Disqus - Latest Comments for terpguy42

Re: Why Does Palin Talk That Way? -- Political Wire

John W. Trotz — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:42:09 -0000

Is Gov. Palin "polarizing" in the same way bho is? Or, is she more "polarizing" because she speaks from the heart while bho speaks what he believes "the people" want to hear? And if the latter is true - as it probably is - why is his approval rating on a down-bound train? I mean, if you're going to fudge things up to be liked, at least be liked! Then again, when you ram through legislation even the people of Massachusetts want nothing to do with, what do you expect? Go bho!

Re: Power Line - The 1959 World Series -- the Dodgers take a standing eight-count, then rally

John W. Trotz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:37:51 -0000

When the Orioles ran roughshod through the American League in 1966, they drew those same invincible Dodgers in the World Series.
Those Orioles were the first Baltimore Team to win an MLB championship that century; the last champs had been the Wee Willie Keeler, John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson and Hugh Jensen Orioles (all future Hall of Famers) of the late 1800's.
Everybody figured the Dodgers would win the '66 World Series easily. While Brooks Robinson and Frank Robinson were at their peaks, the Orioles' starting pitching was extremely young. Jim Palmer was finishing his first season as a starter. Wally Bunker was in his third year - he had been the Rookie of the Year in 1964 - but arm trouble would cut his career short only a year or two later. Dave McNally was the veteran of the starting staff, and he'd been a starter for about three or four years. In 1966, major league teams thought little of closers and set up men. But the Oriole bullpen was good enough, as the Dodgers would discover in Game 1. The legendary Moe Drabowsky came out of the pen to relieve a jittery McNally, and all he did was throw a half a game of hitless relief. The Orioles, in Los Angeles. cruised to victory.
The rest of the series saw some of the greatest pitching of any World Series. Sandy Koufax - pitching, as it turned out, for the last time - and Don Drysdale pitched wonderfully. But the youthful Orioles starters, picking up where Drabowsky had left off in game one, threw three consecutive stunning shutouts. Palmer, Bunker, and a calmed down McNally were magnificent. Game Four, the clincher, saw Frank Robinson hit the game winning homer (the under-appreciated Paul Blair had homered for the only run in Game Three). When McNally retired the Dodgers in the ninth inning of Game Four, an enterprising photographer snapped that legendary picture of the euphoric Brooks Robinson soaring higher than even Kobe Bryant could have dared, coming to rest in McNally's waiting arms.
That Oriole team was the front bookend of a string of spectacular Baltimore teams, teams built around the two Robinsons, Boog Powell, and later, Eddie Murray, Blair, Mark Belanger (a year away in 1966; Luis Aparicio was the shortstop on that first championship team while the other bookend, Cal Ripken, Jr., was the shortstop on the last great Oriole team in 1983), Davey Johnson, and blue collar catchers like Elrod Hendricks, Rick Dempsey and Andy Etchebarren. The real on the field key of those great Oriole teams was the pitching staff, which, by 1971, featured four 20 game winners in the same season: McNally, Palmer, Mike Cuellar and Pat Dobson. Another essential element of the great Oriole teams was the little man with the flame throwing temper and general's mind, Earl Weaver. I had the prvilege of attending Weaver's induction into the Hall of Fame and it showed how hard work and determination could replace God-given talent when that determination is cranked as high as was Weaver's. Growing up as close to Memorial Stadium as I did, coupled with the ticket prices in those Halcyon Baseball Years, made it possible for even a working class lad like myself to get to 25 and even 30 games each season. The Orioles of those years played baseball at such an elevated level that it spoiled the fans of those teams, and makes supporting the post-1999 Orioles such a bitter sweet experience.

Re: Power Line - Paul Rahe: Has Obama earned that prize?

