March 7, 2016
Donald Trump tapped into the frustration many have concerning lack of leadership and the direction this country has taken. His refusal to bow to political correctness has been a breath of fresh air for a populace weary of rhetorical gymnastics, guarded speech, and fear of offending. He opened the door to realistically discussing illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, and the runaway progressive agenda – issues that have been blanketed by PC foolishness far too long. This is the ‘good’ that Trump brought to the presidential campaign.
His ego and thin skin, however, cause him to lash out with personal attacks against anyone daring to criticize or challenge him. These attacks have brought a lot of media attention that has helped his rise in popularity; therefore, they have continued and become a major tactic of his campaign. Other candidates have begun emulating the personal attacks in an effort to gain media attention and, consequently, issues and policies are not being given the attention they need. This is the ‘bad’ Trump has wrought.
The entrenched establishment of the GOP does not like Trump and is trying to derail him, splitting instead of unifying the party. Sophomoric insults between candidates along with Mitt Romney’s out-of-character speech attacking Trump have brought ugliness to the GOP campaign – and that can only alienate voters.
Trump may very well end up to be the GOP candidate but he will lose to Hillary if he does not get his ego in check, eliminate the brash insults, and provide substance rather than empty, feel-good rhetoric. He has certainly been entertaining but he is running for president of the United States, not auditioning for a role in a Hollywood movie. We need serious leadership.
It is sad that running for president has become such a circus that only a fool would enter the ring. Thus, we may end up having to vote for Hillary or Trump. This is not the best we can do; it is just what apathy has allowed.
David J. Hentosh
January 20, 2016
Democrats are praising Obama’s “diplomatic relations” with Iran, hailing the release of four prisoners who were held for years as proof of improved relations. Obama’s dealings with Iran seem to be solidifying his legacy but what, exactly, will that legacy be?
Obama essentially traded 21 for 4 by offering clemency to seven Iranians pending trial in the US and dismissing charges and extradition requests against fourteen others not in the US. This follows his swap of five terrorists from Gitmo for Sgt. Bergdahl who now faces a court-marshal for desertion. With lopsided numbers such as those, Obama’s prisoner exchange negotiations have come under harsh criticism.
His “nuclear deal” with Iran, which he desperately pursued, came after allowing Iran time to hide its nuclear weapons program and, thereby, receive $100 billion in assets frozen by sanctions. These assets were released just hours after the latest prisoners swap, suspiciously looking like a ransom for the prisoners. It certainly suggests that kidnapping US citizens can be lucrative so it should not come as a surprise if more US citizens are taken. Perhaps the three kidnapped in Baghdad are a direct result. You can bet North Korea took notice.
It is always a good thing to get prisoners back but our policy of not negotiating with terrorists seems to have been thrown by the wayside to do so. If (many think it’s just a mater of when) Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, Obama’s legacy will become a nightmare and his lopsided prisoner swaps will no longer seem positive even by those now drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.
There has been an embarrassing desperation to Obama’s dealings (appeasement?) with Iran and he has treated Israel, a staunch ally, like a terrorist nation while courting Iran as a desirable and legitimate nation beneficial to US interests. That is only beneficial to Obama’s interests and it is his legacy that interests him the most. However, the legacy he is building is a house of cards on the verge of tumbling down – and we may all be forced to pay the price.
David J. Hentosh