Year End Reflections, Part I

Following the San Bernardino murders by two Islamic terrorists, one letter writer to the New York Times opined as follows: "I am furious with the gun-crazed National Rifle Association...I am furious with the politicians who caved in to the demands of the N.R.A. I am furious with the Republican Party for making support of the gun lobby an immutable policy position. I am disgusted with the Republican candidates for president when they issue their "thoughts and prayers" comments on the San Bernardino shootings."

To this letter writer, like many leftists, the shooting was all about guns, the N.R.A. and Republicans. I am of a different mindset - I am furious with the shooters, the evil ideology that motivated them, and a President who wants to bring more potential terrorists to our shores. But that's just me.

But as L. Gordon Grovitz noted in a column in the 12/7/15 Wall Street Journal: "The U.S. won't deter Saudi Arabia from exporting its toxic Wahhabi teachings so long as Washington keeps pretending that radical Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." And, I would add, the same applies to any Islamic group dedicated to the spread of Shariah Law.

In support of the aforementioned letter writer, here is another. These letters are, of course, a reflection of the far left readership to which the Times caters. "I despair. Not so much of ISIS, as of our leaders who deny that the unfettered proliferation of guns is a danger to our society." I would ask this letter writer: had the two Islamic terrorists not murdered those 14 people in San Bernardino, are you of the opinion that the guns would have gotten themselves up and gone on a shooting spree on their own?

While I would not give much credence to a presidential poll nearly a year ahead of the election, just for fun here the results of the latest Quinnipiac Poll. Hillary is in a dead heat with Cruz, each garnering 44% support. She edges out Rubio 44% to 43%, which is well within the margin of error. She beats Trump 47% to 40%. I suspect not a single commentator would have predicted that Trump would not only last this long, but would be doing so well.

I have previously used scientific rules to explain the world of politics and international affairs. For example, Obama's "lead from behind" strategy of withdrawing from the world has allowed countries like Russia, China and Iran to assert their influence, because "nature abhors a vacuum." Similarly, another rule of physics is that "for every action there is a reaction, equal in force and opposite in direction." I believe that rule fairly sums up the appeal of Donald Trump.

Yes, Trump can be nasty and abrasive, and unnecessarily insulting. He can be like a tempestuous Junior High School kid. But he is speaking to people's concerns about immigration and terrorists because of Obama's weak stance on those issues. Obama has moved full steam ahead on many issues regardless of the opposition of the American people. From the Affordable Care Act to immigration to fighting ISIS and terrorism, his policies have not been shared by the majority of the citizenry. But Trump speaks to those issues. Trump cannot be bought, given his wealth. And Trump speaks plainly.

What is up with the Democrats, holding their debates on Saturday nights? I have to assume that the party leaders are desperate for a Hillary win. It appears they do not want to risk giving Bernie the media coverage that Trump gets. Keep him out of the spotlight, and keep any potential miscues of Hillary from being seen by a wide audience. I keep seeing more and more Bernie bumper stickers, even on rather costly automobiles. I am trying to work up the courage to ask one of those people if they would share their wealth with me.