John W. Trotz — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:04:21 -0000

The opinions of Mr. Clemons provide a mirror to the opinions of those on the right who perceive the awarding of the once-prestigious prize as a way for so-called global elitists - i.e., "one worlders" - to put their stamp of approval on Obama's unrealistic, dangerous plans to gussy up to evil as a way of preventing war.
(At the outset, let me be the first to say that I do not believe that is what Obama and his radical neo-Marxist operatives are up to. I do not believe they are befriending Chavez so that this new line of communication will pacify his seething desires to export his influence. I believe Obama admires Chavez and Castro and the Saudis and Iranians, I believe he actually dislikes the democracies in Columbia and Honduras - and Israel. I believe a percolating almost rabid dislike of all things American explain almost everything he does. If someone in the media ever gets the chance, I would love to see one person ask Obama to name a couple of things he admires about Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln (he would mention emancipation and forget keeping the Union united), Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan.)
Those out-of-harm's-way - leftists in Norway and wherever else chose to give an award to a body of work so vapid that one cannot begin to elucidate what it is. As was pointed out on Friday, the time period considered for this year's Peace Prize closed about 12 days after Obama was inaugurated. It was also pointed out that the number one "issue" during those 12 days was Mr. Limbaugh's stated hope that Obama's neo-Marxist agenda would fail. Dealing with a truth, negative but true, gets you a peace prize. With that in mind, will someone nominate the kid down the street from me who acted with nobility when someone said his freckles were unbecoming. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Guess who's hosting a dinner

John W. Trotz — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:56:41 -0000

Of all the really scary and truly mindless things President Obama has undertaken in these ten months of hell, the complete abandoning of Israel is right near the top of the list. Anyone not living with his head in the ground knows that real far-left cooks are anti-Israel, people like the entire history department at Columbia, the New York Times Editorial Page, Barbara Boxer. But until Obama came along, those total cooks have been consigned to the fringe, along with UFO abduction nuts, truthers and Van Jones. Obama has made anti-Israel movements feel very real and kind of like the "coming thing." All of this would be just another piece of evidence in America's continuing "worst nightmare," were it not for Iran's race for the bomb. Will these J street geniuses be gala-ing it up even as Iran plans on how and when it will incinerate the Holy Land? I believe they will.
I, like Paul, am more than willing to doff my cap to Senator Schumer for not joining the left's mindless march to the destruction of our great ally. But I believe he must do more. In fact, I can't believe he doesn't understand that he is uniquely positioned to push the anti-Israelies back, straight back, in fact. That will require him to stand up and speak eloquently on Israel's behalf, and to direct these remarks where they are most needed: right around him on the far left. Courage Senator? It might be now or never. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Unacceptable

John W. Trotz — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:54:53 -0000

The Bible - a tome the President purports to accept and follow - speaks often of humility. Well, "often" isn't the right term, because it understates the number of times the various writers touch upon the subject. If one did a scientific survey, I believe that humility and its related concepts would be the topic most often referred to.
Some would argue that no one with an ego big enough to run for President can possibly be high on the list of most humble Americans. And yet many of our Presidents were able to present themselves publicly and privately as persons who were not controlled by ego, who were not without humility. Think of Washington, think of Lincoln, think of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan. Think of either of the President Bush's.
Don't even begin to think of Obama. As John points out, this is a man who must sleep with a mirror. Mr. Limbaugh says over and over again that "its all about him." You'd think this thought would cross his mind if, for no other reason, than to try to prove the thousands who are noticing this wrong.
But it doesn't. This is a man who is out of control when it comes to his own self-aggrandizement. You would think that my Lord, he has to realize he made it to where he is in large part because of a confluence of circumstances that had very little to do with him and whatever abilities he was perceived to have. I mean, does he read the embarrassing drivel in the media and actually believe it? If the same people wrote that the sky was green, would he believe that? How about if they told him the sky was falling...well, better not go there.
The point is, he is not that wonderful. Maybe it is news to him, and if it is, let me be the first to say it: Mr. President, you're not all that. In fact, so far, you've been very very little. Well, let's be honest, so far you really stink.
I don't want to get off point, but between me and you, do you think you'd have even been elected if you told the country you intended to gussy up to Chavez while telling England, Honduras, Israel and France to go to hell?
If he can't see how really awful his runaway ego is, couldn't somebody tell him? Mrs. First Lady? Rev. Wright? It's bad enough that we have to suffer with his neo-Marxist policies and Government takeovers. The ego show is like pouring salt in the wound. If a screen writer wanted to create a character who would be known for his really and truly annoying ego, the writer would create Mr. Obama. It's true. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Paul Rahe: Obama's wrecking crew

John W. Trotz — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:24:02 -0000

How anyone could have thought - even for a minute - that Obama was anything other than a far left neo-Marxist is beyond me. I am no soothsayer or mind-reader, just a reader. His friends bombed the Pentagon and advocated revolution. He bragged about his father's revolutionary and insurrectionist ideas and activities in his books. Where in anything he has said, wrote or did, was there even passing admiration for the great Americans: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman? Did he ever intimate any understanding at all of the struggle of the jewish people to be free of oppression or the parallels - spoken and written of for decades - of the jewish and black experiences? How bad is it? In the article above we are advised to look out for Obama following in the footsteps of that great egalitarian, Chavez. Help us, Dear Lord, help us. by John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Why Tom Friedman should have followed his alleged instincts

John W. Trotz — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:54:45 -0000

For the sake of the neo-Marxists, who live with their heads in the sand, the "Obama problem" is not the conservative equivalent of the truthers. It is, by definition, the President's wholesale adoption of Marxist ideology: socialist health care disguised as mere stupidity; government takeover of private business; government adoption of unproven "climate control," paradigms, which are nothing more than a green light for further government control of the marketplace; government control of free speech by enacting rules requiring the right's one entry into the free marketplace of ideas to be subject to left wing "community" standards; government control of energy production, even as it funds other dictators etc. trying to explore their own off-shore resources.
Mr. Friedman - the hypocrite at large (aren't they all?) - worries that Obama will be attacked by someone ginned up on the public discourse. Nancy Pelosi - the poster child for conservative fund raising campaigns - agrees with Mr. Friedman, and isn't that convenient? Paul, doing sentry duty at the front, points out that leftist writers such as Mr. Friedman always seem to forget the far more provocative outrages engaged in by the left during the Bush years.
I, for one, don't for a minute think Mr. Friedman forgot what his people were sinking to on the morality meter. He merely thinks the situations aren't comparable: Obama, in his mind, is at least a real asset to society. When with friends, he calls him god. Please! President Bush, in Friedman's mind, was a detriment to society and deserved whatever some nut could get away with. Had one emerged, the left would have to bind and gag themselves to prevent one of them from calling the nut a martyr. Think I'm wrong? By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Nothing to fear but Fears himself

John W. Trotz — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:17:58 -0000

The really really sad thing about the Post and its staff is their almost brainless devotion to outfits like ACORN. We the readers assume in an almost knee jerk fashion that people like Fears and his editors are doing what they do because they are elitists and, somehow, intellectuals. Yet the stunt they pull is right out of the third grade. What is intellectual about supporting ACORN? From the start the group has been low-brow, almost laughing at the rest of us as they lay waste to the system of free elections we have used for over 200 years. So ACORN shop lifts elections and the Post trashes people who try to stop them. But how does the Post do this, by calling the muckrakers nasty names (or, at least, names that they think are nasty). It's so boring and immature as to be pathetic.
You can see Mr. Fears and Ms. Leonnig at the water cooler snickering with each other. "You should have seen what I called those young muckrakers now!" Anyone reading such trash - be they left or right or whatever - would, if they were the least bit intellectually honest, feel only pity for such miserable and wretched souls.
I know, I know, I just did the same thing to Mr. Fears and Ms. Leonig that they did to the muckrakers, I "slyly" insulted them by insinuating that they have souls. Sorry. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Sliming James O'Keefe: A case study

John W. Trotz — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:10:20 -0000

Maybe Drudge or even Powerline could adopt a policy of profiling the family, especially the parents and spouses, of every leftist whose obscene slanders we document. Don't out do them, just take the same tact they take and see how long until somebody screams. Put a disclaimer at the top, "we aren't the slightest bit interested in the family history of XYZ, the Post or Times reporter who let their neo-Marxist sympathies creep into their story AGAIN. Really, we aren't. But for the sake of fairness, henceforth Powerline will provide the same stupid, slanted details that XYZ has in this story." And so, "XYZ's mother has been a member of the ACLU for 25 years and, for the last ten years has been a member of the "Insiders Club" at Al Jazeera. She has a framed picture of Mao in her bedroom. While often ridiculing conservatives for being "backwards," she, herself, hasn't been in the same room with (fill in minority or religious group, as the case may be) for 50 years. She believed strongly that Chappaquiddick was a right-wing plot and sympathizes with the truther movement. Do you think we'd get a rise out of them?

Re: Power Line - Why Does Jimmy Carter Think We're All Racists?

John W. Trotz — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:34:48 -0000

John's question - whether this is one of countless time bomb's swept under the rug by the mainstream press - is a provocative one. In this case, however, it is more than provocative, it is astonishing. Dare we remember that Mr. Carter waged a knock down, drag out primary race against Sen. Kennedy, a race Mr. Carter won, but which so weakened him that he was crushed by President Reagan in the subsequent general election. Mr. McDonald's outstanding reporting found these facts today; the mainstream couldn't find it back when its patron saint was running for president. Dare we thank Sen. Kennedy, at least in part, for President Reagan's eight landmark years? A Kennedy - and one of the big three, at that - plays a pivotal role in putting one of the all time great Presidents in office (and he was a conservaive!). Amazing, but true. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Dems' Strategy Crashes and Burns

John W. Trotz — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:27:07 -0000

Henryk Gorecki, the great Polish Composer whose music played an integral part of Poland's emergence from Communism, entitled his seminal work "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs." Its three parts stretch over an hour and paint a beautiful yet mournful picture of the struggle Poland had waged to be free. Yet, as sad as the song and words were, they barely kept a chain on the boiling desire for freedom and liberty burning bright in the souls of his countrymen. Only a genius like Gorecki could pull that off: painting a picture in sound of a great people, held back 'for now' by the forces of evil, but searching for the window to freedom that, as it turned out, was only a few years off. Yesterday, on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland at the outset of World War II, our leader threw a figurative chain back around Poland, allowing the evil forces of Communism a beacon of hope in its emerging new effort at European dominance. This is a man who shows a reckless - almost evil - desire to be the friend of every despot on the world list of profoundly evil people. The numbers above illustrate how little the desires of his people matter to him. When the cause of peace, freedom, efficacy or morality clash in anyway with his immature desire for the company of despots, his desires, however misguided and ridiculous, win out.
I was a liberal, back when being liberal meant a slavish devotion to protecting the poor, speaking our for freedom and liberty, and giving a voice to the oppressed. The liberal station that I knew gave unlimited value to the first amendment; today's left giggles when people lament how little the first amendment matters. The numbers above attest to that, again. People speaking out against a health system that is, by definition, socialist and by actual practice, extremely stupid, are branded as evil. When did speaking out for what one believed was right become the subject of scorn. On Wednesday, we pounded our allies in Honduras for enforcing their constitution against a man seeking to become president-for-life. On Thursday, we betrayed our great freedom-loving allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. What is on today's agenda, Brutus? By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - "MIssing" mostly from Latin America

John W. Trotz — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:28:44 -0000

I don't want to belabor this point, but with the current system, nobody, not even a common criminal, is denied health care. Anybody who shows up at an emergency room - or, for that matter, anybody who can dial 911 - gets outstanding medical care, better than anywhere else in the world. Not only that, but I know of no one who has advocated anything differently. Like I said - and this wasn't a pro-life abortion argument - each life is precious. That's why firemen race into burning buildings to pull old folks out and that's why soldiers lay down their lives. It's very idealistic and very American. I remember that it wasn't too long ago that beliefs like that - every life is precious - was the core of a liberal's belief. That's when I was a liberal. What happened? By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Joe Wilson, Man of the Hour?

