatives to manage the campaign of an American presidential candidate. Impossible!) Then he proceeded to wine and dine Arafat (who previously had ordered the murder of at least two Americans), inviting him to the White House more times than any foreign head of state. In the end, it must have been clear to sober observers that Arafat and company really saw the “peace process” as an alternative means of warfare waged to eliminate Israel.

It cannot possibly be that the intellectually superior European leaders really still believe in the “peace process.” Obviously, they are really afraid of Arab terrorism and riots organized by Iran, Hezbollah, and their left wing “anti-fa” supporters who have trashed buildings on American university campuses where people they don’t like are scheduled to speak.

When I read about “The World’s” reaction, I am reminded of a story told by the comedian Robert Klein. When they were kids, Klein and his sister got into a fight because she had the temerity to say something negative about the New York Yankees. Klein’s father heard the yelling and screaming and rushed in to break up the fight.  Then he turned to Robert and said, “What the hell did the Yankees ever do for you?”  That’s the question I’d like to ask the Pope:  What the hell did the Arabs ever do for you?

Does it ever cross the Pope’s mind that there wouldn’t be a pope today if it weren’t for American money and the blood of American soldiers? Doesn’t he realize that the Vatican could have been torn down, priceless art and all, and replaced with either imperial style Nazi architecture or Soviet-style “workers’ housing”? What about Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and all the rest? Don’t they owe their countries’ existence (not to mention their freedom) to the United States? To be sure, they have every “right” to complain (another entitlement they wouldn’t have if it weren’t for U.S. protection). But that doesn’t mean that they have to exercise that right.

Yes, I know:  Trump doesn’t equal America. And lots of Americans refuse to accept Trump as “their president.”  So go fight the Constitution, the Electoral College, and current law. For the time being, at least, Trump is the president and the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is in the process of being fully implemented (at least until, inevitably, some Obama-appointed federal judge from Poughkeepsie–not that there’s anything wrong with Poughkeepsie–decides that he (or she) is empowered to make foreign policy.)

He Who Shall Not Be Named, aka, President Trump obviously doesn’t think it’s ever a good idea to base policy on fear and intimidation. Also there are lots of folks out there who simply don’t understand efforts to promote peace and fairness; they see it as weakness. The current president wants to disabuse those folks of that belief, and moving the American embassy to Jerusalem is a good start.

 

 

Small-Handed

The other day, a friend sent me a Trump bashing article by ABC News personality Lynn Sherr. Among the many epithets she threw at The Donald in her mostly incoherent piece was “small-handed.”  I thought that at my age, I had heard every put down, slur and insult imaginable. But this was new to me. I asked my friend what she thought Sherr meant; Sherr couldn’t seriously ridicule someone for having small hands. Besides who knew that Trump has small hands?  Who would even notice something like that on a tv screen?  Ok, I get the hair, but hand size? My friend didn’t answer.

So I figured this was just another person suffering from Compulsive Trump Obsession Disorder, of whom there are multitudes. Then I read someone use it again. I thought, with apologies to John McEnroe – You cannot be serious!  I also wondered how it is now acceptable for the politically correct to ridicule the hand-size challenged.

Then I realized what they really mean. Small-handed is a relatively wholesome euphemism for small penis, the ultimate insult you can level at a man. This is based on the belief that hand and or foot size correlates to dick size. I googled the claim and found that there is, as of yet, no scientific proof of a correlation. But more importantly, how could it be that liberals are now loudly emitting arguably sexist, if not “sizeist”  epithets?

Randy Newman was being ironic when he wrote the song “Short People,” but a number of short people were offended. I took the song to mean that bigots will always find some group of people to hate – even short people.  Speaking of that, short men are probably the most discriminated against group in the West. Lots of research shows that short men are less likely to be promoted in their jobs, more likely to earn lower salaries, and of course more likely to have stunted social lives compared to men of average and above average height. When shown pictures of popular famous men, most people believe the men are taller than they really are. The opposite is true of unpopular famous men. Almost all of those in the study believed that Churchill (5 foot 6) was taller than Hitler (5 foot 9). As a short, small handed guy, I have, I believe, every right to complain and demand reparations. I would, but I don’t like being laughed at.

A few years ago, rock star Keith Richards put out his autobiography. Throughout the book, Richards mercilessly insults and ridicules his long time collaborator, Mick Jagger. At one point, I began to think that his main purpose in publishing the book was to trash Jagger. That point was when he alleged that Jagger’s penis is, shall we say, less than impressive.

The book critics I read liked the book, but thought the penis reference was an almost fatal flaw. Other observers also thought that Richards went way too far. One of Jagger’s ex-wives felt compelled to publicly refute Richards’s claim; she didn’t mention any of the other insults. It seemed that Jagger’s organ would eclipse the rest of the fascinating story. I found myself using the now familiar test applied to fallen celebrities: Would Jagger’s dick be mentioned in the first sentence of Richards’s amazingly long delayed obituary? Richards knew he had made a big mistake; on his book tour, he went way out of his way to cite all of Mick Jagger’s talents and human qualities, whether real or fabricated.

So it is still unacceptable to publicly allege that a man is less than well endowed. As Chris Matthews likes to say in a different context, small-handed is a “dog whistle” that may or may not mean small penis. Liberals have established a new rule along with all the other rules they have inflicted on a suffering nation:  Small-handed is acceptable; small penis – not.

Quite clever, but spectacularly crude and hypocritical.