Another dear friend, Charlie Bourland, has asked me to sub for him May 3rd so I will try and see how well I do. Still cannot run but at least I am out on the courts hitting the ball and what a great feeling that is.
I have many loves and tennis ranks high on the list.
===
Liberal logic is often disingenuous, hateful and/or illogical.
.PNG)
===
Nothing illogical about these photos of Stella and her mother!
;
.PNG)
.PNG)
Stella at two has a birthday party, then goes to the beach and Leggo Land!
===
Most who get my memos probably delete them but then there are those who are loyal and that keeps me going.
This from a brother of a friend: "... I just finished your memo, and was dejected to hear of yet another break in daily memos as you continue to Globe Trot...I think I need to hire you a scribe so you can dictate while you're on the road! While I'm honestly delighted you are traveling, and with such great destinations and purpose, it does make for a drought of information in my little world... Safe travels, I'll be looking forward to hearing from you, and seeing your selfie wearing your new T shirt!
Blessings,
H---
My response: "You are overly generous and really must have a lot of time on your hands. Thanks and stay in touch." Me
And this from another friend and fellow memo reader followed by my response to his Friend's Blog:
"The wonder is that more Americans are not ticked off about the state of our country than whatever is happening ten thousand miles away. For instance, how come the US Department of Justice is not as avid to prosecute the pervasive racketeering in the US economy as the State Department is for provoking unnecessary wars in foreign lands on the other side of the planet, over matters that have little bearing on life here? This racketeering, by the way, amounts to a war against American citizens.
I’m speaking especially of the US military racket, the banking and finance rackets, the health care racket and the college loan racket, all of which have evolved insidiously and elegantly to swindle the public in order to support a claque of American oligarchs. In other civilized lands, health care and college are considered the highest priority public goods (i.e. responsibilities of government), and national resources are applied to support them under the theory that bankrupting people for an appendectomy or a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering is not in the public interest. In our land, that would be considered “socialism.” Instead, we “socialize” the costs of supporting Too Big To Fail banks — so their employees can drive Beemers to their Hamptons summer house parties — and a military machine that goes around the world wrecking one country after another to support a parasitical class of contractors, lobbyists, and bought-off politicians in their northern Virginia McMansions.
Hence, the laughable conceit pinging through the news media lately that some dynastic grifter like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will slide into the White House in 2016 as easily as a watermelon seed popped into a shot glass. I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. The US political system needs to be turned upside down and inside out, and I expect that it will be. Either it happens within the bounds of electoral politics, or you’ll see it playing out in the streets and the windswept plains.
Just a glance around the USA these days ought to nauseate the casual observer. We have an infrastructure for everyday life that is failing in every way imaginable. Are you disturbed by the asteroid belts of vacant strip malls outside your town? Or the empty store fronts along your Main Streets? What do you suppose these places will be like in ten years when the mirage of shale oil dissolves in a mist of disappointment and political grievance?
How are Americans going to feel, do you suppose, when gasoline just isn’t there at a price they can pay, and they are marooned in delaminating strand-board-and-vinyl houses 23 miles away from anything? Does the sheer immersive ugliness of the human imprint on the American landscape not give you the shivers?
Look at the pathetic and disgusting appearance of our cities, which for the most part present themselves as demolition derby arenas or war zones — except the strongholds of the red-white-and-blue oligarchs: Washington, San Francisco, and especially New York, Financialization Central.
What happens at the “magic moment” when Facebook stops being a narcissistic virtual playground for “selfies” and becomes a bulletin board for political revolution? Think that can’t happen here? And what if that revolution is a kind that doesn’t appeal to you — say, a revolution of race hatred, or fascist zealotry, or Marxist gangsterism of the type that took Russia hostage for 70 years?
All this is happening, incidentally, because the supposed best minds in our nation are paying no attention whatsoever to the most important story of our lifetime: the winding down of the techno-industrial global economy. It doesn’t really matter anymore why they don’t get it. Hubris. Greed. Distraction. Denial. All that matters is that they can’t be depended on and when that happens authority loses legitimacy. And when it comes to that, all bets are off.
The disintegration of Ukraine would be best understood by Americans as a mirror of ourselves and our sclerotic republic, poised to sink into poverty and disorder. Everything we do and say rings hollow now. What used to be called The Establishment has run out of ways to even pretend to save itself. We have no idea what’s next, but it’s not going to be more of what’s been."
My response: "I agree with most of what he laments and yet, I do believe our involvement in world affairs matters is critical but we must balance our expenditures at home in order to be prepared to address threats beyond our borders.
