Friday, July 22, 2016

Consequences For Even Obeying The Law. Bozell Responds. They Did Not Say Throw Away The Key. Donald, Learn To Shut Up After The Sale Is Consummated!

(See 1 below.)                                                            Liberal reaction to Trump's speech. (See 3                                                                                                                            below.)

There are consequences for those who even obey the law much less break the law. (See 1 below.)
Liberals, Democrats have trouble and get myopic when criminal acts are performed by one of their own.

The Repubs said "Lock her up." They did not say throw away the key. (See 2 below.)
From a very dear friend and fellow memo reader: "Good morning Dick. Loved your " take" on Trump this morning. Made so much sense to me. Thanks! G--"
Netanyahu draws a red line for Hezbollah.  Will it turn into Obama's should it be challenged? (See 4 below.)
After a tennis lesson I came home turned on FOX and heard Trump talking to his Cleveland volunteers. Trump was gracious but he talks too much and has a tendency to shoot himself in his foot. The four day Convention was a good one, most of the participants and speeches were good. Trump's kids and wife were charming and effective. He was good but Trump undoes so much of the good by talking too much and allowing his ego to show.  Sad.

Donald, learn to shut up after you have made the sale.Curb your ego. Pence must have been cringing and thinking how did he get himself into this. 
Have a great weekend. Next week is The Democrat's Convention.Should I listen to Hillary. I will restrain myself from thinking her podium should be constructed like  a cell.
1)Phillip Jennings is an investment banker and entrepreneur, retired Marine Corps Captain who flew missions in Vietnam and, after leaving the Marine Corps, flew for Air America in Laos.  He won the Pirate's Alley Faulkner Society short fiction award in 1998.  He has a degree in business administration and is the CEO of Mayfair Capital Partners.  He is the author of two novels and one non-fiction book.

He authored the following article which appeared in the May 26, 2016 edition of USA Today.  It is short and should be required reading for everyone.

 Secretary without honor

When I hear people say Clinton emails don't matter, I remember a young Marine captain who owned up to his career-ruining mistake.

Apologists for Hillary Clinton's alleged criminal mishandling of classified documents say that it doesn't matter, that she really did nothing wrong, or nothing significant.  But the real question is not so much what she did as how she has responded to being found out.

Once during the mid-1960s when I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, I was the air liaison officer for a battalion of Marines aboard 11 ships in the Mediterranean.  As the air officer and a senior captain, I had a rotating responsibility for the nuclear code book, kept in the safe in the operations room of the lead amphibious squadron command ship.  I shared that duty with another captain, a squared away young man, liked by all he commanded and the son of a very high-ranking Marine.

On the day our ships were leaving the Mediterranean, we met the new amphibious squadron near Gibraltar and made preparations to transfer security codes and other sensitive material to the incoming Marine battalion.  The young captain was on duty and went to the operations office to pick up the code book.  He was alone in the office.  He removed the code book and placed it on the desk while closing the safe.  In a rushed moment, he stepped across the passageway to retrieve something he needed from his quarters.  Seconds later, he stepped back into the operations office and found the operations sergeant having just entered, looking down at the code book.

Against all regulations, the code book had been out of the safe and unattended.  It mattered not that it was unattended for only seconds, that the ship was 5 miles at sea, or that it was certain no one unauthorized had seen the code.  The captain could have explained this to the operations sergeant.  He could have told the sergeant that he "would take care of it."  He could have hinted that his high-ranking dad could smooth it over.

But the Marine Corps' values are honor, courage and commitment.  Honor is the bedrock of our character.  The young captain could not ask the sergeant to betray his duty to report the infraction, no matter how small.  Instead, the captain simply said, "Let's go see the colonel."

That captain had wanted to be a Marine officer all of his life.  It was the only career he ever wanted.  When he reported the incident to the colonel, he knew he was jeopardizing his life's dream.  But he did it.

The results went by the book.  The amphibious squadron stood down.  Military couriers flew in from NATO.  The codes were changed all over Europe.  The battalion was a day late in leaving the Mediterranean.  The captain, Leonard F. Chapman III, received a letter of reprimand, damaging his career. He stayed in the corps and died in a tragic accident aboard another ship.

I saw some heroic acts in combat in Vietnam, things that made me proud to be an American and a Marine. But that young captain stood for what makes our corps and our country great.

Clinton is the antithesis of that young captain, someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition.This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy.  It is a question of character - not just hers, but ours.  Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility.  What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign.  But beyond that, her responses to being found out - dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others - indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal.  Those elements reveal her character.  And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.

