Tuesday, June 27, 2017

CBO and Death Predictions Give Ammunition To Six Republican Peacocks. When Government Pays There is No Cost Or Need To Ever Repay, Right?

This from a very dear and long time friend and fellow memo reader: "I am always too optimistic. I believed Republicans would find a way to get the health bill passed.  It seems that they have forgotten how to govern.

My suggestion is that President Trump schedule a rally in each of the holdouts' states and ask them to stand next to him while he explains the benefits of the just passed health care bill - or why the bill failed. 

Offer the reward and the stick in one invitation.

Delay stops health care and tax reform and the economy and the financial markets.  It shows disarray, confusion, lack of leadership.  It causes loss of support.  It is hard to over estimate the damage now being done to the party and to the country.

The 2018 election will be a disaster if  the President fails to unite the Republicans and govern.

Pogo famously said, We have met the enemy and he is us.

In closing, think of what Thomas Jefferson of Virginia might have said of the present situation. G-----"

I believe my friend's idea of Trump going to the states of those who opposed the bill is clever but I am not sure I can totally join him on much of the rest. Trump has led but you can't lead stubborn mules, or for that matter, stubborn elephants.

Also, not sure Republicans ever knew hos to govern any more than Democrats.  they know how to cave.
Apparently the CBO, which is historically seldom correct and particularly when variables are extensive as they are regarding health care, has provided more recalcitrant Republicans ammunition.

As I have said before, half a loaf is preferable to none and these Republicans should support their president, even though he is not a traditional Republican.

These peacocks could approve what is less than a great bill and then work further to bring about changes but, with them, it is a whole loaf or none. Obamacare is a disaster but that is the loaf they want to keep on the table.

CBO's claim that 22 million will be without health care is nonsense.  Pelosi and Schumer claim the Republican Bill results in death, Death, if they did not know, is inevitable. The CBO and Democrats need to make a more rational argument that is statistically supportable but, then, whatever carries the day is the expedient political card always played first and to hell with rational behaviour /arguments. Particularly is this so when one raises the question of how do you pay for everything Americans want and politicians are willing to deliver

Our constitution guarantees Americans have the right to "pursue" happiness.  It does not  "guarantee" happiness.

However, can one be happy if they are not healthy?  Most would say no.  Therefore, how can our government provide health care for every American so they can pursue happiness without assuming an obligation it cannot possibly fulfill or afford? That is the issue from my perspective and I  believe government cannot, nor should it attempt to, do so.

I believe everyone has both a logical  and moral responsibility to care and pay for their own health. I also know that is a pipe dream because America is no longer a nation of independent citizens. We have become an increasingly dependent/overweight people who have been brain washed into believing Socialism is the answer to everything. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have perpetuated this myth because it serves their selfish purpose of gaining re-election. Giving candy is enticing and those who point out the stupid and wicked consequences are accused of being heartless.

That said, I do believe government has a moral but not constitutional obligation to do what it can to help those who cannot truly afford healthcare coverage to obtain same.  The problem is, once you proceed down this slippery slope more and more Americans will believe health care is an entitlement, which it is not.

Second, I also know once government assumes the responsibility of providing health care dependency will grow and personal responsibility will fly out the window.  Simply look at the Food Stamp Numbers, the Wic numbers , the unemployment benefit numbers etc.

If you want more of something just substitute money for carrots. When government pays for something it is free, right? There is no cost, right?  There never is the need to repay, right? Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.
Has Justice Ginsburg become so aged or demented she no longer is capable of acting ethically? (See 1 below.)
Now that Bezos owns Wapo, the paper's credibility and objectivity seem to be following in the downward sloping  path of the NYT's. (See 2 below.)
1) Dozens Of House Republicans Urge Ginsburg To Recuse From Travel Ban Cases

Fifty-eight House Republicans signed a letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demanding her recusal from the forthcoming travel ban case, given her previous public criticisms of President Donald Trump.

The letter argues that Ginsburg is bound by law to recuse herself in cases where she has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party” or from cases where her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The congressmen argue that the justice publicly evinced prejudice towards the president in a series of interviews given at the conclusion of the 2016 term, in which she called the president a “faker” and mused about moving to New Zealand if he prevailed in the general election.
“You are bound by law to recuse yourself from participation in this case,” the congressmen write. “There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Your participation in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
2) For Palestinians, It's Lights Out at the Washington Post
 ALGEMEINER, Shawn Durns

Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
In recent months, the Washington Post has put the phrase “democracy dies in darkness” on its masthead — the first time that the paper has ever officially adopted a slogan. Yet, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Post readers have been left in the dark about critical information and events.
The Post seems incapable of reporting on the Palestinians, unless the stories can somehow be connected to Israel. A look at recent coverage offers some examples.
June 2017 marks the ten-year anniversary of Hamas seizing power in the Gaza Strip — a hugely important event for Israelis, Palestinian Arabs and the entire Middle East.
Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group that calls for Israel’s destruction, seized power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, after a brief, but bloody, fight with Fatah, the movement that dominates the Palestinian Authority (PA). Hamas had won January 2006 elections in the Strip that many observers had expected Fatah to win. Yet despite Hamas’ victory in the parliamentary elections, PA President Mahmoud Abbas remained the head of government. In 2007, Hamas drove Fatah and Abbas out of Gaza.
Ten years on, the negative consequences of Hamas’ rule are apparent. The terror group has made continuous war on the Jewish state — launching rockets at civilians, kidnapping and murdering Israelis, and trying to carry out the group’s stated objective: annihilating Israel and establishing an Islamic state. Since Hamas seized power in Gaza, there have been three major conflicts with Israel — in 2008, 2012 and 2014.
The consequences for the Palestinians living under Hamas’ rule have also been grim. Hamas frequently launches terror attacks, and then uses its own population as “human shields” to deter an Israeli response; this is a double war crime. The group’s obsession with destroying Israel has led to its using foreign aid and most of its resources for incessant warfare and terror, instead of state building. Furthermore, much of that aid is pocketed by Hamas’ corrupt leadership, many of whom live in luxury outside Gaza’s borders — or is spent building a culture in which anti-Jewish violence is encouraged, taught and enshrined.
In a June 15, 2007, report on Hamas’ seizure of power, the Washington Post stated that President George W. Bush’s June 2002 call for the “Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror,” was now a failure. At the time, the paper even quoted a former US State Department official and adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas named Edward G. Abington, Jr., who asserted that Hamas’ victory meant that “[t]he two-state vision is dead. It really is.”
Yet, in June 2017, the Post — and many other major US news outlets — largely ignored the anniversary of Hamas’ coup in Gaza. Indeed, not a single report was filed by the paper’s Jerusalem bureau highlighting the event.
By contrast, the paper offered exorbitant — and deeply flawed — coverage of the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War. For instance, the Post published a six-page, multi-story in the May 28, 2017, Sunday edition, running in excess of 10,000 words, complete with an online video and several photographs, as well as a more than 6,000 word op-ed. Most of these, and other stories about the war, criticized Israeli policies and blamed Israel for the failure to achieve peace since 1967; and all of the stories omitted the Palestinian rejection of countless US and Israeli peace offers.
Even as it devoted so much space to the Six-Day War, the Post ignored current news — such as the recent decision by the PA-approved head of the Palestinian Islamic courts in Ramallah to ban divorces during Ramadan, and to imprison those who break the Muslim tradition of fasting (including those Christians who live under the Authority’s increasingly oppressive rule).
Similarly, when the Palestinian Journalists Association released a statement condemning “the [PA’s] continuous hunting and arrests of Palestinian journalists and threats against them,” the Post was silent.
On May 13, 2017, a Fatah party candidate and convicted terrorist named Tayseer Abu Sneineh was elected the mayor of Hebron, one of the largest cities under PA-control; it is also a city of religious importance to both Jews and Muslims. The Post could have informed its readers of the new mayor’s terrorist background. It did not.
Nor did it inform readers about recent revelations, noted by the Times of IsraelHaaretz and others, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted — and PA President Abbas rejected — US-proposed guidelines to restart peace negotiations in 2014.
In the last 60 days in the Gaza Strip, Hamas carried out ISIS-style public executions of three Palestinians deemed subversive, expelled PA-officials in a sign of growing tensions and even banned Gazans from walking their dogs in an effort to get residents to “think only about politics, about resistance [attacking Israel],” as a scared Palestinian dog owner told the Telegraph.
Furthermore, chronic power cuts in the Gaza Strip — the result of Hamas spending its money on terror instead of infrastructure — have led to increased tensions and unrest. Yet, the Post’s Jerusalem bureau has yet to run a recent story on this.
In a June 5, 2017, interview live streamed on Facebook, Post Jerusalem bureau chief William Booth claimed that the paper seeks to detail how “ordinary Palestinians… conduct their daily lives.” If so, it is failing — horribly.
The writer is a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. His views are his own.

Don't Screw With Hoppy! JFK - Would He Now Be A Republican? When Will PLO Funding Cease? Or Will It? Americans Are Often Late But Fair Minded. Trend Reversal Beginning?

I did not write or say this but do agree: "He was one of America’s most popular presidents. He believed in a strong military, lowered taxes, opposed abortion, and hated racial quotas. He was not a Republican. No, John F. Kennedy was a Democrat – when the Democratic Party held liberal (not leftist) views. In this week’s video, author and talk show host Larry Elder runs through the reasons why JFK would not recognize what the Democratic Party has become."
While Democrats continue their witch hunt I believe it will backfire and I also believe the Ossoff defeat is just the beginning.

Yes, the extended Trump family has extensive financial dealings and borrowings.  Their investments are world wide and this allows renegade Democrats opportunities to attack them . I daresay those who attack the Trump's, ie. Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Sanders  etc. are more corrupt and were one to investigate their various dealings they would find plenty of stench because they have resided at the bottom of the Swamp having been in the Potomac Water for long periods. 

Their day will come if voters get serious and tire of the mass media and Democrat partisanship and lop sided bias. Our nation has a history of rectifying wrongs, albeit very late and overdue, because most Americans still believe in fairness.  When the broom begins, it sweeps all aisles.. 

It took decades to bring the Clinton Foundation down several notches but that has happened and, I daresay, more will occur.(See 1 and 1a below.)

There is an old story I tell about the teacher who asked her class to read about Hopalong Cassidy and tell what they learned.

One little girl said Mr. Cassidy wore a white hat and was virtuous.  Another student said Hopalong was very gentlemanly. A little Jewish kid said what he learned is "Don't screw with Hoppy!"
Has a trend reversal begun for Trump beginning with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the immigration ban and what about the three CNN reporters who were forced to resign?

Just as with markets that go down incessantly eventually they reverse and perhaps the same is true in politics.  Attacks based on false claims, prejudice eventually are cleansed by truth and disgust over biased bashings.

As I noted above, Americans are often late to the party but are a fair minded lot. Civil Right's Legislation proved that. Stay tuned!  (See 2 below.)

1) Fascinating story of Jared Kushner family in Belarus during the war! Grandmother Tramp's son-in-law Jared Kushner​ dug a tunnel and saved 350 Jews. The son-in-law of Donald Trump comes from the family of Belarusian partisans, and fellow countrymen are very proud of this
 The son-in-law of US President Donald Trump Jared Kushner is very popular in Belarus. True, not so much because of the rich father of his wife, but because of his heroic grandmother. In the town of Novogrudok in the Grodno region, the Kushner family is a real legend. The website of the Jewish Telegraph Agency decided to publish a detailed history of the family that survived the Holocaust.

Kushner told himself that he was a descendant of Belarusian partisans a year ago in an interview with the New York Observer. Jared ​"s​ ​grandmother and grandfather on the paternal line Joseph Berkovich and Raisa (Ray) Kushner met in the detachment of the Belsky partisans near Grodno during the Second World War.

In Novogrudok there is a small museum dedicated to the Jewish resistance, and in it the history of the Kushner family is given a special place. "It was a well-to-do family, before the war they owned several shops in the city center," says the director of the museum, Marina Yarashchuk.

Almost immediately after the outbreak of the war, in early July 1941, the fascists seized Novogrudok, and less than six months later turned it into a Jewish ghetto. T​o the district center, which at that time had a population of about 6,000 Jews w​ere added another 24,000 Jews from surrounding towns and villages.

Raisa Kushner experienced five "selections". The first of them occurred literally on the day of the capture of the town. Then the Nazis took 100 Jews to the street and shot every second one. During one of these selections, her mother was shot and during another sister, Esther, was killed.

Raisa did not wait for another selection. Together with her brother, Khoni, she led a daring escape from the ghetto. For several weeks the participants of the escape dug a tunnel under the ground. The excavated land was hidden between the double walls and in the slopes of the roofs. Thanks to this 200-meter-long tunnel, about 350 Jews were able to flee the ghetto, most of them joined the partisans.

As the ​ organizer of the escape, Rais and Khoni could get through the tunnel first, but Kushner refused, since she preferred to be with the 54-year-old father and 15-year-old sister. The father was too weak from malnutrition, and the girls had to drag him literally.

"This is an outstanding act, their escape plan seemed to be doomed, but nevertheless they were saved and many more Jews were saved," says Yarashchuk. "It's an amazing story, and I'm glad that now many people will know about it, even ​if ​from interest in Jared Kushner. " In total, from December 1941 to autumn 1943, 10,000 Jews were killed in Novogrudok. Raisa's brother also escape ​d from ghetto​​but ​ the family could not find him,  her​ father and sister survived. For some time they were hiding in a nearby town where local residents hid and fed them, and then Raisa got acquainted with the Belsk partisans and went into the woods to join them in the detachment. There she met Joseph Berkovich, who had escaped from the concentration camp.
 In May 1945, after the liberation of Belarus, Raisa took her family and moved to Czechoslovakia, to a camp for displaced persons, then to Hungary and then to Italy.
 Raisa and Joseph were married in Budapest, and he took the wife's surname because he himself came from a rather poor family. In 1949 they emigrated to the United States, turning into Ray and Joe Kushner. Joe started working on construction sites, and by 1985 they already owned a successful business in the real estate industry.
 Their son, Charles, who became a billionaire, regularly visits places where his parents miraculously survived death during the Holocaust, and brings his grandsons there.

Джаред Кушнер и Иванка Трамп с детьми

1a) Our World: The PLO’s IDF lobbyists
Not only did Abbas reject their demand, he reportedly accused the presidential envoys of working as Israeli agents. Should the United States pay Palestinian terrorists? For the overwhelming majority of Americans and Israelis this is a rhetorical question.

The position of the American people was made clear – yet again – last week when US President Donald Trump’s senior envoys Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt met with Palestinian Authority chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and repeated Trump’s demand that the PA cut off the payments.

Not only did Abbas reject their demand, he reportedly accused the presidential envoys of working as Israeli agents.

Abbas’s treatment of Kushner and Greenblatt was in line with his refusal to even meet with US Ambassador David Friedman, reportedly because he doesn’t like Friedman’s views.

The most amazing aspect of Abbas’s contemptuous treatment of the Trump administration is that he abuses Trump and his senior advisers while demanding that Trump continue funding him in excess of half a billion dollars a year, and do so in contravention of the will of the Republican-controlled Congress.

Abbas’s meeting last week took place as the Taylor Force Act makes its way through Congress.

Named for Taylor Force, the West Point graduate and US army veteran who was murdered in March 2016 in Tel Aviv by a Palestinian terrorist, the Taylor Force Act will end US funding of the PA until it ends its payments to terrorists and their families – including the family of Force’s murderer Bashar Masalha.

The Taylor Force Act enjoys bipartisan majority support in both the House and the Senate. It is also supported by the Israeli government.

Given the stakes, what could possibly have possessed Abbas to believe he can get away with mistreating Trump and his envoys? Who does he think will save him from Congress and the White House? Enter Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), stage left.

CIS is a consortium of 260 left-wing retired security brass. It formed just before the 2015 elections. CIS refuses to reveal its funding sources. Several of its most visible members worked with the Obama administration through the George Soros-funded Center for a New American Security.

Since its inception, CIS has effectively served as a PLO lobby. It supports Israeli land giveaways and insists that Israel can do without a defensible eastern border.

Last Wednesday CIS released a common-sense defying statement opposing the Taylor Force Act.

The generals mind-numbingly insisted the US must continue paying the terrorism-financing PA because Israel needs the help of the terrorism-incentivizing PA to fight the terrorists the PA incentivizes. If the US cuts off funding to the PA because it incentivizes terrorism, then the PA will refuse to cooperate with Israel in fighting the terrorism it incentivizes.

If you fail to follow this logic, well, you don’t have what it takes to be an Israeli general.

Moreover, if you fail to follow this logic, and you defy the position of Israel’s retired generals, then you may well endanger Israel.

After all, they know what’s best even better than the Israeli government because they are retired Israeli generals.

The CIS group would be bad enough for Israel on its own. But unfortunately, the radical politics of its members – and their anonymous funders – are all too resonant inside of the IDF itself.

And just as CIS members use the ranks they received in the past to undermine the powers of the government today, so the current crop of serving generals use their positions to advance policies that are contrary to the expressed position of the government.

This is nowhere more evident than in the behavior of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria.

Until Israel formed the PLO-controlled PA in 1994, the Civil Administration was responsible for governing Judea and Samaria as the governing arm of the military government that Israel set up in the area after the Six Day War.

In 1996, Israel transferred all Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria to the PA. Since then, the Civil Administration has been responsible only for Area C where all Israeli communities are located and where between 100,000 and 200,000 Palestinians also live.

The question of what the ultimate disposition of Area C will be is the top issue on the national agenda today. The majority of government ministers and the majority of the public support applying Israeli law to all or parts of the area.

Yet while the government debates the issue and formulates policies to advance whatever policies it adopts on this issue, the Civil Administration has for the past several years been acting independently to undermine and constrain the government’s ability to make strategic decisions relating to Area C.

Among other things, the Civil Administration has been independently initiating Palestinian settlement projects in Area C that undermine Israel’s ability to govern the areas. By the same token, the Civil Administration has used its powers to scupper, delay and prevent Israeli construction projects in the area.

The story of the Civil Administration’s rogue policymaking was catapulted to the headlines last week when Channel 2 reported that it was advancing a plan to massively expand the Palestinian city of Kalkilya into Area C. Among other things, the plan endangers Israeli communities whose territory abuts the expanded boundaries of Kalkilya advanced by the plan.

Channel 2 reported that the Netanyahu government’s security cabinet had given the Civil Administration a green light to begin construction.

The story caused a political outcry not only from Likud voters but from the security cabinet members themselves. Led by Minister Ze’ev Elkin, the Likud ministers insisted that they had been misled by the Civil Administration which deliberately hid the nature of the plan from them when it brought it to the cabinet for approval.

The ministers’ protests ring true because the Civil Administration has a history of acting in this manner.

In 2008 for instance, the Civil Administration initiated a building scheme in the Jordan Valley that would have taken land from Moshav Tomer to build Palestinian settlements.

The head of the local council complained to the government only to discover that the ministers had no idea what he was talking about. The Civil Administration had undertaken the plan, which undermined Israel’s control over a strategically vital area, without government knowledge or approval.

In contrast, and again against the wishes of the government, the Civil Administration has repeatedly acted to block Israeli construction in Area C. For instance, the IDF insists that no land deal between Israel and Palestinians is final until the IDF approves it. The policy harms Israeli construction in two ways.

First, it gives the Civil Administration the power – which it uses – to delay Israeli construction indefinitely.

Second, by forcing parties to land deals to come forward publicly, the Civil Administration intimidates Palestinian land sellers. They know that if their land deals with Israelis become public they will face execution by the PA.

Returning to Abbas for a moment, the PLO chief may have overplayed his hand by insulting Trump and his senior envoys. All the politicized retired and currently serving Israeli generals together cannot convince Trump to send US tax dollars to a terrorism supporting leader who trashes him and his senior officials. Consequently, there is every reason to believe that the Taylor Force Act will soon be signed into law and the US will end its financing of Palestinian terrorism.

But even if Washington cuts off funding to the PA, Israel is still left to deal with its radicalized generals who exploit their rank to undermine the government.

The best way to end this situation is for the government to shut down the Civil Administration and get the IDF out of the governing business in Judea and Samaria. So long as the government continues to empower unaccountable generals to administer civilian areas instead of its accountable, civilian bureaucracy, we will continue to be confronted with the surreal spectacle of Israeli generals lobbying for Palestinian terrorists.

If the government applies Israeli law to Area C, it can still negotiate with the PLO, just as it has negotiated about the Golan Heights and Jerusalem. But in the meantime, it will remove one of the most corrupting and corrosive forces preying on our generals and our democracy for the benefit of the Israeli and Palestinian residents of Area C alike and indeed for Israel as a whole.
2)  A Unanimous Rebuke to Judges on the Travel Ban

The Supreme Court lets nearly all of Trump’s policy be enforced as it hears his appeal.

The Supreme Court on Monday began the process of rebuking lower courts for usurping the political branches on national security. The entire Court, even the four liberals, agreed to hear the Trump Administration’s appeal of appellate-court rulings blocking its immigration travel ban, and the Justices allowed nearly all of the 90-day ban to proceed in the meantime.

This is a victory for the White House, though it is more important for the Constitution’s separation of powers. President Trump’s ban is neither wise nor necessary, but that is not an invitation for judges to become back-seat Commanders in Chief. Yet that is precisely what liberal majorities on both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal did in blocking the travel bans, and the Supreme Court is saying those rulings will not be the last judicial word. The Court’s unsigned per curiam opinion set the case for an early hearing on the legal merits in the next term that begins in October.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence arguing that the Court should have lifted the lower-court injunctions in toto. He also added a cheeky aside that “I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed.”

Some Justices might not agree with that, but it’s notable that Chief Justice John Roberts managed to corral a unanimous Court for lifting nearly all of the injunctions. That means even the liberals understand that injunctions need to be issued with care, especially on national security where judges lack the knowledge and electoral accountability of the executive and Congress.

The High Court’s precedents are clear, especially Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) that said courts should defer to the executive if there is a “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification on national security. Judges can’t run roughshod over the Constitution merely because an unpopular President issued the travel order.

Democrats and the media will now begin a ferocious lobbying campaign to turn five Justices against these precedents, in particular the Chief Justice and Justice Anthony Kennedy. We doubt this will succeed because this isn’t a close legal call, and it concerns the Presidency more than this particular President.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Party of Breath - Hot Air. Can Only Stretch Thin Skin So Far! Raise Wages, Decrease Income - DUH! Trump Trumps.

As I had assumed, The Supreme Court issued a stinging rebuke to the 4th District Judge when they allowed the Constitution and not his opinions to dictate whether the president can defend our nation by placing restrictions on immigration.

Meanwhile, on another matter, ie. the health legislation, Pelosi said the Republicans  are the Party of Death.  I submit she is The Party of Breath - Hot Air variety.

She has gone ballistic so she can appear tough and retain her seat in the hope she will become Speaker after 2018.

Perhaps all her cosmetic surgery has effected her brain. You can only stretch thin skin so far.

Finally, this from a friend and fellow memo reader calling attention to the effect of the rise in minimum wage in reducing worker income and my response:

"New study of Seattle's $15 minimum wage says it costs jobs from The Washington Post

http://wapo.st/2seFYE7?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.d7f2ea7dd1a3" E------

"We knew it would happen.  Democrats do not care to understand math or even simple addition because it allows them to disregard deficits and the cost of their transfer legislation.
Trust all well." Me
While the Democrats believe demonizing Trump is a winnable strategy he keeps gaining on them and, when the time comes,  they will not know what hit them. (See 1 below.)
1) Why Trump Is Earning Latino Support

By Steve Cortes
One of the little-told stories of the 2016 election was Donald Trump’s 28 percent take of the Hispanic vote, besting Mitt Romney’s 2012 showing.  We on Team Trump won’t throw parades for winning less than one-third of the Latino vote nationally, but lessened enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton among Hispanics represents a key reason, perhaps the primary reason, she was ultimately uncompetitive in Florida.
Why did Latino support for Trump massively outperform expectations? For one thing, millions of Hispanics rejected the relentless mainstream media narrative that Trump is an anti-Mexican racist. In addition, only U.S. citizens can vote, and according to an exit poll analysis by Zogby Analytics, twice as many Hispanic voters regarded immigration enforcement as too lax instead of too stringent.
In the final analysis, we Hispanics, whether native-born or naturalized, differ little from other Americans regarding dreams of better lives of prosperity and security. Speaking of dreams, despite constant fear-mongering from the left, the Trump administration last week made it official that it plans no changes to President Obama’s DACA policy regarding the 800,000 “DREAMers” who were brought here illegally, but as children.
I believe in keeping the status quo in this area and President Trump is striking a wise compromise on immigration. He’s placed America’s security first by accelerating the deportation of dangerous illegal aliens. These actions by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, combined with his clear-eyed rhetoric about serious enforcement, have already made the southern border more secure, even before constructing the famous wall. This crackdown also puts transnational criminal gangs like MS-13 on notice that their crimes – largely committed against Hispanics – won’t be tolerated.
Concurrently, the president shows empathy by allowing DACA residents to remain. Recognizing that the DACA-eligible were brought here as children and had no say in breaking our immigration laws, Trump has compassionately preserved part of the Obama administration policy, even though it’s highly unpopular among many in our conservative base. “I love kids,” the president said, “and I find it very hard doing what the laws says exactly to do—the law is very rough.”
Sadly, the president’s compromise received little credit from the dependably antagonistic mainstream press or from left-leaning Latino activists who’d rather grandstand against Trump than pursue real growth policies for Hispanic citizens. While I care about the fate of the DREAMers, I also care deeply about the dreams of native-born Americans and legal immigrants, particularly those of Hispanic heritage. Lately, the prosperity trajectory for Latinos disappoints, as the wealth gap vs. white households widened badly under the Obama administration after decades of narrowing.
Immigration remains a hallmark principle of America’s identity and vitality. Allowing our immigration system to continue to operate lawlessly and haphazardly represents not only bad economic and security policy, but also an affront to the millions of immigrants, like my father, who became Americans the right way.
The Trump administration agenda of rolling back regulations and taxes while enforcing sensible immigration rules will help lift wages for struggling middle-class workers, whether native-born or legal immigrants. The dream still lives in America; it’s only been dormant lately because of bad economic and border policy. Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the dream can reignite.
Trump believes that once he delivers upon his growth and security agenda, we are going to win the Hispanic vote in 2020—and for many elections to come. I believe he might be right.
Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.


Hypocrisy Reigns? Hezbollah Itching To Fight Israel? Should Republicans Let Democrats Own Obamacare?

Is the shoe  on the other foot as hypocrisy reigns?  (See 1 and 1a below.)
Hezbollah continues prepping for an eventual fight with Israel. (See 2 below)
Will Sweden be the first Democratic nation to implode because of the Muslim influence?  (See 3 below.)
I received this from a log time and dear friend and fellow memo reader just before I was going to make a comment of my own; "Dear Dick,

Now that the Republican health care bill is on the senate floor, Gigi and I have watched with dismay as various parties debate the merits of how best to modify Obamacare.  Our alarm is that the healthcare debate has conceded the war over repeal and free enterprise and is now only fighting the battle over the best solution for socialized medicine.

With best regards,


My own comment aligns with Bill Bennett's view.  If Republicans cannot come together on a health care bill that is a significant improvement over Obamacare then they should just let the Democrats continue to own it.
There really is something smelly about the way Mueller came to be the independent counsel and the fact that his relationship with Comey disqualifies him from serving according to the language in the independent counsel law.  (See 4  below.)

This is a pretty simple, and concise recap of the opposing health care bills; i like to call it" legislation for dummies”


Bernie Sanders & Wife Under FBI Investigation For Bank Fraud

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane have lawyer'd up amid an FBI investigation into a loan obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president.

As we noted just over a year ago, Burlington College, a small Vermont private school once led by the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, said Monday it will close later this month, citing "the crushing weight" of debt incurred during the presidency of Jane Sanders who was in charge of the college until 2011.

According to WaPo, the college which enrolled 224 students as of fall 2014, said it faced financial troubles connected to its 2010 purchase of 32 acres of lakefront property from the Archdiocese of Burlington, according to the Burlington Free Press. The college said it had sold property to reduce its debt to a manageable level, but it was placed on probation in 2014 by its accrediting agency and it faced cash flow problems due to the imminent loss of a line of credit.

The reason for the small liberal school's terminal financial trouble is that to fund the property purchase from the Catholic diocese, Sanders took out $10 million in loans.  As HeatStreet reported last year, the college almost immediately fell short on its financial obligations as fundraising pledges and commitments Ms. Sanders cited in the loan agreements never materialized. Less than a year after leading Burlington College into massive debt, Ms. Sanders resigned, taking with her a $200,000 severance package. By 2014, because of its shaky finances and running deficits, Burlington College found itself placed on probation for two years by the regional accreditation agency.

Jane Sanders was president of the college from 2004 to 2011. Her husband, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a former mayor of Burlington, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007 and since then has represented Vermont in the U.S. Senate.

Jane Sanders stepped down in 2011 amid a dispute with the college’s board. After her husband launched his presidential campaign, news stories emerged that scrutinized her role in a loan application for the lakefront ­real-estate purchase. Jane Sanders has dismissed those stories as politically motivated and said the issue was not a factor in her departure from the college.

A Burlington College news release issued this morning called these financial hurdles insurmountable at this time.

And now, as Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders have hired lawyers to defend them in the probe.

Sanders' top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state

"I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."

"My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.

Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false."
Interesting that a growing number of people around Hillary Clinton are suddenly under FBI scrutiny?

Finally the truth and the "Breaking News" we've all been waiting for! The Administration's connection with the Russians, including the names of all those involved!! 


1.  Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as "Putin's Child”?

Oh wait that wasn't Trump it was John Podesta.

2.  Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies?

Oh wait that was Bill Clinton.

3.  Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton.

4.  Remember when Donald Trump lied about that deal and said he wasn't a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing he did lie about it? 

Oh wait the was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

5.  Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

6.  Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that's part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putin’s?

Oh wait that was the Clinton Foundation.

7.  Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton.

8.  Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 80s called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over?

Oh wait that was President Obama.

2) Hezbollah disguising military outposts as environmental project
By: Aryeh Savir  
Hezbollah disguising military outposts as environmental project
Amb. Danny Danon presents evidence of Hezbollah outposts. 
Israel has again warned that Hezbollah is preparing hostilities against the Jewish state under the guise of civilian activity. 
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Danny Danon presented new evidence to the Security Council (UNSC) revealing that the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorist group has established a series of outposts along the border with Israel under the guise of an agricultural organization.
The agricultural NGO, Green Without Borders, is funded by and operates on behalf of Hezbollah, Israel charges.
In a letter sent to UNSC members on Tuesday and published in the media Thursday, Danon explained that in April, a United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) patrol was denied access by a group of locals to an observation post flying the ‘Green Without Borders’ flag.
Danon included in his letter to the UNSC photographs of the observation posts and their locations.
“The well-documented proof of Hezbollah’s dangerous provocation verifies that Hezbollah conducts reconnaissance activity near the Blue Line [the UN-drawn boundary between Lebanon and Israel] and disguises it as civilian activity, in clear violation of UNSC resolutions 1701 and 1559,” Danon wrote.
He warned that “Hezbollah’s continued military buildup and destabilizing activities in southern Lebanon have serious repercussions on both regional stability and the ability of the Lebanese government to effectively control its country.”
“The international community cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Hezbollah’s flagrant violations of UNSC resolutions,” the ambassador continued. He concluded his letter by calling on the UNSC to demand that the government of Lebanon dismantle these observation posts immediately.
The IDF on Thursday released photos and a video of the Hezbollah observation posts. One video showed a pair of uniformed men climbing onto a watchtower on spots used by Green Without Borders.
UN Denies Charges
Responding to the charges on Friday, UNIFIL said it has not seen any violations of the ceasefire.
UN spokeswoman Eri Kaneko told reporters that over the past two years, UNIFIL “has observed tree-planting activities undertaken by the NGO as is their stated objective.”
“UNIFIL has not observed any unauthorized armed persons at the location or found any basis to report a violation of the (cease-fire) resolution,” she said.
Danon responded by saying, “It is unfortunate that UNIFIL has chosen to turn the other way as Hezbollah continues to operate in the region. This NGO is not protecting the environment, but is conducting reconnaissance activity along our border. It is time for UNIFIL to fulfill its mandate and ensure that UN Security Council resolutions are implanted.”
Israel has previously protested Hezbollah’s violations of the ceasefire and presented evidence to the UN proving that the terror organization is utilizing the civilian setting in the area to prepare and launch another attack on Israel.
3) Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”

Sweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help, and it is only a question of time before the country will need military intervention from abroad in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.

A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:

“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”

10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamists” sharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police escort or protection.

The word that Swedish authorities and media use for the country’s “no-go zones” is utenforskap. The word means something like “excluded area.” In these areas, Swedish law has been replaced with a mixture of the law of the jungle and the Islamic legal code, sharia. Armed Muslim gangs and Islamic radicals are simply carving out big pieces of Sweden for themselves. The only reason why it has not evolved into large-scale armed conflicts — in this formerly peaceful and safe country — probably relates to how Sweden’s feminist-liberal government is not putting up any real resistance against the Islamists.
Even if the Swedish feminist government chose to fight back tomorrow, Sweden has nothing close to the paramilitary capacity needed to reverse this situation. That80 percent of the country’s law enforcement officers are considering quitting their jobs is a clear sign of a police force that is completely demoralized. The military in this traditionally pacifist country is cut down to almost nothing, and there is no money to fix it.

As Johan Patrik Engellau puts it: “The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”
The fact remains that Sweden’s political elite is nowhere near taking such decisive action, as it has not even started to openly speak out about these problems.

Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.
4) Trump, Mueller and Arthur Andersen

Did the president act ‘corruptly’? Not from what we know—but then neither did the accounting firm.

By Michael B. Mukasey
What exactly is Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating? The basis in law—regulation, actually—for Mr. Mueller’s appointment is a finding by the deputy attorney general that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
According to some reports, the possible crime is obstruction of justice. The relevant criminal statute provides that “whoever corruptly . . . influences, obstructs or impedes or endeavors [to do so], the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had,” is guilty of a crime. The key word is “corruptly.”
President Trump’s critics describe two of his actions as constituting possible obstruction. One is an alleged request to then-FBI Director James Comey that he go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was under investigation for his dealings with Russia and possible false statements to investigators about them. According to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” because “he is a good guy.”

An obstruction charge based on that act would face two hurdles. One is that the decision whether to charge Mr. Flynn was not Mr. Comey’s. As FBI director, his job was to supervise the investigation. It is up to prosecutors to decide whether charges were justified. The president’s confusion over the limits of Mr. Comey’s authority may be understandable. Mr. Comey’s overstepping of his authority last year, when he announced that no charges were warranted against Hillary Clinton, might have misled Mr. Trump about the actual scope of Mr. Comey’s authority. Nonetheless, the president’s confusion could not have conferred authority on Mr. Comey.
The other is the statutory requirement that a president have acted “corruptly.” In Arthur Andersen LLP v. U.S. (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the following definition: that the act be done “knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity” of a proceeding. Taking a prospective defendant’s character into account when deciding whether to charge him—as Mr. Comey says Mr. Trump asked him to do—is a routine exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is hard to imagine that a properly instructed jury could decide that a single such request constituted acting “corruptly”—particularly when, according to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump also told him to pursue evidence of criminality against any of the president’s “ ‘satellite’ associates.”
The second act said to carry the seed of obstruction is the firing of Mr. Comey as FBI director. The president certainly had the authority; it is his motive that his critics question. A memorandum to the president, from the deputy attorney general and endorsed by the attorney general, presented sufficient grounds for the firing: Mr. Comey’s usurpation of the prosecutor’s role in the Clinton matter and his improper public disclosure of information unfavorable to Mrs. Clinton. But the president’s detractors have raised questions about the timing—about 3½ months into the president’s term. They have also cited the president’s statement to Russian diplomats days afterward that the firing had eased the pressure on him.
The timing itself does not suggest a motive to obstruct. Rather, coming a few days after Mr. Comey refused to confirm publicly what he had told Mr. Trump three times—that the president himself was not the subject of a criminal investigation—the timing suggests no more than an understandable anger. The statement to Russian diplomats, which might have been intended to put the Russians at ease, collides with the simple fact that an investigation—conducted by agents in the field—proceeds regardless of whether the director continues in office, and thus hardly suggests the president acted “corruptly.”
One of Mr. Mueller’s early hires among the dozen-plus lawyers already aboard has a troubling history with the word “corruptly.” Andrew Weissmann led the Enron prosecution team that pressed an aggressive interpretation of “corruptly,” which permitted a conviction even absent the kind of guilty knowledge the law normally associates with criminal charges. As a result, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted. By the time the conviction was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court in 2005—in large part due to the erroneous application of “corruptly” in the statute at issue—Arthur Andersen had already ceased operation.
What if—for some reason not apparent to the public now—Mr. Mueller were to conclude that the president did act “corruptly”? Could he initiate a criminal prosecution? The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, which sets policy for the department and other agencies of government, has already opined more than once—starting in 1973, during Watergate—that the answer is no. It would offend the Constitution for the executive branch to prosecute its head.
What else might Mr. Mueller do? Some have suggested that if he finds criminal activity occurred he could report his findings to the House so as to trigger an impeachment proceeding, as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr did in 1998. But the law under which Mr. Starr was appointed has lapsed, and the regulations governing the special counsel provide for only two kinds of reports—either to Justice Department leadership when some urgent event occurs during the investigation, or to the attorney general to explain the decision to prosecute or not. Reports of either type are to be treated as confidential.
Mr. Mueller could simply take the bit in his teeth and write a public report on his own authority, or write a confidential report and leak it to the press. If he did either, he would be following Mr. Comey’s lawless example.
Or if, as appears from what we know now, there is no crime here, Mr. Mueller, notwithstanding his more than a dozen lawyers and unlimited budget, could live up to his advance billing for integrity and propriety and resist the urge to grab a headline—not necessarily his own urge but that of some he has hired.
Hold fast. It may be a rough ride.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and a U.S. district judge (1988-2006).