Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan's work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.
The Happy Hearts Fund almost sounds like something George Costanza would make up, but it's actually a legitimate charity that builds schools in poor neighborhoods. The group's annual gala is a major part of its fundraising effort, and in 2013, founder Petra Nemcova decided to try again (after being turned down in 2011) to get Bill Clinton to attend as the event's honoree.
It's certainly not the first time this has happened. In fact, the downward revision has become something of a tradition during the Obama presidency. No matter how bad the initial news is, the reality can always turn out to be even worse. And with these people running the show, you can usually count on it.
You tell me: Is it really that big a deal when the Obama Administration comes right out and admits what we all know anyway? That they really have no heart for the fight against ISIS and they're not going to make a serious commitment to winning it?
It's never been a secret that Obama's political position on this - get out of Iraq completely and never get involved again - overrides any sort of commitment to the security of that nation or of the Middle East region in general. The Iraq War was unpopular (thanks in large part to people like Obama making sure it would be) and a politician couldn't go wrong with an uncompromising commitment to get out and stay out - the consequences be damned.
No act of Congress is involved here, but since when is that significant when we're talking about the Obama Administrative State? The Clean Water Act of 1986 gives the EPA authority to claim jurisdiction over wetlands, and the language in the act leaves a bit of room for interpretation concerning just what a wetland is.
Just as an exercise in curiosity, I'm going to try to think like a socialist. And since I really have no earthly idea how socialists come up with the ideas they embrace, I'm going to let Bernie Sanders get me rolling. Tell me, Bernie, your thoughts on economic growth:
We've been coming back to the Iraq War lately for two reasons. One is that the media keep bringing it up in the form of a knowing-what-we-know-now gotcha question aimed at Republican presidential candidates (although they offer no such question to Hillary Clinton concerning the 2011 withdrawl of all U.S. troops . . . not that she would answer). The other, more pertinent reason, is that ISIS is overrunning Iraq at the moment, taking advantage of the absence of a residual U.S. force and Barack Obama's refusal to wage a real fight against them.
Bribery will get you everywhere with Hillary Clinton, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has money to burn. So even though the State Department officially objected to the policies of the Saudi royal family, and our allies in Israel raised serious objections because of the way it would affect the region's balance of power, Hillary actually considered it a top personal priority to approve the sale of $29 billion worth of advance fighter jets to the Saudis.
Why would Hillary do this? I'd give you three guesses but I'm sure you wouldn't need the last two. Some things are just that predictable, as International Business Times reports:
In addition to everything else that's wrong with the nuclear deal Barack Obama and John Kerry are pursuing with Iran (chiefly, that it clears the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons), the administration is rushing headlong into finalizing the deal without demanding the release of Jason Rezaian as a condition.
You'd think it would represent a major blow to ISIS if you could take out its headquarters - and apparently U.S. forces know exactly where ISIS headquarters is located. Specifically we're talking about seven buildings in Raqqa, Syria. Furthermore, you'd think that if you had a shot at thousands of ISIS terrorists - the very ones who just took Ramadi and were running around in the open flaunting it - you'd take them out.
I don't even know what to say about this. It's almost as if whoever runs the Democrats' Twitter account decided to take on a personal challenge of coming up with the most inappropriate photo imaginable for the day when the nation honors its war dead. It's about fallen soldiers? Ha!
It's hard to imagine anything more frightening than the image above (and just think how it must make Bat Boy feel), but one possibility might be the prospect of Hillary Clinton developing strategies for how to "jump start small business." I have been a small business owner since 1999, and it's hard to imagine anything in common between good small business practices and the things Hillary Clinton does.
One of the curiosities I've had about the Clinton Foundation slush fund is how Hillary just wantonly ignored the agreement she'd made with the White House to disclose the donations they were getting while she was Secretary of State. Not that it surprises me she would welch on the agreement. Not at all. That's classic Hillary. But usually they find some sort of clever way to break their word while being able to claim they kept it. That's the Clinton way. I was a little surprised at the idea that she would have just hidden the donations and basically said "screw you" to the White House in the process.
I suppose it's arguable whether it matters that the field of Republican presidential candidates in the coming cycle looks to be unusually large. Personally I don't really see why it matters, since we know perfectly well that only a handful of viable candidates will still have a serious chance once we're past the first few caucuses and primaries. But I can't help but be both amused and a little frustrated by the reason many conservatives are citing for why this is supposedly a problem:
Democrats have a very hard time when they are ordered by federal judges to respect the limits imposed on them by the Constitution. Telling you what to do and what not to do, and under what conditions, is what they live for. That is especially true when it comes to gun rights. So when the all-Democrat-all-the-time cabal that rules the District of Columbia was ordered by courts to respect residents' concealed carry rights, the D.C. luminaries of course tried to find a way to not respect them regardless.
This never gets old, especially when it's MSNBC asking the question. It's almost as if they're hoping the focus group will give them something to work with because they long since gave up trying to think of anything Hillary has ever done to merit consideration for the presidency. But as is usually the case, even Democrat voters can't really come up with a plausible explanation for why they're backing Hillary.
I could have sworn he was going to stop the rise of the oceans just by getting elected, but since that didn't work I guess he'd better send the Coast Guard to the scene. If you see some extra water approaching the beach and it looks like it might have been part of a now-melted glacier, better start bailing the ocean!
The media's favorite trap question for Republican presidential candidates these days concerns the 12-years-ago invasion of Iraq, and whether each candidate - had they been president at the time - would have invaded and removed Saddam Hussein from power "knowing what we know now." The premise of the trap, of course, is that "we know now" there were no WMDs, and "we know now" that the task of stablizing Iraqi democracy proved exceedingly difficult, and further that Iraq is now in jeopardy as ISIS rampages across the land.
I guess this is the product of too much excellence in the specialized field of placekicking. Extra points in the NFL have become so automatic, the league actually considered just getting rid of them altogether. One idea on the table a year ago would have given teams the option of taking 7 points automatically on a touchdown, or taking 6 and going for 2 - so disgusted had the league become with the mere formality that was the easy 1-point kick of 9 or 10 yards.