ShareThis Page

Despair & chaos

| Thursday, July 17, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Given the stagnant economy and international crises in Iraq, Israel, Ukraine, etc, what are the Obama administration's big concerns? The name of a football team and the old standby, global warming.

The Redskins issue can be resolved via an analog of an ObamaCare shibboleth: “If you like the name Redskins, you can keep the name Redskins.”

Just as a berserk “Chicken Little” ran around yelling, “The sky is falling,” the president proclaims, “The Earth is warming.” The global warming issue was cogently addressed in the letter to the editor by Dave Stroud (“Zero effect on warming,” June 23). If the Obama regime just followed Stroud's recommendations, maybe it could now address more mundane issues, such as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the Keystone pipeline, the IRS scandal and the VA fiasco.

With illegal immigrants pouring over our southern border, maybe Obama can draw another “red line,” this one between the United States and Mexico. Hopefully, it will be more effective than the Syria red line.

It also appears a destitute Hillary Clinton is preparing for another presidential run. With a string of diplomatic failures in North Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and Ukraine in her tenure as secretary of State, all she requires is a stint as a community organizer.

Not that her failures will make a difference to the low-knowledge electorate.

What started out as “hope” and “change” has developed into “despair” and “chaos.”

Jack Bologna


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.