Take Me To The Square and Lash Me Muslim Style!

 

Spare the rod spoil the child.

Ah but that was for a different era when children were raised to adhere to the dictates of their parents, they enjoyed less rights and privileges and did not go around killing each other in school, theaters and street corners.

Then PC'ism took over and parents became pals, authority went down the drain and children gained the right to sue.

Parents pay their bills but have no access to the results or information they just paid for and we call this progress!

Obama is the epitome of this philosophy and that is why he was given the Nobel Peace Prize for simply showing up and in anticipation of future greatness. It all accords with the credit card life style where you gouge yourself with material possessions and spend the rest of your life paying interest on things you cannot afford.

Wants become needs, needs become fulfilled and fulfillment leads to emptiness.  Yes, the Liberals have all the answers and no one questions anything because we live in a 'first you pass it and then learn about it' world. And when asked to grade himself, Obama gave himself an incomplete and well he should because that is what he is - an incomplete bag of wind but not so in the eyes of his wife who was trotted out to sell her husband as the answer to the problems he created but, for which, he refuses to take responsibility.

If I have overstated my case take me to the public square and lash me Muslim style! (See 1 below.)
----
Obama to Netanyahu - I am serious and if you do not believe me ask the Syrian dead! (See 2 and 2a below.)
----
This from a logical friend and fellow memo reader: "Food for Thought: If my mission was to execute a project under budget and according to the plan that I had approved, and the results of that project were that 3.5 years later, I did not accomplish any of the stated objectives, and I increased overall spending by 60% over budget, I probably would be looking for a new job. 

Despite arguments and discussions regarding social issues, there are many more issues to address as well. More to come...

Make the right decision."

---

As I suspected. (See 3 and 3a below.)

---

Senator Schumer - welcome to your party!   (See 4 below.)

---Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Clinton Magic Cannot Obscure Obama Record

• 
 By Mona Charen

The Byzantine relations between President Obama and former President Bill Clinton could fill several psychology textbooks, providing juicy examples of passive aggression, older man/younger man competition, complex alliances (Hillary as secretary of state is the perfect embodiment of the maxim to "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"), and mutual interests.

That the president needs Bill Clinton now to make his case to the country must be richly satisfying to the only American whose ego can compete with Barack H. Obama's.

Let's recall that one of Obama's supposed triumphs in 2008 was defeating the vaunted Clinton machine. The Democratic Party's delirium for Obama supposedly obliterated the Clinton magic. After winning the South Carolina primary in January, Obama exulted that "we're up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington. ... But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans ... around a higher purpose ... " Though he never tired (and still doesn't) of insulting George W. Bush, that barb wasn't aimed at him. It was for the Clintons.

Bill Clinton, for his part, nurses grudges. Obama eclipsed Clinton as the most charismatic Democrat. The former president and his wife also got a crash course in media bias. Obama spoiled the Clintons' carefully nurtured plan of returning to the White House and achieving vindication. And, as someone who preened himself on his high standing among blacks (Toni Morrison called him America's "first black president"), Clinton was justly outraged when Obama supporters Donna Brazile and Rep. Jim Clyburn accused him of racism in 2008 because he referred to Obama as a "kid" and dismissed his Iraq war stance as a "fairy tale." Good thing he didn't use the word "Chicago" or mention "golf" -- as those are now "dog whistles" we're told.

Now His Royal Majesty needs old Bill. He needs him to mount the stage in Charlotte, N.C., and persuade waverers to re-elect The One. Why? Because Clinton, for all his squalid ways and for all that he was a practitioner par excellence of what Obama disdained as the "old politics," has something Obama lacks -- a successful economic legacy to brag about.

The wizardry that will permit Clinton to obscure Obama's record -- or to throw the mantle of Clinton economic success over Obama economic failure -- isn't entirely clear. In fact, this could easily backfire.

