Bless Their Soul! So Proud of My Kim!

Go to: America.Dinesh D'Souza.com  and watch the trailer. and then also watch "Why Obama Wants to Destroy America."

D'Souza argues Progressives believe America is a nation founded on theft. Theft of the land from Native Americans, theft of parts of Mexico, theft of black labor, theft of Middle East Oil and on and on.  In his new movie,2016,  Dinesh presents articulate Progressives espousing these views and then rebuts.

There is some  truth in what is claimed  but how long should a people be held accountable for what their forebears undertook?  Should every generation of Germans be held accountable for Hitler?  Yes, watch for signs of a return and possible embrace of 'blond beast' attitudes and actions  but absent them, not hold them accountable, would be my view.

The same applies to America.  I did not steal anything from Native Americans and I did not enslave Africans but I acknowledge it happened. That said, I am unwilling to accept responsibility for what happened centuries ago nor am I willing to pay reparations under the threat of extortion.

I do believe it is the responsibility of our government to level the paying field and do its best to create conditions that provide everyone with a fair shake and opportunity but that does not mean equality of outcomes. I believe the America I have grown up in has come a long way, far more than any nation on this planet.  Yes, we must not stop advancing and correcting abuses but I will be damned if everything Progressives and far left Liberals espouse should  ipso facto' become  the basis for action.

Just because do gooders and the politically correct crowd find fault with everything  and can never be satisfied is no reason to do more than pat them on the head and say, as we do down south,  bless your poor soul!

You cannot fill a bottomless pit and that is what Obama and Progressives expect - bless their souls!

Frankly, the same goes for Obama, and  Hillary and their quest for unending power - bless their souls! (See 1 below.)
===
Israelis anticipate escalation in Gaza.  (See 2 below.)

Glick, on the real threat in Iraq! (See 2a below.)
===
My friend Kim Strassel appeared on TV yesterday and was shown accepting her Bradley Award.

The snippet had her saying  the best advice she ever got was from her daddy who told her, when she moved  to D.C,.realize the people there are aliens.

Go KIM!!! So proud of you and miss you, Matthew and the three kids!.  When are you coming to visit?
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)   You thought the Nixonian days were over?

By Ron Hart

 I can just see the members of this administration sitting around a table, discussing how to handle the inquiry into the IRS targeting of its opponents. David Axelrod says, “Just how dumb do I think Americans are? I say we just tell them we lost two years worth of emails around the time of the conservative groups’ targeting.”

President Obama was so incensed about the IRS scandal that he ordered his Benghazi investigator to look into it. Then he said, “There’s not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.” Case closed.

So far, the cost of not providing pertinent emails has been $10 million, 250 IRS employees’ time and, they say, 120,000 man hours. Do not kid yourself; the time spent was on covering up and circling the wagons, not complying with Congress.

This month is the 42nd anniversary of the Watergate break-in, where, in the aftermath, Richard Nixon recorded himself with all the forethought of Donald Sterling. The IRS loses two years of damaging emails versus Watergate’s 18 minutes of lost Nixon tapes. No scandal here.

For the young people out there, the early ’70s were different than today. We were in a costly, unwinnable and poorly thought-out war about which our government lied. There were cover-ups and selective enforcements. The administration spied on reporters and used the IRS to go after opponents.

Yep, I am glad those Nixonian days are behind us.

The difference is that the media did not have Nixon’s back. The IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA spying, wiretaps, Obamacare, etc., are all stories that go away quickly. Only two major news channels reported on the lost IRS emails. If Joe Namath had the protection from his offensive line like the media give Obama, he could have played 30 years in the NFL.

Obama will continue to preen, posture, accuse, deflect and label any accusations as “racist,” his go-to mode.

The manpower Obama can marshal against political opponents is astonishing. He chose the IRS to go after his opponents, deploying the coercive intimidation of 90,000 IRS workers, 4,280 investigators, 13,000 revenue agents, 1,500 attorneys and 2,600 “special agents” – and there will be even more when Obamacare fully kicks in. Not only does he have an enemies list, under Obamacare he will have an enemas list.

 IRS employees are overwhelmingly Democrats. Republicans and we libertarians favor getting rid of the IRS and going to a flat tax or, at least, a less-complex tax code (i.e., fewer IRS employees). They gladly do the bidding of Democrats. The main O-bots are life-long employees in management roles, like Lois Lerner.

Added to the NSA snooping, their willingness to destroy the reputations of even the most honorable men, like Mitt Romney and John McCain, should send chills down your spine.

The Obama administration knows Republicans work, make money, own businesses and file tax returns. They fear the IRS like a Democrat fears the DEA, EBT drug testing or a registered letter (probably a late notice on a rent-to-own, 60-inch, flat-screen TV).

Lois Lerner gave up donor lists (presumably to target them) and shipped a 1.1-million-page database on 12,000 grass-roots, nonprofit organizations to the FBI. All this was done illegally (including disclosure of confidential taxpayer information and donor details) before the presidential election – why? Are nonprofits working in our communities a problem worthy of FBI investigation?

Lerner made a speech, took the Fifth, and then refused to testify. She so relied on our Constitution that she put herself at risk of an IRS audit.

Americans hate the IRS worse than fruit, vegetables and exercise. IRS employees (including Lois Lerner) gave each other bonuses ($70 million) and spent $50 million on lavish conferences in this two-year period, including $11,000 on a “happiness” expert. They spent $4 million on a California conference where they got dance lessons. I guess that is where they learned to tap dance around the facts.

To wrap up the irony: The Tea Party folks, who say we need less government and who fear its overreach, tyranny and selective prosecution, were dismissed and derided by the media as kooks. Gosh, I wonder who has been borne out as correct? Obama could not have provided a more stark example of why a grass-roots Tea Party-like movement is needed.

Now if you will excuse me, I must go prepare for my inevitable audit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

Israeli officials: We're facing escalation on the Gaza front Analysis: Facing pressure from both the Palestinian Authority and Israel, Hamas is expected to open a front against Israel in the Gaza Strip, a conflict that is sure to make the Islamic organization stronger. By Elior Levy

Considering the fact the Ramadan month, that is starting in 10 days, was expected to lead to a substantial decrease in IDF arrests and raids,conducted as part of the ongoing effort to find three Israeli teens who were abducted a week ago, officials in Israel believe that the operational activity in the West Bank will turn into clandestine intelligence activity. The next stage in this ongoing operation would take place in the Gaza Strip, they say, and it seems like it would be a lot sooner than previously thought.

The bigger picture indicates that Hamas is now in an unclear position. In the past two years, the organization has been suffering from increasing regional isolation. To get out of this isolation, the Hamas leadership decided to take the path of reconciliation. With an attitude of "falling in order to rise again," Hamas has decided to make the following move: "We'll make peace with the Palestinian Authority, seemingly give up control of Gaza, wait for the elections, win, and then get the West Bank as well."

 

But reality is always much more complex. The intra-Palestinian reconciliation is moving very slowly: the crisis over salaries of tens of thousands of Hamas government employees continues, and the mechanism that is supposed to ensure they get paid has yet to be put into motion. At the same time, the Rafah border crossing is still closed, restoring the smuggling tunnels to their former glory remains but a dream, and Hamas' relations with Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's regime in Egypt are worse than ever. Life in Gaza is difficult, and the pressure on Hamas is only increasing.

On the other side, Israel has launched an extensive operation in the West Bank, and has taken advantage of the opportunity that presented itself following the kidnapping to conduct two operations at the same time: locating the kidnappers and kidnapped, while at the same time delivering a powerful blow to Hamas' infrastructure in the West Bank. It doesn't necessarily get Israel any closer to finding the abducted teens, but it definitely allows it to use this one-time opportunity to strike institutions, symbols and leaders of the organization, with the international community's support and the roaring silence of the Arab world in the background.

 

And if all of that wasn't enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas came out with a declaration that those who abducted the teens are trying to destroy the PA. "We will have a different kind of dialogue" with Hamas, Abbas said. It appears that it's not just Jerusalem that believes Hamas' infrastructure is behind the kidnapping, the PA does as well. And it is likely the dialogue the PA president is talking about will put the Palestinian reconciliation in danger.

 

This pressure coming from both ends shrinks Hamas' power, increases the pressure on the Islamic organization, and decreases support of it accordingly.

 

As the noose tightens around Hamas' neck, the response from Gaza is becoming more and more militant.

 

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Thursday that the coming days will prove that Hamas has the ability to fight back, implying that the organization has some powerful cards up its sleeve. He is talking about the ever-growing arsenal of rockets Hamas possesses. At present, Hamas is capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and perhaps even north of that, with dozens of rockets.

 

Recent history shows that Hamas emerges from rounds of violence stronger: public support of the organization increases, the understandings reached with Israel make life easier for Palestinians living in the Strip, and ties with Egypt grow warmer as Cairo mediates between Hamas and Israel.

 

It appears Hamas is at a low point in every possible scenario, with a fake reconciliation and without it, and so Israeli officials believe that another round of violence in the Gaza Strip is coming, sooner rather than later.

2a)The real threat in Iraq

By Caroline B. Glick

What's being overlooked in Obama's last-ditch effort to prevent hell from breaking loose all over the Middle East 

Watching the undoing, in a week, of victories that US forces won in Iraq at great cost over many years, Americans are asking themselves what, if anything, should be done.

What can prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — the al-Qaida offshoot that President Barack Obama derided just months ago as a bunch of amateurs — from taking over Iraq? And what is at stake for America — other than national pride — if it does?

Muddying the waters is the fact that the main actor that seems interested in fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq is Iran. Following ISIS's takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last week, the Iranian regime deployed elite troops in Iraq from the Quds Force, its foreign operations division.

The Obama administration, along with Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, views Iran's deployment of forces in Iraq as an opportunity for the US. The US, they argue should work with Iran to defeat ISIS.

The idea is that since the US and Iran both oppose al-Qaida, Iranian gains against it will redound to America'sbenefit.

There are two basic, fundamental problems with this idea.

First, there is a mountain of evidence that Iran has no beef with al-Qaida and is happy to work with it.

According to the 9/11 Commission's report, between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers traveled through Iran before going to the US. And this was apparently no coincidence.

According to the report, Iran had been providing military training and logistical support for al-Qaida since at least the early 1990s.

After the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, al-Qaida's leadership scattered. Many senior commanders — including bin Laden's son Said, al-Qaida's chief strategist Saif al-Adel and Suleiman Abu Ghaith — decamped to Iran, where they set up a command center.

From Iran, these men directed the operations of al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi entered Iraq from Iran and returned to Iran several times during the years he led al-Qaida operations in Iraq.

Iran's cooperation with al-Qaida continues today in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in directing the defense of Bashar Assad's regime in Syria, Iran has opted to leave ISIS and its al-Qaida brethren in the Nusra Front alone. That is why they have been able to expand their power in northern Syria.

Iran and its allies have concentrated their attacks against the more moderate Free Syrian Army, which they view as a threat.

Given Iran's 20-year record of cooperation with al-Qaida, it is reasonable to assume that it is deploying forces into Iraq to tighten its control over Shi'ite areas, not to fight al-Qaida. The record shows that Iran doesn't believe that its victories and al-Qaida's victories are mutually exclusive.

The second problem with the idea of subcontracting America's fight against al-Qaida to Iran is that it assumes that Iranian success in such a war would benefitAmerica. But again, experience tells a different tale.

The US killed Zarqawi in an air strike in 2006.

Reports in the Arab media at the time alleged that Iran had disclosed Zarqawi's location to the US. While the reports were speculative, shortly after Zarqawi was killed, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice floated the idea of opening nuclear talks with Iran for the first time.

The Iranians contemptuously rejected her offer. But Rice's willingness to discuss Iran's nuclear weapons program with the regime, even as it was actively engaged in killing US forces in Iraq, ended any serious prospect that the Bush administration would develop a coherent plan for dealing with Iran in a strategic and comprehensive way.

Moreover, Zarqawi was immediately replaced by one of his deputies. And the fight went on.

So if Iran did help the US find Zarqawi, the price the US paid for Iran's assistance was far higher than the benefitit derived from killing Zarqawi.

This brings us to the real threat that the rise of ISIS — and Iran — in Iraq poses to the US. That threat is blowback.

Both Iran and al-Qaida are sworn enemies of the United States, and both have been empowered by events of the past week.

Because they view the US as their mortal foe, their empowerment poses a danger to the US.

But it is hard for people to recognize how events in distant lands can directly impact their lives.

In March 2001, when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas statues in Afghanistan, the world condemned the act. But no one realized that the same destruction would be brought to the US six months later when al-Qaida destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.

The September 11 attacks were the blowback from the US doing nothing to contain the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea's nuclear and ballistic-missile tests, as well as North Korean proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to rogue regimes, like Iran, that threaten the US, are the beginnings of the blowback from the US decision to reach a nuclear deal with Pyongyang in the 1990s that allowed the regime to keep its nuclear installations.

The blowback from Iran's emergence as a nuclear power is certain to dwarf what the world has seen from North Korea so far.

Yet rather than act in a manner that would reduce the threat of blowback from Iraq's disintegration and takeover by America's worst enemies, the Obama administration gives every indication that it is doubling down on the disastrous policies that led the US to this precarious juncture.

The only strategy that the US can safely adopt today is one of double containment. The aim of double containment is to minimize the capacity of Iran and al-Qaida to harm the US and its interests.

But to contain your enemies, you need to understand them. You need to understand their nature, their aims, their support networks and their capabilities.

Unfortunately, in keeping with what has been the general practice of the US government since the September 11 attacks, the US today continues to ignore or misunderstand all of these critical considerations.

Regarding al-Qaida specifically, the US has failed to understand that al-Qaida is a natural progression from the political/religious milieu of Salafist/Wahabist or Islamist Islam, from whence it sprang. As a consequence, anyone who identifies with Islamist religious and political organizations is a potential supporter and recruit for al-Qaida and its sister organizations.

There were two reasons that George W. Bush refused to base US strategy for combating al-Qaida on any cultural context broader than the Taliban.

Bush didn't want to sacrifice the US's close ties with Saudi Arabia, which finances the propagation and spread of Islamism. And he feared being attacked as a bigot by Islamist organizations in the US like the Council on American Islamic Relations and its supporters on the Left.

As for Obama, his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June 2009 and his subsequent apology tour through Islamic capitals indicated that, unlike Bush, Obama understands that al-Qaida is not a deviation from otherwise peaceful Islamist culture.

But unlike Bush, Obama blames America for its hostility. Obama's radical sensibilities tell him that America pushed the Islamists to oppose it. As he sees it, he can appease the Islamists into ending their war against America.

To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI's failure to question or arrest the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

They were also responsible for the army's refusal to notice any of the black flags that Maj. Nidal Hassan raised in the months before his massacre of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or to take any remedial action after the massacre to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Islamism. It is the organizational, social, political and religious swamp from whence the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terror groups emerged. Whereas Bush pretended the Brotherhood away, Obama embraced it as a strategic partner.

Then there is Iran.

Bush opted to ignore the 9/11 Commission's revelations regarding Iranian collaboration with al-Qaida. Instead, particularly in the later years of his administration, Bush sought to appease Iran both in Iraq and in relation to its illicit nuclear weapons program.

In large part, Bush did not acknowledge, or act on the sure knowledge, that Iran was the man behind the curtain in Iraq, because he believed that the American people would oppose the expansion of the US operations in the war against terror.

Obama's actions toward Iran indicate that he knows that Iran stands behind al-Qaida and that the greatest threat the US faces is Iran's nuclear weapons program. But here as well, Obama opted to follow a policy of appeasement. Rather than prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stem its advance in Syria and Iraq, Obama treats Iran as though it poses no threat and is indeed a natural ally. He blames Iran's belligerence on the supposedly unjust policies of his predecessors and the US's regional allies.

For a dual-containment strategy to have any chance of working, the US needs to reverse course. No, it needn't deploy troops to Iraq. But it does need to seal its border to minimize the chance that jihadists will cross over from Mexico.

It doesn't need to clamp down on Muslims in America. But it needs to investigate and take action where necessary against al-Qaida's ideological fellow travelers in Islamist mosques, organizations and the US government. To this end, it needs to end the prohibition on discussion of the Islamist threat by federal government employees.

As for Iran, according to The New York Times, Iran is signaling that the price of cooperation with the Americans in Iraq is American acquiescence to Iran's conditions for signing a nuclear deal. In other words, the Iranians will fight al-Qaida in Iraq in exchange for American facilitation of its nuclear weapons program.

The first step the US must take to minimize the Iranian threat is to walk away from the table and renounce the talks. The next step is to take active measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears prepared to do none of these things. To the contrary, its pursuit of an alliance with Iran in Iraq indicates that it is doubling down on the most dangerous aspects of its policy of empowering America's worst enemies.

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal.