Monday, April 17, 2017

Turkey Ducks Out On Democracy. I will Not Obey Your Laws But I Am Entitled To Your Money! Still Palestinian Refugees - Why?

Foster Brooks flew for United and when he came aboard all the passengers fled:


She should have been an accountant:  Think You Have Seen Juggling... Watch This!


Facts are disarming that is why they are increasingly no longer used so go to Prager University and click on "Why are there still Palestinian refugees" and find out the truth. If you are a bleeding heart liberal I dare you.

In due course, the Turks narrowly decided to rid themselves of their former semblance of democratic rule. Obama stated many times Erdogan was his closest friend.  Now we know why.  Erdogan wants to be a dictator. Will their foreign policy change? Does this vote weaken NATO?  Time will tell.
Issues facing our new army. (See 1 below.)
Yesterday, a good friend, fellow memo reader and one of Savannah's outstanding physicians, now retired, stopped by the house to chat.  He wanted my expanded views on what I believe is going on or likely to happen vis a vis Russia and N Korea etc..

I told him I thought it was too early to conclude anything but Trump had sent a clear message in Act 1, that he was no Obama and Putin would not have an easy path anymore to do whatever he chose. That said, I also believe there are many more acts to come but Russia eventually would succumb to the fact that they too are threatened by Islamic terrorism, are financially being bled with their over expansionist foreign policy and would eventually pull back and be a bit more co-operative because it was in their interest to do so.  I also said that being out on a limb with the likes of renegade nations would eventually cause them problems as the world isolated them. Finally, I commended Trump for building a very strong foreign policy team that should reverse the trend of weakness that came to be Obama's approach. With Trump you get a degree of uncertainty but also "big" bursts of clarity.

Like Israel's Oren, I consider Iran to be the biggest threat to world stability and Western cupidity. Iran's growing alliance with Russia simply makes matters more difficult should there come a time when we, Israel and some of our Middle Eastern allies need to intervene.

As for N Korea, I believe we are dealing with an unstable regime, China can be a positive partner and eventually I think "Fat Boy" will be assassinated and replaced by someone China chooses. Maybe a long shot but I believe it would be the simplest way to handle the growing threat presented by this rogue leader.

After the article on China I posted yesterday, I finished other articles in the Spring Edition of The Naval Review and there was one on the rising strength of N Korea's submarine fleet and its ascendancy toward eventually being able to launch underwater missiles carrying nuclear war heads. At present,  N Korea's submarine fleet, numbering about 200, is a major threat to S Korea, is aging but still difficult to detect.

Last, I discussed my views of China's economic position and it is vastly superior to Russia's. However, it too has an over extended debt and solvency issue.  Chinese continue  flooding America by purchasing real estate and are willing to overpay in order to transfer more funds out of China. China remains a Communist dictatorship  and as the wealth of its citizens grows the transition to a less onerous, restrictive government and its ability to transition will be a recurring problem. Whether the country can make it remains a legitimate question. How do you contain a large nation whose population runs in the billions?

This entire opera has many acts to go but  Trump has changed the set scenery for the moment because he is willing to take risks and act.  The problem, as I see it, remains if challenged would he go all the way. It is one thing to un-holster your pistol, take out bullets and load but if your adversary believes you will not pull the trigger how much leverage do you really have?  That is where we are heading and only time will provide the answer. (See 2 below.)
Spicer plays hide and seek. (See 3 below.)


Soros' Civil War.  The new message is I will not abide by your laws but I still demand and am entitled to your money. (See 3a below.)
1)The Army Needs Space
"Today, the Army is the largest user of space in the Department of Defense," said Lt. Gen. James Dickinson, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command commanding general, speaking at a Space Symposium in Colorado. The average Army combat brigade has more than 2,000 pieces of gear that connect to satellites, including communications, targeting and navigation systems, he said.
What to watch: The Army has two priorities. First, it is trying to improve countermeasures and defenses to prevent attacks on satellites. Second, it is drilling soldiers on what to do if satellite communication is lost, like how to use old-fashioned handheld compasses for navigation.
2)Trump’s Art of the China Deal

Will Xi Jinping really help the U.S. contain North Korea?

President Trump is reversing some of his foreign-policy positions, but this should be no great surprise and so far the changes are mainly for the better. Mr. Trump is never going to pursue a consistent geopolitical strategy because he doesn’t think that way. As President he is approaching the world as he does everything else—as a transactional deal maker who wants agreements that he can sell as a security or economic success. Exhibit A is his recent engagement with China over North Korea’s nuclear missile program.
Mr. Trump campaigned last year as the President who would challenge China’s trade practices, naming Beijing a currency manipulator “on day one.” But after the election President Obama advised him to make North Korea’s nuclear advances a priority. Mr. Trump had no problem shifting quickly from threatening China on trade to using trade as a lever to get China to help the U.S. restrain or end North Korea’s nuclear threat.
“Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!” Mr. Trump tweeted on Easter Sunday, explaining why his Treasury Department chose not to slap the manipulator label on China. This policy shift has the added benefit of recognizing that China has been trying for months to prop up its currency, not devalue it for trade advantages.


Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has made a theme of ramping up political pressure on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. The Pentagon sent a carrier group to the East China Sea for maneuvers with the Japanese navy. Mr. Trump tweeted after his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping this month that “I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will!”
H.R. McMaster, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, warned North Korea on Sunday that its “destabilizing” behavior “can’t continue” after the North launched another missile Saturday, albeit a failure that exploded soon after launch. There’s been much media speculation that a U.S. cyber attack helped to scuttle the missile launch. We’d like to think so, though no one in government has confirmed it.
The problem is that so far there’s little evidence that China is changing its policy toward Pyongyang. The case for optimism includes some editorials in Chinese state media criticizing the Kim regime, as well as reports that China has turned back North Korean ships carrying coal exports. The White House also points to China’s decision last week to abstain at the U.N. and not join Russia in vetoing a resolution condemning Syria’s chemical attack.
But none of this deterred Mr. Kim from his Saturday missile test or from a public parade of military hardware and missiles. China’s trade with the North has grown tenfold in the last 15 years, even as China has claimed to support United Nations sanctions to punish Pyongyang. And China has played a double game on the North’s coal exports in the past. (“China’s North Korea Feint,” March 5, 2017.)
China’s official rhetoric toward the North also hasn’t changed, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi telling reporters Friday that “we call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage.”
That’s the usual Chinese formulation blaming the U.S. and the North equally for tensions on the Korean peninsula. China still shows no sign of considering regime change in the North, even to a friendly new dictator who wouldn’t pursue intercontinental nuclear missiles. And it hasn’t shown that it’s willing to enforce sanctions to a degree that would seriously squeeze the North.
Perhaps that will change, as Mr. Trump’s hopeful tweets imply. But China is expert at offering cosmetic concessions while adhering to what it considers its long-term national interests. China’s goal now may be to coax Mr. Trump into the same multinational arms-control dialogue with North Korea that has failed three previous U.S. Presidents.
Mr. Trump’s art of the deal includes keeping adversaries guessing, but eventually China may choose to test how far he is willing to go to stop a Korean nuclear missile. Mr. Trump needs to make clear what he will do if China won’t make a Korean deal
3) During a recent press conference, a reporter with MSNBC hollered from the press corps, "Where is President Trump hiding his tax returns?

Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, astutely responded, "We've found a very secure place that I'm certain they won't be found."

"And just where is that?", said the reporter, sarcastically.

Mr.  Spicer grinned sardonically and said, "They are underneath Obama's college records, his passport application, his immigration status as a student, his funding sources to pay for college, his college records, and his Selective Service registration.

3a)This what George Soros promised if the democrats did not win the election

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.
We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.
That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.
What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.
The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.


No comments: