Placating Evil

By Chuck Marshall

Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany waving his treaty proclaiming "Peace for our Time".  

     I've come to a conclusion about the President;  the crux of his approach to terrorism is to not insult potential terrorists.  Notice how nearly all his arguments for what he's doing are that anything we do in contrast would risk "enabling  ISIL to recruit more terrorists".   From the bombings in Paris to the shootings in California his  reaction has been the same.   It's like, "Well my goodness we sure don't want to upset people on the brink of wanting to blow us up !"   Am I the only one that thinks ISIS  would recruit terrorists just fine and dandy even if we didn't have Gitmo or even if we allowed ALL the Syrian refugees to enter the United States ?   It's this entire wimpy philosophy that depletes Americans.  Where's the leadership ?  I'm not saying we need to send 100,000 troops to Syria, but I am saying our country should not be bowing or bending over for these people "lest we stir the pot of American hatred".  If they hate us enough to join ISIS, then no American policy is going to soften their hatred.  Remember, we're discussing a group of people that can be convinced to kill us all.  How could any policy of the US government change their mind to like us instead ?   The policy of the United States matters not one iota to potential terrorists.  The only thing that might change any of their minds is for us to remove all our troops from the middle east and become an isolationist country.  Then, yes, they might decide we don't have to die... at least not just yet.

      What brought this home to me was a news story today that mentioned Obama has refused to change his procedure at Gitmo of systematically releasing some of the less threatening prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.   He says all the information he has gathered has been that keeping Gitmo open only helps to recruit more terrorists.  Gasp !  Well, that's conjecture in my humble opinion, but releasing known terrorists to the wilds of the middle east is not conjecture.  It is a fact that these people will go home and plot to come back and kill us.  Make no mistake about that., Mr. Obama and I  say that with all due respect to you and your desire to do "the right thing".  Placating evil does not work.  It didn't work for the Nazis and it won't work for Jihadists.  Your weak approach only emboldens them to come after us even harder.  These people smell weakness in your policy like a shark smells blood in the water.  They're circling and they're ready for a feeding frenzy.  Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia but only one year later  he marched into Poland.    Evil cannot be placated.  

Selecting the Presidential Candidates- My personal Take

By Chuck Marshall


 Since the Presidential primaries are brewing "good and hot" right now, it seems appropriate that I entertain who I think would be the best selection from each party.

     For the Democrats,  I choose Hillary Clinton.  The only other choice is Bernie Sanders whom I believe is totally unqualified and is really not to be taken seriously.  A self-described socialist ?    I'm sure he means well and yes, we all want to see the "fat cats" get what they deserve but trying to make our country prosperous by taxing the wealthiest among us simply doesn't work.  It has been tried many, many times and in many, many different ways.  As Margaret Thatcher put it  "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".

     For the Republicans.  I have narrowed my choices down to three candidates.  Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Ben Carson.   (Carly Fiorina is my "also ran", but I decided I needed to get it down to three)

Marco Rubio-  He's sharp as a tack.  He's young and energetic.   I have never seen a person answer questions from the press  with such brevity and effectiveness.  I've never seen someone so quick with comebacks during debates.  He knows his stuff and he has thought everything through.  He seems sincere and he seems to want the best for our country.  He speaks Spanish which I think means something as our country has become more diverse.   Marco is from the middle class and understands the American middle class.  He knows the challenges we face every day.  I really like Marco !

Ben Carson-  Ben is very smart but more measured than Marco.  I like that he holds onto his faith at a time when I'm sure "handlers" have advised against bringing it up.  After all, he might  offend someone or challenge the people to consider their own faith or lack there of.    Ben is a self-made  man who rose from the bottom of society to the top.  This impresses me immensely.   Some people say he "doesn't know foreign policy", but I've been impressed by his determination to learn all he can and offer intelligent answers to questions.  In other words, he saw the problem and admitted it and is working on it- he didn't just lie about it like Donald Trump.    He is sincere and has a very good understanding of the constitution which is, in my humble opinion,  the most important thing a candidate should know. (President Obama is unfamiliar).  I really like Ben !

Jeb Bush-  Again, very smart.  Jeb has suffered badly due to his poor debating skills.  I agree he is bland like a bowl of oatmeal, but oatmeal will stick to your ribs and sometimes it's just much better for you.  The thing about Jeb is he knows his stuff., he has thoughtful answers to complex questions.  Above all, he has the experience.  None of the other top candidates  has served in an executive  position (as in governing, not executive of a real estate interest that declared bankruptcy 4 times).  Jeb was a successful governor here in Florida.  He proved himself and understands how it all works, there will be no "learning curve".  (Obama is still in the learning curve !)   He was an EXCELLENT governor !  He's genuinely nice guy ( Donald Trump is genuinely NOT a nice guy.)  I really like Jeb !
Oh, and by the way.... I really don't like Donald Trump.  In case the reader was wondering.

The Dungeon of Historic Ineptitude

Because King Obama Wishes It !

By Chuck Marshall


     The President seems especially lost recently after the attacks in Paris.   His answers are even more rambling and lost than ever.  Without his teleprompters he is normally awkward, but lately he's really off his pace.   In addition, the mainstream media is not cooperating as his usual lapdog.  Little Rover is nipping back at his excellency !   Why?  I can only theorize a few things;  the attacks in Paris have made  journalists briefly consider that they and their family may be in more danger with this President as compared to previous presidents.   His approach to "ISIL" (I absolutely loathe  how he calls ISIS-- ISIL)  just  doesn't seem to be working.  Also, I think the mainstream media is a little self-conscious since the Republican debates.  The candidates did an effective  job of exposing the media's tendency to toss softball questions to the more liberal politicians and especially the President., er "His Excellency".  Let's just say they're not all getting "shivers up their leg" anymore, that's for sure.

     So, as is often the case in life and in the world.... I'm not sure he's doing anything really wrong in his approach to combat ISIS,  I think it's more in the way he does it.  As Charles Kruthammer put it in his column this week "the only time he has shown any passion (since the murders in Paris) has been when he's attacking Republicans for their hardheartedness towards Muslim refugees".  As it is often implied in his comments and speeches, it's really OUR fault that all this is happening.  We have to bend over backwards not to offend Islam because that will make them even angrier and we'll get even more blow-back !  That's why the eagerness to welcome refugees even when he knew  it would cause a problem back home (He's over-seas at this writing, telling the world how awful the Republicans are).  In fact,  he's eager  not to anger the Muslims but he has no problem angering the Republicans which is by far the bigger problem in his administration.  In addition, it would be the easiest to fix if he set his mind to it.

