===
Another take on anti-Semitism as Jackie Mason speaks out along with Jack Engelhard ! (See 2 and 2a below.)
But then, even Jews, particularly the ones who work for The New York Times, can be subtle yet, anti-Semitic. (See 2b below.)
===
Outstanding: http://www.youtube.com/embed/
===
As I noted in my last memo. Obama just hates saying war even when he is engaged in one.
Consequently, any strategy he devises I am likely to distrust.
Americans are an action people and they elected a "verba non acta" talk no action president. Thus, their decision has created a mis-match between their nature and what they are getting.
Obama talks the talk but does not walk the walk unless on the golf course and then he probably rides in a cart! (See 3 below.)
and,
you may have seen this before but worth reposting.
I have run this by a friend who also was on the Presidential Detail and served several of these presidents and his, off the record, comments dovetailed. (See 3a below.)
===
Another two reasons to vote against Michelle Nunn and thus Harry Reid.
Hers is getting to be a campaign of nasty slurs and falsehoods. (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
Is Dubai doing something right? https://www.youtube.com/embed/
===
Oh well her husband thought we had more states than we do. (See 5 below.)
===
This from a classical pianist friend and also professor of music at Armstrong University.
Ben is not a fellow memo reader because I do not send him mine. Ben is into music not politics. (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Kissinger: Iran Is a Bigger Threat for U.S. Than ISIS
Iran is a larger problem for the United States than the threat of the Islamic State's jihadist aggression, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger maintained in an NPR interview Saturday.
"I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran," Kissinger told NPR's Scott Simon, explaining that Iran is a powerful nation with incentive to reconstruct its historical ancient Persian Empire while ISIS "is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology."
"There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut," said Kissinger, secretary of state to late Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. "This gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label — in the rebuilding of the Middle East that will inevitably have to take place when the new international borders [are] drawn. The borders of the settlement of 1919-'20 are essentially collapsing."
ISIS, in comparison, still has a way to go before it poses the threat that Iran does, said Kissinger, as "they have to conquer more and more territory before they can become a strategic, permanent reality."
The former secretary, who gives a historical perspective of world affairs and events in his new book "World Order," said ISIS does, however, present a significant threat that will need addressed.
"They have cut the throat of an American on television," said Kissinger. "This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American."
After that, he said, the United States needs to "go into the long-range problem.
"I think when we are dealing with a unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they can lead us by establishing ground forces," Kissinger told NPR. "But we should set strategic objectives where we thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be able to do by superior air power."
And if the United States can enlist other countries in its fight against ISIS, or get "other more local groups to do the ground fighting, we might actually destroy them."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Three things are certain: Death, taxes and anti-Semitism
Why is anti-Semitism so popular and prevalent all over the world? Why does it continue, unchecked despite the horrors of 70 years ago? People who care about the fate of the Jews are always searching for subtle, indefinable reasons to explain the continuing intensity of anti- Jewish hostility and hatred. The answer is far from mysterious.
As a matter of fact, the truth is so obvious that you'd have to be brainless not to see it. My honest view is that as Jews we do little if anything to fight back against such prejudice. Everyone knows that whatever the crime committed against any Jew, the only price you'll pay will be the price of the ride to the crime scene and back. Then, instead of blaming the criminals, Jews will get involved in an orgy of self-reproach and guilt. And after blaming themselves, they'll start blaming each other. Somebody will be screaming, "It's your own fault! Why would you be walking in front of a mosque at 2 a.m.," and the other one will argue, "Why would I think they would recognize that I am Jewish," and another voice yells, "At least you could've been smart enough to wear sneakers!" Then somebody says, "Let's report this to the police," while somebody else is saying, "Are you crazy? What if they find out we reported it? Do you want to get us all killed? Right now they don't know who we are. Let's just get out of the neighborhood!"
It's because anti-Semites are aware that these are the typical reactions of Jews to any violence committed against them, that they feel free to launch their attacks whenever they please. Is it any accident that in Britain and Europe you hear about a rising tide of anti-Jewish attacks, but you rarely hear about the same thing against Muslims? (I know that even right now, you the reader are trembling in fear of what I might write about the Muslims.)
And the sad truth about Israel is that its very existence serves as either a cloak or a spur for such bigotry. While I defend anyone's right to censure the Israeli government, the fact is that too often such criticism is either a coded means of attacking Jews or it has the unintended consequence of feeding and encouraging anti-Semitism.
Take the British MP Ms Clare Short who in the House of Commons attacked Israelis as vicious racists, when the only crime she could think of is that the country still exists - which she seems to consider an offense to human decency? What right do they have to try to live in peace with the Arabs and constantly thwart every attempt of the Palestinian suicide bombers to annihilate their whole population, she seemed to ask? She claimed that the Jews in Israel practice an even more egregious form of apartheid than that which existed in South Africa. Why does she call it "apartheid", when every Arab has equal access in every school, to every job, every health-care service, and every unemployment benefit? Currently, they even hold office in the Israeli parliament and every other branch of the Israeli government.
Is Ms Short so ignorant that she doesn't know that none of these opportunities would be granted to any Jew living in an Arab nation? Besides, how would a Jew be able to achieve any of these same opportunities when in most cases, it wouldn't even be safe for a Jew to live there? My point is that when people like Ms Short attack Israel in such unbalanced, irrational and extreme terms, they simply give licence to thousands of anti-Semites to pedal the kind of bigotry and hatred from which Jews have suffered for so many hundreds of years.
But Ms Short is aware, as are anti-Semites all over the world, that you suffer few consequences by attacking Jews, particularly if you do so under the cover of attacking Israel. If people really thought that Jews could represent any kind of risk, they would cower before expressing such hostility, as they now do with Muslims. When was the last time that an Englishman made a hateful speech against Muslims? Not that I'd approve of that, on the contrary - but people are so fearful of Muslims that there're even afraid to say "hello" without apologising. British and American people are now begging forgiveness from Muslims for things they don't even remember doing.
And don't get me started on Mr. George Galloway, who makes Clare Short look like Simon Wiesenthal. Mr Galloway is yet another person who attacks Israel while making nice with terrorists, dictators and some of the most vicious anti-Semites on the planet. And all of this he does while claiming, of course, that it's Zionists he hates and not Jews — he has even gone so far as to suggest that the Zionist movement funded Hitler before World War Two — in fact he has described Israel as a "little Hitler state". And if you think I'm over-reacting to this champion of the oppressed, bear in mind that this is someone who was actually kicked out of Egypt for being too extreme - so what does that tell you? But once again we see hostility to Israel being used as a blanket prejudice, a blunt instrument with which to attack Jews (remember that such bigots also describe Israel as "the Jewish State") in place of any reasoned criticism of the Israeli government who — just like any other government — cannot be exempt from censure or disapproval.
The point is this: when you criticise an Israeli administration, you express views (rightly or wrongly) about the policies of a particular party or group of politicians. When you attack Israel, you express hostility towards an entire population, a nation whose founding and continuing purpose is to provide sanctuary to one of the most oppressed peoples in the history of mankind. Of course, if you don't think they should be given such sanctuary then that's another matter - but bear in mind that you'll find yourself in the good company of a host of despots and tyrants.
However, Ms Short and Mr Galloway are by no means alone. Take one of our former Presidents, Harry Truman. Jews still wax lyrical about his love for the Jewish people. Whenever two Jews get together and mention Truman, out comes the story of his Jewish business partner, Eddie Jacobson. What they forget is that Truman actually found Jews distasteful and he treated his partner with utter disdain. At no time more so than when Mr Jacobson pleaded with his former associate, by now the US President, to recognise the State of Israel. Truman's reaction does not bear repeating on the pages of a family newspaper.
As reprehensible, if not worse, was another of our recent Presidents - Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the height of Hitler's atrocities many Jews died needlessly because Roosevelt totally ignored their plight and, in some cases, even helped Hitler along by refusing to open up our borders, thus sending thousands back to their deaths in the camps. Was this born out of anti-Semitism? Or plain indifference? In the end, is there any distinction?
And just the other day the US Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, came awfully close to finding anti-Semitism excusable in some circumstances. Calling modern Muslim hatred of Jews a "different phenomenon" from other kinds of anti-Semitism, New Yorker Mr Gutman declared: "It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem." And this coming from the son of a holocaust survivor; but of course instead of firing him, Mr Obama remained mute. And as a result, whether by design or just by plain stupid omission our President has given a quiet thumbs up that "it's ok to dislike Israel." Unfortunately as America goes, so goes the world -Mr Obama could take a few lessons from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. But sadly, as the Haggadah says, "in every generation one rises up to destroy us".
