Obama Wins. Wish Begets The Thought?

Obama Wins - Our Military Loses!
+++
Prager explains what most fail or do not wish  to believe.  (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama wins! Obama loses! (See 2 and 2a below.)
====
How many faces does Obama have?  (See 3 below.)
===
Sometimes money has a distinct odor.  (See 4 below.)
===
Wish begets the thought? (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Why Private Investment Works & Govt. Investment Doesn't  If most of the projects you invested in either went broke or were plagued by scandal (or both), you’d probably leave investing to the experts, right? So why can’t our government seem to learn the same lesson? In this week’s video, Burton Folsom, author and Professor of History at Hillsdale College, compares the government’s dismal track record of failed publicly-funded projects with similar privately-backed successes. From the building of the transcontinental railroad in the mid-nineteenth century to Solyndra in the first decade of the twenty-first century, Professor Folsom illustrates how government incentives often have the opposite of their intended effect -- discouraging efficiency and encouraging corruption -- while private investors demand fiscal discipline and products that work. Watch the video here and find out why, when it comes to innovation, it’s best when the government stays out of the way.

Click above or here to  watch this video 1a) State Department wants to bring in 1,500 Muslim migrants every month By Robert Spencer What could possibly go wrong? Last February, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees.  And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in  camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have recently come to Europe claiming to be  fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all. So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now the U.S. as well? An Islamic  State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx began,  that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained  their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and  we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate:  “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem  on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.” We are waiting in the  U.S. as well. “State seeks to pick up pace on bringing Syrian refugees to US,” by Kristina Wong, The Hill, April 16,  2016: The State Department is hoping to bring an average of nearly 1,500 Syrian refugees to the United  States per month in order to meet President Obama’s target of settling 10,000 refugees in the country by  September.     About 1,300 refugees have already been placed in the United States since Obama first made the  commitment in September.     That’s far fewer than those taken in by European countries such as Germany, who has dealt with an  unprecedented wave of migrants fleeing Syria’s civil war, as well as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.     Yet the settlement has provoked a significant backlash, mostly from Republicans, who argue it puts the U.S. at risk from terrorism.     “It’s clear that ISIS wants to, has planned on attempting to infiltrate refugee populations. This is a  problem. If one person gets through who is planning a terrorist attack in our country, that’s a problem,”  House Speaker Paul Ryan, who recently returned from a trip to the region, said Thursday.     “The administration — whether it’s Homeland Security or the FBI, cannot tell us that they can  adequately screen people. There isn’t really a Syrian to talk to on that end of the equation to vet people,  so it is a problem,” Ryan told reporters….     State Department officials have also said they are hoping to bring in even more than 10,000 Syrian  refugees this fiscal year, since there is currently a ceiling of 85,000 refugees to the U.S., and it does not  limit them by nationality.     However, the plan to bring in 8,700 more refugees in the next several months will face stiff opposition,  especially if it gains attention in the presidential race….     “What the people of the United States should understand is that our intention is to help the most  vulnerable people and to do it in a way that respects the security of our nation,” Bartlett said. “This  operation is consistent with that goal.” How? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2)OBAMA WINS HIS WAR ON U.S. MILITARY Exclusive: Joseph Farah says president 'has done what no foreign enemy could'   Congratulations are in order for Barack Obama. The American military has never been beaten on the battlefield by any foe in any war. But Obama’s eight-year war on the U.S. military has been a total success. By stripping it  of its resources,  demoralizing its soldiers, sailors and airmen, by purging its best commanders, Obama  has done what no foreign enemy could do in 240 years. He’s destroyed it. That’s the assessment of U.S. military chiefs who testified before Congress last week  and told slack-jawed members they have grave concerns about their ability to fight a war  against any committed enemy – Russia, China, Iran or even North Korea. They openly expressed worries about a lack of resources and training that would be  necessary in any such fight. U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the House Armed Services Committee  hearing that he had deep concerns about the military’s readiness if America was to fight a “great power war”  with China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. Gen. Milley said the Army “is not at the levels that can execute satisfactorily … in terms  of time, cost in terms of casualties or cost in terms of military objectives.” Air Force Secretary Deborah James – who was also speaking at the hearing – said half  of her combat forces were not “sufficiently ready” for fighting against a country like Russia. She said: “Money is helpful for readiness,  but freeing up the time of our people to go and do this training is equally important.” Earlier this month, Air Force officials admitted they were facing a shortage of more than  500 fighter pilots – a gap expected to increase to more than 800 by 2022. Concern over a more assertive Russia was highlighted earlier this month by Air Force  Gen. Philip Breedlove, who branded Russia a “long-term existential threat to the United  States.” “Our ability to meet other regional requirements for major contingency plans, we  would be able to do that, but we probably would not be able to do that in the time frame  that the current plans call for us to arrive to participate in that conflict,” Gen. Robert Neller  testified. The Marines would “surge” in such a fight, Neller said, and “provide the best, ready force  that we can because that’s what you expect from your Marine Corps.” “If that were to happen, I would have grave concerns about the readiness of our force: to  deal with that in a timely manner,” Milley said. “The cost in terms of time, troops and the  ability to accomplish military objectives would be very significant.” Milley added: “The United Sates Army right now, you can take it to the bank, is ready to  fight ISIS, al-Qaida, al-Nusra and any other terrorist group. When we talk about risk,  we’re talking about great-power war with one or two countries: China, Russia, Iran and  North Korea.” “We can collectively roll the dice and say those days will never come, and that’s a course  of action; that is not a course of action I would advise,” Milley said. “There is a high level  of risk associated with those contingencies right now.” The Army, the largest of the armed forces, tackles 46 percent of demand from regional  combatant commands and has suffered the majority of the casualties over the last 15  years, Milley said. The military’s anti-terrorism and counterinsurgency focus of the last 15 years has  shortchanged the Army’s training and preparedness to fight high-end threats, hybrid  threats, enemy artillery and enemy electronic warfare, Milley said. In the Marine Corps, deployment rates are similarly stressing people and equipment,  particularly aviation platforms, which Neller said are undergoing a widespread overhaul.  The service needs to repair old aircraft – an activity that is fully funded in the 2017  budget proposal – and buy new aircraft. Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, touted the rising number of military  aircraft accidents as a symptom of an underfunded military and waning readiness. Both  Neller and Milley said they were concerned by the trend. The Army’s mishap rate rose from 1.52 per 100,000 flight hours in 2014 to 1.99 in 2016,  Thornberry said. The Marine Corps’ mishap rate climbed from an annual average of 2.15  mishaps per 100,000 flying hours of the last 10 years to 3.96 in 2016. The Marine Corps was closely tracking the accidents, but the Marines, Neller said, “don’t  have enough airplanes to meet the training requirements for the entire force.” Sounds serious, right? Did you hear this on ABC, NBC or CBS? How about CNN or Fox News? Did you read  about it in the New York Times or Washington Post? Neither did I. I wonder why? It’s an election year, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the American people know about the purposeful dismantling of the American  military machine? 2a) Obama's Last Chance To Change the Saudi  Arabia Playbook  By Bilal Y. Saab The U.S. can't be the sole guardian of the Gulf forever. It's time to bring in some more friends. There are several reasons why today’s summit in Riyadh has little chance of overhauling the tense U.S.- Gulf partnership, even aside from President Barack Obama publicly calling his Middle Eastern partners  “free-riders” and advising them to “share the region” with bellicose Iran. None is more important than  the U.S. struggle to identify a long-term strategy that reflects our genuine political-military commitment  to our partners and preserves Gulf security. We are struggling in large part because we still haven’t solved an age-old dilemma in the Middle East.  We have partners who seem committed to security cooperation; many of their contributions to  counterterrorism and other security issues have been extremely helpful. But most Middle East states have  vastly under-performed in their efforts to make the political reforms that would be the most critical  enabler of security and stability. As long as this imbalance exists, regional security and collective  interests will continue to be at risk. Yet we have done almost nothing to explore how we might overhaul our own efforts in the region. If our  Gulf partners are guilty of falling short on the issue of reform – and most of them are – we also are guilty  of repeating an outdated Gulf strategy and expecting it to generate different results. Pax Americana in the Gulf is changing and perhaps over. The influence we have enjoyed since Great  Britain withdrew most of its military forces from the region in the early 1970s is gone. Why? It’s no  secret: iron-fisted autocracies, the Internet, generational shifts, regional transformation and chaos  resulting from the Arab uprisings, 40 years of warfare, the Islamic State, and U.S. priorities elsewhere.  We’re now seeing an acceleration of the transition from a Gulf security architecture with almost  exclusive U.S. access and control to a more penetrated system in which the United States is militarily  dominant, but major powers like Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France are more confidently  stepping in, pursuing their self-interests, and assuming more expansive political, economic, and security  roles that either compete with or complement U.S. policies and interests. Obama is right about one thing. We cannot continue to help police the Gulf as we did in the past. We  have to invest in closer consultation and collaboration with NATO allies France and Britain, who have  recently formulated plans to amplify their political-military presence in the region. Paired with strategic  dialogue with adversaries such as Russia and China, that basic multilateral architecture would be more  sustainable. Obama’s top priority at the summit should be consulting with Gulf leaders on this new U.S. strategy.  Riyadh is not the time and place to backslap or bemoan the promises made at last year’s Camp David summit. They must think beyond tactical wish lists and elevate the conversation to strategic levels. The  Arab Gulf states might not show interest in increased and more formal British and French roles in Gulf  security, and might even see this as another sign of a U.S. desire to reduce its regional footprint, but they  will most probably appreciate the United States showing up with big ideas and new thinking. Having traveled extensively to the Gulf region in recent years and met with various senior officials to  discuss relations with the United States and the West, I suspect that most Arab Gulf States would be quite receptive to a deeper involvement of the British and the French under American leadership. Indeed, a  P3+1 model for Gulf security, comprising a forum of the United States, UK, France, and a Gulf party, is likely to be well received by most Arab Gulf capitals. Whether the Gulf would be represented by a  leading state or the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, would be up to the Arab Gulf States to decide.  The UK and France most effectively could work on political-cultural dialogue, capacity building, training,  counterterrorism, joint military exercises, and defense industrial modernization. The sight of American, British, and French forces conducting joint exercises with Arab Gulf militaries  would reassure Gulf partners and send a signal to post-sanctions Iran. Moreover, the group could more  effectively and efficiently address Iran’s successful asymmetric warfare and the threats posed by terrorist  organizations, including ISIS and al-Qaeda. Russia and China would object. But it is worth emphasizing that they do not dispute that the U.S. has a  key role in Gulf security and the Middle East more broadly. They have incentives to preserve and work  within U.S. hegemony in the short and medium term, Russia’s intervention in Syria notwithstanding. No U.S. official in the Pentagon, State Department, or elsewhere would like to see the United States’  strategic influence in the Gulf further wane. But our regional strategy needs a thorough update. The  United States cannot indefinitely secure that region. As one senior U.S. military official recently put it  privately, “the free-rider problem will not go away on its own.” Bilal Y. Saab is senior fellow for Middle East Security with the Atlantic Council's Brent Scowcroft Center  on International Security. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3) United Kingdom Alan Dershowitz: Obama meddles in Brexit but  shuns Netanyahu when he speaks up about Iran By Alan Dershowitz At a joint press conference Friday with Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama defended his intrusion into British politics in taking sides on the controversial and divisive Brexit debate. In an op-ed, Obama came down squarely on the side of Britain remaining in the European Union – a decision I tend to agree with on its merits.  But he was much criticized by the British media and British politicians for  intruding into a debate about the future of Europe and Britain’s role in it.  Obama defended his actions by suggesting that in a democracy, friends should be able to speak their minds,  even when they are visiting another country: “If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances  their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in. Or at  least I want to be able to tell them ‘I think this makes you guys bigger players.'" Nor did he stop at merely giving the British voters unsolicited advice, he also issued a not so veiled threat.   He said that “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue” on trade agreements if they exit the EU. President Obama must either have a short memory or must adhere to Emerson’s dictum that “foolish  consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  Recall how outraged the same President Obama was when the  prime minister of a friendly country, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke his mind about the Iran Deal.  The president owes the American people, and Benjamin Netanyahu, an explanation for his apparent  hypocrisy and inconsistency. There are, of course, differences: first, Israel has a far greater stake in the Iran deal than the United States  has in whatever decision the British voters make about Brexit: and second, Benjamin Netanyahu was  representing the nearly unanimous view of his countrymen, whereas there is no evidence that Americans  favor or oppose Brexit in large numbers.  Another difference, of course, is that Obama was invited to speak by Cameron, whereas, Netanyahu was  essentially disinvited by Obama.  But under our tripartite system of government, that fact is monumentally  irrelevant.  Netanyahu was invited by a co-equal branch of the government, namely Congress, which has equal  authority over foreign policy with the president and equal authority to invite a friendly leader.  Moreover, not  only are the British voters divided over Brexit, but the conservative party itself is deeply divided. Indeed, the leading political figure in opposition to Britain remaining in the EU is a potential successor to  Cameron as leader of the Conservative party.  So these differences certainly don’t explain the inconsistency  between Obama’s interference in British affairs and his criticism of Netanyahu for accepting an invitation  from Congress to express his country’s views on an issue directly affecting its national security. So what is it Mr. President? Should friends speak their minds about controversial issues when visiting  another country, or should they keep their views to themselves? Or is your answer that friends should speak  their minds only when they agree with other friends, but not when they disagree?  Such a view would skew  the market place of ideas beyond recognition.  A wit once observed that “hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.”  It is also the currency of diplomacy  and politics.  That doesn’t make it right. The president owes the American people, and Benjamin Netanyahu, an explanation for his apparent  hypocrisy and inconsistency. Let there be one rule that covers all friends – not one for those with whom you agree and another for those  with whom you disagree.  For me the better rule is open dialogue among friends on all issues of mutual  importance. Under this rule, which President Obama now seems to accept, he should have welcomed Prime  Minister Netanyahu’s advocacy before Congress, instead of condemning it. Alan Dershowitz is emeritus professor at Harvard and author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law." Apr 24 at 10:30 PM Message body ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4) The Anti-Israel Money  Trail Pro-Palestinian campus activists have some ‘very smelly’  financial supporters. By BRET STEPHENS Earlier this month, Harvard law student Husam El-Quolaq posed a question at a public conference to Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister. “How  is it that you are so smelly?” Mr. El-Quolaq wanted to know. “It’s regarding  your odor—about the odor of Tzipi Livni, very smelly.” Harvard went out of its way to try to keep the questioner’s identity a secret,  including by deleting the comment from its video of the event—a privilege,  one suspects, the school would not have afforded a student asking a similar  question of a black speaker. And Mr. El-Quolaq, who is active in a Harvard  affiliate of Students for Justice in Palestine, or SJP, later offered an  anonymous apology “to anyone who felt offended.” Yet the exchange is another reminder of the anti-Israel, and increasingly anti- Semitic, environment students now experience on American campuses.  That’s the doing of several groups, including some nominally Jewish ones.  But none is so prominent as SJP, which has more than 100 chapters  nationwide and has been canny in pairing itself with left-wing or minority  student organizations to sponsor anti-Israel events, heckle pro-Israel  speakers, and agitate for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)  resolutions on campus. SJP’s self-declared goal is to end Israel’s “occupation and colonization of all  Arab lands” while “promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to  their homes.” That’s another way of saying destroying the Jewish state. Yet as prominent as SJP and the wider BDS movement have become, less is  known about the sources of their funding. That changed last week after  testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Jonathan Schanzer of  the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Schanzer, a former Treasury Department official and terrorism-finance  expert, notes in his testimony that a prominent backer of SJP and like-minded groups is an organization called American Muslims for Palestine, based in Palos Hills, Ill., and led by UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, who  also happens to be one of SJP’s founders. AMP claimed to have spent  $100,000 on anti-Israel campus activities in 2014, including to SJP. An AMP  conference that year at a Chicago Hyatt invited participants to “come and  navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.” FDD discovered that many of AMP’s leading members were previously active  in some dubious former charities. The most prominent, the Texas-based Holy  Land Foundation For Relief and Development, was shut down in 2001 by the  federal government for providing millions in funds to the Palestinian terrorist  group Hamas; five Holy Land officials eventually were convicted to prison  terms and two others fled the country. Today, AMP’s leaders include at least three Holy Land alumni. One of them is  Milwaukee furniture salesman Salah Sarsour, who last year told Al Jazeera  that an AMP conference he chaired “aims to keep up with and support the  Palestinian people’s continuous intifada.” According to a November 2001 FBI report, Mr. Sarsour’s brother Jamil  confessed in 1998 to Israeli officials that “some of the members of the Islamic  Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and his brothers Salah and Imad are  involved in raising money in the name of HLFRD that is actually for Hamas.”  Mr. Sarsour spent time in Israeli prison for Hamas-related activities but has  not been charged with a crime in the U.S. He did not return calls for comment. Then there is the Islamic Association for Palestine, which in 2004 was found  civilly liable in federal court for supporting Hamas and was disbanded in 2010.  At least four former IAP senior leaders are currently active in AMP, including  its national policy director, Osama Abu Irshaid. In a phone interview, Mr. Abu Irshaid insisted that “IAP has nothing to do with  AMP” and dismissed claims that IAP had ties to Hamas as “definitely  baseless,” at least as far as he knew. “I can only testify to what I experienced,” he added carefully. But the verdict in the Holy Land case noted donation checks from the early  1990s that “were made payable to the IAP but deposited into HLF’s bank  account and on which the donors had written on the memo line ‘for  Palestinian Mujahideen only.’ ” The court also described IAP as a “media  entity” created by Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader who in 1995  was named a “specially designated terrorist” by the Treasury Department. On Monday, I spoke to Mr. Bazian and asked him to address Mr. Schanzer’s  specific claims. “This is about silencing any person or any group that speaks  about Palestine,” he said, accusing Mr. Schanzer and the House Foreign  Relations Committee of giving “McCarthyism a new lease on life.” As for the  past ties of AMP’s leaders, he dismissed it as “guilt by association.” Mr. Schanzer stressed in his testimony that FDD “had seen no evidence of  illicit activity” by AMP, including raising money for foreign causes. And even  unindicted co-conspirators in terror-sponsoring organizations have rights,  including to assembly and speech. Still, it’s worth thinking about who these people are and the politics they  support. As Judge Richard Posner wrote in his 2008 decision upholding the  judgment against IAP, “Anyone who knowingly contributes to the nonviolent  wing of an organization that he knows to engage in terrorism is knowingly  contributing to the organization’s terrorist activities.” As Husam El-Quolaq might say, “very smelly.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5)A number of conservative politicos have predicted that scores of FBI agents could revolt  if their investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server finds overwhelming evidence  of criminal wrongdoing and the Justice Department refuses to indict her. According to their  theories, not only could there be mass resignations, including that FBI Director James  Comey, but there could also be major leaks of unauthorized FBI investigative materials to  the public. On Friday morning, a powerful sitting senator also suggested that the FBI may leak  reports of its investigation if the agency believes prosecution of Clinton was thwarted for  political reasons. During a breakfast meeting with the Des Moines A.M. Rotary club, U.S. Sen. Chuck  Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "If there’s political  interference, then I assume that somebody in the FBI is going to leak these reports and it’s either going to have an effect politically or it’s going to lead to prosecution if there’s  enough evidence.” Grassley went on to acknowledge that it would be a crime to release  such investigative materials. “I wouldn’t be encouraging it because if it’s a violation of law,  I can’t be encouraging a violation of law,” he said. “This is kind of my own opinion, this is  something I’ve heard.” On Monday morning, Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano told Maria Bartiromo that while it was "highly unusual" for a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to anticipate such  an FBI leak, he agreed with Grassley's take. "He would not be surprised if FBI agents who truly believe that there is enough  evidence to indict Mrs. Clinton and to convict her on both the email charge and the public  corruption charge, will feel frustrated and stymied by the political people in the Justice  Department and will want the public to know what they know," he said. "If that class of  people -- it would be more than one person -- leaks information to the press, I agree with  Senator Grassley, if there is a leak, and if what is leaked is credible... the president could  have a Saturday night massacre/Watergate-style disaster on his hands in the last  six months of his presidency." This would not just spell trouble for the Clinton campaign, but for the entire Democratic  Party as the party faithful fumble around trying to defend their"crooked" nominee. "I don't know what Grassley knows, but I do know that it is generally known in Washington  that the same team of FBI agents who investigated and led to the prosecution of General  Petraeus, is investigating Mrs. Clinton. And many on that team believe that General  Petraeus got a slap on the wrist, and because the evidence in Mrs. Clinton's case is  exponentially greater, they do not want to see this happen again," Napolitano said. As for Comey's timetable for wrapping up the investigation, Napolitano said that "no one  knows what his deadline is. Last October, he led us to believe January. In January, he led  us to believe May." The Fox Business panel agreed that it was unfair to the American  people for this investigation to drag on and on with no deadline. "We do know that they're nearing the end of their investigation," Napolitano said. "And  we know it because they have called in her five closest aides....And the last step in this  investigation will be to invite Mrs. Clinton in. She says she can't wait to talk to them --  probably not true. Nobody being investigated by the FBI can't wait to talk to them!" Judge Napolitano argued that Clinton is in a lose/lose situation on this front. She can go  in and speak to the FBI, which is "the politically safe thing to do" but also "legally  treacherous for her." If she doesn't go in, she incriminates herself by not cooperating with  the investigation. Hillary Clinton continues to maintain that she is not under criminal investigation, characterizing the FBI probe as just one of many "security reviews" that are being  conducted. But Napolitano said on Fox News' America's Newsroom Monday that "this is about as  serious an investigation as there could be.... The FBI does not do security assessments,  the State Department does. The FBI does criminal investigations." He said on Friday that he believes the FBI has more than enough evidence to indict and  convict Clinton. “The evidence of her guilt is overwhelming,” Judge Napolitano stated. “And the FBI  knows a lot more about it than I do.” He said he is “100-percent certain” that the FBI has  enough evidence to indict and convict. Whether she is indicted or not, Hillary faces a catastrophe, Napolitano says. "Probably so  catastrophic that she will be replaced on the Democratic ticket." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++