     As he rounds up his final year in the White House,  it must be such a disappointment that the job didn't turn out the way he wanted.  He thought he would be the King of America.  In his mind  he doesn't need to "lead" the country because that would be crass and un-"king" like.  Kings don't lead, they sit on a thrown and are groomed and we all  do as they beckon.   He is the Louis the 16th of the 21st century.  The  peasants are overwhelming his guards at the palace walls and ultimately he will be removed and placed into the dungeon of historic ineptitude.   "But the jihadists will lose power if we just stop offending their religion ! "  he'll cry as he's dragged away.   Mr. President,  they will always want to kill  us, our families, and our children.  Refusing to call them "Islamic terrorists" for fear of offending the rest of Islam is oddly condescending and in my humble opinion, your approach makes more Muslims hate us not fewer.   

Free Speech in Paris and at Yale

by Chuck Marshall

       First and foremost let me express my deepest condolences to the French people and to any and all victims of terrorism.  There is something about murder due to a difference of opinion regarding an entire society that cuts especially deep because it clarifies that another group of people wants you dead for no reason other than what you think.   The terrorist attacks in Paris got me to thinking about free speech here in the United States.   We have the opposite approach to disagreeing with people who don't see our opinion - free societies respect differences of opinion while the philosophy of  "jihadists" reach out to bomb it.   This is probably the most important difference between us- all else pivots from this thought.  .

     In a free and open society we are able to disagree with other people as we see fit.  Most reasonable Americans understand that not everyone is going to agree with them and that is part of life.   I am reminded of a famous quote by the French (nice coincidence!) philosopher and writer  "Voltaire" who said ; " I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it".  That's the kind of Liberty we fight for and what our ancestors fought and died for going all the way back to the birth of our republic.   That is what we are all about.  That is Liberty.

     All this brings me to the outrage expressed by the students at various Universities such as Yale where free speech is being challenged.   Free speech is being challenged by the students themselves !   We all know that a college campus is a "bubble" in the lives of young Americans,  but the rule of law still must be enforced and free speech protected.   Somewhere in their short lives, these kids  have been given the impression that the government should have the power to protect  them from any and every circumstance and that if there are just enough laws regarding behavior and "mean" speech then all the bad stuff and people will go away.   But where do you draw the line between "free speech" and "hate speech" as they refer to it ?   There is something frightening in that idea to stop people from saying what they think because that person has thoughts that could be construed as "bad" in my mind.  I have the freedom to get up and leave the conversation.  The act of hurting someone is the violation, but speaking your opinion should never be "outlawed" (perhaps restricted in limited and/or unusual circumstances and even then only temporarily).

     All this brings me back to Paris.  What happened in Paris was the most extreme version of restricting what other people think.  In this case with the jihadists -at the core of their belief- is that the French and all citizens of open societies of the world are infidels for "what they think" and so they must die.  That is why I am so alarmed by restrictions to speech that expresses ideas that may be contrary to "the going way of thinking".  The authorities and/or administrators at our Universities and colleges must be rock-solid in their refusal to yield to this mob mentality coming from students.  The students are there to learn, so teach them that  liberty means sometimes hearing and relating to things that you don't agree with.  Teach them that the strength of our society, despite all its drawbacks and flaws, is that the individual is guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even when those choices don't necessarily join in joyful concert with your own  ideas of what that entails.  



 

L'âge de l' incompétence; Part Deux

The Age of Incompetence: Part Two

By Chuck Marshall

     The media has outdone themselves today and they look more asinine than they did on CNBC for the last Republican debate.  Who knew they could top themselves so quickly !   Politico- the political web site for those of you unfamiliar-  came out with a story stating that Ben Carson had "fabricated" his experience as a high school senior while in the Detroit ROTC where he was in a position of high leadership (this is not the fact being questioned- that would be the case in a NORMAL story questioning a potential leader).   In his book, they explained,  he wrote that he was complimented  by General Westmoreland himself at a banquet and he was encouraged to apply to West Point and "was offered a scholarship".   Carson turned him down because he wanted to be a Doctor.  This is, of course, what happened and would seem to be the key fact here.    Politico was elaborate in commenting that he "couldn't have been offered a scholarship because West Point doesn't offer scholarships".  The headlines were then all over the Internet  "Carson lied about being offered a scholarship to West Point".   Carson later explained that he was offered a "position" to come to West Point in conversation, ie "Your performance  at the Detroit ROTC has been exemplary, I think you would have no problem getting into West Point, or being offered a position to go there".   In other words, he didn't clarify but there really is no word for "getting a position" at West Point and even their marketing uses the word "scholarship" as the reader can see in the image above.  The real story;  Carson exaggerated the details of his offer to apply to West Point.  

      Politico also attacked Carson for even claiming any admission to West Point because "West Point has no record of him applying".  In his book Carson never claimed to apply to West Point, he was simply making a point that he had risen to the enviable position of being offered a likely position at the prestigious academy.   Why would he apply to West Point if he had already said he wanted to be a Doctor ?   Later today it was discovered that West Point doesn't keep any record of who did or did not apply that far back so ...... the conclusion?   Politico lied about checking the details of Carson applying at West Point.   To sum it up., Politico got caught doing what they were accusing Carson of doing., and that's not an exaggeration it's slander.

     All at the same time., our friends at  CNN "discovered" that Ben Carson may have "fabricated" the "narrative" in his book regarding details of himself as a 13 year old while growing up in a Detroit ghetto.   My first thought is;  "everybody did weird things when they were 13 years old, but what was he hiding?  What did he fabricate?"   He fabricated that he threatened a friend with a knife and he fabricated that he threatened his mother with a hammer over a pair of pants.   Keep in mind he didn't say he never did those things, he lied by saying he DID do those things.   Huh?  So, he was lying about tending towards violence in his youth... when really he was NOT violent ?   He was  being dishonest because he was actually a mellow, law abiding citizen as a 13 year old.   I've heard a lot of bizarre stories in my 52 years but this is one of the most bizarre.  Les médias est plus incompétent que je l'imaginais !  

If this is all they can find on Ben Carson then he has got my vote friends....

* Why is this title in French ?  Click the link to L'age de l'incompetence - Part 1" under the heading "Popular Posts"  to  the right of this page to find out.  Have a good day.

Donald Trump and His Mysterious Attraction to Republicans

"I Don't Get It"

By Chuck Marshall  

     I get that Donald Trump is an outsider and that he "says what's on his mind"., but I am still very confused why the Republican party still supports him in pretty large numbers, especially here in Florida.   It defies reason.  I try to keep in mind that reason and the Republican party have not had much in common for a while, but this love affair with Donald Trump sends me off the rails.   Fox news fawns over him.  Nobody gets more attention than him from all the networks, and he abuses them !   To use one of his eloquent lines "I don't get it"

Consider this short and brief listing of a few of his shortcomings- and I will keep this brief;

     He is a bully.. a "name calling" politician of the lowest form and speaks mostly in terms of why his opponents are "no good".    "They lack energy, they have strange religions, they have an ugly face, they can't control their personal spending, they can't talk to the Russians".   Not even good criticism. Silly criticism. ....... He's pathological towards anyone who criticizes him or asks a tough question or both........He has declared bankruptcy twice and then has the nerve to criticize Rubio for bad personal finances........He was  born into money and has no idea what middle class Americans go through. How can he help fix America when he has no real understanding of the problems the common man faces?.....Historically he has been "pro-choice" until the last year or so since he decided to run for office as a Republican.........Hillary Clinton  came to his wedding- they are chums......He is very much a part of the power elite that I thought the right wing despised?.........He makes comments like "I'm going to build a wall, you're not going to believe this wall"........Any questions for specifics get a response like "Yeah., we're  looking into that".  

     The Republican party members need to start using their brain and consider how "The Donald" will do against Hillary.  Polls show he would lose to her.  He has zero support among Hispanics.  He is so bad and such a cancer to the Republican party that I wouldn't be surprised to hear he purposely ran in the race to make them look even more inept in the nations eyes, ie, he's a closet Democrat !   Whatever it is, I am sorely disappointed that such a  man is seen as acceptable in the eyes of so many of my countrymen.   Things really are bad this year but we should never be so angry and frustrated as to nominate  an indecent and crass man to the position of candidate for President.  We're better than this.

Chuck Marshall's Humble Opinion: Presidential Debates

By Chuck Marshall
   

     The Republican presidential candidates are demanding a new format for future debates.  I think anyone who watched the debacle on CNBC last week could understand that sentiment.  I have never seen anything worse - on the national stage- than what I witnessed last Wednesday.   The lack of order and the entire platform was so  combative that the  event quickly ran out of control.   Shockingly, the ingratiating Ted Cruz is my hero for calling  out the moderators for their biased questions.  Every single one of their questions were designed as a "gotcha" question.  It was as if the moderators were debating the candidates.   Along with Ted Cruz there was Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio all managing a counter-attack on the dopey moderators making them look even more ridiculous than their incompetence had already accomplished.  It was like watching a middle school newspaper interrogate the high school principal and his staff;  "That's just as likely to happen as for you to grow wings and fly off that stage" one of them chirped in a blithering comparison to Trump's tax plan.  Huh ?    The entire thing was even more shocking in that it was common knowledge the public wanted to see less arguing and more explanations in these debates.  So.....they did the EXACT opposite.  

       So, now the Republican candidates are putting their heads together and they are demanding a new format.  I don't know the details of what they're demanding, but since this is another episode of "Chuck Marshall's Humble Opinion" of course I have a solution.   Why don't they invite ALL the media outlets to converge at a public University in a mutually agreed upon state.  Most schools have debate teams., so have these people act as moderators and let them "run the show".... so to speak.  That way you have people who are use to running a debate and not a group of confused yellow journalists sputtering out useless questions.  In addition, all the media- even the far left MSNBC can relax and sit on the sidelines while the professionals do their job.  Today's journalists are  trained to dig for facts, and create a controversy between the parties out of said facts.  Since most journalists tend to be Democrats- there is a natural friction between the moderator and the Republican candidate. Let's stop this lunacy and have intelligent questions from non-partisan moderators looking to help the viewer understand each candidate and his ideas and philosophies as they compare to the other candidates.   All journalists are welcome to watch and cover-- from the back of the auditorium.  Now, wouldn't that be nice....  In my humble opinion.

"The Donald" Doesn't "Get It"

By Chuck Marshall



     Today there was a lot of play time in the media regarding Ben Carson's surge past Donald Trump in a key national poll.  Donald Trump was quick to express his confusion and said on several occasions that he "didn't get it".   What doesn't he get ?  Haven't his "handlers"explained how polls work?  I suppose he's being rhetorical but something in his voice is truly confused by all this.  The egomaniac is getting a dose of reality.  I have already written my opinion of Trump in this blog a couple of months ago.  In case you missed it, here it is from August 5th, 2015 titled "The Donald and Hillary";  "Our country has truly dropped to a new low with these two as the front runners to be President.   Donald Trump is a wind- bag egomaniac with not one ounce of class.  He calls his opponents names and gives out their phone numbers to the public.  It's like watching a mob boss run for President.  He runs his mouth about what he's going to do with no explanation of how he'll do it.  The only thing I've agreed with that has come out of his mouth was the comment he made on O'Reilly that our country is in trouble and on the decline.  He is living evidence of that fact."

     Now, here we are over 2 months later and the Republican party still struggles to find a potential candidate  to replace the "community organizer" we have in the White House right now.  The fact that Trump is still way ahead in the polls truly frightens me and is evidence that the frustration in the country is much worse than I thought.  On the other hand,  it's good because there's a chance the American people will wake up and start paying attention to what our leaders are doing or "not doing" (as is usually the case).  It's easy to imagine that  "The Donald" as president would certainly NOT be boring and he would most assuredly DO something., I'm just convinced the bulk of it would be BAD things.  How can commerce and prosperity flourish when we're  all on edge regarding what outrageous comment will come out of the president's mouth next ?  Will he get us in a war today?

     If nothing else, Obama is boring but safe and steady.   The college professor wouldn't dream of getting into something so serious that he could feel compelled to stand up and ask something of us.  His ringing oratory is strictly for ideals and theories.   The Donald would not only not speak to us but would probably speak AT us and I'm afraid we'd all eventually be "fired" in his mind because we don't "get him" and his brilliance.   His egomania is disturbingly similar to tyrants throughout history. He's truly confused and baffled by criticism and reacts with exaggerated venom often referring to critics by name calling.   A potential President, Really ?    You don't "get it" Donald ?   Again, I agree with you.  You definitely don't get it.  You don't get the American people and you never will and I am hoping that the "rank and file" of the  Republican party is starting to see that too.







.

Witch-Hunts Sometimes Catch a Witch

By Chuck Marshall


     In my last blog I elaborated on the witch hunt for Ben Carson and how the media attacks and interrogates him for standing up for his principles.  Sometimes a "witch hunt" actually catches a real witch.  Case in point;  Hillary Clinton.   Today she is testifying to the Congressional committee regarding Benghazi.   Exactly what did she know or not know on Sept. 11, 2012 when our ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed ?   Was the White House playing politics with the truth when they claimed it was a video that instigated a mob to attack our embassy when it was actually an organized terrorist attack?   A terrorist attack would have been highly uncomfortable for a sitting President up for reelection so they clearly tried to hide the truth.     What it comes down to is whether she was negligent in protecting our people in Libya AND whether she and the President played politics regarding the details.  I think it goes without saying that they played politics., they're politicians !    Without her coming out and announcing what was true,   I don't see Hillary admitting to anything,  So, they chase the witch but are almost assuredly going to find only a ghost that will slowly vanish before the nation's eyes.  She won't admit to anything and the left is unconcerned with the details as long as their guy...er "gal" gets the White House.  

     Hillary is extremely adept at dodging questions.  She is not an honest person and she never will be.   In addition, and in true partisan fashion the Democrats on the committee are openly defending her position against the Republicans.  Never mind the truth here !  This is the Democratic party's likely choice for the presidency and they will watch her lie her way to the White House rather than stand up for the truth,.  Once again, the division in government is glaring but typical.   The Republicans are asking the tough questions and the Democrats are eager to dismiss the entire thing as, er... partisan politics !   Would the Republicans do the same thing if the situation was reversed ?  During the Nixon hearings there was no partisan politics coming from the right wing as they asked tough questions of all involved with Watergate.  Today I doubt that would be the case.   If  George W. Bush was being questioned under similar circumstances the Democrats would ask the tough questions and the Republicans would gloss over any obvious lies or incompetence (since we're talking about W.Bush !).

      We are a divided nation, and for the political parties the truth and competence and what is right for the American people are all very secondary issues.   This witch will not be burned at the stake.  Far from it.  Her lies and deceit will be ignored and defended so we can take one more step away from a morale country to a country that rings the bells of mendacity in the name of  getting the prize for "our side".  The losers, ever more frequently, are the American people.  

Left Wing Media Witch Hunt

Keeping the Black Man Down

By Chuck Marshall

     I've been fascinated and disgusted by the media and its reaction to Ben Carson.  The "second place in the polls" Republican candidate has been the object of great ridicule by the media (with the exception of Fox, of course).  Chris Matthews referred to him as "disgusting" for a comment he made about fighting back a mass killer.  "Disgusting"?    An Ivy league professor referred to him as a "coon".  GQ had a headline "FUC* YOU BEN CARSON", apparently outraged that he had the audacity to speak his opinion without being ultra careful about his "politically correct" speech patterns.   With Ben Carson, they are so very quick to scrutinize !  The left leaning media are the "thought police" of our day.  (I don't mean that Fox and the conservative media are innocent, but I'll leave that for another day to rant about).

    Why don't they pay attention to the issues at hand and the candidate's experience and ideas for our country?    Always, they come up with "if this happened, what would you do?" questions to try and trap people with comments that don't suit their agenda.   The only exception to this rule is regarding Mr. President Obama who can say and do practically anything but they don't dare question his motives or leadership abilities lest they be labeled a "racist" by their fellow "thought police" in other news organizations.  Such courtesy is not extended to Ben Carson who is black,  but he's not the black they need him to be.... a black man who will agree with all of their worldviews.  What's worst of all ?  He's a devout Christian who refers to creationism as more than just a "fantasy" that they have decided that it is.  In a nutshell, he doesn't think like they do.  Bad !

       So, they stir the pot.  Once again, they have turned it all into an "us vs them" issue  where everything must be condensed into a left vs right issue.  It is this static philosophy that is holding us down.  They are suppose to be scrutinizing everyone in government and questioning all candidates about what they are going to do to fix the problems of modern America.  What has this to do with the majority of their questioning?   What's more curious, is how can they ask Ben Carson very tough "gotcha" questions and leave Donald Trump essentially unquestioned.  The Donald has made far more outrageous declarations in the last months.  Shipping all illegal immigrants by rounding them up and loading them up on  trains "a la" Nazi Germany?   I hear barely a whimper from the left.  Why?  Because he's white and all that is to be expected.  He fits their narrative perfectly.  No need to question him, let his egomania speak for itself.  Besides, he's so entertaining !

     After watching Wolf Blitzer interrogate, I mean interview Ben Carson on Sunday I have come to a conclusion about the mainstream media.  They are highly bigoted.  They are bigoted against any person of color who has the nerve to be conservative.  They are bigoted against any minority who does not subscribe to their "victim" mentality that "big brother" wants them to take.  You see, if someone you speak up for and defend in your every day conversation starts taking the side of what you see as the problem  (In this case, white conservatives) then you begin foaming at the mouth.

Their narrative goes something like this;
     "How dare this "non-white" person take any philosophy other than that we, the media, have already concluded ?   The white MALE conservative is the evil one and pointing the finger at anyone else  (least of all yourself,) is highly forbidden.  Personal responsibility?  "Bullshi*!"  The white MALE has been putting you down for all these centuries and it's only us..... the mostly white media who can help you up.  Not yourself !"

    They believe that only the government can atone for all the outrages against people of color for the past 500 years.  They  concluded long ago, that  each individual African American, Latin American, Native American is not capable of taking care of him or herself.   You see, with this passive aggressive "you need our help" philosophy  they continue to put down people of color.  There is a complete and total lack of respect towards the abilities of the minority population.   Ben Carson makes them fear that maybe they aren't the superior ones after all.

Debate Process a Fiasco on CNN

The national debate on CNN this week was a  "living color" example of what a disgrace this entire process is.   There needs to be a more formal and systematic process for debates.  Each candidate deserves equal time and all questions need to be limited to policy decisions not bunk about who said what about  whom.   Isn't that what we have the National Inquirer for?   I assume CNN, Fox, etc...are motivated to get an effective president for our country so if they could just hold down their greedy tendencies and take the high rode for the good of the country, history may actually look at them kindly.  As it is, they are the enablers to the downfall of our great nation.  

In my humble opinion......

Hillary and The Donald

   

     Our country has truly dropped to a new low with these two as the front runners to be President.   Donald Trump is a wind bag egomaniac with not one ounce of class.  He calls his opponents names and gives out their phone numbers to the public.  It's like watching a mob boss run for President.  He runs his mouth about what he's going to do with no explanation of how he'll do it.  The only thing I've agreed with that has come out of his mouth was the comment he made on O'Reilly that our country is in trouble and on the decline.  He is living evidence of that fact.

     Hillary Clinton is a liar and a hypocrite.  She is most likely the reason for the debacle that was Benghazi (and the deaths of all those people, including our Ambassador to Libya)  and she has been carefully getting rid of evidence to that fact.   She is fake and impersonal and is only in her position because she is married to President Clinton.   It has just come out in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that she and Bill donated $15 Million to charities  over the years 2007-2014.  The charity?  The Clinton Foundation of which the two of them benefit from greatly - personal jets, political trips, etc... They donated to a charity and the charity is them !  So, she and Bill got tax deductions, ergo "government subsidies",  to support their ambitions..... to run the government !   Now THAT, is rich.
    Once again,  I can't believe how absurd our process of selecting leaders is today.   With 310 Million people we should be able to do much, much better than this.  This is ridiculous.   Why must we go on following what each of the parties select for us when they are of the ilk that Hillary and The Donald are.  They don't come much more crooked than this folks, and they are the front runners for each of our beloved parties.  May God help us all and may God help our country.  


In my humble opinion.....

Republican Circus and the Inanity of the Political Party

     What has become of the Republican party that they have become a national joke?   Name calling, finger pointing, outrageous comments from several candidates and we've only just begun.  What a shameful situation and I totally agree with the President when he says that America deserves better.
This summer I was in Washington, DC.  The monuments and cathedrals of history were inspiring.  Our  country has so much to be proud of having been founded and borne of noble ideas and the proposition  that every man should have dignity.  All men should be treated with respect and given the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfillment, liberty and justice without the government interfering with such endeavors.  These men don't respect the everyday man 'nor do they have any interest in progress.   These men aren't discussing liberty and justice or the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.  They are posturing their egos so they can "get" to be  President and show us all how smart they are.   It is all about them and their party.  Something has been lost in the parties.  They no longer stand for us.   They no longer fight for us.  They are fighting for themselves and their "way of thinking".  There is no more compromise, there is no progress involving any problems in our country.  I have  no idea why anyone would want to be President except for  their ego because in today's environment no President will be allowed to get anything done because Congress is little more  than a cluster of insects.   It's all a charade presented by the parties to placate us with the way things are.   There is no dignity, there is no true aim to fix anything.  It is a never-ending game for them., it's a political circus.  I worry for our country that the political parties still have all  the power.  It is very dangerous because they are inept and ineffective.  We are, in essence, without leaders.

The Endangered Dixie Relic

By Chuck Marshall

   There has been much talk recently regarding relics of the Civil War.  State capitals and cities and towns all over the south are discussing the removal of the confederate flag from government buildings.   The state of SC is considering removing it from its capital and some towns here in Florida have already removed the flag.   To  southerners the confederate flag is often said to represent the "spirit" of the south and I've been told it should not be taken as a negative.  It's "southern pride" I've heard all my life.    White people from up north seem to see it as a quaint relic of Civil War history- nothing to be taken seriously.   African Americans usually see it as offensive and believe it represents a hate and/or disrespect for their race.   This  issue and the conversation around it is a good one and allows something positive for us to do in honor of the 9 people murdered in Charleston last month.   I can fully understand that African Americans are often offended by the symbol of the confederacy.  A symbol says a lot.   The Swastika of the Nazis is a good example of a symbol that creates instant disgust in most good people.  It is a good conversation to have for all American citizens, and especially southern citizens. 

     As is often the case, however, the issue is getting blown out of proportion.  What was a good conversation regarding a symbol perceived as hateful has turned into an exaggeration of other  Civil War relics that we’re told we should all be removing from our lives lest we be seen as defenders of slavery.   Case in point is confederate memorials.  There is a Confederate Memorial in a park in downtown Orlando that has been the focus of much more attention than it has probably had since it was erected.    There is a petition to have it removed.   But this is a memorial to the soldiers that fought in the Civil War, not the Confederacy itself.   Those were individuals who - in their mind- were defending their homeland.   All young men were and are expected to march into battle under such circumstances.   The dead  were 300,000 southern brothers, and fathers and uncles and sons.  It  dishonors the individual,  his family, and his descendants to suggest all he was doing was fighting for slavery and so all confederate memorials must come down. 

       Some memorials were erected to celebrate men who turned out to be bad men  like Nathan Bedord Forrest- the founder of the KKK.  These are the memorials which I agree should be removed and rolled over to the nearest museum.  But it's important that we uphold the soldiers who fought bravely and died in defense of their people even if it goes against our contemporary sensibilities about the "right" or "wrong" of what it was the fight was about.   Let's not dismiss these young men as we look down from our high horse in the 21st century.    Slaves were owned by the large plantations of the south and I seriously doubt these  young men marched forward with such gusto to defend the rich man’s right to own slaves even if we se e the connection today.      

In My Humble Opinion.....

Guns and Race in America

By Chuck Marshall

Since the murders of 9 innocent people in South Carolina I feel compelled to write on the topic.  It also coincides with my previous blog in my twin blog, "Journal of an American Malcontent", which elaborated on the absurdity of the lady that "identifies herself as black".   Her name escapes me., but she's a great example of how silly race issues can get.

The loss of lives is the biggest tragedy of the South Carolina mass killings., and I think 99.99% of all Americans are disgusted and saddened.   I guess this must be the 10th mass killing in the last 5 years and  it's getting tragically common.  The tragedy of the South Carolina mass killings - the avoidable tragedy- is that  the story itself turns into another opportunity for our political parties to start debating each other.  Now should be a time to come together and establish some real solutions regarding mass killings;    Gun Control,  Mental Illness, Crime Control and ways to prevent things like this from coming up again.  Our so-called leaders will no doubt get into another pissing match, pointing their fingers at each other and coming to absolutely NO solution but to continue arguing "unwinnable" arguments.  There is no compromise in DC so nothing gets done.  We are essentially a leader-less country with a group of  political extremists that are out for the following things;   themselves, their lobbyist buddies on K-Street (where the real money and power comes from), and of course their "team" the idiotic Republican and Democratic parties.  Notice the glaring absence of the American people on that list.

There is one other culprit in all of this,  the network news media.  And  I do mean the left-leaning networks especially (which are synonymous with the Democratic party).    The networks show no restraint in taking this opportunity to draw their own conclusions with dim-witted comments funneling all of this into the fault of southern white people.  Their narrative is that the confederate flag and the hate of southern white people is a never ending plague upon the black folk of the south.  They also took the opportunity in several cases to blame  Fox Network for "stirring the pot" of racism... .  or words to that effect.   The reality is the guy that killed those people is a lunatic and a psychopath- who is also a bigot.  The problem is with the lunatic part., the bigotry is an ugly aspect of all societies in the world and comes from all races not just the white race.

They-the network media - see themselves as morally superior to the majority of the country.  The reality is they are condescending, arrogant,  self righteous egomaniacs and most of them are better suited to cover Hollywood and all it's superficial happenings., not a real story like this.   This is the reason I stick to reasonably intelligent written media, newspapers and I encourage all my readers to pick up a paper or subscribe to an electronic version of your city's newspapers.  The newspapers usually have thought behind their opinions.

