Thursday, August 31, 2017

From Gipper to Ripper! Obama's Israel Legacy: I Gave You Big Gloves, Now Use Them. Being Logical.Safe Labor Day.

Identity politics: from Gipper to Ripper!. (See 1 below.)
Obama's legacy for Israel.  I gave you big gloves now go use them. (See 2 below.)
We could try being logical and see how that works:
Off on a Disney Cruise.  Have a safe Labor Day.

Just returned from the Disney Cruise and the only and best word I can think to describe it is "Wholesome."

The food was more like cuisine, the wait staff excellent, the entertainment Broadway class, ship big but clean and  most everything accessible.  Our stateroom was comfortable and attendant very responsive.  It was a delight to see families having fun with their kids and the kids enjoying  the focus on them atmosphere.

The Dream holds around 2500 passengers and the crew numbers about 1500 from 50 different countries.

The cost of a three night cruise is on the high side but it was well worth it.

If you have grandchildren and have not done a Disney Cruise, I urge you to consider one.  There is plenty to do for adults and the kids are totally entertained and absorbed.

Until we docked I listened only to The Alabama Game and The U.S Open.  No news.

The next several memos will be devoted to the best of what I have received.

1) Identity Politics Are Tearing America Apart

Political leaders should focus on the common good. Floodwaters and rotting bridges don’t discriminate.

By James A. Baker III and Andrew Young

The two of us have seen this before: a critical point in U.S. history, when political, social and economic upheavals have left too many Americans battling one another rather than working together to build a better country. We lived through the Great Depression, when men armed with bats and clubs went to the streets in violent attempts to resolve labor differences. We also experienced the civil unrest of the 1960s, when inner cities burned with the heat of racial division and authorities killed innocent students peacefully protesting a war.
Somehow, the drumbeat of dissonance seems harsher today. America’s national ideal of “e pluribus unum”—out of many, one—threatens to become a hollow slogan. Jaded Americans are constantly confronted by a deluge of animus from their televisions and smartphones. The U.S. finds itself increasingly divided along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual identity. Countless demagogues stand ready to exploit those differences. When a sports reporter of Asian heritage is removed from his assignment because his name is close to that of a Confederate army general, political correctness has gone too far. Identity politics practiced by both major political parties is eroding a core principle that Americans are, first and foremost, Americans.
The divisions in society are real. So are national legacies of injustice. All can and must be addressed. Those who preach hatred should be called out for their odious beliefs. But even as extremism is condemned, Americans of good will need to keep up lines of civil, constructive conversation.

The country faces a stark choice. Its citizens can continue screaming at each other, sometimes over largely symbolic issues. Or they can again do what the citizens of this country have done best in the past—work together on the real problems that confront everyone.

Both of us have been at the center of heated disputes in this country and around the world. And there’s one thing we’ve learned over the decades: You achieve peace by talking, not yelling. The best way to resolve an argument is to find common ground.

We encourage Congress and the White House to take this approach in the fall. First, they should raise the debt ceiling and fund the government. There is no benefit to shutting down the government simply because one side does not get all it wants from the legislative process. A government shutdown would only fortify most people’s dissatisfaction with a federal government they (often correctly) believe doesn’t work for them. And it would only breed more debilitating cynicism.

We hope that leaders in Washington will also focus on infrastructure projects that can help the U.S. keep pace with its global competitors, particularly China. Floodwaters don’t distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. Nor do rotting bridges discriminate between whites and blacks. This is an important and easy area to emphasize common interests. Political leaders should prioritize and provide tangible policies that benefit Americans. They are long overdue.

We also encourage Washington to focus with laserlike intensity on the federal tax code, which handcuffs American businesses. This country needs to find politically palatable ways to streamline that code and bring corporate taxes in line with those of other countries. As a way to protect the debate from becoming a battle over whose ox gets gored, Congress should make any tax reform revenue-neutral. Legislation should also encourage investors to bring their money back into the U.S., where it can be put into civic projects that improve America.