Unlike the Jews of Britain, who spend much of their time trying to blend into the background, Muslims spend much of the time making demands and warning the people that they better be careful to respect them, be concerned how loud they talk to them, and not to criticize them. You also dare not paint the wrong cartoon, sing the wrong song, write the wrong book, look the wrong way, or even laugh without an explanation. The Jews will never survive if they don't learn a great lesson from the power of the Muslim people.
If this world had the same fear of offending Jews as it has of offending Muslims, the attacks on the Jews would never have existed. Outside Israel, people never feel threatened when attacking a Jew because he's a little guy with glasses carrying a briefcase, and in case of an attack, he won't pull out a gun, he'll take out a fountain pen. He won't be ready to shoot the attacker; he'll be busy looking for a piece of paper to write his name down. The attacker always knows that when his victim is a Jew, he won't get hit or hurt. The Jew won't fight. He'll cry, beg, scream or run. The attacker knows he can't lose life or limb because the victim can't fight; he's only preparing to sue. As I say, this applies to the Jews outside of Israel. If we in the Diaspora continue to follow this pattern of traditional helplessness, instead of emulating the Israelis, who are ready to fight and survive at any price, we will continued to be hounded by anti-Semitism for the rest of our lives. This is how we must behave — we must stand up and be counted, we must show how proud we are to identify with a people surrounded by nations who are committed to their destruction. Even if it infuriates this yenta, the Right Honourable Ms Clare Short, the great humanitarian Mr Galloway and the brilliant historian Mr Ambassador Gutman. It invariably takes more courage to stand up against prejudice that than to join in with it, but is it too much to ask that our leaders display such courage from time to time?
And by the way, in case you think that - despite everything I'm saying - the battle has been won and that Israel is no longer needed to fulfil its historic purpose, take a look at what is happening in Hungary right now. Respected public figures — newspaper editors and journalists, judges, political commentators, human rights campaigners (a number of them Jews) — are being removed in favour of members belonging to the ruling, extreme right-wing party. Only last week the Director of Hungary's National Theatre was thrown out by the government and replaced with an actor who recently campaigned for the right-wing extremist, ant-Semitic Jobbik Party and a playwright who is a professed anti-Semite. And if that doesn't sound horribly familiar and frighten the hell out of you, it should do.
But in spite of all that, consider this: If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one per cent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
Good question. And no, these aren't my words, they were written in 1897, by another American, the great Mark Twain.-
2a)Op-Ed: Hurry While There Is Still Time To Be Anti-Semitic
To be an anti-Semite must be wonderful, a truly wonderful life. Hating the Jewish people answers everything.
2a)Op-Ed: Hurry While There Is Still Time To Be Anti-Semitic
Anti-Semites, Jewish ones in particular, enjoy it while you can.
By Jack Engelhard
To be an anti-Semite must be wonderful, a truly wonderful life. Hating the Jewish people answers everything.
What a terrific shortcut to whatever troubles you. You’re stopped for drunk driving? Do what Mel Gibson did. Blame the Jews.
Your talentless career is on freefall and you need something to keep your name in the news? Do the Russell Brand shtick and blast away against Israel.
You’re a fading rock star with nothing left to sing, join the Boycott movement, as did Rogers Waters to win new fans.
You’re a failed president who needs to make amends, do the Jimmy Carter shuffle and dance with the people who brought on 9/11.
Nobody pays attention to anything you say because you’re a proven fool, do like Geraldo Rivera and give terrorists every benefit of the doubt.
You’re a Jewish comedian who needs to show the campus crowd that he is not TOO Jewish, take it from Jon Stewart that Israel is always open to defamatory wisecracks.
You’re part of the crowd that marches on campus and around the world shouting, “Jews to the gas” – okay.
Well enjoy yourself while you can. It’s getting late, for as Satchel Paige warned, “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”
Sure enough, while your attention has been so totally focused on Israel, guess who’s been gaining?
Guess who is really taking over the world?
Those massacres and beadings that keep happening country to country have two words in common – Radical Islam. Twist this any way you can, too bad, Israel does not figure into this except as being the first country in a life and death struggle against Jihad – the first country, but not the only country.
No, the entire universe is at stake. Israel is purely on defense, as is the United States, as is Europe, as is the entire Middle East, which is losing ground by the hour against ISIS or whatever it calls itself, this latest manifestation of barbarism and mindless savagery. We are all losing ground.
Or haven’t you noticed, so busy with Israel.
Even back in 2007 I warned, “The Koran has arrived and it has come to devour the Bible.” (You will find this in the soon to be re-released “The Bathsheba Deadline.”)
Then too you were too preoccupied.
But now, surely you’ve noticed that one group of butchers is bent on destroying another, perhaps lesser group of butchers.
They are killing their own people.
You think they won’t be coming after you?
Hating the Jewish people is becoming a luxury that is fast losing its charm. So enjoy your anti-Semitism while you still can.
But one morning you will wake up to find that…OMG…all this time you picked on the wrong people.
Might be too late and too bad.
Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. New from the novelist, the anti-BDS thrillerCompulsive. Website: www.jackengelhard.com
2b) Roger Cohen Drifting to Wrong Conclusions
By Honest Reporting
New York Times columnist Roger Cohen asks if the conflict in Gaza was necessary. He doesn’t think so. It was a “war of choice” and Israel simply chose badly.
Cohen starts with the story of three Israeli youths who were abducted and murdered near Hebron. He writes that Prime Minister Netanyahu used this event to further his own agenda:
The prime minister’s aim was to discredit Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, for reconciling with Hamas; vindicate the collapse of the peace talks Secretary of State John Kerry had pursued; stir up Israeli rage over the fate of the teenagers; sweep through the West Bank arresting hundreds of suspected Hamas members, including 58 released under the terms of an earlier deal with Hamas; and consolidate divide-and-rule.
Cohen makes the accusation that evidence that the youths were dead was purposefully concealed to whip Israelis into a “war frenzy.”
This was the context in which a Palestinian teenager was killed by Israeli extremists. It was also the context of the drift to war: air campaign, Hamas rockets and tunnel raids, Israeli ground invasion. Drift is the operative word.
But in describing the origins of the conflict as such, Cohen makes a huge error. Over the last few years, there have been terrorist attacks and Israeli responses. But what made this event into a military campaign was that Israel was attacked by a massive barrage of rockets fired from Gaza. Israel did not launch any military operations in Gaza immediately after the kidnapping. The Israeli response was to search frantically to find out what happened to the youths and to arrest members of Hamas. This is hardly surprising since soon after the youths were abducted, Israel obtained confessions from members of Hamas about the crime.
This was no “drift to war.” There was an effort to solve a brutal crime and bring those responsible to justice. Should all the evidence about the kidnapping have been released to the public? Debatable, but the decision to keep certain information pertaining to the investigation from the public did not whip Israelis into a “war frenzy. ” The retaliation by thugs against a Palestinian teenager was condemned throughout Israel and stands as a criminal aberration. It was not part of any sort of military campaign.
Unlike Cohen’s ordering of subsequent events, the correct sequence was:
- Hamas rockets launched against dozens of Israeli cities,
- an Israeli air campaign against rocket launchers,
- Hamas tunnel raids into Israel, and then,
- the Israeli ground campaign.
Such an order doesn’t fit Cohen’s narrative. He believes that Israel had a choice and that the “mini-war” was not necessary. It was the result of a “drift to war” that was Israel’s objective in the first place.
If any nation comes under military attack (and after all, rocket launches deep into the heart of Israel was a military attack), response is absolutely necessary. Otherwise your citizens become nothing more than walking targets. Terrorist attacks against three Israelis and an Arab did not constitute acts of war. But launching missiles on Israeli cities did.
It’s too bad that Roger Cohen fails to understand that sometimes you have no choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) War by Any Other Name
The President tries to avoid the 'W' word as he heads back to Iraq.
American aircraft expanded their bombing in Iraq on the weekend, targeting Islamic State fighters in the Sunni heartland to protect the Haditha Dam northwest of Baghdad. Meanwhile, President Obama says he'll make his case to the American public this week for expanding U.S. military involvement in Iraq and perhaps Syria. But whatever else he says, he won't call it a war.
"On Wednesday I'll make a speech and describe what our game plan's going to be going forward," Mr. Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But this is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war. What this is is similar to the kinds of counterterrorism campaigns that we've been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years."
Associated Press
So counterterrorism isn't war, even if it already involves more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel inside Iraq. And even if the bombing that Mr. Obama claims is limited to protecting minorities and U.S. personnel has now been extended to protect key Iraqi assets. Islamic State fighters certainly think they're at war with America, which is why they're beheading U.S. journalists in YouTube videos.
Perhaps Mr. Obama believes he has to engage in this rhetorical evasion because he's the President who campaigned to end the Iraq war in 2008; told Americans in 2012 that the "tide of war is receding" because he had withdrawn all U.S. forces from Iraq; and who refused to aid the moderate Muslims fighting the Assad regime in Syria. But the reality is that the tide of war is now rising precisely because his abdications allowed the Islamic State to became the main opposition to Assad and then to move east into the Sunni areas of Iraq.
