No teeth, no worry -just keep feeding the bully!

Cleverly over the board but then maybe not. The only thing not mentioned was the set back in race relations in our nation. (See 1 below.)

Something to chew on - a little humor.. (See 2 below.)

Admiral Mullen has his say and prefers to restrain Iran through negotiation. Meanwhile Adm. Winnefeld warns about the nature of a possible coming war.

As I see it, Iran will continue , as with N Korea, playing the West and ourselves like a violin by employing delay tactics until they have achieved their goal and the consequences are too great to respond. At that point Israel has no choice and /or the West abdicates the Middle East. Feed a bully and his appetite grows.(See 3 and 3a below.)

Barak the ever powerful Minister of Defense becomes a home wrecker! (See 4 below.)


But then another view of the current Israeli government. (See 5 below.)

A clever title to an op ed by Krauthammer who keeps hammering Obama. (See 6 below.)

Have a safe and great Fourth!

Dick

1) 2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President


Welcome to Toastmasters, June 13, 2033. That's right: 2033.

Today Rick Campbell, one of our senior members at age 87, is here to reminisce a bit and give us a history lesson. He says he is so old that he learned to drive an internal combustion engine car (remember those) with a manual transmission. He once owned a typewriter. He remembers when bicycles had one speed, phones had two-party lines, and cameras had something called film. As incredible as this may seem, he says that when he was young, it was common for people to smoke in restaurants and public places. He is from a different time; almost a different world.

I'm sure all of us are far too familiar with the tragic events of 2010, so Rick is not going to plow that fertile field again. Instead, he is going to give us a personal look back at the conditions which led up to that fateful year, in a speech titled "2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President."

"2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President"

Yes, 2010 was long ago and far away.

As we look back on history, it appears that some Presidents had an easy ride-times of growth and stability. Teddy Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton come to mind. Those were good years to be President.

Others were elected just when the Republic was facing terrible crises:


Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush. They rose to the occasion, even though they were controversial and widely hated while in office. Not such good years to be President.

Just a few years prior, in 2008, the country began foundering. We were in the sixth year of the Iraqi Occupation, and the economy was flat. The mainstream press clearly wanted a Democrat elected.

Although we didn't know it until some years later, oil producing nations had colluded to secretly buy their own oil on the open market, driving oil prices to shocking levels above the true demand price-reaching a high of $162 a barrel in October 2008, just before the general elections.

Their purpose was simple: to effect regime change in the United States.

And of course, the U.S.economy was already in a real estate slump and also suffering the curse of stagflation; slow growth and high inflation.

There were a million home foreclosures.

Independent truckers went under by the thousands.

Airlines failed. Airlines with names now long-forgotten: United, Delta, Northwestern, American. All now merged, of course, into the one lone U.S. carrier we love so much: Southwest.

Against this backdrop of weariness of the war on terror, and economic distress, the American people were ripe for a demagogue, and they certainly got one in Barack Hussein Obama.

He and his running mate Kathlene Sibelius inspired them with vague notions of hope and change; of a world in which diplomacy settled all international problems, of free universal health care, of abundant alternative energy, of peace and love.

It was a vision too good to resist.

The Republican nominee, a name you probably haven't heard in years anyone?


Yes, it was John McCain, an obscure Senator from Arizona who had no clue how to run a national campaign, and a platform nearly as liberal as Obama's.

The selection of Condoleeza Rice as his running mate looked brilliant at first. Unfortunately, black voters viewed her as white, and women voters viewed her as one of the guys. Former Sec. of State Colin Powell, had cast his lot with the Obama crowd.

Even so, the McCain/Rice ticket would have won the election if it weren't for the fact that 16 percent of conservative Republicans voted for Bob Barr, another name that's a footnote in history.

After Obama's narrow win, thanks to recounts in Broward County, Florida, the country was positively giddy. A Democrat House, Senate, and President. At last an end to gridlock in Washington.

Camelot!

When Congress convened in January, 2009, the 44th President of the United States did something unique in history: he made good on his campaign promises.

Certainly most Americans never really thought he was serious during the campaign. But whether because of inexperience, idealism, or simply incompetence, he followed through.

In Obama's first One Hundred Days, the Congress passed his initiatives, and he signed them into law as he said he would.

He repealed the Bush tax cuts, and increased capital gains taxes.

He enacted a windfall profits tax, and instituted price controls on
gasoline and diesel fuel.

He passed universal health care, which added an additional 10 percent tax increase on all working Americans.

He signed the Immigrant Amnesty bill which instantly created 12 million new and entitled citizens.

He closed the detention facility at Guantanamo, and summarily released all detainees.

He repealed the Patriot Act, and cut funding for espionage, and eliminated all terrorist listening and wiretap efforts.

Most important, he began the complete and immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

He ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to retain bases in Kuwait and Qatar. Instead, he went with the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Dennis Kucinich, and ordered all troops back to U.S. soil.

Viola! In One Hundred Days, by May of 2009, it was all done, and the vision was complete. He did exactly what he said he would do.

And so it was in the summer of 2009 that things began to unravel.

Of course, the economy needed a tax cut, not an increase, and unemployment quickly rose to 12 percent. Even attorneys and economists were seen standing in bread lines. Hard times!

Price controls on gasoline immediately led to shortages and gas lines.

The global cooling trend we have seen for the past 25 years first became obvious in 2009, exposing the CO2 global warming fraud.


People were justifiably angry.

Federal deficits increased massively because thousands of baby boomers, facing job loss and much higher taxes, simply gave up and took social security.

Although the superb U.S.health care system was thrown into disarray, the bright spot was the creation of the Federal Department of Health care, and the immediate hiring of 250,000 administrators, inspectors and auditors, the only job growth in any economic sector in 2009.

By February 2010, the U.S.military withdrawal from Iraq was complete. It was a very expensive undertaking.

And then in March, the gradual Shiite insurgencies from Iran turned into a true Iraqi civil war. In May, Iranian tanks crossed the border and quickly took Baghdad. Although the exact number is not know, at least 230,000 Sunni Iraqis died as we stood by.

Iran also quickly moved into undefended Kuwait.

President Obama did exactly what he said he would. He sent Secretary of State, Maria Cantwell, to Tehran to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.


After two weeks of high level talks, the United States agreed to allow Iran to retain Iraq and Kuwait in the hope of creating stability in the middle east, with the understanding that Israel would not be disturbed.

Cantwell returned to Washington, and explained the agreement in her famous speech, in which she proudly noted the Obama administration had finally achieved "peace in our time" in the Middle East.

So Obama was taken aback at the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv on August 14th.

President Obama said, "This is not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."

The Obama administration decided it would be de-stabilizing to take sides in the conflict, and approximately 29,000 Israeli civilians died during the summer and fall.

American Jews were appalled at the inaction. Yes, in 2010 most American Jews were Democrats, but because of 2010, they became Republicans.

As awkward as it was, everything might have turned out right for the Obama administration going into the fall mid-term elections of 2010, if it hadn't been for the dirty bomb in the Port of Long Beach.

The administration had cut funding for inspection of containers,
because they felt it showed a "lack of trust" in the international trading community.

It wasn't really a very big bomb, and thank goodness, not a real nuclear device, but nonetheless it contaminated some expensive real estate-Newport Beach, Palos Verdes Estates- and ultimately caused the death of 14,000 Americans. People were especially annoyed that Disneyland had to be closed for decontamination.

And so, in the midterm elections, Republicans regained control of both the House and Senate.

The impeachment proceedings against President Obama for "failure to protect and defend" were swift and nearly unanimous. Vice President Sibelius resigned. Newly-elected Speaker of the House, J.C Watts, became the 45th President of the United States.

But you know the rest of the story well.

Republicans finished the war on Islamic fundamentalists, largely by aiming ICBM's at Mecca and Medina.

No Democrat has been elected President since.

Republicans have held both Houses of Congress.

History of Western Civilization and Economics are now taught again in all public schools, and only in English.

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

And there are border fences, north and south.

We old codgers remember the ancient Confucian curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Well, 2010 was an interesting year, but it was not a good year to be president."

2) AN OLD CHUCKLE



He ordered one hamburger, one order of French fries and one drink. The old man unwrapped the plain hamburger and carefully cut it in half. He placed one half in front of his wife. He then carefully counted out the French fries, dividing them into two piles and neatly placed one pile in front of his wife. He took a sip of the drink, his wife took a sip and then set the cup down
between them.

As he began to eat his few bites of hamburger, the people around them kept looking over and whispering. You could tell they were thinking,

'That poor old couple - all they can afford is one meal for the two of them.'

As the man began to eat his fries a young man came to the table. He politely offered to buy another meal
for the old couple. The old man said they were just fine - They were used
to sharing everything.


The surrounding people noticed the
little old lady hadn't eaten a bite. She sat there watching her husband eat and occasionally taking turns sipping the drink.


Again the young man came over and begged them to let him buy another meal for them. This time the old woman said 'No, thank you, we are used to sharing everything.'