Congress and the president must do more than just act on these pressing issues. They also need to set an example to all Americans. We understand that politics is a contact sport, but leaders in Washington need to restrain their rhetoric and practice the lost art of compromise. They should stop pandering to the worst in us and appeal instead to what President Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century French diplomat who identified strengths in the American experiment, admired the resiliency of the system the Founding Fathers devised. He wrote in the first volume of “Democracy in America” that “the greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

America has many faults that must be repaired—from a failed health-care system to a military that needs upgrading. Americans must, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during a 1965 commencement address for Oberlin College, learn to live together as brothers and sisters. Or, we will perish together as fools. We are convinced that the vast majority of Americans would like leaders in Washington to remember King’s advice when they return to work after Labor Day.

Mr. Baker served as U.S. secretary of the Treasury (1985-88) and state (1989-92). Mr. Young served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1977-79) and mayor of Atlanta (1982-90).
2)The New York Post

By Jonathan S. Tobin

There are some mistakes for which the world never seems to stop paying.
When the United States chose to let Syria slide into chaos while simultaneously seeking to end the isolation of Iran with a nuclear deal, President Barack Obama thought he was avoiding trouble and giving Iran a chance to “get right with the world.”
But it turns out those blunders are still paying dividends for Iran, creating new dangers in the Middle East and threatening the hopes of the Trump administration. That was made clear this week when Yehya al-Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, announced in Gaza that the terror group had reconciled with Iran.
Prior to the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Iran was Hamas’ main source of money and weapons and helped the terror group transform Gaza into a fortress bristling with rockets and missiles that rained terror on Israeli towns and cities.
But the alliance between the two broke up during the Syrian war as Iran backed the Assad regime and Hamas backed Sunni rebels.
Experts told us that the split was an inevitable result of the differences between the Sunnis of Hamas and Iranian Shiites. But while that may be a common divide in the Muslim world, it took a US president with the vanity to believe his illusions were more important than the facts on the ground — Obama — to bring them back together.
Though Obama repeatedly called for Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, he did nothing to aid those trying to make it a reality, especially when a little help would have gone a long way. He ultimately stood by as Russia and Iran intervened to save Assad.
By backing down on his “red line” warning on the use of chemical weapons and then punting responsibility for that issue to Russia (which allowed Assad to continue using them), Obama also ensured that Syria would become a land bridge between Tehran and its Hezbollah auxiliaries in Lebanon.
Obama thought intervention would have been an obstacle to his hopes for a rapprochement with Tehran. Nor did he let Iran’s refusal to give up its nuclear program stop his push for a deal that vastly enriched the regime while only delaying its quest for a nuclear weapon.
The result: Iran is stronger and bolder than ever and building weapons factories in Lebanon and Syria. By reconciling with Hamas, it has the capacity to create what might be a three-front war against the Jewish state whenever it chooses to heat up the conflict. With Iran behind it, Hamas, which has already re-armed and re-fortified Gaza since its 2014 war with Israel, is not only better able to re-start hostilities but also now more of a threat to its Fatah rivals in the West Bank.
What does that mean for the United States?
As we saw last week when his adviser/son-in-law Jared Kushner visited the region, President Trump still harbors hopes of brokering the “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians that eluded his predecessors.
The administration continues to believe that the shared fears of Iran that caused Arab states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to make common cause with Israel will enable them to pressure the Palestinians to make peace. But as the Temple Mount crisis proved this summer, it’s the Palestinians who have the ability to push them away from the Israelis.
And with Hamas back in its pocket, Iran has the ability to veto peace with the Jewish state they still vow to eliminate.
What can Trump do? The options are limited but he must begin by realizing that sticking to Obama’s decision to let the Russians and Iranians have Syria is a mistake. The same applies to listening to those who have so far persuaded him not to start the process of rolling back the nuclear deal.
Trump will probably never get the Middle East peace deal he wants. But doubling down on Obama’s mistakes will only increase the risks of more Middle Eastern wars that he wishes to avoid.
The Iran-Hamas reunion is a warning that policies that strengthen Russia and its Iranian allies are blunders Israel and the West will keep paying for in blood and treasure.

Jonathan S. Tobin is opinion editor of and a contributing writer for National Review.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Welfare More An Indictment Than A Solution. Reece Is Right. More Crap From Berkeley Mayor. The Art of The Squeal.

I believe there is much to commend Jim Reece's LTE.  We have allowed the pendulum of guilt to swing too far considering the tremendous strides we have made in recognizing the mistakes of the past and efforts to rectify.

There comes a point where one must accept some responsibility for their own plight and they cannot forever use the past as an excuse.

