Ukraine, Part III (A Reply To Some Of The Comments I Received)

(Note:  These last two posts have resulted in more than the usual amount of comments that I receive.  Some have merit, others not so much.  Only one person posted his comment on the blog.  The others were emails addressed to me.)

I'll start with the comment on the blog.  Yes, the Baltic states are now part of NATO.  And another comment I received said that I was incorrect when I quoted Biden saying he did not want a war with Russia, as it was in the context of Ukraine, not defending NATO countries.  I agree.  I should not have used that quote.  However, I did see an interview given by Biden, and I am fairly certain that he emphasized that he would not engage in any shooting war with Russia.  However, Biden has now said multiple times that the US and NATO would defend every square inch of NATO territory.

The comment on the blog also says that Bush did nothing when Russia invaded Georgia.  I agree.  To say that Putin did nothing while Trump was in office because Trump was his "compliant lackey" is preposterous.  If that were true, then during the Trump Administration would have been the perfect time to invade Ukraine because Trump would not do anything about it.  And Trump did not tear NATO apart.  He actually tried to strengthen it by telling our European partners to step up and pay the required 2% of GDP that the US has paid.  

Yes, Trump did ask Germany why the US should defend them against Russia when they are paying billions of dollars a year to Russia for the energy Russia supplies to them.  So Trump trying to get the Europeans less dependent on Russian energy, which would hurt the Russian economy, makes him a "compliant lackey?"  It makes no sense.  

The comment also asserts that so many on the right are cheering Putin on.  Who?  I know that Tucker Carlson, on Fox, made some ridiculous comment questioning why we should support Ukraine over Russia.  But so many on the right are cheering Putin on?  Where's the evidence for that?  Actually, it is the left in this country that has a 100 year history of supporting dictators over America.  Professor Mearsheimer (the antisemite who co-wrote "The Israel Lobby") wrote a piece explaining why the West is responsible for this war, because the West/NATO encroached on Russia's former sphere of influence - which included not only the former Soviet Republics (such as Ukraine), but also on the former Warsaw Pact countries.  Bernie Sanders, always ready to blame America first, agrees with Mearsheimer.  They also are both anti-Israel.   

Another commenter said Part I of my Ukraine post was to defend Trump.  So one paragraph about Trump's comment made the entire post about Trump?  I get this type of comment all the time.  People will single out one sentence or one paragraph, and ignore everything else that I say.  To borrow from Simon & Garfunkel:  "A man hears (reads) what he wants to hear (read) and disregards the rest."  The other complaint about Part I was asking if I was suggesting that NATO guarantees of support for the Baltic countries was not enough to ensure their defense.  

It was a fair question.  The real question is whether NATO is up to the task both militarily and with sufficient readiness and motivation.  I saw retired General Jack Keane on Fox say that when John McCain was in the Senate he asked for an assessment of NATO's ability to defend the Baltics against Russia.  The result was not pretty.  In the "war games" they conducted, Russia was able to take the Baltics (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) in only 60 hours.

The complaint I received about Part II was my criticizing Biden for, caving to the left-wing of his party, putting an end to US energy independence.  Had we not done that we could be supplying Europe's energy needs rather than Russia doing so.  The suggestion, I think, was that the 3% of our oil from Putin is no big deal.  That misses the point of our not being able to stop European countries from getting 40% to 60% of their energy from Russia.  With US production cut by Biden, we cannot help wean those countries off of their dependence on Russia.  And why should we be buying any energy from Russia or Iran.  

The other complaint was that I seemed to not care about global warming.  He's right.  The priority is being energy independent so that the US and Europe have no need for Russian supplies.  The priority is to stop sending billions of dollars a year to Russia.  I am not like John Kerry, who, shortly before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, hoped that would not be a "distraction" from his work on climate change.  What a moron!  The possible subjugation of an entire country by a dictatorial regime is a distraction?  I have to ask - is Kerry the dumbest person to ever serve in the federal government?  

I'll end with this line from Kerry:  "I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate."  I'm sure that is at the top of Putin's agenda.  Just how stupid can one man be!

Ukraine, Part II (My Take Continues)

One thing that I would like everyone to consider is how the rest of the world will react.  By this I mean, will other countries see the newly formed Russian-Chinese axis as predominant?  Will they view the Western, NATO-aligned countries as weak?  If that happens, what does this mean for the world?  Will other countries align with Russia and China, resulting in a shrinkage of free societies?  We have already seen how China's economic might has been used to squelch free speech even in the USA (think LeBron James and the NBA).  We saw a steady growth of democracies following WWII.  I now fear a steady decline.

