Maybe Not Totally Made Up, Though

Yesterday, Mark Spahn of West Seneca, New York, asked for the hundredth time where all these American apologists for Islam—particularly Barack Obama—find reference to the Islamic Golden Rule.

Greetings from deep inside the deep blue enclave of Chapel Hill. With regard to your correspondent Mark Spahn’s inability to find the source of BHO’s shoutout to the Islamic version of the Golden Rule, he needs to update his search engine. It is, apparently, a quote from Sahih Muslim (صحيح مسلم), one of the main repositories of Hadith, as you doubtless know. It is also a chestnut regularly decontextualized and trotted out by apologists for Islam.

السلام عَلَيْكَ

Agent Remsleep

!وعليكم السلام
Very good work, Remsleep, although to be strictly fair, Mark Spahn (of West Seneca, New York) was looking for the exact quote. And the closest the Sahih Muslim gets is “Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter paradise should treat other people as they wish to be treated themselves.” That’s the literal translation, and not exactly what President Obama said—and thus was Mark’s further point that the President is misquoting Islamic texts, which is a big no-no for anyone of any faith.

So you’re both right.

It’s All Made Up

The Czar is not posting a review of Saturday’s Republican debate as he did not see it. He was instead watching the Chicago Blackhawks trounce the Dallas Stars with the star of this video:

The video was premiered Saturday evening, and the Czar was delighted to have been invited to watch it with Ben, who was remarkably low-keyed about his new-found fame. This, to us, was way more important than Marco Rubio taking on Chris Christie.

On an unrelated note, Mark Spahn writes in to ask a really good question, which we have taken the liberty to edit.

Here’s a quote:

President Barack Obama said today in a speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore that one fact that has not been “communicated on a regular basis through our media” is that “for more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.”

“Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated,” Obama said. “And for Christians like myself I am assuming that sounds familiar.”

Yes, it does sound familiar, as familiar as the Golden Rule. But I am sick and tired of these armchair imams who quote our favorite prophet without citing chapter and verse so that we can look up this quote in the Quran or Sunnah.

I have never heard of this quote. Where does it come from?

I have been trying for several days to find the source of this quote from the Prophet (pbuh), so far without success. Every online search for this quote leads only to President Obama’s recent speech in the late Anwar al-Awlaki’s mosque, not to the source where he (or his teleprompter writer) found this quote.

So, where does President Obama’s quote come from? From the Quran? From other Islamic literature (e.g., a Bukhari hadith)? Could it be that no such statement by the Prophet (pbuh) exists and that President Obama is simply mistaken? If so, we should tell him, lest this ignorant Christian spread further lies about Islam.

— Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

Look, readers, it’s this simple: if Mark Spahn couldn’t find it, then it isn’t out there.

Sigh. Time for little Dat Ho to fire up the engines on the Czar’s iconoclast axe, which is an actual axe and does not feature engines. But it is designed to smash myths, which of course is figurative language for some serfs we don’t like. If you’ve lost track of what the Czar is saying here, he’s going to crush some skulls with an axe. See? It’s that easy to be plain-spoken.

Trump, Buchanan, and @KevinNR

So National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson wrote an acute piece on some of the continuities between Donald Trump’s supporters and those of Pat Buchanan in 1996 (there’s probably a link to Perot in ’92, but his appeal was more technocratic and less splenetic). The resentful psychology of a man trying to prove his manhood and needing scapegoat for his undeserved situation Kevin draws is acute, and indeed was very much the case with the Buchanan campaign. For you kids who came in late and missed the opéra bouffe of the ’90s, here is a piece which I couldn’t find anywhere on the internet, but which, fortunately, was in the bottom of my file drawer. (We used to use paper, kids. I know, lulz.)

It’s dated and specific, and I don’t even know if the man himself would agree with all of it these days, but for your edification (and entertainment—there are some good lines and the writing’s characteristically deft)…

Stupid and Contagious

P.J. O’Rourke

Rolling Stone

April 18, 1996

There’s a voice you can hear any night of the week in half the cities of the world, in Dublin, Sydney, Liverpool, Chicago, in Southie in Boston, on Fordham Road in the Bronx, in any place named Molly McWhatall’s or Micky O’Soforth’s or nicknamed the Bucket of Blood. It’s the voice of a big man with a well-thumbed nose and beef-tinted cheeks. He wears a tan raincoat, and there’s a tweed on his bean the color of, and as clean as, a welcome mat. Booze spills over the edge of his glass. Gut spills over the edge of his belt. You can hear him all the way at the other end of the bar even on open-mike night with three drunk fiddlers, a tin-whistle artist and a 200-pound tenor performing “The Wild Colonial Boy.”

“It’s the Jews that have all the good jobs,” says the Whiskey Warrior. “Took them all when we weren’t looking. Why, a man used to be able to get a job paying 50, 60, no, a hundred dollars an hour at any factory just for loading boxes on a truck, till the Jews took all the jobs away. But do you think the Jews work those jobs themselves not on your life. Who ever saw a Jew lift anything heavier than a $20 bill? No, they sold the jobs to illegal immigrants, they did, little brown foreigners all over the place who’ll work so cheap that come payday, they line up and give the bosses money back. I’d build a wall right across the whole of Mexico, if it was me. Call it the Great Wall of Chicano. Or just make English the official language. That’s all you have to do. They wouldn’t even know that talking Spanish was illegal, because the law’d be in English. So they’d all go to jail instead of taking our jobs away. Something that never would have happened if all these companies hadn’t started hiring women—women executives this and women vice presidents that and women chair-broads of the board. Women can’t stand up to the Jews and the foreigners. They aren’t aggressive enough. They don’t have the old tallywhacker swinging back and forth between their knees. And what about our taxes that the women and foreigners and Jews have been raising to buy black helicopters for the United Nations? …”

Well, I’m a mick myself, a had harp from the inevitable big, rowdy family. I have more uncles than most people have coat hangers in the front hall closet. And I’ve been hearing the Whiskey Warrior all my life—from the other end of the bar and, indeed, from the other end of the dinner table. I know that fellow holding up the mahogany in O’Soforth’s. Let’s call him Pat. Hell, let’s call him Pat Buchanan. And let me tell you a few things about the boy.

In the first place, he’s a Democrat. I know Pat says he’s not, but it’s more of his malarkey. He’s a Democrat of the old-fashioned sorehead, ignoramus school. He attacks corporations for laying off employees. Does Pat think the corporations should just keep the employees hanging around, making butt prints on the office photocopier and using their desktop PCs to visit paramilitary Web sites? Or maybe the government should decide who gets fired. That works so well at the post office. And Pat is outraged by big corporate profits. Sure, the economy always performs brilliantly without them. What does Pat think happens to profits? That money couldn’t just go right back into the economy or anything. Somebody, probably with a stein on the end of his name, must be hoarding all the cash so that it can all be smeared with chocolate by National Endowment for the Humanities-sponsored performance artists. Maybe the government should decide how big profits should be. That works so well with the post office, too. Pat hates free trade. Now, there are few things all economists agree upon, except that all other economists should be sewn up in a sack with Michael Milken. But every half-sane economist on earth says that free trade benefits the great mass of humanity. Dumping NAFTA and GATT and pasting huge tariffs on goods form slanty-eyed places would bloat prices, destroy export industry jobs and devastate Pat’s own blue-collar constituency—and serve them right for voting for the drip. Nor does Pat want to reform Social Security and Medicare. Just let the cost of living allowances balloon and the government trust funds shrivel, and when we retire we’ll all get $10,000 a month, and reduced-rate seniors’ bus fare to go to the doctor will cost $7,500.

Pat Buchanan is a big-government guy. He’s the loudest advocate for federal expansion since Hillary Clinton tossed her cookies in the health-care fiasco. And pat not only wants the government to keep doing what it’s doing wrong, he wants it to do a lot of new wrong things besides. He wants to take solemn, indeed sacred, moral questions such as abortion and marriage and turn them into muddy political footballs. He wants to run the pigskin horde of government through intimate and confidential territories of our lives—religion, sex, culture, language. Next, no doubt, he’ll try to make all Ten Commandments into federal laws. House bill HR 7085—Honor They Father and Thy Mother. Knock, knock. “FBI here. Talk to your mom like that again and it’s 25 years to life.”

This is not conservatism as I know it. You can call Pat Buchanan a lot of things—fascist, statist, cryptosocialist, jerk—and that’s what you should call him. But don’t try to put Buchanan in the same online chat room as Barry Goldwater and Lady Margaret Thatcher unless you have your V-chip installed.

Conservatism means faith in the individual, in every individual, even if that individual has a funny name and comes from way far away.

Conservatism means belief in private property because individuals can have no substantive freedom unless they are secure in the ways and means of their lives. Buchanan’s economic nationalism would tie your property rights to hare-brained patriotism: No U-turn on red—except for American cars.

Conservatism means trust in religious and moral traditions because vast numbers of people have accepted these traditions voluntarily and because their acceptance has withstood the test of time. There’s no place in modern, pluralistic conservatism for the legal denigration of one set of traditions and glorification of another. People have to work that out for themselves, among themselves. And there’s no such thing as instant traditions—however much the Christian Coalition may want to create some. Nor can religion and morality be effectively imposed form the outside unless Buchanan thinks he’s Moses descending with the tablets form the mount (and given his record on anti-Semitism, I don’t think so).

And conservatism means belief in the free market. Not because the free market is virtuous or fair—it’s not. The free market is just information. It tells us, to the penny, what people will pay for a thing. Buchanan’s tacit pleas for a Soviet-style industrial policy disparage the free market. He might as well disparage arithmetic. “A lot of our schoolkids are having trouble remembering the seven-times-seven thing,” Buchanan could say. “This is hard on them. We need to change that. Elect me and I will make seven times seven equal 50. It’s fairer for the kids.”

Shut up, Pat. And listen to me. I spend some time down at O’Soforth’s myself, filled wiht coffin varnish and beating the air with my jaw. Let me give you my own beery vision of the good life. I want that great tavern, that giant saloon which is America, to be filled wiht all kinds of people of each creed and hue, of both sexes and every proclivity, people with diverse tastes, aims, ambitions, ideals and ideas, and plenty of immigrants among them. And I want them all shouting. I want to watch them battle for their points of view, fight their fights with society and each other. I want to see each one of them trying to make the nation over in his or her own image.

And what a bar brawl it is—polemics tossed, dialectics shattered, chairs of empiricism smashed over heads of ideology, aged prejudices heaved through windows of young opinion, theories given the bum’s rush by facts. But I want this to be a private free-for-all, a duke-out among independent citizens. And Pat Buchanan insists on getting the government involved. Pat, the big sissy, keeps wanting to call the police.

Never Doubt a Time Traveling Robot

geobulb-led-light-bulbBack in 2008 and 2009 when the country was all in a tizzy over moving off of the evil incandescent lightbulbs and moving us to use the compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to the point that the government banned the manufacturing of certain incandescent bulbs after 2012*, GorT pitched the idea that let’s just wait a few years for the commercial industry to improve LED bulbs.  But people were caught up in it, mocked for being “anti-green” and not caring about the environment**.  This ban and push for CFLs was, like many other ideas from the left, short-sighted.

Slate reports that GE is phasing out making CFLs and it likely signals the beginning of the end of the CFL.  Good riddance.  The bulbs were never quite right.  They were impractical for many home uses as the efficiency and duration couldn’t be achieved unless they remained on for extended periods of time.  The disposal process (mandated by the EPA) was a complete hassle.  And they were more expensive.

GorT, for the most part, kept with incandescent bulbs and is just now starting to make the switchover in his house to LED bulbs.

The moral of the story is: trust the Gormogons and yours truly – it’s hard to beat the prognostications of a time-traveling robot.   (Cough, cough, Obamacare).

* the ban actually was staggered from 2012 to 2014 based on lumens

** The problem, of course, with bitching that non-CFL users are hurting the environment was the 40-step EPA-mandated disposal process, which in itself added additional plastic waste and processing.

Hey, When Did the Iowa Caucus Get Interesting?

The Czar cannot remember anyone being excited about the Iowa caucuses, given they’re (a) caucuses and (b) in Iowa. But last night’s event was just as much fun as a national election, but doubled.

Silly and deadly. Thanks, Iowa! And just when we thought you were bored with us.

First was the Republican side, which everyone pretty much assumed Trump would narrowly sqeak out a victory. The Czar figured that Cruz, Rubio, and Trump would all be within a couple points of each other, and that Trump—if he got second—would be a very close second to first. Were we wrong: Cruz won by the largest turnout in state history, and trumped Donald.

Another surprise was Rubio being less than a percentage away from tying Trump, due to what’s reported as a large number of Trump supporters defecting to Rubio at the last minute. Quite a few people predicted this (we didn’t), saying that gag candidates are great for a laugh, but when it comes time to pull the lever, you wind up going with a guy you trust more. And more Trump supporters trust Rubio, apparently.

A third surprise for us was how badly Jeb Bush did. We never thought he’d finish in the top three, but he wound up below Rand Paul. Hell, our own ‘Puter as many delegates as Jeb Bush, and he’s not even running. He can barely walk.

If the Republican turnout and voting wasn’t impressive enough (where the hell were you people in 2012?), you have the Democrats to watch as well.

Two things could have gone wrong for Hillary Clinton: a poor showing by her, or a strong showing by Sanders. And she got both, so much so that her victory—if it even is, pending a possible recount—is insignificantly small, and Sanders’ turnout is significantly large. Donors are going to dump money on Sanders now, and voters are going to switch.

Clinton was never a strong horse in New Hampshire, and she’s certain to lose there by a landslide; however, with Iowa’s results, that gap could become even more ridiculous. Which of course means that she’s going into Nevada and South Carolina with 0-2 score, and with her support dropping further. With no hint of exaggeration, this is really bad for Hillary Clinton and may be insurmountable. Bernie Sanders’ supporters may indeed be reasonably optimistic.

This could all change of course, and Hillary could cakewalk to an easy nomination in March: it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that the Clintons will unleash their war machine on Sanders and go utterly low-ball. But we’ve seen her screw this up terribly before, and there’s no reason to think she can’t do so again.

The bottom line is this: the first shot in the 2016 elections was fired yesterday, and it nearly guarantees a wild ride for both parties. We could get a historically memorable election again, and you’re going to want to be part of it.

Fox News Shows World Doesn’t Need Trump

While not a pie fight exactly, the Czar thought this debate was the most contentious in terms of feeding candidates’ weaknesses back to themselves.

Last night, of course, was the 76th Republican debate of the season, made memorable by the moronic decision by Donald Trump to be elsewhere. Under no calculus on earth does this make him look good or offer an advantage. Not surprisingly, many candidates leveraged this by claiming Trump can’t even handle a Fox moderator, let alone the presidency. As for any counter-evidence of this, well, we’re still looking.

Sorry, Trump fans—you may be legion, but your guy’s an idiot. Or worse, exactly what his critics accuse him of.

Anyway, there has been a plethora of words written about who had their best night. Some say Sen. Rand Paul, who finally got a chance to say more than 10 words. Some say Sen. Marco Rubio, who was able to demonstrate his deep passion for America. Others say it was clearly Gov. Jeb Bush, who had the luxury to show himself as a three-dimensional candidate. Still others insist Sen. Ted Cruz, who was able to lay out actual policy issues without having to be interrupted by the braying of a Manhattan-area jackass.

The reality is much simpler: all of the candidates had their best night so far, simply because they could finish sentences, did not have to wait for a question while Trump was given three softball questions, and were able to utilize consensus without Trump’s liberal cuckoo clock chiming out a need to back up and explain what conservatism even is.

Was there a winner? Some say Cruz put forth the best framework of his policy ideas on healthcare and taxes. Others say Bush finally covered every base without stumbling into foul territory. We just spotted a piece claiming Paul nailed his explanation of constitutional consistency. And a lot of the average-Joe viewers at the end said Rubio completely awed them.

Yeah, there was a winner: Fox News, who allegedly cleaned up in the ratings. Yes, without Donald! They not only asked intelligent questions, but went so far as to show video clips of Cruz and Rubio seemingly contradicting themselves. If anything, Fox News gave each candidate a sense of what the Democrats were going to use against them: Cruz and Rubio flip-flopping, Dr. Ben Carson’s zero-depth splash pool of foreign policy, Gov. Chris Christie’s inconsistency, and Gov. John Kasich’s understanding of a universe beyond Akron.

Cruz, for one, did not look good arguing facts and rules with moderators, and his half-hearted joke about it served him very poorly. Fox News assumed its viewers were not the gape-mouthed zombies of CNN, and threw some seriously hard questions out there, for the most part. And despite that, all of the candidates did very well. Even Carson, on whether a theoretical Russian invasion of Estonia would constitute a triggering of Article V in the NATO agreement.

How amazing it would be if other networks treated Republicans and Democrats this way. For one thing, Clinton and Sanders would be out of the race by this point.

However, way too much time was spent on immigration policies of Rubio and Cruz, and whether either of them actually flipped their positions on amnesty. Without answering the questions, both provided good speeches on the subject. But Christie captured the Czar’s attitude perfectly when he, in mock exasperation, demanded to know why it’s so freaking difficult to admit you changed your mind.

Imagine if Rubio said this on the debate: “The fact is, I was an eager freshman senator who felt he had a lot to contribute on the subject of immigration. I think you can understand why the son of immigrants who became successful Americans would want to reform the entire process. Unfortunately, in my zeal to make things right, I made the mistake of trusting my Democrat colleagues on the Gang of Eight bill, who in turned stabbed me in the back and pushed for amnesty. I should never have trusted them, especially after how they once betrayed Ronald Reagan himself the same way on amnesty. Yes, I can see how people lost respect for me with that bill, but the fact is that I will never make that mistake again.” Rubio has actually said similar things to this, but for some reason he can’t bring himself to say it on live television. No, it’s not exactly true, but it would ameliorate a lot of distrust voters have for him on this point.

Or if Cruz had simply said “There’s a popular perception that I’ve been inconsistent on this subject. But the full record shows that I didn’t change my position so much as the discussion changed around me. I had to adapt my message as the wording in the bill changed because I so believed the bill was right—until it wasn’t the right bill anymore. If you want to show the full story, you have to cover the whole history of that bill to see why I would need to re-craft my wording. And I could have done a better job of explaining that, even at the time. But here I am, right now, telling you I stand by what I said at each instance for every clip you showed here tonight.” For good or bad, Cruz did explain himself after the debate, and Megyn Kelly acknowledged his longer answer to her was correct and consistent with the facts. Shame he didn’t explain it during the debate so easily.

How to Avoid the Zika Virus and Not Die A Lot

Your Czar is concerned with your health, and naturally has asked his Czarist Imperial Surgeon’s Office to prepare a bullet point list on how you can best protect yourself against the Zika virus, which is known as the MERS, H1N1A, or more commonly, Ebola. Zika has now killed over 500 trillion people in your neighborhood today alone, particularly in the Americas somewhere. Do not be one of the statistics, and do not even read the statistics.

Avoid places where Zika is known to congregate, such as door knobs.
If you see Zika on the ground, do not pick it up.
Avoid eating Zika or place Zika near your mouth. Under no circumstances should Zika be inserting anything up your nose.
Do not open the door for Zika. Do not believe its lies. If someone shows up at your door, even if it’s your sister, it could be Zika. Call the police immediately.
If Zika calls on the phone, do not attempt to engage it in conversation (especially if he has a North American Liberian Chinese accent). Hang up and call the police. Experts recommend changing your phone number frequently to minimize calls from Zika.
If you see Zika hanging around a playground or school, run out and scream warnings to the kids to get inside. Watching television is the safest activity for kids during this crisis.
If you see or hear anyone talking about Zika, it could be an invasion. Call the Army and tell them to start shelling. If you see something, say something.
Do not pet the mice. Actually, this is more true for the Hanta virus, but you can’t play it too safe.

Sound the Trumpet

Operative B writes in with a question that interested us, so here it is:

O Great One!

This lowly minion crawls on your still-threadbare carpeting to beg an answer to a simple question: do people hate Trump because he’s a loudmouth buffoon who is incapable of stating a coherent sentence without resorting to one of his overwrought mantras (e.g. “Make America GREAT Again!”, etc) in his brain-exploding free-association speeches, or do people hate Trump because they think he’s a rich jerk who thinks that he can buy the electorate and they’re pissed because they didn’t get their piece (yet)?

I begin to believe that Trump is hated by the powers-that-be (both those in office and those in the media) because he isn’t a traditional baby-kissing politician, isn’t playing “by the rules”, and doesn’t have much respect for “the way things are”. No, I’m not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, and it would take a lot of arm-twisting for me to pull the lever in his direction in November (or, in the case of our community, blacken in the spot on the card that goes through the optical reader).

Yes, he’s an entertainer, a businessman who is selling a product (himself), a snake-oil salesman telling us that his bottle of cure-all will solve all of America’s problems in the first gulp. What a load of bovine excrement.

But, I also begin to believe that people are swallowing his nonsense because they are tired of being told that they are racist homophobic anti-muslim xenophobes, and that they are “bitter clingers” to Constitutional rights, traditional values, and American patriotism. Trump satisfies those needs with his “there, there, you’ll be OK” speeches. He is a heck of a salesman.

I look at Hillary and I see someone whose lies and behavior do not inspire trust or confidence. I look at Bernie and I see a 60’s radical who – although remaining true to his own belief system – was never able to reconcile capitalism with socialism (What the heck is a “democratic socialist”? Is that like a “jumbo shrimp” or an “original copy”?).

This is not to say that the other candidates do not have their own problems (why are Christie, Bush, Carson, and Huckabee still in the race?) or that any of them are inspirational choices for the office of the chief executive of the USA. But at least these other candidates are able to speak (relatively) cogently when asked a question. Listening to Trump trying to make a point is like trying to make sense of nuclear fission: his answers fly off in all directions just like neutrons, and are just as unguided and useless.

So I am left with a simple observation: Trump is gaining support because… well, because The People are tired of policy wonks spouting complex answers to simple questions that they barely understand, that they just want to watch YouTube on their smartphones, and they want to be comforted by someone who will tell them that they aren’t racist homophobic anti-muslim xenophobes.

And that the monsters under their beds are real. After all, Trump said so.

There is a great deal of sad truth in what you suggest. Actually, Trump appeals to his supporters for all of those reasons, not for any single idea in particular. Since Trump supporters generally cannot organize their thinking, they may not even realize that the supporter next to them may be diametrically opposed—given Trump’s ability to say totally opposite things on different days—to what they support. You know, like typical Democrats.

He’s a mess. We’ve less than a week to go before the primary—and if you’re as baffled and curious by the Trump phenomenon as we are, the Iowa one will be telling. The Czar is not making a prediction, but he would not be surprised if Trump’s actual voter turnout was terribly low. In some respects, the more popular he becomes with non-voting people, the less inclined they’ll be to go out and darken a dot for him, assuming—as these folks often do—that he’s got enough supporters already.

We’ll soon see.

Michael Bay? Who’s Michael Bay?

The movie 13 Hours does not mention Hillary Clinton in any way, but viewers are apparently plenty wise whom the movie is about. Liberals aren’t likely to see the movie either way, but you can tell whether they agree with the content by how they treat Michael Bay in the coming weeks.

If the movie is having a powerful effect on the Clinton campaign—and by simple exclusion, that must be a negative effect—you can expect the following:

  • Michael Bay? He’s not much of a film maker.
  • Michael Bay? Isn’t he wanted for some crime somewhere? Drugs, sex, or something else?
  • His stuff was never that good.
  • He’s only liked by a small percentage of red-necked yokels who like ‘splodey stuff.
  • Michael Bay has never enjoyed success as a film maker.

The Dems Debate Reality

Not much can be said about the Democratic debate that hasn’t been ridiculed extensively on social media. The Democrats know it—this is why they schedule debates for times no one will ever watch.

Two points, though, came to our attention, and both involve ridiculously obvious hypocrisy. Pandering to the audience, of course, is the gateway to political hypocrisy, and both Senator Bernie Sanders and future inmate Hillary Clinton could not have been more obvious about it.

Sanders, like the others, has an incredibly revisionist mentality about the Iraq War. In his narrative, we were basically at peace with Iraq until that decadent cowboy George W. Bush rained hell upon them, got a bunch of Americans killed over non-existent WMDs but very obviously for oil, and left the war in a terrible mess. Thank goodness President Obama cleaned it up and everything is better there now. Not great, mind you, but better. And certainly not as good as it was in 1998.

Why? Because George W. Bush failed to understand the complexity of the culture, the intricacies of the society, and thousands of years of history and religion all intertwined through every country in the region. It’s a Charlotte’s web of interconnecting parts, which is why the whole thing is such a quagmire.

So how would Sen. Sanders tackle ISIS? Well, that’s easy! You just go straighten it out. Heck, it isn’t that hard to do at all, and anyone can figure out how to fix every aspect of the situation. It’s a perfectly simple culture with no tricky components.

Clinton was no better. When asked if she supports something of Barack Obama’s administration (anything, really) reasonably popular with Democrats, you can bet that she’s tightly aligned with Barack Obama. She was there at the time, is on the inside track, and by golly she’s here to tell you that her election is effectively a third term for Obama. They are sympatico, baby, and they ride together like this, you know?

Okay, well about the mess in Syria? You know, Mrs. Clinton, a lot of people on the Left think Obama’s red-line proposal was a serious mistake, and he really dropped the ball on it, and left people thinking his foreign policy was a disaster of epic proportions.

Certainly, Clinton responded time and again, she disagreed with the President at the time, and she saw things very differently from where she was. No, she probably would not have made the same decisions, because she’s her own person and really does things differently from him.

In other words, if you liked it, she likes it as well. If you dislike anything from the Obama years, yeah, she didn’t think much of it, either.

What a load of crap.

As Senator Marco Rubio tweeted during the debate: