Hillary's Medical Issues. Sowell and West! As I See It!

Our newest married couple Kevin and Andrea (Andy)

Debra and Amy                                                                 Emma and Henry
mother of Kevin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

Dagny, Abby , Lynn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is from a long time friend and fellow memo reader who also is a practicing physician. He served his country honorably in the Army. (See 1 below.)

From a dear friend and fellow memo reader: "Thomas Sowell, an African american scholar "gets it".  Why do minorities continue to vote in "leaders" who keep failed policies  to the detriment of their people? "Success" will only come in those neighborhoods when the kids attain a solid education."
===
Straight talk regarding our nuclear weapons. (See 2 below.)
====
Sowell again. This time on black success.  Does it matter? (See 3 and 3a  below.)
+++
Allen West on our defense. (See 4 below.)

Meanwhile, Obama's plan to buy Iran's friendship has gone astray and actually pushed them closer to Russia.

Once again, Obama's entire strategy has blown up in his face so he releases more terrorists from Gitmo.  As he leaves office, Russia and Iran will be in the cat bird seat vis a vis The Middle East. (See 4a below.)
====
As I see it:

a)  Democrats seem not have cared a great deal regarding America, because  they nominated  a lying crook, a person negligent about protecting our nation's secrets, a person who allowed her office to be used to enrich herself and her husband and a person who did not respond to pleas from Americans under attack, to be their nominee.

b) The Republicans did seem to care about America because they had so many candidates they wound up defeating each other, thus allowing a candidate who has not been a traditional Republican, to become their nominee.

In other words the Democrats programmed their nominee to be nominated and the Republcans allowed the voters to decide their's.

So in the current election we wound up with Hillary versus Donald and neither are seen as qualified to be president for different reasons. Consequently, several other candidates are now vying to become president.

The basic complaints against Trump is that he is not qualified and does not have a suitable temperament whereas, Hillary has experience but questionable personal characteristics..

Trump is not experienced but then who is experienced for the job of president?  Politicians have political backgrounds and those who have served in an administrative position have an edge but this time around "Establishment Types" are just what the public is tired of and wants change.  Hillary has experience, by reason of having been around a long time, but has no accomplishments.  In fact she has failed at virtually every position she has held.

As for temperament, neither have it but Trump is more likely to surround himself with people who do and who have proven records of accomplishments. Certainly Gingrich and Giuliani, Flynn, Pense and Carson have a right to boast and there are others who might become part of a Trump Administration, such as John Bolton, Huckabee etc.

It is increasingly evident, Obama is purposely setting up difficulties for the next president by continuing to pursue failed policies on virtually every level. His foreign policies are in shambles, our military has been weakened to the point that Russia, China, N Korea and Iran believe their challenges will go unanswered.  Domestically, the nation is being rocked by riots and racial discord and our financial situation is worsening along with constant withdrawals on the part of health insurers because Obamacare is a costly failure.

The press and media have proven they too can no longer be trusted for objectivity and the vast majority of Americans have concluded the nation is going in the wrong direction.

This is the current scene I see  and it is not a hopeful or pleasant one. That said I continue to believe Trump will improve as he pursues The White House and still am prone to voting for him because I fear Hillary more than Donald.
+++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Here is my assessment of HRC's affliction, based on that which is public knowledge:

She suffers Photo Induced Focal Motor Seizures following previous cavernous sinus thrombosis secondary to cerebral trauma. There is some risk of progression to a generalized seizure disorder as well as risk of progressive cognitive dysfunction. She is probably medicated with anti-convulsants at present with attendant risks of impairment of cognition. In my opinion, she is unfit for any public office.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Evading the Constitution to Ban Nuclear Tests

The safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons cannot be ensured forever without tests.

By Jon Kyl and Douglas J. Feith 

Barack Obama has done more than any predecessor to increase presidential power and diminish Congress’s constitutional role. He gave the Senate virtually no voice in the Iran nuclear deal and he now plans to undercut the Senate’s treaty-making authority even further. The subject this time is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a 1996 agreement to ban explosive testing of nuclear weapons.

The Senate has already considered and rejected the CTBT. To circumvent Congress, Mr. Obama wants the United Nations to declare nuclear tests illegal. This is an affront to the Constitution and bad nuclear policy.

The United States has not done an explosive nuclear test since 1992. U.S. officials rely on computer simulations to ensure nuclear-weapon safety and reliability. The no-test policy was adopted as a nuclear nonproliferation gesture, in hopes of persuading other countries to similarly restrain themselves. Yet experts worry that the safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons cannot be ensured forever without tests, for there are uncertainties in the relevant chemistry and physics. At some point computer simulations may not provide enough confidence.

Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in a 2008 speech that U.S. nuclear weapons “were designed on the assumption of a limited shelf life.” Because “sensitive parts do not last forever,” he said, the U.S. re-engineers them to extend their lifespan, but “with every adjustment we move further away from the original design that was successfully tested when the weapon was first fielded.” At some point, he warned, it will become “impossible to keep extending the life of our arsenal, especially in light of our testing moratorium.”

Because the U.S. no-test policy is a unilateral measure, any president can change it in the future. If America became a CTBT party, however, that policy would harden into a permanent international legal obligation to refrain from testing.

Negotiated in the 1990s, the CTBT won approval from the U.N. General Assembly in 1996 and President Bill Clinton promptly signed it. He then asked the Senate to ratify.

Senate opponents of the CTBT highlighted a number of flaws. Among the gravest was lack of agreement on what the treaty prohibits. The bipartisan 2009 Perry-Schlesinger commission report summarized the opponents’ case: “The treaty remarkably does not define a nuclear test. In practice this allows different interpretations of its prohibitions and asymmetrical restrictions. The strict U.S. interpretation precludes tests that produce nuclear yield. However, other countries with different interpretations could conduct [low-yield] tests . . . . Apparently Russia and possibly China are conducting low-yield tests.”

Senators also complained that the CTBT isn’t verifiable or enforceable: The Russians, Chinese or others could violate it and the U.S. would not necessarily be able to detect, let alone prove, the violation. Taking effective action to compel compliance would be difficult or even impossible.

Allies and partners around the world have positioned themselves for decades under America’s so-called nuclear umbrella. Rather than create their own nuclear arsenals, they rely on America for their security. This makes America—and the world—safer than if there were numerous nuclear states.

Imagine, however, the following scenario: Technical problems develop in U.S. warheads and responsible scientists say that tests are needed to confirm reliability. If America were legally bound not to test, that would undermine faith in its nuclear umbrella and other countries might decide they need their own nuclear weapons. The CTBT could thus aggravate the very problem of nuclear proliferation that it was created to help solve.

These concerns led the Senate in 1999 to reject the CTBT. The rejection was not close. Instead of receiving the necessary two-thirds majority (67 votes) for approval, the CTBT won 48 votes, while 51 senators voted against it.

Despite this, President Obama wants to make U.S. nuclear tests illegal, and an unprecedented maneuver in the U.N. would allow him to shut the Senate out. Mr. Obama plans to propose a U.N. Security Council resolution declaring that any nuclear test would be an action inconsistent with the CTBT’s “object and purpose.” Under international law, this would make the ban applicable to countries that are merely treaty signatories—that is, those that have signed but not ratified. The U.S. remains in that category even though the Senate voted the treaty down.

Mr. Obama wants to attach the label “illegal” to nuclear testing without the Senate’s advice and consent. This is the way progressive transnational lawyers use courts and multilateral organizations to circumvent legislatures.

A future U.S. president could, in effect, unsign the CTBT, but that doesn’t make it proper for Mr. Obama to abuse international legal mechanisms to inflate his executive power at the expense of the Senate. In this particular presidential election season, it’s especially important to show respect, not contempt, for the Constitution.

Mr. Kyl served three terms as a U.S. senator from Arizona. Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, was undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Does Black Success Matter?
By Thomas Sowell

We keep hearing that "black lives matter," but they seem to matter only when that helps politicians to get votes, or when that slogan helps demagogues demonize the police. The other 99 percent of black lives destroyed by people who are not police do not seem to attract nearly as much attention in the media.

What about black success? Does that matter? Apparently not so much.

We have heard a lot about black students failing to meet academic standards. So you might think that it would be front-page news when some whole ghetto schools not only meet, but exceed, the academic standards of schools in more upscale communities.

There are in fact whole chains of charter schools where black and Hispanic youngsters score well above the national average on tests. There are the KIPP (Knowledge IS Power Program) schools and the Success Academy schools, for example.

Only 39 percent of all students in New York state schools who were tested recently scored at the "proficient" level in math, but 100 percent of the students at the Crown Heights Success Academy school scored at that level in math. Blacks and Hispanics are 90 percent of the students in the Crown Heights Success Academy.
The Success Academy schools in general ranked in the top 2 percent in English and in the top 1 percent in math. Hispanic students in these schools reached the "proficient" level in math nearly twice as often as Hispanic students in the regular public schools. Black students in these Success Academy schools reached the "proficient" level more than twice as often as black students in the regular public schools.

What makes this all the more amazing is that these charter schools are typically located in the same ghettos or barrios where other blacks or Hispanics are failing miserably on the same tests. More than that, successful charter schools are often physically housed in the very same buildings as the unsuccessful public schools.

In other words, minority kids from the same neighborhood, going to school in classes across the hall from each other, or on different floors, are scoring far above average and far below average on the same tests.

If black success was considered half as newsworthy as black failures, such facts would be headline news -- and people who have the real interests of black and other minority students at heart would be asking, "Wow! How can we get more kids into these charter schools?"