Putin's actions bring to mind the 2012 presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Romney called Russia our greatest geopolitical threat.  Obama mocked him with this line:  "...the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."  Not surprisingly, the MSM dutifully fell in line and also mocked Romney.  As did so many on the left.   

Putin has had the world on edge, waiting to see what Russia would do.  I don't get it.  Russia has 144 million people.  But Western Europe has 197 million people.  And all of NATO has over 944 million people.  Economic strength?   The GDP of the US is over $21 trillion.  But even Germany, the UK, France and Italy each have a larger GDP than does Russia.  While Russia may not be a wealthy country, it has been spending its money on building up its military.  Meanwhile, the West has been complacent.  And our military under Biden is more concerned with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.  That ought to show Putin a thing or two. 

Part of the problem is that Russia is the third largest producer of oil in the world, and is the main supplier of natural gas to...yep, Europe.  So, Germany, has now decided to not accept gas from the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.  So what?  That is not the only pipeline from Russia into Europe.  And Italy's Prime Minister has stated that he does not want sanctions on Russia touching the Russian energy industry.  At a NATO summit in 2018, Trump complained about Germany (although they're not alone) sending billions of dollars to Russia for their oil and gas.  

But what has Biden done?  Taken us from an energy independent country to a country that gets 3% of our oil from Russia.  A mere days into his term, Biden signed executive orders halting new oil and gas leases, and requiring a review of existing leases.  And, of course, Biden put a stop to the Keystone XL pipeline.  Had he not taken these measures, the US could be supplying energy to Europe.  That would hit Putin where it hurts, costing him billions of dollars.

So what about sanctions?  They never work.  Besides, now that Putin and Xi seem to have a cozy relationship, China (with the second biggest GDP after the US) can easily make up whatever Russia loses from Western sanctions.  

Another thing to consider.  Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, all former Soviet Republics, agreed to give up their nuclear weapons.  With the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, those countries were given security assurances for their territorial integrity - in exchange for relinquishing their nukes.  Those assurances were given by Russia, the UK and the USA.  So much for the US standing by our commitments.  In the event that our retreat from Afghanistan did not signal the countries of the world just how unreliable the US could be, we now have the US disregarding our commitment in Europe.  

So what would I do?  What I would have done is insisted on NATO sending troops into Ukraine, and definitely enough to protect Kyiv.  I know, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and therefore we have no treaty obligation to defend them.  And I know that Ukraine is not a "perfect" democracy.  But I agree with President Kennedy regarding the inherent obligation to "assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Ukraine, Part I (My Take)

As I type this, Ukraine is under attack.  There is shelling in the capital city of Kyiv.  I am well aware that many believe that what happens in Ukraine should not concern the United States.  I disagree with that assessment.  Ironically, some have suggested that I follow whatever Tucker Carlson of Fox News says.  He does not understand why we need to support Ukraine in any way.  (As an aside, I rarely watch Carlson's show.  I like to say that my 3 favorite people on Fox are the 3 H's - Hannity (Sean), Harris (Faulkner) and Howie (Kurtz).)

My initial reaction was thinking about how so many people could feel the world had become safer with the fall of the Soviet Union.  The West had prevailed.  And, while for some I always need to acknowledge that the West is not perfect, for most people there is an understanding that Western values of freedom and liberty are infinitely superior to those of dictatorial regimes such as exist in Russia and China. 

Some, reading the mainstream media (MSM), felt it incumbent to advise me that Trump described Putin's moves as "genius."  They could not believe that Trump was, again in their minds, supporting Russia.  I replied that they were accepting the left-wing spin of the MSM.  Me:  "But if you get Trump's point, he's saying that Putin outsmarted Biden (pretty easy) and that Putin would not have done this with Trump in the White House."  Yet another insisted it would have happened, and even worse, if Trump was still President.  I chose not to point out the obvious - Putin invaded Crimea during the Obama/Biden Administration, did nothing during the Trump Administration, and now invaded Ukraine during the Biden/Harris Administration.

Biden decided that the mere threat of sanctions would deter Putin.  Since when does that work?  Here was some tough talk out of Biden:  "Who in the Lord's name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries?"  Who in the Lord's name?  While a prior President appealed to our adversaries to take the path of peace, he also declared:  "We dare not tempt them with weakness.  For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed."  

And this famous line from the same President:  "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."  These quotes are, of course, from the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy.  

