Ducking Responsibility A Lucrative D.C Endeavor. Trump Has Burned Many Intellectual Bridges - Less Are Willing To Walk With Him. Iran Deal Remains A Disaster.

This was sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/shifting-attitudes-among-democrats-have-big-implications-for-2020/2017/10/07/a1741398-aae1-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

I believe being anti-Trump alone will not carry the day for Democrats who have moved very far left as a party. Democrats have done nothing positive and have been total obstructionists.  As for  Republicans, they too have accomplished nothing and are in a position of control so they too have backed themselves into a corner.

There is still much that can happen between now and the 2018 elections.

Meanwhile, Trump, has proven to be a totally different president than any we have had.  He has endured a mostly negative press, has attacked many within his own party who oppose him as well as those who have been anti-Trump and come from all walks of life. Some of his own Cabinet members seem in conflict with his stated goals and aspirations/promises on which he campaigned.  He is anything but an articulate speaker and his use of the social media, via Tweeting, has been disruptive and given his opponents fertile fruit to throw at him and to claim he is unhinged etc.

All of that said, if one looks at what Trump wants to accomplish and the many things he actually has done, which are not easily visible, but are positive if you believe rolling back Obama's strangulation is good in order to bring America back economically.

Finally, if you are in the camp of wanting to accept the fact that America's days, as a great power, are over, if you believe allowing Russia, China, Islamist terrorists, N Korea, Iran  should be allowed to intimidate us, to bully us and that deciding who is allowed to become an American citizen is not something our nation should control then Trump is the wrong man. If you believe states like California have the right to defy the laws of our federal system of governance and can become sanctuary states then you certainly cannot favor Trump.  Finally, if you believe the president has no right to call attention to and comment about those who express contempt for our nation while benefiting from rights which protect their protests then Trump is not your man.

As for myself, I find Trump a unique mixture and a complex person who is not easy to discern in an objective manner because there is so much I find distasteful but also so much with which I am in agreement. I am a traditionalist and that makes me a radical in the eyes of those who have taken over the Democrat Party and who hate our country and capitalism. Yet, their reasoning is not supported by logic and/or common sense. I believe  America remains the world's best hope and our very existence is threatened by those against whom we must stand.  I also believe, unless the schism that grips our political system ends and we arrest our runaway spending etc. ,our ability to right the ship of state will fall hopelessly from our grasp.

America is at a dangerous cross road and I am quite bleak about our prospects.I have general faith in American judgement but I have never experienced so much internal ill will and display of antipathy towards our nation from within since the '60's and we are in a weak position to resist the anarchists' message.

The key to all of the above is what will Trump do?  Will he simply bluster as those who preceded him or will he go against the rising tide of those who portray him as a war monger itching to get people killed?

He inherited a mess, that no president sworn to uphold the law and defend our nation can ignore, and he will get little, if any, help from those who wallow in the swamp and are responsible for where we are militarily, fiscally and socially. Ducking responsibility is a lucrative business in D.C.  (See 1 and 1a below.)

Sen Corker is the main reason we have the Iran Deal. Tobin's op ed is worth reading.

Trump has burned so many intellectual bridges less and less are willing to walk with him.(See 1b below.)

Even Oren agrees the Iran Deal is not worth saving. (See 1c below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gun facts if anyone cares.  Most liberals would rather ignore facts and base everything on emotion.  (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read; "The Forgotten Man" if you want to learn more.

After the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S., along with the rest of the world, was thrown into economic crisis. Millions were out of work – homeless and helpless, standing in long bread lines. And then, newly-elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave the country his famous New Deal and brought the Great Depression to an end. That’s what all the high school textbooks say. But is that what happened? Did FDR’s New Deal turn around an otherwise hopeless economy? Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA and consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, sets the record straight in this week’s new PragerU video. Watch it here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Israel growing in strategic importance for NATO

By ANNA AHRONHEIM

Following the reconciliation between Turkey and Israel in June of last year, Ankara withdrew its longstanding veto against Jerusalem being accepted as a partner nation to the organization. The IDF hopes to see NATO ships alongside Israel Navy vessels helping to protect the eastern Mediterranean in the future, Lt.-Cmdr. Ortal told The Jerusalem Post last week.

As the liaison officer, Ortal represents Israel’s naval forces at NATO ’s Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM ) in London, the central command of all NATO maritime forces.

“The area of the eastern Mediterranean is becoming very attractive, especially in terms of the gas fields and the platforms there, which will be a strategic focus in terms of possible threats,” she said. “There is therefore shared interest in protecting this area.”

NATO has a “big interest in shared partnership” with Israel, a strategic partner in the region, she said.

“NATO would be very happy if Israeli ships joined NATO vessels because they know the professionalism and capabilities of the Israel Navy are very high,” Ortal said, adding that while NATO has “high standards, it wouldn’t be hard for them to accept Israeli vessels.”

Israel’s relationship with NATO is defined as a “partnership”; it is a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue – a forum initiated in 1994 for political consultations and practical cooperation by six other non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.

One of the main goals of the Mediterranean Dialogue is to create a basis for dialogue and cooperation in the field of security and counterterrorism, but after the breakdown of ties with Turkey six years ago, Ankara exerted efforts to isolate Jerusalem from military cooperation with NATO .

Following the reconciliation between the two countries in June of last year, Ankara withdrew its longstanding veto against Jerusalem from being accepted as a partner nation to the organization.

Last January, Israel opened its first ever diplomatic mission to NATO headquarters along with several other countries belonging to the Istanbul Initiative, which is comprised of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE .

In March, Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, was in Israel on an official visit and met with senior IDF officers, including IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, to discusses common challenges and regional developments.

In November of last year, NATO launched Operation Sea Guardian, its new maritime security mission in the central Mediterranean. According to Ortal, as part of the operation, “a few months ago Israel sent for the first time a liaison officer on board one of the NATO ships in the central Mediterranean Sea.”

As part of the ongoing collaboration, there is constant dialogue between the military branches and agencies and other organizations under NATO , with IDF representatives participating in exercises undertaken by the organization, Ortal said.

While relations between the two former allies remain strained as Ankara pivots toward Iran and Russia, last month Israel sent representatives to observe the NATO -sponsored submarine escape and rescue exercise, Dynamic Monarch, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea off of Turkey’s Aksaz.

“Politics doesn’t really play a role here,” Ortal said. “There are Turkish officers that I work alongside who are very nice and we work well together.

But everything that is related to relations between Israel and Turkey takes place in [the NATO headquarters in] Brussels.”

Of all the nonmember countries with NATO delegates, only Israel has the status of liaison officer at MARCOM , Ortal noted, even though Egypt also has a strong navy.

“It’s very nice that we can have this sort of dialogue with other countries in the region,” she said.

1a) Trump's 'Calm before the Storm' is a Message to North Korea and Iran

by Alan M. Dershowitz

• U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

• President Trump cannot afford to wait and do nothing as Iran and North Korea grow ever stronger, ever more menacing and become greater and greater threats. He must do something -- now.
• 
  

Reporters continue scratching their heads about what PresidentTrump meant when he spoke of the "calm before the storm" Thursday as he was hosting a dinner for military commanders and their spouses. It seems clear to me that he was sending a powerful message to North Korea and Iran: change your behavior now, or prepare to face new but unspecified painful consequences.

North Korea and Iran are taking the measure of President Trump to see how far they can push him and how much they can get away with. The North Koreans continue testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles and threaten to launch a nuclear attack on America and our allies that could kills millions. Iran is likely engaging in activities that could contribute to the design and development of its own nuclear explosive device.

If these worrisome actions by the two rogue nations persist, there will be a storm. And as candidate Trump said during his campaign for the White House, he will not tell our enemies what kind of storm to expect -- only that he will not allow current trends that endanger our national security and that of our allies to continue unabated.

The president must make some difficult decisions: whether to continue to rely on economic sanctions that don't appear to be working against North Korea; and whether to refuse to certify Iranian compliance with the bad nuclear deal and demand that additional constraints be placed on the Islamic Republic's dangerous and provocative activities.

President Trump faces an Oct. 15 deadline to decide whether to certify Iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement, which is designed to keep it from developing nuclear weapons for the next few years. News reports say he is expected to refuse to make that certification.

U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

The sad reality is that even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it will still be able to develop the capability to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short time. This is the fundamental flaw of the agreement.

And Iran claims that the nuclear deal permits it to refuse to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect military facilities. This has led the IAEA to conclude that it cannot assure the world that Iran is not even now designing and developing a nuclear arsenal with missiles capable of delivering them to American allies in the Mideast and Europe, and soon the U.S. itself.

All the Iranians need to do to become a nuclear power is to resume spinning centrifuges. The nuclear agreement, which was reached with the Obama administration in 2015, will allow them to do that in a few years.

So whether we like it or not, a storm is coming. Whether that storm will be diplomatic, economic or military depends on the leaders of North Korea and Iran. If they choose to negotiate constraints on their increasingly dangerous activities, they can avoid the other more painful options.

Our military options are and should always be a last resort. They are the worst possible options -- other than Iran developing a nuclear arsenal and North Korea developing a nuclear delivery system that can reach our population centers and wipe out major American cities.

With fanatical dictators like those in control of North Korea and Iran, we cannot rely on containment and deterrence as acceptable policies to prevent them from using nuclear weapons, as we have done for years with the Soviet Union (and now Russia) and China.

So President Trump cannot afford to wait and do nothing as Iran and North Korea grow ever stronger, ever more menacing and become greater and greater threats. He must do something -- now. The nature of what is done, and what kind of storm it may be, is up to our enemies. I hope they choose wisely.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of, "Trumped Up! How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy," which is now available.

1b)

When it comes to Iran, Trump is the real adult in the room

By Jonathan S. Tobin

Sen. Bob Corker seemed to speak for many in Washington — including a lot of Republicans — when he unloaded on President Trump in an interview with The New York Times, in which he described the president as “reckless” and his White House as a “reality show.”

Earlier, Corker, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, designated Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly as the men who “separate our country from chaos,” the implication being without these “adults,” hindering him, Trump would set the nation “on a path to World War III.”

But there’s one problem with Corker’s narrative. It so happens that on a key issue where Corker and the adults are supposedly stopping Trump from driving the country into a ditch — his effort to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal — he’s right and they’re wrong.

It’s easy to understand why the GOP establishment is exasperated with him. Trump generally doesn’t know what he’s talking about and, even when he’s acting responsibly, he does so in a manner that leaves everyone with a bad taste in their mouths. His willingness to say anything — even things that are obviously not true — about those who cross him may delight his base but it comes with a cost.

As such, his credibility is shot with many in Congress whose support he needs to enact change.

A lot of otherwise smart and sober people in Washington just aren’t listening to Trump on Iran. They understand that President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy accomplishment didn’t freeze Iran’s nuclear program — in fact, it laid the foundation for international acceptance of an Iranian nuke because the restrictions in the agreement will expire in a decade.

Obama was so desperate for a deal that he gave the mullahs a free pass to continue being the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and building missiles that can carry nukes to hit Israel, moderate Arab nations and Europe. Iran was not only enriched by the return of billions in frozen assets and the collapse of sanctions, but it has felt empowered to pursue its agenda of regional hegemony with destabilizing military adventures.

The establishment’s distaste for Trump has led it to reflexively avoid risks. That instinct is often correct. But it’s not when it comes to Iran.

In particular, Corker, whose foolishness was largely responsible for Obama being able to get approval for the Iran deal via an extra-constitutional backdoor method, has no business posing as some kind of expert. For all of Trump’s ignorance, he has grasped one essential truth the adults prefer to ignore: Letting Obama’s deal remain in place without substantial changes to curb Iran’s current misbehavior and to ensure that, contrary to its terms, Tehran won’t be allowed to go nuclear in the near future is essential to US security.

The “adult” consensus that the rest of the world can thwart any unilateral US effort to change the terms of Iran’s re-entry to the world economy is also wrong. If Washington decides to enforce its decision to renegotiate or terminate the deal, it can make it impossible for any nation that wants to do business in the United States or with American financial institutions to also do business with Iran. If Trump is allowed to put the screws to the Iranians, as Obama should have, he might bring Iran to heel.

In politics, style is often substance, which means Trump’s bad behavior is considered synonymous with stupidity. But what the governing class forgets is that its inertia and acceptance of terrible things — like a deal that empowers Iran or the way 20 years of appeasing North Korea has led to our current problems with that rogue regime — shouldn’t be confused with wisdom.

Trump’s loose talk and tweeting usually gets in the way of governing. He needs experienced pros to put a brake on his worst instincts. But on Iran, it’s the adults who are, in Rex Tillerson’s unfortunate phrase, playing the “morons.” Republicans and Democrats who understand the truth about the damage the Iran deal did to US security shouldn’t be deceived into helping them stop Trump from doing the right thing.

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

1c)

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Worth Saving

By MICHAEL B. OREN

Jerusalem — “The only alternative to the Iran nuclear deal is war.” That is what the Obama administration and proponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran claimed in 2015. Nobody in the Middle East believed that the United States would ever strike Iran, but enough Americans did that the deal went through.

President Trump has long opposed the deal, calling it one of the “worst and most one-sided transactions” ever. On Oct. 15, the president faces a deadline to recertify or decertify the agreement; various reports say he will opt for the latter. The deal’s defenders, horrified by this prospect, are once again warning of catastrophe. “Hard to see how abandoning” the Iran deal “doesn’t lead to war,” tweeted Samantha Power, a former ambassador to the United Nations.

Such scare tactics were dishonest enough in 2015. Today, in view of the agreement’s ruinous consequences, they are morally indefensible.

The alternative was never war, but a better deal. Rather than lifting sanctions on Iran, allowing it to retain its nuclear infrastructure and develop more advanced centrifuges, a better deal could have ramped up pressure on the Islamic Republic. This would have stripped Iran of capacities like uranium enrichment, which is unnecessary for a civilian energy program, and linked any deal to changes in Iran’s support for terrorism, its regional aggression and its gross violation of human rights at home.

A better deal also would not have removed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in 2025. That “sunset clause” is overlooked by the agreement’s proponents, who stress that Iran has so far complied with the deal. But why wouldn’t Iran comply right now? In a mere eight years it can reactivate its nuclear plants and rapidly enrich enough uranium for dozens of nuclear bombs. Instead of blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, the agreement paves it.

Supporters of the agreement further assert that it curbs Iran’s funding of terrorism and its threats against other states. Just the opposite has happened. With billions of dollars in sanctions relief, the regime is solidifying its rule over Syria, Iraq and Yemen, tightening its stranglehold on Lebanon, and increasing its bankrolling of Hezbollah and Hamas. And, in flagrant defiance of the United Nations, Iran is developing and testing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry multiple nuclear warheads. Meantime, the ayatollahs have pledged to destroy Israel and, ultimately, America. Rather than reducing the likelihood of war, the agreement has made many wars inevitable.

In 2015, the agreement’s promoters insisted that the United States could no longer maintain an international front against Iran and that sanctions, set up to last indefinitely, would soon unravel. Now they predict that the international community will not follow America’s lead in withdrawing from the deal and reimposing sanctions. Worse, they warn, Iran might use the opportunity to evict United Nations inspectors and ramp up its nuclear program.

All of these assumptions are false.

Had American sanctions on Iran remained in place in 2015, companies would have had to choose between doing business with the United States, the world’s top-ranked economy by gross domestic product, and Iran, ranked 27th. That same stark choice will confront businesses if sanctions are reinstated.

Similarly, the contention that Iran will rush to make nuclear weapons in the absence of an agreement is unfounded. Iran could have made that rush well before 2015 but it did not. The reason was the 2012 speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations General Assembly and the implicit military threat that backed it up.

The world, he declared, must not allow Iran to amass enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. “Red lines don’t lead to war,” he said. “Red lines prevent war.” That red line will remain indelible whether the deal is strengthened or canceled. What was true in 2015 holds equally today: The more credible the military option, the lesser the chance it will need to be used.

The agreement’s apologists say that altering or negating the agreement will irreparably harm America’s prestige. Yet it is difficult to see how America’s status is served by a refusal to stand up to Iran’s complicity in the massacre of half a million Syrians and its efforts to annihilate American allies.

Israel’s position on the Iran deal was and remains clear. “Fix it or nix it,” Prime Minister Netanyahu recently told the United Nations. If canceled, the deal must be replaced by crippling sanctions that force Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons capacity. Fixing the deal would include conducting stricter inspections of suspect Iran nuclear sites, imposing harsher penalties for Iranian violations and, above all, eliminating the “sunset clause.”

Either way, revisiting the agreement will send an unequivocal message to the world. It will say that Iran’s state-funded terrorism and its attempts to establish a Shiite empire will not be tolerated. The weakness of the Iran deal invites wars, it will say, while displays of strength prevent them. It will say that the United States is truly unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran — not now, not in a decade, not ever.

Michael B. Oren, Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy, was the Israeli ambassador to the United States from 2009 to 2013.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Ted Nugent 
J

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: 

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified 

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence 

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths 

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation? 

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago 

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore 

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit 

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. 

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. 

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. 

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals. 

But what about other deaths each year? 

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! 

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths 

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide) 

Now it gets good: 

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital! 

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! 

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. 

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. 

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." 

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

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