Many minority parents have already taken notice. More than 43,000 families are on waiting lists to get their children into charter schools. But admission is by lottery, and far more have to be turned away than can be admitted.

Why? Because the teachers' unions are opposed to charter schools -- and they give big bucks to politicians, who in turn put obstacles and restrictions on the expansion of charter schools. These include politicians like New York's "progressive" mayor Bill de Blasio, who poses as a friend of blacks by denigrating the police, standing alongside Al Sharpton.


3a)

A False Race Narrative In Milwaukee

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN

Over the weekend, the latest incident of a police shooting of an African-American male in Milwaukee produced the usual results: accusations of racism against law enforcement and a riot. But as with a number of other previous incidents—most notoriously the one in Ferguson, Missouri that launched the Black Lives Matter movement—the circumstances in Milwaukee seem to point toward a conclusion that contradicts the narrative about the police we’ve been hearing from both the media and the administration in the last two years. In this case, the shooting victim had a stolen loaded gun on him as the body camera worn by the officer showed.

But, much like the mob that took to the streets of Milwaukee to riot, the facts of the case didn’t seem to matter much to the mainstream media’s coverage of the violence. As this piece in the New York Timesillustrated, that 23-year-old Sylville K. Smith posed a credible threat to the policeman who shot him was a mere detail. It was certainly no bar to a discussion of Milwaukee’s reputation as a deeply segregated city where African-Americans have long alleged that police misconduct was tolerated. Thus, even though what we know of the incident utterly contradicts negative assumptions about what the police did, the upshot of much of the coverage of Milwaukee seems to treat the violence in that city as understandable if not justified.

But if the facts are irrelevant and violence is to be tolerated for the sake of a demonstrably false Black Lives Matter narrative that insists that police are conducting a campaign of indiscriminate murders of black men, then perhaps it is time to ask who is really responsible for the riots like the one we’ve just witnessed in Milwaukee. Is it a history of prejudice or are individuals or groups whose goal is to attack the police regardless of the truth rather than the redress of justified grievances?

The debate about police conduct has generated a necessary recognition that African-Americans face discrimination in ways their white compatriots do not experience. But, as statistics have begun to prove, the routine harassment that has been documented doesn’t necessarily back up the Black Lives Matter claims about shootings or deaths. That doesn’t justify police misconduct that stops short of murder. Yet we also have to recognize that the predominant narrative about cops conducting a racist murder spree is essentially wrong. And it is that story of willful murder that has driven the discussion about police misconduct more than treatises about historic patterns of discrimination or segregation such as those we are hearing now about Milwaukee, now that it can no longer be reasonably alleged that the shooting that served as the spark for the recent riot was unjustified.

But amid the recriminations about what we are told is Milwaukee’s long and bad record on race relations, it must still be said that it is the police who remain in as least as much danger as their supposed habitual victims. The four cops who were injured in the Milwaukee riot must be added to the rising toll of violence against police that has been growing since Ferguson. It should be recalled that the Black Lives Matter narrative began with the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra, which proved to be as much of a lie as the initial rumors about the Milwaukee shooting that led to the violence in the streets there.

As sensible people have long understood one doesn’t have to be a police critic to understand that, like all government officials, cops can abuse the power they have been given. Nor must one be counted among the Black Lives Matter chorus that libels law enforcement officers to agree that this country still has a long way to go when it comes to race and that an essential element to dealing with the problem must start with smarter police work and a crackdown on discriminatory practices.

Yet even as all Americans of goodwill should acknowledge that truth, they must also come to grips with the incredibly destructive role being played in society by those who are manufacturing lies about cops that are leading to violence and destruction. The Black Lives Matter war on cops that has been validated by the Obama administration is hurting African-American communities that need police. Those who have, either wittingly or unwittingly, incited riots or direct violence against police are driving dangerous wedges between law enforcement and minorities that threaten the safety of both groups. The people of Milwaukee do well to consider their history of race problems. But it is the Black Lives Matter race baiters and their enablers in the media and the government who have exploited the situation that bear a heavy burden of responsibility for the unnecessary and entirely counter-productive violence they have helped foment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)

"Providing for the Common Defense, with Common Sense”

By Allen West

This past Monday, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered his speech on national security and his vision to defeat the Islamic State. The speech connected various talking points, but for the professional national security strategist it lacked a clear and focused doctrinal base. Mr. Trump would have been better served to break down the map according to the geographic AORs (areas of responsibility), also referred to as Combatant Commands i.e. CENTCOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and Continental United States (CONUS, or NORTHCOM) and apply the D-I-M-E theory of elements of national power to provide a strategic assessment and vision. The DIME theory stands for “Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic” as the respective centers of gravity and power that a nation can leverage to achieve strategic goals and objectives.

This model could have enabled Mr. Trump to easily and more coherently identify and define the current and emerging threats in those theaters of operation, while articulating the respective means of engagement.

However, there still remains a very pressing issue that neither candidate has seen the need to discuss, or confront: restoring a fiscally responsible defense structure. The Obama administration has horribly decimated our military capability and capacity. The current state is beyond alarming, with manpower strengths reduced to early 20th century levels. While technology is a grand thing, that gap is closing thanks to intellectual property theft, and drones are not a panacea. Every budget dollar in the federal government is not equal, and the most important responsibility of the federal government is to protect our way of life and our national interests. But, how do we accomplish providing for the common defense with common sense?

In December 2010, after my congressional orientation, I was invited to appear on Meet the Press, when David Gregory was still hosting. They presumed to trap me into a discussion about budget cuts knowing I was a retired career military officer. Gregory questioned me on whether the Department of Defense should be under the same budget scrutiny, to which I replied yes. That response and impending discussion resulted in a phone call from incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon. I confided in Chairman McKeon that there is wasteful spending in the DoD. Then, in April 2011, while working with the HASC staff, our office found three simple, common sense DoD programs that could be cut. The amount may seem miniscule, only saving the American taxpayer $35M over ten years, but the measure passed 392-0 on the House floor. Imagine if every member of Congress found three wasteful programs and had removed them from the budget?

In full disclosure, I supported the Budget Control Act of 2011. I actually thought the folks on Capitol Hill wanted to get the fiscal house in order and that the Super Committee would do their job. They did not. And, the “nuclear option” of the sequester kicked in, and it has had horrific consequences on our military.

Instead of this draconian avenue of approach, let me provide some common sense solutions to reduce defense spending and rebuild our military capability.

First, we must reform our defense procurement and acquisition system. This can no longer be focused on jobs in respective congressional districts. We must identify the needs of the warfighter, as articulated by the warfighter, not the defense industry. Once those needs are identified, the systems requirements and specifications must be finalized with measures of effectiveness and firmly agreed upon timelines. If the industry does not meet a timeline, the additional cost is subsumed by them. It is imperative that the DoD demonstrates that it has its act together before issuing an RFP (request for proposal).

Let me give you a simple example of a lack of common sense. The U.S. Army is looking to replace the M9 Beretta 9mm as its sidearm. The Army is spending $17M over the next two years to research and identify the right pistol. They have narrowed the search down to three. Common sense would have looked to senior non-commissioned officers in the Infantry, told them to pick up the latest Guns and Ammo magazine, or take a short drive over to the NRA Headquarters and assess the three best 9mm and .40 caliber pistols on the market. Then go to a firing range for a week and allow some privates to fire them and see if they could break them. End of test.

Second, the bureaucracy of the Department of Defense needs to be cut. I refer to the higher headquarters levels, starting at the Pentagon. We are stupidly cutting into the bone, adversely affecting the men and women we send into harm’s way. As we do so, those that remain and their families bear the brunt of multiple deployments. It is time we ask the hard question: do we need the duplicitous and redundant service Secretariats?

Consider this: current Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning has never served in the military. His previous position was as the Acting Secretary of the Air Force. The current Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, has never served in the military. She was a staffer on the House Armed Services Committee and worked at a major defense contractor, SAIC. The longest sitting Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, served two years in the Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer from 1970-1972. Mabus was a major political donor, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and former Governor of Mississippi. So, the combined military experience of our Service Secretaries is two years. The rest is just defense bureaucracy and politics. The service secretary position has become rooted in political cronyism and nepotism. I understand the need for civilian oversight of our military; that can come from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). To have a completely useless organizational chart and structure replicated at the service level is nonsensical. I think the respective General Officers who make up the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can be trusted to run our branches of the military.

And I have not even discussed the Combatant Command headquarters.

Lastly, no more nation building for our military. The 21st century battlefield calls for a power projection force that is focused on conducting strike operations against the enemy, especially non-state, non-uniform belligerents -- Islamic jihadist groups. Our force must be strong and provide a deterrent capacity across the geographic AORs. Never again should Americans be under siege for 13 hours and abandoned.


4a)

RUSSIAN BOMBERS FLY FROM IRAN TO BOMB SYRIAN MILITANTS FOR 2ND DAY BY REUTERS

MOSCOW - RUSSIAN SU-34 BOMBERS BASED AT IRAN'S HAMADAN AIR BASE ON WEDNESDAY CARRIED OUT STRIKES ON ISLAMIC STATE TARGETS INSIDE SYRIA FOR A SECOND DAY, THE INTERFAX NEWS AGENCY QUOTED RUSSIA'S DEFENSE MINISTRY AS SAYING. THE MINISTRY WAS QUOTED AS SAYING TWO COMMAND POSTS HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND MORE THAN 150 MILITANTS KILLED IN THE STRIKES

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++