It's good that Mr. Obama is finally recognizing the threat to the region and the U.S. from Islamic State, but it's important that he tell the truth about what he's asking Americans to support. His intervention may not be on the scale of the initial Iraq invasion, and fewer American troops may be needed.
But air power alone won't defeat the jihadist army, and so some U.S. forces will have to be deployed "on the ground." One lesson of the 2007 Iraq surge is that while the help of local Sunni sheikhs is crucial, U.S. special forces are essential to targeting insurgency leaders and enclaves. American soldiers will be putting their lives on the line.
We hope Mr. Obama's political desire not to admit his mistakes in the past doesn't lead to a military strategy now that is inadequate to the task of defeating Islamic State.
3a) Secrets of the Secret Service - what Kessler thinks of the presidents he served
3a) Secrets of the Secret Service - what Kessler thinks of the presidents he served
Interesting snippets from Ronald Kessler's book about our presidents.
JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY
A philanderer of the highest order.
She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine during a state dinner, mixed it with fresh wine and served again during the next White House occasion.
LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON
Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs and both had set up early warning systems to alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both were promiscuous and oversexed men.
She was either naive or just pretended to not know about her husband's many liaisons.
RICHARD & PAT NIXON
A moral man but very odd, weird, paranoid. He had a horrible relationship with his family and was almost a recluse.
She was quiet most of the time.
SPIRO AGNEW
Nice, decent man. Everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall.
GERALD & BETTY FORD
A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor.She drank a lot!
JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER
A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private, e.g., would be shown carrying his own luggage but the suitcases were always empty. He kept empty ones just for photo ops. He wanted people to see him as pious and a non-drinker but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service and was very irresponsible with the "football" with nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.
She mostly did her own thing.
RONALD & NANCY REAGAN
The real deal, moral, honest, respectful and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor, thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. One favorite story was early in his Presidency when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President?" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase.
She was very nice but very protective of the President and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what he ate. He would say to the agent, "Come on, you gotta help me out." The Reagans drank wine during state dinners and special occasions only otherwise they shunned alcohol. The Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during family dinner. For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagans were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.
GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH
Extremely kind and considerate, always respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents' comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals. One time she brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport . One was given a warm hat and, when he tried to say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, the President said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady. Put the hat on." He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.
She ruled the house and spoke her mind.
BILL & HILLARY CLINTON
Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy. He was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows about his sexuality.
She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another who felt people were there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.
ALBERT GORE
An egotistical ass who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his son that he needed to do better in school or he would end up like these guys, pointing to the agents.
GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH
The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically in shape who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood that they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.
She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest. She never had any harsh word to say about anyone.
BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA
Clinton all over again - hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning. He looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you but turns around and does the opposite. He has temper tantrums.
She is a complete bitch who basically hates anybody who is not black, hates the military and looks at the Secret Service as servants.
A true story about Gen McChrystal's resignation in Obama's office; worth reading from Gen McChrystal's book!
NEVER STAND IN LINE AGAIN (Gen. Stanley McChrystal)Some men carry and handle their diplomacy better than others........
When former U.S. Military commander in Afghanistan , Stanley McChrystal, was called into the Oval Office by Barack Obama, he knew things weren't going to go well when the President accused him of not supporting him in his political role as President."It's not my job to support you as a politician, Mr. President, it's my job to support you as Commander-in-Chief," McChrystal replied, and he handed Obama his resignation.Not satisfied with accepting McChrystal's resignation the President made a cheap parting shot. "I bet when I die you'll be happy to pee on my grave."The General saluted. "Mr. President, I always told myself after leaving the Army I'd never stand in line again."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment
When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.
THEODORE B. OLSON
Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don't really mean it.
Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.
This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution's Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid's gambit won't survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against "money in politics" and Supreme Court justices they don't like.Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to "restore democracy to the American people" by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). InCitizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.
The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court's decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs.
Incidentally, President Obama's complaint in his 2010 State of the Union address thatCitizens United "reversed a century of law" was false. The court preserved the architecture of the campaign-finance laws but overturned an anomalous 1990 decision inAustin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (and its progeny) that would have permitted statutory limits on corporate speech to help level, or equalize, the playing field in election campaigns. Even the Obama administration was unwilling to defend Austin's rationale in briefs to the court, presumably because it would warrant all manner of government thumbs on the scale regarding election rhetoric, possibly even imposing handicaps to balance the advantage of incumbency.
It is also a canard that Citizens United permits organizations, as Mr. Reid claimed in May, to "dump unseemly amounts of money into a shadowy political organization." The court explicitly left untouched the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties. Citizens United also upheld disclosure requirements, the very opposite of shadowy.
McCutcheon struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political-action committees combined. Mr. Reid's denunciation of McCutcheon in April because "all it does is take away people's rights" is preposterous. People's rights to participate broadly in the political process are enhanced, not taken away, by the court's ruling. McCutcheondid not overturn the limits on how much individuals can give to a particular politician's campaign, which remains at $2,600 per federal election.
The critics also ignore that Citizens United and McCutcheon make it easier for the unions on which the Democrats rely to spend money on elections. Unions outspent businesses by more than 2 to 1 in 2013. If money corrupts, then one would expect Mr. Reid and his colleagues to condemn the "corrupt" influence of unions in politics. And these Democrats presumably would brand liberal billionaire Tom Steyer's pledge to commit his political-action committee to spend $100 million to defeat Republicans in 2014 as especially corrupting—but Mr. Reid has instead welcomed the support.
Democrats claim that the Supreme Court has made politicians and political parties less accountable by encouraging donations involving outside interest groups. Outside of what? Democrat fundraising circles? Their actual fear is that less traditional candidates—including outsiders—will have the funding necessary to challenge incumbents in primaries without the blessing of party elders.
It hardly enhances democracy to pine for the days when candidates were chosen by party bosses in secret, rather than by voters presented with candidates expressing a range of political viewpoints. If Democrats are concerned about the vitality of political parties when contending with outside groups, then Democrats should embraceMcCutcheon, which enables citizens to increase contributions to parties.
"In the entire history of the Constitution," the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, "we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution."
Let's all pay attention to Kennedy's words and drop this foolishness.
Mr. Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and successfully argued the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court.
4a) Here's the report from Factcheck:
The ad claims that “8,000 jobs were lost.” It’s true that almost that many were lost when Pillowtex finally announced on July 31, 2003, that it would cease operations and liquidate. According to a 2003 Charlotte Observer investigative story, the number was actually 7,650. That was the biggest mass layoff in North Carolina’s history, to be sure. But it happened months after Perdue had moved on to head Dollar General. Furthermore, the Observer story says Perdue found the company was worse off than he had been told when he agreed to take the job. Among other things, he discovered an estimated $41 million in unfunded pension liabilities that the company didn’t have the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Harvard educated First Lady Michelle Obama reminded attendees of a naturalization ceremony Wednesday that the Founding Fathers weren't born in America. The ceremony for 50 new U.S. citizens was held at the National Archives in Washington, D.C
---6) Dear friends,
5) Harvard educated First Lady Michelle Obama reminded attendees of a naturalization ceremony Wednesday that the Founding Fathers weren't born in America. The ceremony for 50 new U.S. citizens was held at the National Archives in Washington, D.C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She said during her speech, referring to the Declaration of Independence, "It's amazing that just a few feet from here where I'm standing are the signatures of the 56 Founders who put their names on a Declaration that changed the course of history, and like the 50 of you, none of them were born American - they became American."
Did she actually mean that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and participated in the drafting of the Constitution were not born in America? Benjamin Franklin was born in Pennsylvania and Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison were born in Virginia. John Adams was born in Massachusetts. Surely she knows this, but maybe not.
After all, she is a Harvard graduate. ...............................................Incredible!!
---6) Dear friends,
I am pleased to announce Armstrong State University’s second season of the concert series, Piano in the Arts. Our season begins on Friday, September 26 at 8pm. All of the concerts will be on the Armstrong campus in the Auditorium of Fine Arts Building, 11935 Abercorn Street.
We are so excited to have FIVE sponsors for the 2014-15 season!
Gaslight Group
Byrd’s Famous Cookies
Georgia Public Broadcasting
Springhill Suites by Marriott
Savannah Philharmonic (discounted tickets SPO member subscribers)
Attached is a flyer and brochure with more information about the concerts— call 912-344-2801 or visit the box office online to purchase your tickets:
This season will feature dynamic musicians ranging from classical piano and jazz trio, to vocal Lieder and songs by George Gershwin, Johnny Mercer, Claude Debussy, and more.
Join us for first-rate performances of great music in Armstrong’s beautiful concert hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment