The highlight of my summer is going to be watching John Podhoretz get right with Donald. I can't wait. By the way, I have been saying in this blog for many years that free trade has been a disaster for this country. Donald Trump understood what I understood, which is why he is going to be our next president. We are sick to death of fat cats selling out their country for a few dollars.
The festering anger I have felt throughout this Republican campaign season has now boiled over. I am in full outrage mode. This is not the first time Donald Trump’s comments have sparked controversy, nor, sadly, will it be the last.
But calling for women to be “punished” for exercising our right to make our own reproductive decisions highlights exactly what I have found so troubling about the discourse on the Republican side (and it is not just Mr. Trump): men deciding women’s issues, as if we are just too weak to stand up for ourselves.
As if Donald Trump or any of the rest of them should have any say in this matter.
Note from KBJ: The fetus could not be reached for comment.
Note 2 from KBJ: I like the writer's logic. Guns are a men's issue, so women should have no say in the matter. War and peace are men's issues, so women should have no say in the matter. Competition is a men's issue, so women should have no say in economic matters. Has it occurred to the letter writer that half the babies aborted are female? Has it occurred to her that men can be concerned about protecting the vulnerable?
This man is delusional. So what if the excitable Ann Coulter is having second thoughts about Donald Trump. This is the woman who fawned over Chris Christie. Remember? She is as flighty as Andrew Sullivan, who went from George W. Bush to John Kerry in a heartbeat. Donald Trump's support comes from the people, not from pundits. By the way, the gossip of the day is that Trump made a gaffe about abortion. Three comments. First, he corrected himself immediately. Second, as president, he will be making no decisions about abortion. Third, he drew Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders out. Trump can now hit them hard on abortion. Both of them support partial-birth abortion, which is a polite name for infanticide. (That's baby-killing for those of you in Rio Linda.) Don't ever forget that Donald Trump is five steps ahead of everyone else. He is playing chess while others are playing checkers.
Addendum: For what it's worth, Coulter is still a Trump supporter. Here is her column of this date.
It's been another good month on the bike. Despite forecast storms, I got my 34.2 miles in today, which gives me 15 rides and 513.2 miles for March. I've pedaled 1,471.7 miles so far in 2016, with many more to come. I saw a bobcat today, sitting on his haunches near the trail. The sky was dark and threatening throughout the ride, but no rain fell. I carried a rain jacket in case I needed it.
Your editorial is unfair to Donald Trump. His ramblings about the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East—“I’m never going to rule anything out”—are merely his expression of the ageless “we will keep all options open,” which when used by one of your favorites, perhaps President Obama, is usually described as wise.
As for Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Japan and South Korea acquire their own nuclear weapons, it is a perfectly legitimate position to raise. Currently, we provide the nuclear umbrella for Japan, South Korea and dozens of other allies, which really obligates us to provide their conventional defense and risks our involvement in a nuclear confrontation. Thus, we end up meddling in all sorts of disputes, from those over rocks in the East China Sea to the borders of Eastern European countries.
As for revamping NATO, we should start asking Trump-like questions. Why are there still 60,000 American troops in Europe? Why do most our [sic] NATO partners spend about 1 to 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense while we spend 3.5 percent? This is not a good or necessary deal for America.
The people of North Carolina have had enough of progressive decadence and perversity and are standing up for decency and common sense. Thank God. A simpler and better statute would have said the following: It it a punishable offense to take a penis into a women's lavatory. As long as Bruce Jenner has a penis, he must use the men's lavatory.
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal is getting right with Donald. By the way, there has been confusion among my blog readers about what this expression means. Here are two things it doesn't mean:
If you fail to support Donald Trump before he wins the Republican nomination, you will not be rewarded by him.
If you fail to support Donald Trump before he wins the Republican nomination, you will be punished by him.
When Democrats were in power, they made the rules. Judge Robert H. Bork was crucified when he was a Supreme Court nominee. If Justice Clarence Thomas had not confronted Senator Ted Kennedy and his fellow liberals during his confirmation with the word “lynching,” he would have received the Bork treatment.
Now that Republicans are in control, Democrats still want to call the shots. The Constitution does not have a time frame for confirmations, and this is chafing the Democrats.
Note from KBJ: Democrats are shameless. Since at least 1987, when they Borked Robert Bork, one of the most distinguished legal practitioners, scholars, and judges of the 20th century, they have done everything possible to prevent qualified "conservative" judges from ascending to the Supreme Court. What goes around comes around.
I knew Bob Bork, though not very well, and I am familiar with his writings and of course with the debacle of his rejection for the Supreme Court in 1987. What makes that debacle not only interesting, but also of lasting influence, is that Bork was probably the best qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in the last 71 years, which is to say since 1941, when Robert H. Jackson—attorney general, former solicitor general, confidant of FDR, brilliant lawyer—was nominated. Bork had extensive experience in private practice. He was a leading law professor—a distinguished antitrust scholar, also the principal inventor of the judicial philosophy of “originalism” or “original intent,” and the foremost conservative critic of the Supreme Court. He was a former solicitor general of distinction. He had served, also with distinction, for five years as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Italics added.)