There is a lot wrong with this nation, its value system, its worshiping the idol of Capitalism but it is not Capitalism that is to blame but the abuse by Capitalists.
Politics is how we must govern ourselves and there is nothing wrong with politics but blame must be laid at the feet of the politicians and finally the citizens.
We have the best government money and apathy will buy. That is the real tragedy and it is people like you who are the Horatio's at the Bridge but, alas, you are outnumbered."
===
Islamist militants never miss an opportunity to spew hate and terror. (See 1 below.)
===
The Atty Gen. of Texas challenges the Land Management Agency. (See 2 below.)
===
Weakness comes at a price. (See 3 below.)
===
The Atty Gen. of Texas challenges the Land Management Agency. (See 2 below.)
===
Weakness comes at a price. (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Fatah's military wing:
"Armed resistance
until the liberation of all of Palestine"
The period of "calm has ended"
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=11274
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Fatah's military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, has announced they "will adhere to the option of armed resistance until the liberation of all of Palestine," the independent Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported. The expression "the liberation of all of Palestine" is a common Palestinian euphemism used to refer to the destruction of Israel.PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is also the head of Fatah and his movement's military wing stressed that the "calm has ended, as the occupation continues to kill, Judaize and settle." They urged Mahmoud Abbas not to accept US Secretary of State John Kerry's plan and not to give in to "political extortion by the Western powers." [Ma'an, March 11, 2014]
Earlier this year, Palestinian Media Watch reported that Fatah posted a video promising to "turn Tel Aviv into a ball of fire."
In a video posted on Facebook on "Fatah - The Main Page," the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades promised Israelis the following:
"We swear to you that we will turn the beloved [Gaza] Strip into a graveyard for your soldiers, and we will turn Tel Aviv into a ball of fire."
Click to view PMW has documented that throughout the current peace talks Fatah has supported a return to armed violence as a valid option alongside negotiations. A few months into the peace talks (September 2013), under the headline "Fatah - All means of struggle until statehood," the administrator of one of Fatah's Facebook pages posted three pictures showing different "means of struggle." Violence was one of them.
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Sept. 8, 2013]
The following is the report in Ma'an on Fatah's military wing's call for armed resistance:
"The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (Fatah's military wing) in Palestine said they will adhere to the option of armed resistance until the liberation of all of Palestine.
In a statement received by [independent Palestinian news agency] Ma'an, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades stated that the [period of] calm has ended, as the occupation continues to kill, Judaize and settle. They emphasized that the blood of the Martyrs (Shahids) will never go unavenged. They called on President Mahmoud Abbas to stand firm and reject the Kerry plan, [and said that] 'the Palestinian people with all its groups and factions stand behind you against any [form of] political extortion by the Western powers.'"
[Ma'an, independent Palestinian news agency, March 11, 2014]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Texas AG To Feds: Come and Take' Disputed Land
Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: "Come and take it."
Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.
"I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Abbott said.
Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.
"I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in the letter.
"The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box."
Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.
"What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said.
The issue with the land dates to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. The physical boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River can fluctuate, depending on the river itself. This has led to countless legal battles over the years between the two states and the federal government.
According to Breitbart, the Texas Farm Bureau thinks the border moves south when the river shifts in that direction. But when the flow of water shifts to the north, the organization maintains that the border stays where it is supposed to be.
The BLM has stepped in and wants to take over the land to settle the matter once and for all.
"This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this."
The situation comes on the heels of the case between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.
The BLM says Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on 600,000 acres of federal land for 20 years. Bundy disagrees, saying the land belongs to the state. The BLM had started to confiscate Bundy's cattle, but returned the animals 10 days ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)-
Russia is no longer a rival superpower, but exactly the kind of dictatorship that is always encouraged by Western weakness. The consequences of an America in retreat will be felt around the world, as rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea have already demonstrated. Halting Russian revanchism will require the sort of strong American commitment to which Obama has shown himself allergic. It will also require us to reject the siren song of neo-isolationists, and recommit to maintaining our influence and defending our allies. Though Obama thought he could back away from troublesome arguments scot-free, Vladimir Putin has just reminded him that weakness always comes at a price.--
Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: "Come and take it."
Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.
"I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Abbott said.
Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.
"I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in the letter.
"The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box."
Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.
"What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said.
The issue with the land dates to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. The physical boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River can fluctuate, depending on the river itself. This has led to countless legal battles over the years between the two states and the federal government.
According to Breitbart, the Texas Farm Bureau thinks the border moves south when the river shifts in that direction. But when the flow of water shifts to the north, the organization maintains that the border stays where it is supposed to be.
The BLM has stepped in and wants to take over the land to settle the matter once and for all.
"This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this."
The situation comes on the heels of the case between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.
The BLM says Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on 600,000 acres of federal land for 20 years. Bundy disagrees, saying the land belongs to the state. The BLM had started to confiscate Bundy's cattle, but returned the animals 10 days ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)-
Could Crimea have been prevented?
Western Weakness Comes at a Price
The question of whether anything could have been done to prevent the Russian seizure of Crimea is more than the usual tiresome counter-factual debate that follows any historical event. Ukraine’s dismemberment was a fait accompli the moment Vladimir Putin gave the order to move his troops. But the “what ifs” about the prelude to that order are important—and not just because it is by no means clear how far Putin means to go, either with the rump of Ukraine or with the other nations that were once part of the Tsarist/Soviet empire he seems intent on reassembling. At a time when the United States seems to be undergoing a sea change in opinion about the direction of its foreign policy, with isolationism on the rise, it is worth examining whether American decisions played a role in creating this crisis.
To assert a direct and indisputable connection between the situation in Crimea and anything the United States or its European allies have done is difficult. As many of Putin’s apologists point out, Russia has always considered control of Ukraine a strategic priority. The chaos in Kiev and the fall of Moscow’s puppet, ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, was bound to trigger a Russian response. Options to forestall Putin’s invasion—whether by inviting Ukraine into NATO or threatening the use of force to defend Crimea—were never seriously considered.
Yet to admit that the West was powerless to prevent the invasion is not the same thing as to claim that decisions made by the United States played no role in Putin’s thinking. The Obama administration’s appeasement of Putin as he sought to reassert Russian power doubtless helped to convince him he could do as he liked without fear of serious repercussions. From the administration’s abandonment of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, to its farcical attempt to “reset” relations with Russia, to its disastrous retreat on Syria last year, Obama’s weakness has emboldened the Russian leader.
The principal argument against this thesis rests on the fact that Putin invaded Georgia in 2008. If George W. Bush couldn’t stop Russia from overrunning a former component of the Soviet Union, why should Obama even try? But this is comparing apples to oranges. In Georgia a shooting war already existed between the Tbilisi government and pro-Russian separatists in a land geographically far removed from the West.
The better question to ask is why Putin did not take Crimea sooner. During Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004 and 2005, nationalist protests toppled a pro-Moscow government led by the same Victor Yanukovych whose ouster prompted this year’s invasion. Why did Putin hold fast then? The answer is clear: In 2004, he was still unsure about Russia’s ability to project force beyond its borders and the West’s willingness to countenance such an act. Today he suffers neither of those doubts.
President Obama came into office in 2009 determined to change America’s image. The U.S. would no longer be a unilateral cowboy besotted with its own exceptionalism, but instead a multilateral conciliator. Regardless of the dubious merits of such a stance, one key to its implementation was to warm relations with Russia, which had chilled to new post-Cold War lows after the Georgia conflict. Outwardly, the new policy was made manifest in the snubs to erstwhile allies and Hillary Clinton’s comic photo-op with a “reset” button. Inwardly, the administration made a point of casting Russia in key roles on the world stage. For instance, Obama and Clinton made Putin’s consent the lynchpin to the administration’s lackluster efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The Russians have their own reasons for worrying about a nuclear Iran, but their more equivocal approach to the issue acted as a brake on American diplomacy and sanctions, and empowered Putin in a manner no previous U.S. administration had.
But that was nothing compared to the way Russia profited from Obama’s precipitate retreat from his “red line” on the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Bashar al-Assad represents the last vestige of the old Soviet empire’s sphere of influence in the Middle East, and Putin has invested heavily in his survival. Obama’s last-ditch deal to remove the country’s chemical weapons placed the process in Putin’s hands and essentially guaranteed the survival of Assad. The agreement not only signaled a U.S. withdrawal from its obligations in the area but also elevated Putin’s prestige and his sense of invulnerability.
Russia is no longer a rival superpower, but exactly the kind of dictatorship that is always encouraged by Western weakness. The consequences of an America in retreat will be felt around the world, as rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea have already demonstrated. Halting Russian revanchism will require the sort of strong American commitment to which Obama has shown himself allergic. It will also require us to reject the siren song of neo-isolationists, and recommit to maintaining our influence and defending our allies. Though Obama thought he could back away from troublesome arguments scot-free, Vladimir Putin has just reminded him that weakness always comes at a price.--
No comments:
Post a Comment