I have always believed increased intermarriage will be a part solution as we learn most all aspire to the same things. However, until this happens,  it is incumbent upon America's black citizens to alter their behaviour and for white Americans not to succumb to/cower in the face of/allow accusations of racism to drive our every motive and decision.

Black lives do not matter when driven by black hearts and intentions.

Liberals have been highly successful at portraying themselves as more caring when, in fact, hypocrisy is the more appropriate word. Statistics just do not bear out the myriad of progressive programs have been uplifting as claimed. After expending literally trillions of dollars, America's black minority is suffering, their family structure has been destroyed, their dependency upon government has soared and there is little to show by way of measurable achievement.

Something is radically wrong and Reece has exposed, in a few simple paragraphs, the holes in liberalism's solutions.  Welfare is more an indictment than a solution.
If Trump backs down, regarding N Korea, we will have lost the battle and America will no longer be great and/or trusted. Iran will be next to tweak Uncle Sam  and the job will be left to Israel to contain Iran.

China will have learned we will do nothing if they expand in the South China Sea area and are free to threaten Taiwan.  Russia will have learned Trump is a white version of Obama and they will know they can control and expand their influence in the Middle East.

We will have allowed ourselves to become just another Gulliver.

If the art of diplomacy means placing and leaving all our options on the table then we are sunk along with our depleted navy.

The mass media and Congress were opposed to Bush 41 when he said Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait 'would not stand'.  Everyone was ringing their hands and the estimates of casualties mounted. However, the war was over in 100 hours, 30,000 of Iraq's powerful/vaunted troops were killed and 60,000 taken prisoner.  Iraq's entire fleet of tanks were decimated. we controlled the sky but we allowed him to keep his fleet of helicopters. Lamentably, we lost 148 of our very best,,

If Trump and Tillerson continue to feed N Korea and Iranian bullies we will pay the price at a later date and they will be even more powerful.

China and  Russia are watching and they have to be salivating.

Will Trump turn" the art of the deal" into' the art of the squeal?' Stay tuned.(See 1 below.)
I believe in free speech and speakers as long as I can be selective. What crap! (See 2 below.)
There is always a price to pay.  It is inescapable. (See 3 below.)


Nuclear Missiles Over Tokyo

Accepting a nuclear North Korea probably means a nuclear Japan.

The Editorial Board

Residents of northern Japan awoke Tuesday to sirens and cellphone warnings to take cover as a North Korean rocket flew overhead. The intermediate-range missile test will further roil the politics of security in Northeast Asia and is another prod toward Japan acquiring its own nuclear deterrent.

Pyongyang tested long-range missiles over Japan in 1998 and 2009, claiming they were satellite launches. The first shocked Japanese and led to cooperation with the U.S. on theater missile defense. After the second, Tokyo curtailed the North’s funding sources within Japan’s ethnic Korean community. Tuesday’s launch is even more threatening because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies assess that North Korea now has the ability to hit Japan with a miniaturized nuclear warhead mounted on a missile.

Much of Japan is protected by its own missile defenses as well as systems operated by U.S. forces in the region. Japan also recently deployed four Patriot PAC-3 missile-defense batteries to the west of the country, but these didn’t cover the northern island of Hokkaido overflown by Tuesday’s missile.

Japan’s ultimate security is the U.S. defense and nuclear umbrella, with its treaty guarantee that the U.S. will respond if Japan is attacked. But the logic of deterrence depends on having a rational actor as an adversary, and rationality can’t be guaranteed in North Korea. Its recent development of an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. mainland also changes the equation. If North Korea attacked Tokyo and the U.S. responded with an attack on Pyongyang, U.S. cities might then be endangered.

Japanese leaders have long resisted building their own nuclear arsenal, but that could change if they conclude America isn’t reliable in a crisis. Or Japanese may simply decide they can’t have their survival depend on even a faithful ally’s judgment. Some Japanese politicians are already talking about their own nuclear deterrent. And while public opinion currently opposes nuclear weapons, fear could change minds. Japan has enough plutonium from its civilian nuclear reactors for more than 1,000 nuclear warheads, and it has the know-how to build them in months.

This prospect should alarm China, which would suddenly face a nuclear-armed regional rival. The U.S. also has a strong interest in preventing a nuclear Japan, not least because South Korea might soon follow. East Asia would join the Middle East in a new era of nuclear proliferation, with grave risks to world order. This is one reason that acquiescing to a North Korea with nuclear missiles is so dangerous.
Yet this is the line now peddled by former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who says the U.S. must begin “accepting it and trying to cap it or control it.” Having said for eight years that a nuclear North is unacceptable, they now say that President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had better get used to it.

But “control it” how? North Korea has made clear it won’t negotiate away its nuclear program. The U.S. can threaten mutual-assured destruction, but Tuesday’s missile test over Japan shows how North Korea will use its nuclear threat to coerce and divide the U.S. and its allies. Accepting a nuclear North Korea means accepting a far more dangerous world.

Berkeley mayor: I absolutely believe in free speech, but cancel this speaker

Berkeley Mayor Jesse ArreguĂ­n wants Cal to cancel a planned appearance by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos on campus next month.

“I obviously believe in the freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle.
The mayor’s office did not immediately respond Tuesday morning to a request for comment from this news organization. The mayor’s comments come in the wake of clashes Sunday in Berkeley between black-clad anti-fascist protesters known as Antifa and far-right supporters of President Donald Trump. Thirteen people were arrests in the skirmishes that generated headlines across the country.
UC Berkeley, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, has been the focus of controversy in recent months. Yiannopoulos was slated to speak on campus earlier this year, but the school pulled the plug on the talk when his supporters and protesters clashed violently, causing $100,000 in property damage.
by Amy Wax Larry Alexander

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.
The causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.
That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.
Did everyone abide by those precepts? Of course not. There are always rebels — and hypocrites, those who publicly endorse the norms but transgress them. But as the saying goes, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Even the deviants rarely disavowed or openly disparaged the prevailing expectations.
Was everything perfect during the period of bourgeois cultural hegemony? Of course not. There was racial discrimination, limited sex roles, and pockets of anti-Semitism. However, steady improvements for women and minorities were underway even when bourgeois norms reigned. Banishing discrimination and expanding opportunity does not require the demise of bourgeois culture. Quite the opposite: The loss of bourgeois habits seriously impeded the progress of disadvantaged groups. That trend also accelerated the destructive consequences of the growing welfare state, which, by taking over financial support of families, reduced the need for two parents. A strong pro-marriage norm might have blunted this effect. Instead, the number of single parents grew astronomically, producing children more prone to academic failure, addiction, idleness, crime, and poverty.
This cultural script began to break down in the late 1960s. A combination of factors — prosperity, the Pill, the expansion of higher education, and the doubts surrounding the Vietnam War — encouraged an antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal — sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll — that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society. This era saw the beginnings of an identity politics that inverted the color-blind aspirations of civil rights leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. into an obsession with race, ethnicity, gender, and now sexual preference.
And those adults with influence over the culture, for a variety of reasons, abandoned their role as advocates for respectability, civility, and adult values. As a consequence, the counterculture made great headway, particularly among the chattering classes — academics, writers, artists, actors, and journalists — who relished liberation from conventional constraints and turned condemning America and reviewing its crimes into a class marker of virtue and sophistication.
All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.
Would the re-embrace of bourgeois norms by the ordinary Americans who have abandoned them significantly reduce society’s pathologies? There is every reason to believe so. Among those who currently follow the old precepts, regardless of their level of education or affluence, the homicide rate is tiny, opioid addiction is rare, and poverty rates are low. Those who live by the simple rules that most people used to accept may not end up rich or hold elite jobs, but their lives will go far better than they do now. All schools and neighborhoods would be much safer and more pleasant. More students from all walks of life would be educated for constructive employment and democratic participation.
But restoring the hegemony of the bourgeois culture will require the arbiters of culture — the academics, media, and Hollywood — to relinquish multicultural grievance polemics and the preening pretense of defending the downtrodden. Instead of bashing the bourgeois culture, they should return to the 1950s posture of celebrating it.
Amy Wax is the Robert Mundheim professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Larry Alexander is the Warren distinguished professor at the University of San Diego School of Law.


Democrats Support Fraudulent Voting Because It Generally Helps Their Candidates. Take The Options Off The Damn Table. Bolton On Iran Deal.

I am not much on sports though I love to play tennis. So I know very few of these people but I thought their comments were priceless and a dear friend and fellow memo reader, who did play all kind of sports, sent them to me.

Self deprecating humor carries the day. (See 1 below.)
Now this I can relate to because Lynn cringes when I am with our young grandchildren.  (See 2 below.)
Frankly it is inconceivable that anyone believes there is no fraud in our elections.

You know something is fishy when Democrats align against the charge of fraud and questionable registration and over voting. (See 3 below.)
Our President's Day Speaker, Monday, February 19, John Bolton, offers Trump an Iran Deal solution.

Also, every time I hear N Korea launches new missiles and our Sec. of State says all options are on the table I say to myself:  It is time to take them off the damn table and launch them. (See 4 below.)
1)Don Meredith, Dallas Cowboy Quarterback once said: “Coach Tom Landry is such a perfectionist that if he was married to Raquel Welch, he would expect her to cook.”

Harry Neale, professional hockey coach: "Last year we couldn't win at home and we were losing on the road.  My failure as a coach was that I couldn't think of anyplace else to play.”

Reggie Jackson commenting on Tom Seaver: "Blind people come to the ballpark just to listen to him pitch."

Doug Sanders, professional golfer:  "I'm working as hard as I can to get my life and my cash to run out at the same time. If I can just die after lunch Tuesday, everything will be perfect."

Mickey Lolich, Detroit Tigers pitcher:  "All the fat guys watch me and say to their wives, 'See, there's a fat guy doing okay. Bring me another beer.'"

Tommy LaSorda , L A Dodgers manager: "I found out that it's not good to talk about my troubles. Eighty percent of the people who hear them don't care and the other twenty percent are glad I'm having them."

E.J. Holub, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker regarding his 12 knee operations: "My knees look like they lost a knife fight with a midget."

Vic Braden, tennis instructor: "My theory is that if you buy an ice-cream cone and make it hit your mouth, you can learn to play tennis. If you stick it on your forehead, your chances aren't as good.”

Walt Garrison, Dallas Cowboys fullback when asked if Tom Landry ever smiles: "I don't know. I only played there for nine years."

John Breen, Houston Oilers: "We were tipping off our plays. Whenever we broke from the huddle, three backs were laughing and one was pale as a ghost.”

Bum Phillips, New Orleans Saints, after viewing a lopsided loss to the Atlanta Falcons:"The film looks suspiciously like the game itself."

Knute Rockne, when asked why Notre Dame had lost a game: "I won't know until my barber tells me on Monday."

Bill Walton, Portland Trail Blazers:  "I learned a long time ago that 'minor surgery' is when they do the operation on someone else, not you."

George MacIntyre, Vanderbilt football coach surveying the team roster that included 26 freshmen and 25 sophomores: "Our biggest concern this season will be diaper rash."

Rick Venturi, Northwestern football coach: "The only difference between me and General Custer is that I have to watch the films on Sunday."
2)"There was this loving grandfather who always made a special effort to spend time with his son's family on weekends. Every Saturday morning he would take his 5-year-old granddaughter out for a drive in the car for some quality time -- pancakes, ice cream, candy -- just him and his granddaughter.

One particular Saturday, however, he had a terrible cold and could not get out of bed. He knew his granddaughter always looked forward to their drives and would be very disappointed.

Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would take their granddaughter for her weekly drive and breakfast. When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her grandfather who was still in bed.

"Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?" he asked.

"Not really, PaPa, it was boring. We didn’t see a single asshole, queer, piece of shit, horse's ass, tree hugger, socialist left wing prick, blind bastard, dipshit, Muslim camel humper, or son of a bitch anywhere we went!  We just drove around and Grandma smiled at everyone she saw. I really didn't have any fun."
3)Chicago had 14,000 more votes than voters in 2016 general election
by Thomas Lifson

President Trump continues to receive scorn over his assertion last year that vote fraud accounted for Hillary Clinton’s raw vote majority. Democrats and their shills are unanimous in denouncing the “false claims” (The Amazon Washington Post recently called it a “zombie claim.”) When the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was announced, it was denounced as a waste, an attempt to intimidate minorities, and a scheme to violate privacy, which has caused states to refuse to release public data requested by the commission. Its investigator, J. Christian Adams, is being vilified. Even Republicansexpressed reluctance to Politico over the investigation.

Senator Chuck Schumer bizarrely linked vote fraud to Charlottesville.

In the wake of the confrontation in Charlottesville, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for President Trump to disband the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity on Aug. 24. In a Medium post, Schumer said the actions of the commission were “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and a “ruse” designed to “revive the old playbook and disenfranchise minority voters.”

They really, really don’t want anyone looking closely at vote fraud. They claim there is none of any significance.

That must be why this report from Chicago City Wire has been so thoroughly ignored by the mainstream media:

More than 14,000 votes were cast in Chicago during the 2016 general election than there were voters to cast them, based on separate figures released by the Chicago Board of Elections, the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party has reported.

Chris Cleveland told the Chicago Wire that "on a whim," he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the board, which provided him with a list of 1,101,178 people who voted in the general election. An earlier post on the board's website said that 1,115,664 votes had been cast.

“There should be never be more votes than voters,” Cleveland said. “Every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter.”

The party did a breakdown of voting by precinct, and Cleveland said it found an uneven distribution of discrepancies. Fifteen precincts had 100 more ballots cast than voters, while others had fewer votes than voters. 

Judicial Watch is also on the case:

Washington-based Judicial Watch named Illinois among 11 states that have another kind of discrepancy in their voting rolls: The number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens as determined by a review of Census data.

In April, the group sent a notice-of-violation letter along with a threat to sue the 11 states.

Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project and formerly deputy chief of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, said that not maintaining accurate voting rolls violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

“People remember the act as the ‘motor voter’ law because it requires the states to offer voter registration forms with driver license applications,” Popper said. “But what a lot of people forget is that as a compromise for getting the act through, it requires states to maintain accurate voting rolls.”

Judicial Watch identified 26 Illinois counties where voter registration was higher than the number of people eligible to vote, according to Census numbers.

But we can expect that Democrats will continue to dismiss the possibility that vote fraud worked for them on a significant scale. The fact that they resist investigation is telling.
4) How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Although candidate Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Barack Obama's Iran nuclear agreement, his administration has twice decided to remain in the deal. It so certified to Congress, most recently in July, as required by law. Before the second certification, Trump asked repeatedly for alternatives to acquiescing yet again in a policy he clearly abhorred. But no such options were forthcoming, despite “a sharp series of exchanges” between the president and his advisers, as the New York Times and similar press reports characterized it.
Many outside the administration wondered how this was possible: Was Trump in control, or were his advisers? Defining a compelling rationale to exit Obama's failed nuclear deal and elaborating a game plan to do so are quite easy. In fact, Steve Bannon asked me in late July to draw up just such a game plan for the president — the option he didn't have — which I did.
Here it is. It is only five pages long, but like instant coffee, it can be readily expanded to a comprehensive, hundred-page playbook if the administration were to decide to leave the Iran agreement. There is no need to wait for the next certification deadline in October. Trump can and should free America from this execrable deal at the earliest opportunity.
I offer the paper now as a public service, since staff changes at the White House have made presenting it to President Trump impossible. Although he was once kind enough to tell me “come in and see me any time,” those days are now over.
If the president is never to see this option, so be it. But let it never be said that the option didn't exist.

Abrogating the Iran Deal: The Way Forward

I. Background

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.[1] While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America's Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.
Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:
(i) Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;
(ii) Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;
(iii) Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and
(iv) Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –
(I) appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and
(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.
U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.
Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA's vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran's unacceptable behavior around the world.
But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran's ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran's unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.
The Administration's explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran's refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration's decision.
Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.
We must also highlight Iran's unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world's central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

II. Campaign Plan Components

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:
1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran's behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.
3. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

1. Early, quiet consultations with key players
It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran's unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.
This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran's menacing behavior.
The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case
The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration's case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran's violations, but cover the entire range of Iran's continuing unacceptable international behavior.
Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.
A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.
3. Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement
The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.
Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.
After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.
Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.
Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran's actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.
In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran's terrorist activities.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts
The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.
Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran's defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.
The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran's malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:
  • End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;
  • End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;
  • Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;
  • Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
  • Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;
  • Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;
  • Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women's groups;
  • Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

IV. Conclusion

This effort should be the Administration's highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration's justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

A May 17, 2016 meeting between then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Vienna, Austria, to discuss the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”.

[1] Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council's five