A swing voter could well glance at the screen and recall that Clinton heeded the voters, whereas Obama thumbed his nose. After suffering a rebuke in 1994, Clinton backed away from Hillarycare, tax increases, opposition to welfare reform and huge increases in federal spending. With Republicans controlling the Congress, Bill Clinton -- after some resistance and after insisting it couldn't be done -- signed a balanced budget.

The combination of the end of the Cold War and the dot.com bubble gave Clinton's first term respectable economic growth of 3.2 percent. But the real boom came toward the latter half of his second term, after Clinton (reluctantly) signed welfare reform, a dramatic cut in the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, and a phased-in reduction in the estate (or death) tax, which exempted estates up to $1 million from $600,000. Clinton lobbied for and got the North American Free Trade Agreement and maintained a strong dollar. With Republicans in Congress demanding spending restraint, the federal government -- younger readers may be incredulous -- ran a surplus.

The results, as Charles Kadlec recalls in Forbes, were impressive. Economic growth jumped to 4.2 percent. Unemployment fell from 5.4 to 4 percent. Average real wages improved. Millions of Americans shared in the general prosperity as their 401(k)s swelled with the rising stock market. Investors responded with enthusiasm to the sense that America was a business-friendly country. Venture capital exploded.

Obama has chosen the exact opposite response to voter disaffection. Unlike Clinton, Obama is a committed leftist. He doubled down on Obamacare, ramming it through in an ugly, totally partisan vote. He refuses to budge on his insistence on tax increases -- though he has himself acknowledged that tax hikes are counterproductive in a weak economy. He has attempted to undo the key feature of welfare reform, the work requirement. And he has presided over the downgrading of America's AAA credit rating as he races heedlessly into crippling levels of federal debt.

Bill Clinton can attempt to perfume Obama's record -- but the truth is that Obama has chosen the exact opposite policies. The results speak more eloquently than either man can.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Massed US, UK, French navies for drill simulating breach of blocked Hormuz

USS Stennis aircraft carrier

The third US aircraft carrier, USS Stennis, is moving into place off the Iranian Gulf coast to lead a 12-day naval exercise of 25 nations on Sept 16-27, that will include a large-scale minesweeping drill simulating the breaching of the Strait of Hormuz against Iranian efforts to block oil passage through the strategic waterway. President Barack Obama may see Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the last day of the exercise. He hopes to present him with proof of US readiness for military action against Iran and demonstrate that an Israeli strike is superfluous.

The Stennis will join two other aircraft carriers, the USS Enterprise and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and their strike groups, which are already on operational duty off the coast of Iran, ready for the drill which kicks off in the strategic Strait of Hormuz on Sept. 16.

US officials say the Stennis will replace the Enterprise, but according to military and Washington sources all three carriers will remain in place opposite Iran in the Gulf region in the coming months. British and French warships are completing their transfer to new stations off Iran for the big exercise in which the Saudi and United Arab Emirates navies will also take part.

In addition to practicing tactics for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, the exercise will simulate operations for destroying Iranian naval, air and missile bases in the Persian Gulf area.

This war game has three additional objectives, according to military sources:

1. To forestall an Israeli offensive against Iran, President Barack Obama wants to convince its leaders as well as Gulf rulers that the US-Western military option for disrupting Iran’s race to a nuclear bomb is deadly serious and ready to be exercised when the need arises – although determining “when the need arises” is the nub of the US-Israel dispute.

The exercise winds up Sept. 27, the day penciled in by the White House for Netanyahu to arrive for talks with President Obama and enable him to show his visitor that there is no need for Israel to act.

2.  The exercise is intended to convey the same message to Iran, that the US military option is real and genuine and will be exercised unless it halts its nuclear weapons program. The awesome might the US-led  coalition is capable of wielding against the Islamic Republic in a prospective war will be brought home to Iran’s military strategists, its Revolutionary Guards, Navy, and Air Force commanders, across their television screens, radar and spy satellites.

3. The drill will assemble massive strength on the spot in anticipation of an Israeli decision after all to cut down the Iranian nuclear menace on its own..

The Netanyahu government found further grounds for going it alone in certain key amendments inimical to Israel introduced in the new Democratic Party’s platform on the Middle East. It is due for endorsement by the convention in Charlotte, N.C. Wednesday, ahead of Obama’s confirmation as the party’s presidential nominee. Those amendments are hardly designed to revive Israel's trust in the president's Middle East policies.

The 2008 platform confirmed a “commitment which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge in the Middle East for its national security and its right to self-defense.”  The 2012 platform is amended to “[t]he administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region,” with no commitment to doing so in the future.

The Democratic platform has also dropped the Democrats’ affirmation of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, leaving its status open for a negotiated peace with the Palestinians.

Also removed is the statement that Palestinian “refugees” should be settled in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel.”  The Obama White House has given itself a free hand to follow the Palestinian position on the refugee issue.

The new platform omits language characterizing Hamas as a terrorist group.

The Israeli cabinet held a wide-ranging debate Tuesday, Sept. 4, on Iran after hearing briefings from the Military Intelligence, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the Foreign Ministry’s Research Department on current Middle East crises, topped by Iran.  No bulletins were issued from the closed, classified proceedings.

Some of the participants described the information put before them as “worrying though not frightening.” They implied that the IDF’s level of preparations and alert has not been reduced, sharply refuting the misinformation opponents of direct Israeli action against Iran have circulated widely and planted in media headlines.

2a)Netanyahu, complaining of leaks, ends Iran meeting

'Someone severely damaged trust that Israel's citizens put in security cabinet,' PM claims

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu abruptly ended a meeting of Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday, saying someone in the forum betrayed the national trust by leaking details of its top-secret discussions on Iran.

Citing an unnamed source who had taken part in the security cabinet's first session on Tuesday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper reported that Israel's intelligence agencies gave the 14-member group conflicting views on Iran's nuclear program. 

"The security of the state and of its citizens depends on the ability to have confidential and in-depth discussions in the security cabinet ... someone severely damaged the trust that Israel's citizens put in this forum," Netanyahu told the group, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

He mentioned no names or whether he had ordered an investigation into the leak.

"I have a responsibility toward the citizens of Israel and the security of the state, and therefore I am breaking up this meeting," Netanyahu said.

Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's biggest-selling newspaper, had quoted an unnamed participant in the security cabinet's discussions a day earlier as saying: "We heard detailed, disturbing and very troubling information regarding the progress of Iran's nuclear program."

According to an official who spoke with Ynet, "Iranians are relentlessly pursuing nuclear activities and they're not slowing down. They are holding their own vis-à-vis the international pressure, but on the other hand, they're not running wild." 

No date was announced for the group to reconvene to continue to hear an annual intelligence assessment from Israel's military and security chiefs.

Israel and Western powers believe Iran is working toward developing atomic weapons. Tehran denies seeking the bomb.

Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence. Recent rhetoric by Israeli leaders on the possibility of a go-it-alone attack on Iranian nuclear facilities has stoked international concern

Any decision to go to war against Iran would, by Israeli law, require the approval of the security cabinet. One government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said no such decisions had been on the table at Tuesday's meeting.

"It was a pre-scheduled discussion of the annual intelligence estimate. There was a lot of time given to the matter of Iran, but no vote on any operational plans," the official said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)‘2016: Obama’s  America ’ shocks film industry after becoming a box office success despite having virtually no promotional budget 

Conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned.

By Ethan Sacks 

2016TheMovie

Scene from Dinesh D'Souza's '2016: Obama's America 2016.'

While pundits and critics are divided over whether "2016: Obama's  America " is a sobering documentary examining "the most mysterious  U.S.  president in modern history" or an 87-minute attack ad, there's no debating that the film is a box office phenomenon.