John W. Trotz — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:14:23 -0000

Was Obama in the crowd that screamed out at President Bush during the 2005 State of the Union Speech? That would've been the time when the President was telling the country the cold hard facts about the viability of the social security program, and a group of leftist ostriches yelled out "no" in unison. Commentators at the time said they had never seen the President interrupted like that. Of course, at that time these Main Stream Media flaks were proud of the people interrupting the President. Now, it's an outrage.
Just for the record, I'm not outraged. I am angry that Mr. Wilson was treated like a child who acted up at recess by the GOP leadership. I suppose some tongue-in-cheek words, combined with a statement to the effect that "when the Democrats acted out en masse in 2005 it was wrong, and when Mr. Stark made his vile and quite immature statements it was wrong, and when Ms. Pelosi lies through her teeth, it is wrong, and we don't want to start acting like they do, so I will speak with Congressman Wilson. This is what happens when the Democrats allow the neo-Marxists in the White House."
How goofy was it for the one commentator to compare Mr. Wilson with Paul Revere? Think that one through. By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - "MIssing" mostly from Latin America

John W. Trotz — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:26:30 -0000

All good arguments, Ms. Straziere, and well worth addressing. The President, however, isn't the least bit interested in addressing anything that doesn't put the United States in the same God-forsaken place that Britain and Canada are in right now. That's the absurd part of his "plan" in a nutshell: the current arrangement is okay with what, about 80% of all Americans. But the President, being the neo-Marxist that he is, cannot propose a plan to help the 20% who need it without screwing the 80% who don't. We are way too smart in this country to accept a plan premised on that fallacy. We can help the 20% who need help without sticking everybody else in the terrible system this man wants to ram down our throats. Ms. Straziere knows better than to suggest that a child hit by a car would be denied care in this country under any circumstances. Can she make the same promise to the mother of the lady who asked the president the question about elder care when ABC did the puff-coverage? It wasn't that long ago when Americans one and all believed each life was priceless. This President does not. By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - Fear and loathing in Tehran

John W. Trotz — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:10:08 -0000

Mr. Speers: It's pretty scary, isn't it?

Re: Power Line - The Chicago Way 2009

John W. Trotz — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:52:04 -0000

Sorry about being slow on the switch with my reply to you. If I said anything that implied that somebody shouldn't say what was on their mind, I was wrong and apologize. As a former Union Member (Newspaper Guild) and journalist, the freedom I treasure the most is free speech. More and more I see the Democratic Party leadership opposing free speech. Nothing has had so jarring an effect on my politics as seeing Democrats opposing free speech. Do you remember Kerry trying to silence the Swift Boaters. Don't you think if he offered, immediately, to sit down with them, on the record, it would have changed the way that thing went down? I believe the same could be said for these Town Hall Meetings. They were undertaken with the goofy idea that the House Health Care Bill, as written, was some sacrosanct document that couldn't be altered one iota. If the Democrats would've went into the meeting and said they were listening and would try to incorporate the best of the ideas into the legislation, the enemies would've become, at least, less hostile, and some would've shut up altogether....John Trotz

Re: Power Line - Hugo on the Red Carpet

John W. Trotz — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:07:54 -0000

I wish someone would also write a book about what happened to journalism. I graduated from the University of Maryland School of Journalism in 1977. People who were in school with me had enrolled in the immediate wake of Watergate and the subsequent national fascination with gum-shoed reporters digging up hidden secrets. They were heady times in Journalism and almost all of us were extremely liberal. But we also knew we had an extremely noble and important role to play in a democracy such as ours. We filled the editorial page and op-ed pages of the Diamondback (the school newspaper) with all manner of liberal rants. But on the news pages there was an absolute fealty to truth and objectivity. We were taught, and we believed, almost to a man or woman, that an objective telling of the truth facilitated justice. It provided this by making our accounts more believable and by showing the world that taking care of the poor, rejecting hate and bias, treating men and women equally - along with every other talisman of basic human dignity - was worth fighting for, worth emulating and worth preserving.
We might not have wanted to write a story about a fighter for human rights being found with his hand in the cookie jar, but we knew that our willingness to do so made every other thing we wrote more believable to everybody. And it also helped prune the bad apples out of the great lot of good people fighting the good fight.
Sometime during the last 30 years, however, the dynamic changed. For years I'd argue with people who accused journalists of slanting everything hard left. On the editorial page, I would say, you knew you were reading opinion. It said it right up at the top of the page: "Opinion." On the news page, I said, journalists were doing the best that they could to tell the story straight up; i.e. objectively.
As the years passed - and mainly during the Clinton years - this became an argument that I could no longer get behind. About ten years ago, I had to stop altogether, because it was no longer true. Here in Baltimore, the Sunpapers had become a laughing stock. The last newspaper in a major American City was losing money and readers so fast it made your head swim. But the knuckleheads kept slanting the news so far left that the finished product bore no resemblance whatsoever to the truth. Readers stopped reading in droves. I called and cancelled my subscription on the day when an editorial writer made a racist remark about Michael Steele - then making his successful bid for Lieutenant Governor of Marylalnd, running with Republican Robert Ehrlich, who was seeking to become the first Republican Governor of Maryland since the 1960's - that was so sickening that I could no longer allow my money to go to an operation like that. Across the United States the story was the same at paper after paper.
Maybe someone on the left could tell us when the watershed moment occurred. When did it become OK for journalists to become nothing more than flacks for the left. When did it become OK to so revile and despise the ideas of democracy and capitalism so much that making things up and telling bald-faced lies became the norm rather than an aberration that was quickly dealt with.
I still remember one journalism class when I was a senior at Maryland. This particular class included a lot of the students who were reporters and editors of the Diamondback and Argossy, Maryland's student-run magazine. The Diamondback Sports Editor was an outstanding writer who did as much muckraking as he did sportswriting. He was nobody's friend, which is how a journalist was supposed to be. Anyway, he let on during one class discussion, that he ate the food and drank the soda pop that the school's athletic department provided the media at the Maryland Football and Basketball games. The class, and the editor of the Diamondback, went balistic. This, to us, was like selling your soul. When you ate their food you were compromising your objectivity. (Of course, when I got out and started covering baseball games at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore or, once, I recall, at Fenway Park, i learned that all the reporters ate the food and drank the beer...and still trashed the home team.) I tell this story to illustrate how important it was to be objective. It was the opposite of being a sell-out.
Now, being objective to the leftist folk filling the pages of the New York Times and the airtime of NBC is exactly the same as being a sell-out. They won't have any part of it. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - The Obama administration -- combining gracelessness with a bad memory

John W. Trotz — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:20:34 -0000

If an objective historian ever reviews the last fifty years, one thing is for certain: Mr. Bush and his vice-president, Mr. Cheney, will do extremely well. In the face of a cacophony on the left so loud it could wake the dead, and in the face of a national media still powerful enough to force feed millions a view of the way things were that had very little to do with the truth, these two men guided the United States with a certainty and moral assuredness that would have made the best of leaders extremely proud.
Now, the United States is in the hand of the ones responsible for the abjectly ridiculous cacophony; the same people that opposed the surge and, if the truth was known, probably opposed the initial intervention into Afghanistan right after 9/11. These are the same people who drone on about "peace," forgetting, for a moment, that peace without justice is no peace at all. Neville Chamberlain secured "peace." There was "peace" in Afghanistan before the initial American intervention.
The United States did not survive and prosper for more than two centuries by blindly pursuing "peace." The kind of peace that lasts, the kind that strong and secure nations are built on, is peace with justice for the affected. Men and women have died and will continue to die to secure that peace. It's a bitter pill. But it is a medicine the United States has consistently accepted as the cost for lasting peace. In World War II, suppose that sometime before the Allies crossed into the Rhineland Hitler had sued for peace. Suppose he said all the right things, made all the right promises, with the one caveat being that he was allowed to remain in power. Today, with hindsight, it is easy to say "unacceptable." But change the names and propel yourself forward to today. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney got rid of Hussein. Would Obama? In Afghanistan, any solution that leaves the Taliban viable is not going to be a lasting solution, and there will be no lasting peace. And so when Ms. DeYoung and her "senior administration official" crow about the options being examined, and how some would never have been considered by President Bush, we can all thank the Good Lord Jesus that they are correct. As for this administration, turning tale and running with the evil still on the prowl seems to be just fine. Worse yet - to be frank - they don't exactly assure us that they aren't more or less sympathetic with the evil that is on the prowl. By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - The Czar of nonsense

John W. Trotz — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:30:56 -0000

It used to be that we could blow off boneheads like Rev. Wright, because we could tell ourselves that while the leftists in Congress had to pay them lip service, nobody really took such nonsense seriously. But with Rev. Wright, the leftist in the White House sat and listened, with his wife and children, for two decades. As Paul points out, the reactionary left doesn't let facts get in their way. With Obama in the White House, why should they? By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - No Investigation This Time

John W. Trotz — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:40:20 -0000

Nothing will stop the way far left from bashing moderate Americans. While most would be chastened when caught red-handed in such hypocritical behavior, the neo-Marxists, including the President, don't miss a beat. Their tact is made functional by the complicity of their functionaries in the mainstream media. Fox News just reported on the absurd and reprehensible way that the three major networks, the Times and the Post handled the Jones resignation, or, rather, how they didn't handle it. Naturally and predictably, the Times led the way; the first mention of Jones being an avowed Communist and, laughably, a truther, as well as the fact that he had now resigned, was this morning. Powerline, Fox, Limbaugh, Hewitt and Hannity have all been talking about it for weeks. New York Times readers learned of it this morning. One might ask why the way far left shouldn't just lie until caught when they are able to avail themselves of such blatant complicity. One might also ask why - with the media paving the way - they should let "getting caught" get in the way, either. By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - Fear and loathing in Tehran

John W. Trotz — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:15:12 -0000

This is the dangerous place.
This is the place where the insanity is directed and where the beast is immune from the medicine that the international community is willing to administer.
For all of the problems their own people cause the government, the leadership in Iran still marches forward in its single-minded xenophobic crusade to wipe Israel from the map.
Everything appears aimed at that. Nothing that has happened has thrown the mullahs and their operatives off their goal. Of all the despots who have come to power over the centuries, those in Iran are of the kind that defy all rules of common sense diplomacy.
There is nothing anyone can offer them to placate them. So long as they have a breath in their bodies, they will continue to work for the opportunity to obliterate Israel. The one man who was the most dangerous to them - Mr. Cheney - is gone from the national and international stage. While his comments are still clear and invigorating, he no longer is near the power switch.
The present American leaders are virtually sympathetic to them while, at the same time, openly antagonistic to Israel. In Iran, the mullahs have to believe that everything is coming together. It is depravity on a grand scale and in Tel Aviv, Mr. Netanyahu certainly knows his trim but still lethal military is all that is standing between his country and obliteration. By John William Trotz in Baltimore

Re: Power Line - A Van Jones Postscript

John W. Trotz — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:41:13 -0000

It is so absolutely critical that the very best and brightest on our side understand exactly what is going on. Unchecked, our county's government will be as far to the left as Daniel Ortega's and Fidel Castro's. Mr. McCarthy, thank the Good Lord Jesus, is seeing things very clearly. But I worry about Mr. Krauthammer. I am not saying that I want him to move right. I am very very comfortable with where he is. What worries me is when he stumbles in seeing just how far left the President and his neo-Marxist cohorts are and how far left Mr. Obama wants this nation to be. It is as bad as it can be, Mr. Krauthammer.
Really, it is. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - The Washington Post profiles Van Jones

John W. Trotz — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:30:16 -0000

There are few blogs like Powerline, taken seriously everywhere, even on the left, because of its commitment to fairness and truth. On this Labor Day, anyone with a sense of national pride, anyone who cares a wit about our country, would realize how incredible it is that Scott - talking about someone with actual cabinet-closeness to the seat of power, would use the phrase "Marxist nutjob," and nobody bats an eye.
Every day when I crawl out of bed, i wonder what new absurdity the President and his neo-Marxists will be foisting on us. An avowed truther and Communist in the White House. Does Mr. Powell think this is OK? If he has an ounce of Patriot's blood left in his veins, now would be the time to speak out. You know, I thought it was goofy when Sen. Lott made his birthday party remarks. But savor for a moment just how the objection-level of that comment compares to any of the ourrages coming out of the mouth of V. Jones. I would love just once for Mr. Ridge and Mr. Powell to sit themselves down, not with some media hack trying to embarass the Republicans, but with Scott and John and Paul, and chat about the future of the Republican party. Speaking for myself, I believe the days of placating the far far far left; i.e., the White House, have passed. Shouting and screaming aren't the answer, but uncompromising straight talk is. I have great respect for Sen. McCain, but now is not the time to seek common ground with this administration.
If V. Jones, Truther and Communist, was the "best" person for this job, wouldn't you love the see the final list. Suddenly, giving the Medal to the Racist, Ms. Robinson, doesn't seem like an aberration. It seems like it is business as usual for the neo-Marxists on Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead of apologizing or gussying up to the left, People on our side should speak out about how people like Jones and, yes, Obama, are slicing America off at the knees. The nation needs to hear clear talk about what the voters have done. There are awful ramifications that spring directly from allowing left wingers this outlandish and debauched into the seat of power.
If you voted for Obama, consider this: What would it be like if someone as far out on the right gained power and started easing KKK literature back into the national conversation?
Is V. Jones, Truther and Communist, okay with you, Ms. Clinton? Is he okay with you, Ms. Boxer? Mr. Schumer, I can't hear you. This is the moment folks like these have been told to lead. By John W. Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Obama's Honduran mistake

John W. Trotz — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:47:23 -0000

Exactly one month ago I responded to Paul's "Welcome to the Club" essay with additional comments about this President and his proclivity for gussying up to America's enemies while betraying our friends. The list of allies subjected to treatment that we previously showed only to enemies gets longer each day: India, Georgia, Honduras, France and England. Meanwhile, our new friends, now in the henhouse, include Venezuela, Cuba, the Iranian Mullahs, and upstanding Communists everywhere. We are two-thirds of one year into this four year sentence. Might I remind you centrists - Mr. Powell and Mr. Ridge - there is no early release for the United States. There is this word that keeps coming to me in my dreams, though. It begins with an "I" and ends with "ment." My Lord, what did we do to deserve this? By John William Trotz in Baltimore.

Re: Power Line - Everton leave it late

John W. Trotz — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:56:37 -0000

Could it be that Burnley will be a bit more than the team "newly promoted?"
Paul mentions that the Claret whacked his Everton lads (the score was 1-0). Paul doesn't mention that Burnley - which last played in the top division some 30 years ago and is the only English Side to win championships at all four levels of English Soccer - has also beaten World mega-power Manchester United, also by a 1-0 score.
Those two wins were part of the Claret's stunning three game August winning streak; newly promoted teams aren't supposed to do that, and in recent years the one likely result of a promotion has been a prompt relegation.
(In truth, the final win in the three game win streak was a come-from-behind win over Hartlepoole in a Carling Cup match. The Claret fell behind the lower division team and was in dire danger of losing. But they tied the game with six minutes left and won in overtime.)
Like Everton, Burnley also signed a key player at the last. Spectacular center defender Andre Bikey signed a three-year deal after the Claret had lost their first Premier League match at Stoke City. Manager Owen Coyle was overcome with joy when the Bikey signing was finalized. The former Lokomotiv Moscow and Espanyol Spain player has strengthened the Claret defense to the point that it shut out Manchester United and Everton in a four-day span just two weeks ago. Coyle also deserves much credit for the Burnley revival.
In the wild ride that is the Premier League, victories and defeats are best forgotten quickly. Burnley was reminded of that in its last start, a match at powerful Chelsea. It was not a game the Claret will relish when rehashing. Chelsea scored early and often and won, 3-0.
Paul is not optimistic that Everton will return to the top six in the Premier League. Burnley probably can't expect that either. But it appears that a quick relegation isn't in the cards, either. At old Turf Moor, where Burnley has played since the late 19th Century, that thought will keep the fans going all season long. By John William Trotz in Baltimore.