As the old man finished and was wiping his face neatly with the napkin, the young man again came over to the little old lady who had yet to eat a single bite of food and asked 'What is it you are waiting for?'

She answered

'THE TEETH.

3) Iran: Any attack on our nuclear facility will be beginning of war
By Amir Oren


Tehran will consider any military action against its nuclear facilities as the beginning of a war, Iran's official news agency IRNA reported Friday.

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, was quoted as saying that any country that attacks Iran would regret doing so.

According to the report, Jafari has warned that such a step would be the beginning of war.

However, the general was also quoted as saying that he considers it unlikely Iran's adversaries would attempt an attack.

In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.

Israel carried out a large military exercise last month, seen throughout the media as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.

U.S. admiral: Iran likely to attack Israel

Meanwhile, a U.S. admiral warned earlier this week that Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it.

In recent years, the missile boats of the Sixth Fleet practiced intercepting Shahab-3 missiles from Iran aimed at Israel, along with the Arrow batteries of the air force and U.S. and Israeli batteries of Patriot missiles.

In an article entitled "Maritime Strategy in an Age of Blood and Belief" in the U.S. Naval Institute's monthly Proceedings, fleet commander Admiral James Winnefeld describes the possibility of an offensive barrage of ballistic missiles fired from Iran against Israel as being "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today, and it demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for a U.S. or NATO response."

He says Iran is an "unpredictable adversary," which could be provoked into action "by an isolated, and perhaps seemingly unimportant, event."

Winnefeld's commander, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Admiral Michael Mullen, mentioned earlier this week during his visit in Israel the presence of missile defense vessels of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and their role in intercepting Iranian missiles.

One of Mullen's hosts noted at the end of the visit that even though Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and the other senior officers did not discuss operational coordination, it was mentioned during discussions that both sides would like to avoid mistaken confrontations, of the sort that led to the IDF attack against the U.S. Navy ship, Liberty, in June 1967.

At a briefing to reporters in the Pentagon Wednesday, Mullen discussed his good relations with Ashkenazi and his impressions of the visits with the IDF on the northern border and near the Gaza Strip. "Israel remains a vital and trusted military ally in the Middle East," he said, which faces "very real security threats" and "the tyranny of what I call 'close-quarters geography,'" Mullen said.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs added that "Iran is still working to develop nuclear weapons" and that the Israeli timetable in relation to Iran's nuclear program is shorter than the U.S's. However, the admiral stressed he is opposed to an Israeli or U.S. strike against Iran.

Such a strike could destabilize the region and open a third front for the U.S. armed forces, while it is preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

The Iranian regime remains "a destabilizing factor in the area," Mullen said, but in his view the preferred way of resolving the issue lies in international diplomacy and not the use of military force.

3a) Iran remains a threat to Israel's very existence


Amid the winks and nudges about a reduction of tension between America and Iran, it should not be forgotten that Tehran's policy, enunciated most forcefully by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the destruction of Israel.

That is already apparent in Iranian support for Hamas and Hizbollah. Possession of nuclear weapons would give it a further edge.

While it is unlikely that Tehran would launch a direct atomic assault on the Jewish state, it would acquire greater leverage over its Arab neighbours as the undisputed hegemon in the Gulf, and could pass on nuclear know-how to its guerrilla proxies.
advertisement

Until Iran accepts the existence of Israel and suspends uranium enrichment, any responsible government in Jerusalem must consider it an existential threat to the Jewish state.

The diplomatic chatter over the past few days has been about easing the confrontation between America and Iran through negotiation. Tehran has said nothing about stopping the gas centrifuges near Natanz, nor softened its hostility towards Israel.

A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable to military action, which could convulse the Middle East and push the cost of oil through the roof - but not at any price.

Tehran may be counting on doing a deal with the present American administration before a new, unpredictable man enters the White House in January. Having made progress in nuclear talks with North Korea, George W. Bush may be hoping to do the same with Iran in the final months of his presidency.

However, what is convenient to Tehran and Washington could lead to the isolation of Israel and push it into unilateral military action that could quickly embroil the West in a wholesale conflagration, whether in southern Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz.

As an impetus for solving deep-seated strategic problems, an electoral timetable is suspect.

Looking back at the divisions over Iraq in 2003, it is essential that the six countries negotiating with Iran are united in insisting that Israel's security must not be jeopardised.

A deal over the head of the country most threatened by Iran would be both morally wrong and carry enormous political risks. In its essentials, Tehran remains inimical to Western interests.

That should not be forgotten in handling a regime that has persistently lied over its nuclear programme and, under Mr Ahmadinejad, has stepped up calls for Israel's destruction.

"Telegraph view" is writte

4) Barak instructs IDF to demolish home of bulldozer terrorist
By DAN IZENBERG AND YAAKOV KATZ

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Friday instructed the IDF to begin the process of issuing demolition orders against the homes of homes of Ala Abu Dhaim of Jebl Mukaber - who killed eight religious seminary students in March - and Husam Taysir Dwayat of Sur Bahir, who killed three Israelis on Wednesday.

Arab Affairs expert Wadie Abunasser on the status of e. J'lem Arabs

On Thursday, Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz had informed the government that according to the law, Israel may demolish terrorists' homes within areas of Israeli sovereignty, but doing so could raise "significant legal problems."

The statement was included in a legal opinion submitted to the government following consultations between the army and the state attorney's office earlier in the day on the question of house demolitions.

According to Mazuz, "In view of the rulings of the High Court of Justice over many years, it cannot be said that there is a legal obstacle to activating the authority to demolish homes," he said.


"However, such action arouses significant legal difficulties."

Mazuz did not elaborate on what the difficulties were or how they could exist if there was no legal prohibition regarding house demolitions.
Rescue forces evacuate...


Mazuz added "the political and security officials must take into account the various factors that have been listed [in the legal opinion] and be aware of the dangers they entail."

Furthermore, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) must examine the specific circumstances of each case in coordination with the ministry of justice.

According to the Justice Ministry spokesman, the ISA and the Military Advocate General's Office submitted opinions on the matter to the participants in the meeting.

Meanwhile, Olmert on Thursday called for more severe punishment of Israeli citizens involved in terror attacks.

"If we need to demolish houses, we'll demolish houses, and if we need to revoke benefits, we'll do that," he said, speaking at the Israeli Democracy Institute's Caesarea conference in Eilat.

Olmert added that he had instructed ministers to initiate necessary amendments to the law.

"Yesterday's terror attack in Jerusalem was a type we haven't experienced in the past," he continued.

"It was an attack carried out against Israel from within Israel, by someone from the Israeli side of the barrier."

5) Privatizing ourselves to death
By Jackie Levy

Civilian who killed terrorist symbolizes growing government ineptitude




The bulldozer attack in Jerusalem featured an unusual killing machine, and we should hope and pray that we don’t see a wave of such attacks. Yet much more powerful than that was the image of three people climbing on the bulldozer, two in uniform and one in civilian clothes.


Yet it was the civilian – a soldier on leave – who realized that if they didn’t want this attack to go on forever, something needed to be done. So he grabbed the gun of the security guard next to him, sent a long arm above his head, in a move that we haven’t seen in any movie, and put an end to the killing spree.


Takeover

'Terrorist yelled Allah Akhbar' / Efrat Weiss
It took four security officers to finally subdue the terrorist on the bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem which left three civilians dead. Off-duty soldier who helped officers is brother-in-law of army officer who took out Mercaz Harav terrorist in March

Now isn’t that the most accurate representation of what’s going on in Israel today? The government’s representatives, wearing uniforms and enjoying access to weapons and a budget, are standing around while doing almost nothing. The brave ones among them were somehow holding on to the bulldozer, in fact waiting for the civilian to do the job.


Whether it has to do with building or razing, it doesn’t matter – they are simply unable to do anything about it. And then, out of nowhere, arrives the civilian, or the non-profit organization, or the company, and solves the problem.


Will security services be privatized?

Isn’t it symbolic that the only one who insisted on hiding his identity, modestly downplaying his role in the incident, was the civilian in the blue t-shirt, even though it was clear to everyone that he is the real hero? Was it a coincidence that at the same time, the police officer attempted to come up with some kind of personal victory speech? After all, we all saw that he bravely charged at a body.


It is needles and frustrating to mention all the cases where civilians were required to stand up and do something that the State was unable to do or shirked responsibility for. It is no less needless and frustrating to make note of all the cases where government officials sought to take credit for a random success story they had nothing to do with, be it an Olympic medal or a heroic act.


This list in long and it is becoming more “diverse” with the passage of time. Soon we may see not only private welfare organizations and soup kitchens, but also police and security services initiated and funded by civilians.


And perhaps this is the essence of the vision of privatization. Slowly, all functions of government will be handed over to the people, to the civilians, and to the neighborhood association. Problems will be taken care of by a righteous man who happened to walk by or by the hero of the moment. And then our leaders will finally have time to deal with the things they really care about.

6) A Man of Seasonal Principles
By Charles Krauthammer

You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.

In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."

Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq . . . I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

He hasn't even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.

Done.

And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.

Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.

After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health-care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.

As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.

Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?

I have no idea. Do you? Does he?