So Much for 'Unprecedented' Jail Talk 

By Brent Bozell

The Republican National Convention's rowdy chants about Hillary Clinton -- "Lock her up!" -- have caused liberal journalists to get extremely distressed. In its lead editorial on July 21, The Washington Post fulminated that team Trump's "descent from standard red-meat partisanship to unprecedented accusations of criminality displays contempt for the rule of law and a startling disinterest in fact and reason."

That's strong brew. It's too bad for them that it's completely false. Somehow, the Post writers are acting like they were born yesterday, or slept through the last Republican presidency. They've chosen to overlook that their liberal friends in news and entertainment were active participants in an eight-year anti-GOP hatefest.

Take CNN commentator Jack Cafferty, who on Oct. 17, 2005, gushed to Wolf Blitzer about the idea of Karl Rove in prison: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted? ... He might want to get measured for one of those extra-large orange jumpsuits, Wolf, because looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that ... they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."

The legal expert known as Rosie O'Donnell insisted to Geraldo Rivera on April 30, 2005, "This president invaded a sovereign nation in defiance of the UN. He is basically a war criminal. Honestly. He should be tried at The Hague."

And Michael Moore delighted Chris Matthews on July 23, 2007: "Personally, I'd like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House." Matthews inquired: "Do you think they're guilty of war crimes?" Moore replied: "Absolutely. ... I think we need a trial, in this country, where Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would be brought up on charges for causing the deaths of so many people."

Al Franken, now a United States senator, wildly talked of executions for Bushies over the Valerie Plame matter on David Letterman's "Late Show" on Oct. 22, 2005. "You know, George H. W. Bush, the president's father, was the head of the CIA, and he has said that outing a CIA agent is treason." Letterman agreed: "It is treason, yes." Franken added: "And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed."

This being a "civilized" audience in Manhattan, they laughed, and then Franken implied executing President Bush might be a logical follow-up if Rove confessed about higher-ups. "In that case, the president -- and I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting president." Letterman played along in this grisly game. "Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated president?" Franken answered: "No, this will be the closest."

Let's conclude with the one and only Ed Schultz, who, like others in liberal hate radio, specialized in wanting Republicans dead. On his show on May 11, 2009, he begged for Dick Cheney's demise. "Lord, take him to the promised land, will you? I don't even wish the guy goes to hell. I just want to get him the hell out of here." On Feb. 24, 2010, Schultz shouted, "You're damn right Dick Cheney's heart's a political football! We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!"

Dear Washington Post ranters: There's nothing "unprecedented" about calling your opponents criminals or wanting them dead. Liberals have excelled at that rhetoric forever.

Trump and the Unknowable Moment

His speech was neither eloquent nor lofty, but it was powerful.

By Peggy Noonan 

Two headlines on the week, and some speeches.

Donald Trump effectively won the Republican primary in the first week of May, meaning the GOP has had 2½ months to do what it has always done, even under duress, such as in 1964 and 1976: come together. They have not. From day one of the convention it was clear the GOP is a bitterly divided party and not even bothering to hide it.

It failed to unite not because it had poor leadership or the nominee didn’t know how to do it, though both are true. More killingly it failed to unite because it didn’t want to. Everyone’s in his corner. Donald Trump failed to change his style in a way that would have given cover to those who would have, with considerable relief, joined him. On the other hand, anti-Trump forces continued to look down on Mr. Trump’s supporters and grant them nothing in terms of motivation, sincerity, insight.
Most important, though no one in Cleveland was keen to talk about it, there is the split between the base and the top on such huge and fundamental issues as immigration, trade and entitlements. The base came to this convention, which was middle-class and dressed down. The wealthy and connected largely stayed away. You didn’t see them swanning from reception to party to caucus. It spoke volumes. Now and then you remember that snobbery is an actual force in life.

If each side hates the other and believes in different things, how do they come together again?
Connected to that, the second headline, which has to do with the unknowability of the moment we’re in. The shrewdest old political pro, the brightest young delegate, the owlish political journalist—they didn’t know exactly what they were witnessing. Was it the formal start of an epic political disaster? The birth of a new GOP more identified with the struggles of its base? Is 2016 a particular and contained event, or does it mark the beginning of some long-term realignment? As for Mr. Trump, is he a lightning storm that lit things up, caused some damage, will play itself out
and pass? Or is he an earthquake that changed the actual shape of things, the literal lay of the land?
Nobody involved here, nobody watching, knew. I’ve never quite seen such intellectual modesty among people who are usually quick in their eagerness to explain it all to you.

There were a number of good speeches. Donald Trump Jr. was strong and persuasive on Tuesday night. The next morning, at a Wall Street Journal event, he made a better case for his father than his father has. He talked about the forgotten middle American and referred to himself, humorously, as “a Fifth Avenue redneck.” When pressed on how a man as divisive as his father could unify the nation, he answered that one way to unify the country is to see that its people have jobs: “When people are doing well it’s amazing how much unity you’ll get from that.” I had the distinct impression I was listening to a future political candidate.

Mike Pence’s speech was modest, simple and strong. He is going to be a powerful and effective figure in the coming campaign. A longtime staffer told me he was surprised how relaxed the governor was as he prepared. He’d seen him over the years be nervous about smaller, less important speeches. Mr. Pence, the staffer said, told him the reason was that he was completely at peace with his decision to run with Mr. Trump.

Ted Cruz did himself damage. By the end of his tireless campaign for the nomination he was semi-endearing. Wednesday night he resurrected Snaky Ted. He spoke highly of freedom and went after President Obama. Sometimes he half-laughed after speaking a line, as if to say You know this is showbiz, right? It showed an unbecoming detachment. He told the audience not to stay home in November but vote for the right person, then forgot to say who that person might be.

If you can’t endorse, good for you and stay home. That isn’t politics, it’s basic human comportment. If someone you’re certain is awful invites you to a party, you politely decline. You don’t go, walk into the room, and punch your host in the head. Mr. Cruz miscalculated, thinking if he snubbed Trump half the delegates would cheer. Instead almost all booed. He thought the media would laud his courage and integrity. They saw him as wounded and treated him as prey.

When his campaign ended in June, I attended a small dinner in his honor. Mr. Cruz was charming, modest and funny. When we said goodnight I told him I felt, in retrospect, that I hadn’t always been just to him and was glad I’d have a chance to be more generous in the future. Apparently I will need still more time. What a jerk.

Donald Trump’s speech was important. He is a vivid figure and for a year has elicited strong reactions. By now he’s exhausting. We have Trump Fatigue. Also, who doesn’t know how he feels about him? His acceptance speech was an opportunity to break through in a new way and flesh out his purpose. I think he succeeded, though with a certain grimness. He’d probably reply that the times are grim.

We have to assess the true facts of our nation, he said: “We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.” He spoke of “the plain facts that have been edited out of your nightly news,” including the costs of illegal immigration and the victims of economic decline.

He argued that the past eight years of U.S. foreign policy have been disastrous to peace and stability. “But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy.”

Does he want a ban on Muslims? No. “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” This stand has always driven his enemies crazy, and Mr. Trump usually spoke of it sloppily, either deliberately or not. But to most Americans it will sound like simple common sense.

He was frankly populist: “I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. . . . My greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens.” He stands, he asserted, for “the forgotten”—not as their tribune or their leader, but “their voice.”

Cleverly: “My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads, ‘I’m with her.’ I choose to recite a different pledge: ‘I’m with you, the American people.’ ”

It was not an eloquent speech, not lofty, very plain and blunt. It covered a lot of territory and went too long. It had no leavening humor. It is strange to see a New Yorker so uninterested in wit. It was at points too hyped and declarative, and it was sometimes grandiose.

But it was powerful. After reading a copy of the speech leaked in advance by a mischief maker, an anti-Trump conservative intellectual emailed me. “He’s going to win,” he said. The moment at least was not unknowable to him.
4)Netanyahu: If Hezbollah attack, they will get 'iron fist'
Addressing Second Lebanon War anniversary service in Jerusalem,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns that Israel will deal a "powerful response"
if forced to retaliate to aggression, expresses empathy for families of soldiers killed in the war.
Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Tuesday that the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah will face an "iron fist" if it attacks Israel again.

Addressing a memorial service in Jerusalem marking 10 years since the Second Lebanon War, sparked by a cross-border kidnapping attack orchestrated by Hezbollah in July 2006, Netanyahu said that "we are preparing ourselves for any eventuality. If we are forced to respond to aggression, the response will be powerful."

Netanyahu said Israel's monthlong war with Hezbollah was justified to protect Israel from a radical Islamic threat on its doorstep.

"Anyone who thinks that they will find cobwebs here will get an iron fist. Our fighters' willingness to risk their lives is the cornerstone of our security," Netanyahu proclaimed.

"Sometimes we have no choice but to send out our soldiers in order to protect our citizens. Before we embark on any mission, we examine it very closely and diligently, with the utmost responsibility and concern," he added.

Addressing the families that lost loved ones in the 2006 war, Netanyahu expressed empathy, saying, "I know the depth of your never-ending pain. Only you know if and how much you have succeeded in salvaging the ruins of your lives. My heart is with you, and with those struggling to heal from the wounds of the war."

Israeli defense experts now contend that Hezbollah's improved missile arsenal can strike virtually anywhere in the country. They add, however, that the Second Lebanon War established powerful deterrence, which has so far maintained calm.

No comments: