Chris Matthews Turns his Guns on The Donald

Chris Matthews’ problem is that he’s a hopelessly biased questioner.  He asks Donald Trump about abortion.  Abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life.  Therefore it is murder.  We can agree on that.  But then Matthews says something like “Should therefore the woman be put on trial and perhaps executed”?  Trump says “No”.  Then Matthews says he has a problem with that and why won’t Trump go for the obvious remedy of putting the woman on trial.  What Matthews is driving at is- - if you won’t execute a woman for abortion therefore )as a logical conclusion) the unborn fetus is NOT life, nyah, nyah!  Then Matthews says accusingly “Then you want to ban abortion.  How do you actually do it?” (He says this implying that “Well of course it’s impossible to ban abortion therefore we should not do it”.  One should ask Matthews as a Catholic why he is even pursuing this line of questioning.  Matthews says “I believe in my Church’s moral teaching but for matters of legality, I disagree with them”.  “Huh?” If Matthews were honest he’d say “I think my Church’s teaching on unborn life is bogus and everybody running for President must agree with my position on this matter or else I don’t think they’re qualified to run for President.   At times Matthews can be an intellectual air head. 

Hillary Clinton is not open to questions from individuals when it isn’t planned out ahead of time.  This was illustrated when she snapped at an individual in line for quoting part of a Bernie Sanders speech.  Actually it was a green peace activist asking about fissile fuel money in her campaign.  Hillary has a lot of flash points.  She’s even criticizing Sanders for not being critical enough of Trump on his abortion speech.  Then she rants and raves about having a million more votes than Trump and two and a half million more votes than Sanders.  

I missed President Obama’s speech on ISIS terrorism.  The President has been talking a lot about ISIS terrorism lately.  Some republican congressman says he agrees with the President’s assertion that ISIS is a worldwide problem, but then he accuses the President as merely seeking to “contain” ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  I don’t recall President Obama ever saying he was going to “limit” or restrict his efforts in this matter of merely “containing” ISIS.  Nobody denies that ISIS is a worldwide threat- - and needs to be dealt with as such.   But I get the vague feeling bolstered by Washington's blog entries, that "the western world" is not as serious about being unified against ISIS as we might think.  It's as though we want to attack ISIS unless it offends Saudi Arabia or Yemen or one of these other rich Mideast oil countries.  

 I think I agree with Donald Trump on his nuclear position once I understand it.  I don’t see why we still have NATO.  One chief job of NATO is to make things hard for Russia and the other function is to take our money.  Aren’t we shelling out big bucks to be a supporter?  As to restricting the “nuclear weapons club” I think that ship has sailed.  We now have nations like Pakistan and North Korea and Israel as members of the nuclear club.  So what’s wrong with letting Japan and South Korea have nukes to protect both nations from North Korea.  If NK targets Japan and SK then they won’t be targeting us.  So don’t we have a selfish interest in letting these two nations have nukes or an I “ uninformed” on the nuclear position?  In terms of taking nuclear weapons “off the table” in response to Chris Matthews’ comments, we haven’t destroyed our nuclear weapons.  We have them so they’re “on the table” as I see it as options should a dire enough situation arise.  But this is just another ploy by Hillary to make Donald Trump appear extreme.   Anyhow I think I’ve watch enough for today. 

There is this ex marine who is also a surfer and kind of laid back under most circumstances.  But he had over an hour long video on how War is a Lie and he’s also anti Israel.   He makes “challenging statements” to borrow from Nurse Ratchet.  He prefers the term “Jewish State” rather than Zionist state.  He says that the teachings of the Thalmud govern Israel’s foreign policy and he hates any “supremacist” nation.  He claims the Thalmud teaches that it’s OK to have sex with a three year child of either sex but not a two year old.  He also quoted the Thalmud of saying the Virgin Mary was a whore and that right now Jesus is drowning in a boiling sea of excrement.  You won’t find anything like this in the Koran.    You know if we're talking about nuclear powers or terror threats, we have to look at the twin evils of Israel and Saudi Arabia.  No I don't want an arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia.  But we shouldn't be paranoid about dealing with Iran in an effort to PREVENT nukes before they happen, either.  As plresident Jack Kennedy said, "Never let us negotiate out of fear, but never let us fear to negotiate".   A part of me wonders is Israel never existed as a nation- - - how many fewer problems would there be in the Middle East?

The unemployment rate rose to five percent even.  There were 215,000 jobs added this past month.  Norman Goldman ran down the other statistics.  There was some chart I was looking at yesterday that showed the “real unemployment” rate has not dipped below ten percent for the first time in ages.  Of course being a democrat, Norman touts the positive news that the work force has expanded to 63%.  What if I bragged as a student that my test results have risen to 63%?  Not much to brag about.   There are numbers that say that the "real" unemployment number now is just under ten percent, so we've made progress there.  Still the Republicans have a point.  We should be adding double the number of jobs we are currently adding, if we really want to see this economy get going, as well as provide some real (sure) financial security for stock holders.  Right now they are on very thin ice.  Manufacturing was one of the disappointing segments of the economy.  

I’d also like to make the following observation about both Goldman and Hartman who both say they are for Bernie Sanders.  If you worked for GAIN detergent and all you did all day long was mouth off to your fellow workers about what an inferior product GAIN detergent is- - -and projected sales numbers mean nothing because TIDE is clearly the better product.  And it goes so far that if a customer who likes GAIN detergent calls up to praise the product and say how much better than TIDE it is- - that Hartman would hang up on them.  Do you see my point?  This sort of non existant enthusiasm for your candidate of choice is beyond pathetic.  Why do I have to go to someone like Shawn to get objective reporting about Sanders?  Sanders comes out and clearly states that Hillary is the weaker of the two candidates because Bernie stacks up better against all three Republicans, Trump, Kasrch and Cruz.   But to criticize Hillary in any way is to be tagged as “Not Nice”.   So- - there is no talk of E mails or the content of her Wall Street speeches.