Taking a page from his own book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned. With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in  Houston  to 1747 screens this weekend.

"People see the success and they think we have the marketing budget of 'Dark Knight Rises,' we probably don't even have the catering budget of the 'Dark Knight,'" co-director John Sullivan, who helped craft the promotional plan, told the News.

So they had to rely on the choir preaching to an even bigger choir. Sullivan says ahead of the film's mid-July opening at the Edward Houston Marq'E Stadium 23 & IMAX, local right-wing radio host Michael Berry championed the film with an all-out publicity blitz on his show.

Roughly 200 movie-goers were turned away from the sold out shows that weekend, a theater manager told the Hollywood Reporter.

From there, the film opened in three additional Houston-area theaters, then a handful of other cities in the reddest of states. It helped that by the time it jumped onto 1,071 screens last weekend, it didn't have to go toe-to-toe with Batman or  Iron   Man.

"This is a case of good timing," says Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com. "If it would have come out even two weeks earlier, it would have been swamped by the big blockbusters."Despite the clearly partisan image surrounding the film, Mark Joseph, whose firm MJM Entertainment is handling marketing of the film, insists the ticket-buyers aren't all coming from one side of the great political divide.

"The producers did some testing early on that yielded some surprising and counterintuitive results: it played very well among non-whites and independents," said Joseph by email. "There was speculation that that could be because Dinesh is himself a native of  India  and the high marks from independents were because he rejects birtherism and gives no quarter to the suggestion that the President isn't a Christian."

"The Passion of The Christ audience was roughly half very devout and half not so devout," says Joseph. "The latter wanted to see what the fuss was about.

"But it's clear this film taps into Republican dissatisfaction with President Obama - not unlike the rage Democrats felt in 2004 that Michael Moore tapped with "Fahrenheit 9/11."We knew this would be a word-of-mouth movie, because we knew we didn't have the marketing budget that say a  Paramount  or a Sony would have," said Sullivan.

"Yes, we don't have any stars, but we have a recognizable figure at the heart of this movie - President Obama - so from that standpoint you have almost 100% name recognition."

3a)CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie"

The Right Politics

This past week, “2016: The Movie” about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see.

While some talk show hosts sounded like they were genuinely impressed with the documentary and honestly endorsing the film, there were those who were obviously reading a commercial script which was not coming across as sincere to the regular listener – at least not to this often-skeptical listener. Perhaps, in future promotions of the film, it would be wise to have pre-recorded commercials done by the professional commercial-makers rather than having the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity doing script after script to promote the movie. After all, the listeners aren’t stupid and resent any attempt at being conned. After many reads by the talk show hosts, the readings of the commercial script were no more enthusiastic than another Life-Lock commercial read – another commercial that ought to be professionally done.

Yet, I’m glad I saw the hyped-film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nation’s trust in him with the Oval Office.

To watch this movie and realize – or simply be reminded of – all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romney’s taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current President’s past? The man influences the entire globe, but liberal Americans want to know how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes in the past rather than learn about the man who they have entrusted with the country. Unbelievable.

The movie undeniably links Obama to persons of suspicious-interest due to their past actions and statements, such as former radical activist and Chicago educator Bill Ayers. While the media and blinded-liberals cast such facts aside, the movie does not. No, this portion of the movie is not propaganda – it is the display of factual information about relationships between people that cannot be denied. Yet, the “left” does deny the facts that are right in front of them.

Quite disturbing is the talk of the United States economy in the film. The current national debt which has increased two-fold during Obama’s presidency and the horrendous economy is suggested to be part of the plan to strip the nation of democracy – reasonable cause to make citizens totally dependent on the government. The “left” is aghast at this suggestion of the current economy. They actually believe that Obama is unintelligent enough to let this economy just happen. Ironically, it’s many of the people on the “right” who know Obama’s not stupid, and much of what has happened to the United States in the past four years is part of Obama’s plan.

How could one so-highly educated and intelligent as Obama not know what he was doing when he incurred such debt? I left the movie thinking more strongly than I had in the past that the current debt and this economy was part of Obama’s plan all along. Increasingly making Americans dependent on the government is the plan. What’s more, he knew his blind followers would believe it was not the plan and, of course, was all Bush’s fault.

He must be laughing at his blind followers all the way to the “new America” they’re allowing him to create. My belief is that Obama continues to prey on his die-hard followers’ stupidity to accomplish his personal goals for America.

The most disturbing part of the film to me was the interview with President Obama’s half-brother George Obama from Nairobi, Kenya. How can Obama claim to want to help people when he has done absolutely nothing for his own family? It makes me wonder if he really cares about anybody if he can’t find it in his heart to help his own family.

As the closing credits started to role upward across the screen, the audience applauded. Me, I just walked out – reasonably upset.

Those who have already decided to vote for Obama will probably not even see the movie. It’s sad but they probably don’t want to know the truth when it is laid out so clearly for them in this documentary. The independents who are still deciding who they are going to vote for ought to see this film. I’m quite confident that any undecided voter who sees this film will know who to vote for after viewing this documentary. If you know you’re not going to support the “left” in this coming election, see the film out of interest if you like. But, fair warning, it’s disturbing – and quite frightening – to say the least.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)A Dagger in Jerusalem

Editorial of The New York Sun

What an illuminating moment on CBS This Morning, as Senator Schumer puts a dagger through the heart (to use his favorite expression) of Jerusalem. He is being interviewed on the decision of the Democratic Party to remove from its platform this year language it had four years ago asserting that Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. He is asked why the step was taken. Mr. Schumer dodges the question by asserting that “everyone knows” the “vast, overwhelming majority” of Democrats are for Jerusalem being the undivided capital of Israel. He calls it a “tempest in a teapot.” He then confesses he doesn’t know why it’s no longer in the party platform.

Charlie Rose doesn’t let him off, asking him several times what is the president’s position. Mr. Schumer tries another dodge, saying the president is for a “very, very strong” Israel. But what is the president’s position on Jerusalem as the capital? persists Mr. Rose. Mr. Schumer tries to get Mr. Rose to believe that Mr. Schumer doesn’t know the president’s position. Mr. Rose will have none of it. “You know what his position is, don’t you,” he says. “No, I don’t,” Mr. Schumer claims. “You don’t know?” Mr. Rose asks in disbelief.  “You’ve never asked him to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?” Says Mr. Schumer: “I’ve always assumed . . . “ Mr. Rose is still voicing incredulity at the end of the clip.

Mr. Rose’s instinct to dig in there is a nifty bit of newspapering. For at the end of Mr. Schumer’s career he is going to be set down as one of the Democrats who let this issue slip away, at least in his generation. This happened in the mid-1990s, when the Congress — animated by both Republicans (Senator Dole) and Democrats (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) — was crafting what became the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. Mr. Schumer vowed that the Congress would see that the embassy was moved within a year. At the last minute, though, the Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein and with the concurrence of Senator Schumer, wrote into the law a waiver.

That is why Prime Minister Begin used to say that the question of Jerusalem should not be decided in the United States Congress. It is how State Department has been able to maneuver successive presidents of both parties to dodge American law on Jerusalem. The fact is that the Democratic Party does not want to bow to American law on this question. It wants to defer Jerusalem to final status negotiations. Mr. Schumer doesn’t want to admit his own culpability. He just chuckles about how he has always been a strong supporter of Jerusalem and of Israel. The significance of the CBS broadcast this morning is that the journalistic elite isn’t buying it. Mr. Rose and his CBS colleagues may not be dug in one way or another on Jerusalem, but they are dug in on getting straight answers from politicians, and they know the way Mr. Schumer is squirming at the change in the party platform belies a change in policy for which Mr. Schumer doesn’t want to answer.