 I am as angered by these murders as anyone but I want solutions not rhetoric.   Our leaders are bending over backwards to use this as another self-congratulatory oration of why they are so superior to the rest of the country and the other side.   President Obama won everybody over by explaining that this never  happens in any other civilized country besides the United States.  Wow, comments like that will sure help things a lot.  Once again, he has shown what an excellent "left leaning" college professor he would be but what a terrible leader he actually is.

In my humble opinion.

I Identify as a Rich White Man

Dear Marshall in the Middle Readers !

I have posted to  my other Blog "Journal of an American Malcontent".  I am posting a link below so you can easily click over to it.   I can't tell you exactly what it is but  I've come to terms with who I really am just like Rachel Dolezal and I want the world to know about it !   I can't hide these feelings anymore !


Journal of an American Malcontent- I Identify as a Rich White Man

Republican Herd

Dear loyal readers,

Many apologies for not adding to this blog in several weeks.  Sometimes I do get a little burned out on the politics of our country and its crushing monotony and unparalleled ability to bring new meaning to the word "inane".  So much mediocrity, avarice, and greed.  It can get depressing.  But now that the new election season is heating up (only one and a half years until the next election) things are getting humorous -if nothing else.   Case in point, there are now 10 official candidates for the Republican nomination and 5 "probably" running.    A lot of them are familiar names  from the last election;  Rick Santorum (who has a disabled daughter that he brings up in most of his speeches),  Rick Perry, governor of Texas who famously said "oops" because he didn't know one of the branches of government or something equally stupid.   I read somewhere that he has "improved dramatically" this time around so I guess he's able to add single digit numbers now and maybe knows things like that France is in Europe.  Then there's Perry's fellow Texan -Ted Cruz- who is light years ahead of Rick Perry in intelligence but he's also a slimy politician who plays games with all the small minded people to the right wing of the Republican party like... well, like Rick Perry. I've never seem someone on the national spotlight who so obviously manipulates the political process.  In our parallel "intelligent" universe Ted Cruz is running for mayor of New Orleans not a viable candidate for president of the United States.   Lindsey Graham of SC wants to be President so he can take us to war as far as I can tell but I really haven't heard much else from or about him, he just seems so boring to me.

There are some that are likeable --Mike Huckabee seems like a nice guy and he plays a great saxophone but I just can't picture it.   Marco Rubio who really does have a lot going for him but his lack of fiscal responsibility is concerning;  we need someone good at controlling spending IF NOTHING ELSE and Marco's personal  finances are not inspiring to that end.   Jeb Bush (who is still not officially running), I know well from his being governor of our fair state of Florida and I will say he was a very good and effective governor.  Boy do we miss him here !  Anyway, assuming he can polish his speaking skills and stay on track with his more moderate philosophy of governing, I plan on supporting Jeb.  By the way, he's nothing like his brother or father.    In My Humble Opinion......


Next blog;  Hillary and the Democrats.

Politics Will Prevent 800,000 From Getting Health Insurance.......

 Of course, none of them are Congressmen.

By Chuck Marshall

My state representative;  Larry Metz 

     With a heavy heart I must write a scathing critique of our leaders here in Florida.  You  see,  I had high hopes about a month ago regarding our Congressmen.   I had written and left a phone message with my representative Larry Metz from District 32 here in Florida and he actually called me back !  We had a great conversation and I must say I was impressed with his composure and willingness to discuss the biggest issue our state faces today;  the reluctance of the Florida House of Representatives to take money from the federal government to expand medicaid and issue health insurance to  800,000 "working poor" Floridians.   I submitted to him that this was all about Obamacare and their rabid hatred of the health care program that President Obama rammed down the throat of the US  Congress back in 2010.  He protested that, "No, this is about the way the Federal government was poised to take more control of the medicaid program in Florida and that it would become a very expensive problem for Florida if the Feds ever walk away."  I was willing to accept that argument and even wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel (they they printed !) commenting that an excited columnist was being overly critical and hysterical regarding this issue.  

    Congressmen Metz seemed very sympathetic to my outrage over the partisan politics that has been playing out in Washington but he assured me that in Tallahassee there is no such brinkmanship and that both parties often socialize and even eat together (gasp!).   He was well spoken and seemed intelligent and I was willing to consider his argument contrary to my assumptions.   Lately, it has occurred to me though that  the Feds have never walked away  from Social Security.  There is no reason to think they'll walk away from this program.  They will squander money and run this program poorly, but that goes without saying.  When is that not true of a federal program?  The state of Florida cannot fix that fact.  The approach they are taking will effectively take federal tax money (that  Floridians pay!)  and send it to other states.  How is that helping the citizens of Florida?

      So,  after hearing both sides  I have come to the conclusion that this IS--at the end of the day-- all about politics and --as I had originally suspected-- it IS because of their hatred for Obamacare and perhaps even President Obama himself.   Religious leaders, local leaders, business leaders, newspapers, hospitals, doctors have all pleaded with our House of Representatives to join the Senate and form an agreement  to take the money and live with the strings attached so 800,000 of our fellow citizens can stay at work and still afford health insurance.  They have absolutely refused.  It makes no sense.

    I would venture to say that these Congressmen see themselves as stalwarts to "free enterprise" but our medical care system is not based on free enterprise.  It is an oligopoly of pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies,  and medical conglomerates.   They  have a platoon of lobbyists in Washington, DC manipulating the prices and markets of our medical system.   The economics of supply and demand for products and services is non-existent in the medical field and it is farcical to pretend that it is.   That being said,  I plead with any citizen of Florida that reads this blog;  call your congressman and insist they see reason by coming together with the senate (which already has a plan- written by Republicans !) to pass the legislation necessary to see this through.   The Affordable Care Act (with all its flaws)  is the law of the land now, and there is no reason to refuse help from Washington, DC other than to inflate the egos of bombastic,  right wing, fully insured Republican Congressmen.

Role of Government...... to Enforce Manners ?

By Chuck Marshall

Miss Manners

     The title of this blog "Marshall in the Middle"  implies  my belief in a more moderate political angle (and a moderate approach to many things in life, but that's another topic).   I usually see both sides of issues and I feel I usually understand "why" the right or left feels and act as they do.  That being said, I do tend to have ideas that I think are much more pragmatic than other people which leans my core ideas of what the government should and should not be doing towards the right.   I just feel things usually work better without the government involved in the challenging issues of the day.   Case in point;  the responsibilities of the courts to uphold "fairness" in business activities.   Much of this spins from all the recent controversy involved in the state laws  that seem to allow a business to refuse service to a homosexual citizen.   

     If I ran a business, such as restaurant, I would welcome anyone who came in- as long as they behave themselves, are respectful of other customers, and they pay their bill.  To me, this is just good manners and the right thing to do (and - as luck would have it- is congruent to my morals as an active Christian man).  Does that mean everybody else in the world needs to judge "proper" behavior the same way as I do ?  Of course not !  That's why we have different businesses and we should all be free to go where we're comfortable.   If  I, a heterosexual white man, went to a business run by a gay man and they refused me service because I was straight I would be very insulted and outraged, however I'm not sure that's the government's problem.  Why do I need the government to fix the narrow mindedness and insulting habits of this one situation?   Word of mouth and my not returning to the business would hurt them and eventually they would probably go out of business anyway.  The problem solves itself.  

     This is not to say that government involvement has never been necessary.  In the south of 50 years ago a black person could not sit at the lunch counter of a Walgreens drugstore or even enter certain businesses.    That was an off-shoot of great bigotry and the horrific slave owning history of the south.  That situation required government action at that point in time, but as is often the case,  I'm not sure  laws enforcing business to allow everyone into their establishment are still necessary. Wouldn't word of  mouth from a bigoted business eventually sink them today?  Bad manners are bad manners and they will eventually cause the failure of the narrow minded, bigoted business.  

     In public places the law of the land should be to shield anyone from being refused access.  This includes corporations, ie  publicly traded companies (Walgreens, McDonalds, etc...) because by their very name they are a part of the public realm and all existing laws are warranted.  But do all "private" businesses have to be legislated and ordered to allow and serve customers they don't want ?   Isn't it their right to have bad manners and suffer the consequences that come with that?  The left always sees the government as the answer to a problem.,, but I seriously do not think that laws can make us all be  nice to each other.   Manners just as many other issues in life are better left to each citizen to decide.  Much of all this reminds me of George Orwell's novel "1984" where the government had such control over people that you couldn't even "think" things that were contrary to government edicts.  I sincerely care about all people and do my best to be fair in all situations but I can't agree with people who believe the government should be "fixing" us of our "bad thoughts".   Leave people alone and let them make their own mistakes.  Government action rarely is necessary to "fix" bad thoughts.  Hateful, bigoted, angry thoughts usually circle back around to fix the "thinker" as a natural consequence and often serves to teach the "thinker" a lesson or two. Such is the way of the Universe not Washington, DC.  The government brings conflict and lawsuits, and angry citizens and simmers distrust and dislike between people because it is simply not effective at controlling human behavior. Controlling private businesses in such a manner is not, in my humble opinion, the role of the government.    

We Deserve Better Than This

  

By Chuck Marshall

   I've been watching the situation with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl these days and there sure is a lot of controversy over his departure from the Army.  Should it be an honorable discharge  or dishonorable discharge ?  Should he be handed a check for $300k in lost wages or should he be cut off from any government aid for the rest of his life ?  Should he be convicted of desertion?  This is a decision I am glad I would not have to make,  On the one hand you're rewarding him for deserting his post (which nobody disputes is what he did).  He put his platoon in danger looking for him when he deserted.  On the other hand, the guy has been through so much, shouldn't we just forgive his misjudgment and let bygones be bygones.... give him his honorable discharge and be done with it?   I don't have  the answer to this question, but this is a decision for the military courtroom not public opinion.

     With any situation like this, we have to learn something.  I've concluded that our President is not a good negotiator.   Why would you trade 5 Taliban fighters for a soldier that deserted his post?  Why would you bring him home and parade his parents  through the rose garden and have your National Security Advisor trumpet him as a "man of distinction" when he's nothing of the sort?   I see the entire thing as  a charade.  This was a "safe" call for Obama because it was a low- risk negotiation and he thought he'd come out looking great for saving one of our soldiers.  It was worth it to him to give away more than he got because he needed the headlines as he hearkened back to the days of capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden.  He forgot, once again, that he is  not a King and that most thinking people would openly critique his tactics.  These are the actions of an inexperienced executive.  I don't see that he has learned much in his 6 years as President.  He hasn't learned to negotiate with our enemies and I'm concerned that this very much includes Iran.  He also hasn't learned to negotiate with  Congress which has cost all of us dearly as the legislative branch of our government has been totally inept and ineffective.  This is part of the job of the President to not just negotiate with Congress but to also lead them to some extent with common goals.  How often has Obama spoken directly to the American people to encourage us or to lead us or to embolden us to speak to our Congressmen about any given situation?   He makes a great speech, but ringing oratory is not the solitary distinction of a great leader.

      So that's what we have today.  A poor negotiator who is not developed much past  his days as a community organizer.  We see the leadership vacancy in all three branches of government, but most especially in the White House.  This has cost us dearly.   I've said it before and I'll say it again; Barack Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States.  We must come up with a better process of selecting our leaders.  We deserve better than this.


In My Humble Opinion.

Solutions Elude Political Parties

By Chuck Marshall

As is common in this blog I have to come out and criticize either party for their lack of ideas and solutions.  I do sometimes wonder  if good ideas elude them  because it doesn't behoove them to have ideas.   Recently the Republicans had a stand off with the Democrats and President Obama's "Immigration Reform" which they believe to be "overreaching".  In agreement with them, Obama himself explained many times in the last several years that he would not issue an executive order regarding immigration reform because that would have to come from the legislative branch of government.    But I don't understand 'nor has it been clarified to me what it  is the Republican right wing wishes to do ?  Do they really want to ship all these illegals right back to their home countries?

Instead of proposing a reasonable plan to fix the situation and perhaps offer up legislation that might be agreeable to the President, the GOP decides to try and turn this in to another "anti-Obama" issue and  proceeds to  nearly force a closure of the department of Homeland Security.  Speaker of the House "Boehner" very wisely took the high road and made peace with the Democrats in order to broker a deal that the President wouldn't veto.  Still, they push the country's safety to the edge over their ridiculous partisan political games.    A wise Republican  led congress would see the opportunity to offer other solutions that would help to solve the problem of illegal immigration and leave the legalities of what President Obama has done to the courts.  That's what courts do, folks.  

This is what you get when you load up the government with expert "politicians" not leaders.  Slick lawyers and future lobbyists who are very skilled at making themselves look good during campaigns but they are not good  at leading our country and offering solutions to  very real problems.  Their solution is to do something "anti-Obama" because they can ring that bell in the next round of elections soothing the anger of their constituents and thus securing themselves another term in Congress, and perhaps even more importantly,  securing themselves a "juicy plumb" of a job on K street as a seven figure lobbyist.

In my humble opinion.....

Who's on a high horse ?

By Charles "Chuck" E. Marshall


    At the national prayer breakfast President Obama is quoted as saying the following regarding the sins of religion and in particular Christianity;  "Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ".  This to a group, that I would assume was largely Christian. 

     I have too often left Obama alone in this blog,  I don't know if it's respect for the office or that I simply feel like he gets too much criticism as it is.  This episode has really shaken me.  I can't believe the leader of our country would make comments comparing what was done in the name of Christ over 1000 years ago to ISIS of today.  ISIS who roasts people alive and chops heads off of innocent people and murders whole villages because they don't think the right way.... TODAY !  They are the enemy, they are the Nazis of the modern world and our leader back-handedly defends their position as just another radical sect of a religion, no different from slave owners of the old south.  There he stood like a bombastic college professor -not the President of the United States- babbling an academic point  as a guest speaker to this group focused on prayer.  There he stood scolding them that "hey, you're not so special......remember what your type did back in the 900's ?".  Huh ?  In one account I read that you could feel the air being sucked out of the room.  "You're welcome", right Mr. President?  Not only was it  rude, boorish, arrogant and condescending but it was behavior unbecoming to the President of the United States.

       Any relationship that ISIS has to the Islamic faith is the stuff of their own twisted fantasy.  To give them any credit as being similar to our own religion's troubled and contradictory history  gives them -at some level- a bit of leniency and understanding.  As if they really do have justification under Islamic faith.   You don't understand or rationalize with people like that.... you kill them before they kill you,   Europe tried to understand and placate the Nazis before WWII by walking through and entertaining the logic of their actions as if they would eventually come to their senses and stop their murdering ways if you looked at it all from their perspective.    There is no reason and there is no basis for the actions of ISIS.  They are butchering, raping, murdering psychopaths...... plain and simple.  Why does Obama want to paint this as anything else ?

In my humble opinion.....

Republicans Seize the Day for Wall Street

By Chuck Marshall



Well, it didn't take long for the Republican led congress to focus on its true passion and reason for governing.  Wall Street.  Out of all the possible problems to tackle that our country faces today, they feel the need to relieve Wall Street of the shackles of Dodd-Frank that have held it down for so long ? If things are so bad for Wall Street and the banks then why is the stock market at a record high?  I have no doubt that this legislation has some sort of merit, and I'm sure given the nature of any government regulation that the raw product (Dodd-Frank Act)  needed tweaking from the right., but that's the first thing they feel compelled to fix as the 114th Congress ?   We're $20,000,000,000,000 in debt but they need to fix Wall Street's problems first?  Our infrastructure is collapsing in some key areas of the country such that commerce could be hindered and lives could be risked but they need to "fix things" for the banks first off?


Brace yourselves folks, for more incompetence and cronyism from the right now that they are steering the ship.    The Republicans have had 6 years to stew over their lack of control and they have many bones to pick.  How many of these bones are real concerns and needs of the middle class American?  Probably not too much.  After 2 years of Democrats in power conjuring up $10 Trillion dollars more in debt, the Republicans are back with no new ideas just more greed and avarice.  At least the Democrats could pretend they were "helping" out folks with their bloated, blubbery mess known as "health care reform".   The Republicans need a broad paintbrush to conceal this one as anything other than  juicy scraps for their lobbyist friends on K Street.  What's really scary?  I don't think they really care how it looks.  

In my humble opinion.......

Murder for the sake of Murder

By Chuck Marshall

Happy New Year, loyal readers !


The terrorist attacks in Paris this week are capturing the world's attention (and my sincerest condolences to any citizen of France who comes across this blog).   I watch as the talking heads on Fox News discuss how bad all this is and they even manage to manipulate the entire tragedy into a reason to criticize Pres. Obama, once again.   They say it's an outrage that he's not addressing this more seriously and his weak leadership opened the door for terrorist attacks in the first place.  Well, first of all I'm not exactly sure what he's suppose to do?  The attack was in Paris, France  after all, not the United States.   I agree Pres. Obama tends to have a more diplomatic approach to the world and its problems and this diplomacy is indeed interpreted as "weak" by our enemies.  In this circumstance though, I am sure  France is fully capable of taking care of itself.,.  Just  ask them.... N'est-Ce Pas?  So, "no" Obama's not doing anything about the Paris attacks but it's not really his place to do anything but condemn the attacks.  He also went to the French Embassy in DC and signed a book of condolences.  I sincerely think that's enough.

Another aspect of criticism did pop up from the right that I would probably agree with.  There is a lack of an effective policy regarding terrorism in general.   It was pointed out that the president won't even call it a "war on terrorism"., a fact I never really thought about.  George Bush came up with that terminology., so that may be part of the reason.  Obama is loathe to follow in the footsteps of our previous President.  Also there is always a flurry of comments from the mainstream media going out of its way to say that these are not the acts of regular Muslims., as if American are going to start hauling out Muslims from their homes a la Nazi Germany.  It's insulting.   I think we're  mature enough that we won't go "off the rails" with anti-Muslim thought processes and actions --even if we don't have the media and the President telling us how we should be thinking.   Of course it's not the fault of the Muslim religion that they have murdering scum within their religion !   I don't need the left wing "thought police" defining that fact for me, It's condescending and above all else it uses up valuable time and thought babbling about an inane and rhetorical point.  

On that note, it  occurs to me how much the media is not really doing its job.   These  terrorist attacks occur and I never really understand what it is the terrorists want.  In the case of Paris, it's obvious that the murderers were avenging the insulting cartoons that this French magazine printed.  I get that. ( I'm not real sure why God needs these roaches to avenge him, though--He's God ! )   What about all the other attacks in Iraq, Nigeria, etc.... ?   What do they want?  I would like to see a list with bullet points telling me what these murderers want and the reasoning for killing innocent people.  I'm not saying that any list would justify why they did it., but at least it adds clarity to the insanity of their tactics.  Perhaps our "so called" leaders would actually do their job and speak for us as a people.  Tell the terrorists why they'll never get what they want.  Make it clear that their murdering will not help any cause of theirs and explain exactly why.  Any further killings could no longer be interpreted as "acts of war"  or "martyr ism" but will be "acts of murder" because they are killing innocent and unarmed civilians with the knowledge they'll not get anything they want as a consequence.  The killing of innocents will be blood on their hands.  What they want, I suspect is simply to murder for the sake of murder.  They enjoy it.   May God have mercy on their souls as they reveal themselves as thieves who stole human lives.   God is Great, indeed.