Biden has sent defensive weapons to Ukraine.  He has sent arms and troops to the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, all former Soviet Republics and now NATO members.  On the one hand, he has said we will defend NATO countries; on the other hand he has said "we have no intention of fighting Russia."  So who will defend those three small countries if Putin goes after them next?  

Putin has referred to the end of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."  In attempting to justify the invasion of Ukraine, Putin asserted that Ukraine was never really its own country:  "I will start with the fact that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia."  But then he went on to recognize the "independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic."  So, Ukraine was never an independent country, but these two small areas that are part of Ukraine were independent countries?  Maybe logic is not Putin's forte.   

It is quite clear that Putin wishes to reinstate the Soviet Empire.  For all intents and purposes, he already controls Belarus.  Just last month he had troops in Kazakhstan.  Soon he will have Ukraine.  Does anyone doubt that the Baltic countries will be next? 

Antisemitism Continues Its Rise, Part III (The Lying Amnesty International)

The so-called "human rights" NGO, Amnesty International, put out a report of about 280 pages on the country it clearly deems to be the most evil in the world - the democratic, Jewish State of Israel.  What country could possibly be worse?  Not China, not Iran, not North Korea, not Russia, not Syria, etc.    The name of this report filled with lies is "Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians:  Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity."  Given the length of the report (which could have been written by Hamas), I'll focus on some of the "low" lights.  At another time, I might have ignored this.  But with the rise in antisemitism, a professed scholarly and academic report such as this must be addressed.  All readers, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, need to understand that the Jew haters will use any means necessary to help bring about the end of Israel and the Jewish people.   

Amnesty:  "Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued an explicit policy of establishing and maintaining a Jewish demographic hegemony and maintaining its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis..."  Comment:  A brief history.  Following the Allies success in WWI, Britain and France controlled much of the Middle East, territory that had been controlled by the defeated Ottoman Empire.  The area that came to be known as the British Mandate (or Mandatory Palestine) consisted of land that later became Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.  

In 1947, following WWII, Britain turned over their Mandate to the UN.  On 11/29/47, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which provided in pertinent part:  "Independent Arab and Jewish states and the special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part II of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the Mandatory Power (Britain) has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948."

A few points.  It is clear that Amnesty does not think Israel should exist.  And certainly not as a Jewish state - even though the UN Resolution specifically called for the creation of an independent JEWISH state.  The land in question, although called Palestine, had nothing to do with today's "Palestinians," as the Arabs of Palestine were simply known as Arabs.  Palestine was also the Jewish homeland.  Before the UN vote, much of the Mandate had already been turned over to the Hashemite King, with that land becoming known as Trans-Jordan, and then Jordan.  The remaining land was then "partitioned" by the UN into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  

So what happened?  Notwithstanding the tiny piece of land given to the Jews for their state, the Jews agreed.  And on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was born.  However, the Arab world declared that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state.  Therefore, Israel had to fight its own war for independence, from 11/30/47 to 7/20/49, as the surrounding Arab world attacked, in the first effort to wipe Israel off the map.  The Arabs failed.  Israel captured slightly more land than the UN Resolution provided to the Jews.  Jordan ended up in control of much of Jerusalem, including the Old City, as well as the West Bank.  Egypt controlled Gaza by the end of the war.  The war ended with a cease fire, but no treaty.  No permanent boundaries were drawn.  

Amnesty:  "In May 1948, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel announced a Jewish state."  Comment:  Yes it did, you lying morons!  Just as the UN promised.  What's your point? Amnesty:  "At the same time as establishing Israel as a Jewish state, the 1948 Declaration appealed to Jewish people around the world to immigrate to Israel.  In 1950, Israel granted every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return."  Comment:  Yes, Israel asked world Jewry to come to the newly formed Jewish state.  A mere three years after the end of the Holocaust, Israel came into existence, and two years later an appeal was made to Jews to immigrate.  Again, what's your point, Amnesty?  Clearly, you believe that the UN was wrong to grant any of the land for the establishment of a Jewish state.

Amnesty:  "In the course of establishing Israel as a Jewish state in 1948, its leaders were responsible for the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians."  Comment:  What???  Amnesty has some whoppers there.  They neglect to mention that the Arab world, convinced that they would have an overwhelming victory over the Jews, who were vastly outnumbered and with a minimal number of armaments, told the Arabs of Palestine to leave their homes, as the surrounding Arab countries were about to make war on the newly formed Jewish nation.  The Arabs of Palestine were told they would be able to return after the Jews were defeated.  And Arabs were displaced, not "Palestinians," either by heeding the warning of the Arab leaders, or not wanting to get caught in the middle of a war.  Were some displaced by the Jews?  Likely some.    

 Amnesty does concede that the Law of Return likely was meant to prevent another Holocaust, and to "provide shelter to Jews who faced persecution elsewhere in the world."  Comment:  Elsewhere in the world?  Mostly it was the Arab world who persecuted their Jewish citizens, after centuries of Jewish people living in those countries.  But Amnesty does not wish to discuss the 700-800,000 Jewish people displaced from the surrounding Arab countries, following Israel's war for independence.  

Amnesty:  "In 1967, Israel extended this policy (presumably of Jews first) beyond the Green Line to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since."  Comment:  Lie much, Amnesty?  Israel "extended" their policy in 1967?  I am sure they mean that Israel had to fight yet another war for their survival in June, 1967, when the Arab world again attempted to wipe Israel off the map.  But, in what has come to be known as The Six Day War, Israel defeated the Arab enemies.  In doing so, they captured the West Bank, the Old City of Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula.  Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt following the 1972 Yom Kippur war.  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005; with Gaza being run by Hamas since.  And even parts of the West Bank are now under the control of the Palestinian Authority and their apparent President for life, Mahmoud Abbas.  

A few closing remarks.  Amnesty not only has no complaints with the Arab world displacing their Jewish citizens in 1948 and thereafter, but also has nothing to say about Abbas declaring that no Jew may live in any future country of Palestine.  Amnesty accuses Israel of Apartheid, while an Arab minister sits in Israel's current ruling government, not to mention Arabs voting in Israeli elections, and sitting in the Knesset (the parliament), and working as doctors and lawyers and attending universities.  Clearly, this is a new definition of apartheid.  It is generally acknowledged that the Arabs of Israel have more rights than their Arab brethren in the surrounding Arab world.  Of course, Amnesty would never think to mention the Jewish people's connection to the land of Israel, a connection of over 3000 years.  And finally, for a further review of the Middle East, see the 3/25/2011 post, "Letter to a College Student."  

   

Antisemitism Continues Its Rise, Part II

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of the late Senator/US Attorney General, has long been an anti-vaxxer.  What he believes about vaccines is his business.  At a recent anti-vaccine rally in DC, he said this:  "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland.  You could hide in an attic, like Anne Frank did..it was possible (to escape).  Many died, true, but it was possible."  When I read that, I did not know what to make of it.  Is RFK Jr. really that stupid?  You could hide in an attic?  Anne Frank was murdered by the Nazis, at about age 15.  You could cross the Alps?  It was possible to escape?  How many escaped compared to the 6 million who were murdered in the Holocaust?  

Maybe he is just another antisemite, comparing the loss of one's job if not vaccinated to the murder of 6 million Jews.  I have previously said that I do not want people losing their jobs over the vaccine mandates.  But what kind of comparison is that?  Does he not know that his own father was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist named Sirhan Sirhan, because his father supported the Jewish people and the State of Israel.  Did RFK Jr. "inherit" his grandfather Joe's antisemitism?  

Kennedy's wife, actress Cheryl Hines, perhaps said it best:  "My husband's reference to Anne Frank at a mandate rally in D.C. was reprehensible and insensitive.  The atrocities that millions endured during the Holocaust should never be compared to anyone or anything.  His opinions are not a reflection of my own."  Reprehensible indeed.  I'll leave it at that.  

Al Franken was a United States Senator.  In expressing his displeasure recently, at the failure of the Senate to pass Biden's voting legislation, Franken said this:  "This is a serious one, and I just think other people are feeling it, it feels like, I don't know, 1933 Germany...And I'm just like, in a tavern, looking over the table and there are guys in black jack boots and Nazi uniforms, and I'm going like, 'Hmm.  This looks bad, wonder how bad it can get.'"  I know, Franken is Jewish.  But it was bad enough when Biden compared those objecting to his voting legislation to George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis.  But a Jew goes even further and compares the objection to the rise of Nazism.  We are in a world gone mad.  

For 18 years there have been weekly protests on Shabbat outside a Jewish synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The protesters would carry various nasty, antisemitic and anti-Israel signs, such as:  "Jewish Power Corrupts," and "Zionists Picnic While Palestinians Starve," and "No More Wars For Israel."  To borrow a word from Cheryl Hines, these people and their signs are "reprehensible."  It took 18 long years for the Ann Arbor City Council to finally pass a resolution condemning these protests.  "The Ann Arbor City Council condemns all forms of antisemitism, and in particular the weekly antisemitic rally on Washtenaw Avenue."  The Council went on to "declare its support for the" synagogue.  

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) just filed a civil rights complaint with the US Department of Education, against the Fairfax County Public Schools.  The allegations include students being subjected to "Heil Hitler" salutes, being called "fucking Jew ass whore,"  fucking Jew," and "dirty Jew," among other antisemitic epithets.  In addition, swastikas were seen at school grounds.  Various special school related events were held on the Jewish High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.  One school board member is alleged to have made false anti-Israel comments, which would amount to antisemitism.  

Here we are in 2022, at a time when racism is roundly condemned (yes, there are fringe idiots who are racists), but antisemitism seems to be alive and well in respected segments of society.  And I have not even discussed the antisemites in Congress and in universities and the mainstream media.  Author, and TV and radio commentator, Mark Levin, was recently discussing the Wannsee Conference, which was a meeting of German government officials, who were planning to coordinate the carrying out of Hitler's "Final Solution."  My point in bringing this up is not to compare Nazi Germany to the USA.  I have repeatedly said that the USA is the best country in the world for Jews, outside of Israel.

No, my point is to say that those in attendance at the Wannsee Conference were not only government officials in the most advanced country in Europe, and one of the most advanced in the world, but also to point out that 8 of the 15 in attendance held advanced doctorate degrees.  The point is that academia here is not insulated against antisemitism by virtue of having advanced degrees.  Often, those with advanced degrees are the worst.  The same applies to those in the MSM and even some in Congress - regardless of how "educated" they may be.  

Antisemitism Continues Its Rise, Part I

A synagogue in Colleyville, Texas was just the latest example of a Jewish temple being victimized by antisemites.  The terrorist antisemite in question was a Muslim from Britain, and of Pakistani descent.  Because of Covid, the Shabbat (Sabbath) service was being aired on Zoom, with only the Rabbi and 3 others in the synagogue.  Why did this man take Jewish worshippers hostage?  What did this armed antisemite want? It appears he sought the release of a Pakistani known as "Lady Al Qaeda," who is currently serving an 86 year prison sentence for shooting at American soldiers and FBI agents.  The prison is in the Fort Worth, Texas area, not far from Colleyville.  

But why did this man go into a Jewish Temple to attempt to accomplish his goal?  Why did he also call a Rabbi in New York City?  According to one hostage, this terrorist asserted "I know President Biden will do things for the Jews."  The question must be asked - where does anyone get that idea?  Is this man's belief that a local Rabbi has the power to dictate US policy a reflection of what is being taught in much of the Muslim world?  How much of the Muslim world holds such a view?  

Thankfully, an FBI tactical team did their job and was able to kill the terrorist with no injuries to the hostages.  They deserve tremendous credit.  Not so for the FBI special agent in charge, who made this statement:  "He (the terrorist) was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community, but we are continuing to work to find motive."  Please excuse my saying this, but WTF!  Did this Muslim terrorist enter a church and ask the priest to help get "Lady Al Qaeda" released?  Did he go into a department store and ask the store manager to help out?  No, he went into a Jewish synagogue.  There's your motive.  He was an antisemite.  He believed Jews controlled the US and probably the world.  

It took five days for FBI Director Christopher Wray to acknowledge the attack on the Colleyville synagogue was an antisemitic attack.  Here was an Op-Ed by Bret Stephens, writing in the New York Times:  "Unlike the Pittsburgh (synagogue) shooter or the "Jews will not replace us" crowd at Charlottesville - white, right-wing, mostly Christian and therefore "privileged" - the Texas assailant was a British Muslim of Pakistani descent.  Not white.  Not privileged.  Not right-wing.  In the binary narrative of the powerful versus the powerless, his naked antisemitism just doesn't compute:  Powerless people are supposed to be victims, not murderous bigots."  

There was an interesting piece in the January 22-23, 2022 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, with this title:  "The Growing Risk For Jews Who Show Their Jewishness."  His thesis is that Jews do very well in America's secular society.  But, like the Pittsburgh synagogue attack in 2018, like the Poway, CA synagogue attack in 2019, like the attack at a kosher market in Jersey City, NJ in 2019, we now have Colleyville.  In other words, the author opines that if you show up at Jewish religious or cultural establishments, you are at greater risk.  

I have to admit, I have not been to my synagogue, the local Chabad House, for nearly two years (except for maybe a couple of times) because of Covid, and my impaired immune system.  Otherwise, no antisemitic bastard would keep me away.  And I take heart from a letter to the editor the following weekend in the WSJ, in response to the aforementioned Op-Ed:  "My orthodox synagogue has a security team manned by shul (temple) members who have been trained by a former Army Ranger, a current police department SWAT officer and a former Israeli Shin Bet (the Israeli security forces, somewhat akin to our FBI) agent.  I regularly undergo firearms practice.  At the range, prior to squeezing the trigger, I think of my grandparents who were gassed in Treblinka, and I vow "never again."  You may count me among the Jews who are not terrified."  To which I say, "Amen."          

What About Biden? One Year In.

Things are not going well for President Biden.  And, people do not believe things are going well for the country.  In a Fox poll of 1/16 to 1/19/22, with a +/- 3% MOE, only 36% would want Biden reelected, with 60% saying they would vote for someone else.  In terms of his approval rating, he is upside down on major issues.  For border security, 37% approve, 59% disapprove; on the economy 41% approve, 58% disapprove; on foreign policy 41% approve, 54% disapprove; and on the coronavirus 46% approve and 52% disapprove.  

In an AP-NORC poll taken 1/13 to 1/18/22, only 26% say the country is moving in the right direction.  Nearly three quarters, 74%, say the country is moving in the wrong direction.  And this poll has only 48% of Democrats wanting Biden to run again.  Overall, however, only 28% overall say he should run again.  70% say he should not.

Back in 2018 President Trump called NBC's Chuck Todd a "sleepy son of a bitch."  This was supposed to be just one example of how nasty Trump could get.  Biden, on the other hand, ran as a nice guy, in contrast to Trump.  And Biden told us he would be a unifier.  On Biden's first day in office, he told his staff:  "I am not joking when I say this, if you are ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot.  No ifs, ands or buts."  

Recently, Biden called White House reporter Peter Doocy a "stupid son of a bitch."  I think that's worse than Trump's "sleepy son of a bitch."  He told another reporter, "what a stupid question."  He has demonstrated time and again that he has little tolerance for those who disagree with him.  Just recently, Biden told those who disagreed with his proposed voting rights legislation (actually, a federal takeover of elections) that they were on the side of George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis.  By all means, Mr. President, do not try to persuade people by any means other than demagoguery.  Because we know how "unifying" and persuasive that technique is.   

One year in office, what has Biden accomplished?  Yes, he got the infrastructure bill passed on a bipartisan basis.  But he did not get his Build Back Better bill, filled with left-wing giveaways.  He did not get his voting legislation passed, a left-wing dream piece of legislation that would have the Feds taking over all elections.  He has not ended the coronavirus, as he promised he would do - after blaming Trump for much of it.  Yet Trump's Operation Warp Speed helped provide vaccines to 250 million Americans.  Biden has not secured the border.  Just the opposite, as his Administration is secretly flying single men all over the country at taxpayer expense.  These are men who crossed illegally into the country.  

Foreign policy?  Admittedly, the Ukraine issue is complex.  No doubt that our European allies should be taking the lead.  And some European countries are stepping up.  But the leading power, Germany, has proven to be...well, Germany.  They have little interest in other than continuing to get cheap energy from Russia.  Not to mention their deal making with China and Iran.  Russia essentially controls Belarus already.  If Ukraine falls, are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia next?  Will it encourage China to take Taiwan, and Iran to expand further in the Middle East, and complete their development of nuclear weapons?  And how much do we/should we care if the free world shrinks and the dictators control an ever expanding part of the planet.   

Biden now has an opportunity to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court.  He says he will appoint a black woman.  I have no problem with a black woman serving on the Court.  But let's be honest.  Is he really interested in appointing a competent and knowledgeable black female jurist to the High Court?  Or, do we also have to add that she must be a liberal?  The only question is, will Biden seek a far left jurist, or a more classic liberal.  Because, we know what an uproar Trump caused in the media and the Democratic Party by daring to appoint conservatives - even though one was a woman.  What Biden does with this appointment may very well signal whether or not he continues to be follow the dictates of the far left wing of his party.

I'll end with one commentator's assessment of Biden's first year:  "He's (Biden) no longer seen as competent and effective, no longer seen as a good commander-in-chief, or perhaps most damaging, as easy-going and likeable.  In fact, just 5% of adults say Mr. Biden has performed better than expected as president, one of the many lowest firsts and fewest in our poll."  Sean Hannity of Fox News?  No, Chuck Todd of NBC.