Trust Succumbs To Lies! China Emerges and Will Our Judiciary Save Our Republic?

Trust disappears after lies become commonplace.

Obama told us the Taliban and Jihadists were no more.

Obama told us he has Israel's back and Iran will not go nuclear on his watch.

Obama told us we could keep our doctors etc.

Obama told us a film caused Benghazi.

Obama told us he would protect our borders while his justice department was selling arms to cocaine dealers.

Obama told us there was not a smidgen of truth regarding the IRS stomping on the freedoms of those with opposing views.

Obama swore to protect our nation and yet he allows terrorists to go free whom, he was told, would return to kill Americans.

And so it goes! (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
===
Year ago, I wrote in a memo that America had been like a college student living in a dorm all by him/her-self  but now America would have to share that dorm room  and I was referring to China.

We are fast approaching a period when China is flexing its muscle and America must either accommodate or surrender.

With Obama as president, and Hagel as his lackey Sec. of Defense,  I would believe the latter is increasingly likely.  (See 2 below.)
===
I also have written recently that with an inept and dangerously radical  president and a Congress that is at loggerheads it would be America's Judiciary that would fill the void and possibly save our Republic from self-destruction.  More evidence I might be right. (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  TRUST IS GONE, by Dennis Prager
You're looking at the most political liar in American history. 

 
I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country.  I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government. But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president.

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether this can ever be undone. 

This is equally true domestically and internationally.
Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy.
He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.

He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion — that is 6,500 billion — in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years).
He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid — means-tested, let alone non-means-tested — than work full-time.

He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.

With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.

His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable. 

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi , Libya . No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration has leveled was on a videomaker in California who had nothing to do with the assault.

In this president’s White House the buck stops nowhere.
Among presidents in modern American history, he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress —the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.

He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.

Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. 

He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.” 

Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging. The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II. 

One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country ( Israel ), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States ..

Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America . Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti–Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him. 

And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse. 

He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America .” That is the one promise he has kept.

What does it take for the American people to WAKE UP? 

1a)   Iran on a nuclear roll

The ayatollahs do not fear America

 

By Clifford D. May

 

Illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

6/11/14

 

“America cannot do a damn thing.”

 

A banner displaying that slogan adorned the stage of an elegant mausoleum in Tehran where Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appeared last week. Negotiations to conclude a deal ending Western sanctions on the Islamic republic, the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, in exchange for a verifiable halt to its nuclear weapons program, are now in a critical phase with a new round of talks to begin Monday in Geneva. At this moment, it would make sense for Iran’s rulers to soothe and reassure their American interlocutors. Why are they provoking and taunting them instead?

 

Because they can. They are convinced that the U.S. government is as feckless and self-deluding today as it was when “America cannot do a damn thing” was first proclaimed, 35 years ago this fall, by Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, after his followers seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took the diplomats working there hostage.

 

Doing so was not just a violation of international law. It was a casus belli — an act that unquestionably would have justified going to war against the fledgling Islamic republic. Instead, President Jimmy Carter launched a rescue attempt that failed. After that, he utilized diplomacy to no effect.

 

Ayatollah Khomeini would go on to hold America’s diplomats hostage for 444 days, the remainder of Carter’s tenure, releasing them only as Ronald Reagan was entering the White House. An important lesson was taught: When the threat of force is credible, the use of force often becomes unnecessary.

 

But teaching is not synonymous with learning. At the mausoleum last week, the current supreme leader triumphantly told Iran’s uniformed, religious and political elites that the military option President Obama has often said is “on the table” is now in the trash bin of history. A “military attack is not a priority for Americans now,” he said. “They have renounced the idea of any military actions.” That he believes this represents a defeat for the United States and a victory for the Iranian Revolution goes without saying.

 

In recent days, developments have bolstered his analysis. For example, on May 27, Mr. Obama announced the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, a conflict he once called a “necessary war” that he intended to win, but which he now is content merely to “wind down.” (Would you really be surprised if, sometime after the next American presidential election, the Taliban returned to power?)

 

A day later, Mr. Obama was at West Point disconnecting the dots linking Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, Mali, Kenya, Pakistan, India, Nigeria and so on. After all these years, he appears not to see the big picture: a global jihad against the West with various actors — Iran and al Qaeda most prominent among them — competing to lead it.

 

Next, the president released five senior Taliban officials, all of whom have ties to al Qaeda, in exchange for an American soldier who had abandoned his post on June 30, 2009, and was subsequently taken prisoner by those it was his duty to fight. Mr. Obama might at least have made this deal with regret, acknowledging that a steep price was being paid, both by the United States and, almost certainly, by those Afghans who have supported the American mission in their country. Instead, he held a celebration in the Rose Garden. His national security adviser, Susan Rice, exulted that it was “an extraordinary day for America a joyous day.”

 

It’s needs to be emphasized: “Leave no soldier behind” is a commendable principle. However, like most principles, it is neither absolute nor inviolable. To prove I’m right, try this thought experiment: If the Taliban had said they would trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl not for five Gitmo detainees, but just one — and that one was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the attack of Sept. 11, 2001, would Mr. Obama have taken the deal? What if the Taliban had asked for no detainees but a tactical nuke, or chemical weapons, or even just a dozen Apache helicopters? Would anyone say that Mr. Obama had no choice but to agree — because he could not leave Sgt. Bergdahl behind?

 

Other evidence that Ayatollah Khamenei has no doubt been mulling: In Syria, Mr. Obama drew a red line, then erased it, then cut a diplomatic deal that saved dictator Bashar Assad, whose regime he had vowed must end. Last week, Robert Ford, who months ago resigned as American ambassador to Syria, acknowledged that he had done so because he could no longer support the administration’s inept and damaging policies.

 

As if to illustrate his point, Secretary of State John F. Kerry respectfully asked Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanon-based terrorist proxy, to help bring the war in Syria “to an end.” Of course, Hezbollah will — so long as the war ends with them as winners, and with the United States diminished.

 

The ayatollah also saw the Obama administration decide last week to support the Palestinian “unity” government, which means American taxpayers will be funding Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, one to which Iran has sent money and weapons, one openly committed to a genocidal war against Israel, America’s most reliable ally.

 

Going back further, the supreme leader knows that despite many carrots and a few sticks, U.S. negotiations with North Korea eventually ended with the Hermit Kingdom becoming nuclear-armed. The American diplomats who were beaten have either been promoted or given prestigious academic positions.

 

For all these decisions and failures, there are explanations and justifications aplenty. There also is a pattern. America’s enemies and allies perceive it. And they are responding.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

1b)   The Fall of Mosul

A strategic disaster assisted by Obama's withdrawal from Iraq.

So much for al Qaeda being on a path to defeat, as President Obama used to be fond of boasting. On Tuesday fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda affiliate known as ISIS, seized total control of the northern city of Mosul—with nearly two million people—after four days of fighting. Thousands of civilians have fled for their lives, including the governor of Nineveh province, who spoke of the "massive collapse" of the Iraqi army. This could also describe the state of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Opinion Video

Editorial Board Member Matt Kaminski on the fall of Mosul to Al Qaeda-linked militants and the Taliban attack on Karachi airport. Photos: Getty Images

Since President Obama likes to describe everything he inherited from his predecessor as a "mess," it's worth remembering that when President Bush left office Iraq was largely at peace. Civilian casualties fell from an estimated 31,400 in 2006 to 4,700 in 2009. U.S. military casualties were negligible. Then CIA Director Michael Hayden said, with good reason, that "al Qaeda is on the verge of a strategic defeat in Iraq."

Fast forward through five years of the Administration's indifference, and Iraq is close to exceeding the kind of chaos that engulfed it before the U.S. surge. The city of Fallujah, taken from insurgents by the Marines at a cost of 95 dead and nearly 600 wounded in November 2004, fell again to al Qaeda in January. The Iraqi government has not been able to reclaim the entire city—just 40 miles from Baghdad. More than 1,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in May alone, according to the Iraq Body Count web site.

The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and its inability to retake Fallujah reflect poorly on the competence of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Shiite "State of Law" coalition won a plurality of seats in parliamentary elections in April and will likely win a third term later this year.

Mr. Maliki has an autocratic streak and has done little to reassure Iraq's Sunnis, which makes it easy for the Obama Administration to blame him for Iraq's troubles. His dalliance with the regime in Tehran—including a reported $195 million arms deal in February—doesn't add to his stature.

Enlarge Image

A member of Kurdish security forces stands guard as families flee Mosul in Iraq on Tuesday. Reuters

Yet groups such as ISIS are beyond the reach of political palliation. It is an illusion that a more pro-Sunni coloration to any democratically elected Iraqi government would have made much of a difference to the debacle in Mosul. Mr. Maliki may also be forgiven for being unable to control the terrorist spillover from the chaos in neighboring Syria, where ISIS first took hold. Whatever its failures, the Iraqi government doesn't have the luxury of pivoting away from its own neighborhood.

That can't be said for the Obama Administration. Its promise of a "diplomatic surge" in Iraq to follow the military surge of the preceding years never materialized as the U.S. washed its hands of the country. Mr. Obama's offer of a couple thousand troops beyond 2011 was so low that Mr. Maliki didn't think it was worth the domestic criticism it would engender. An American President more mindful of U.S. interests would have made Mr. Maliki an offer he couldn't refuse.

Mr. Maliki had to plead for emergency military equipment when he visited the U.S. last year, and the U.S. has mostly slow-rolled the delivery of arms. Now that stocks of U.S. military supplies have fallen into ISIS's hands in Mosul, the Administration's instinct will be to adopt an ultra-cautious approach to further arms deliveries. Mr. Maliki is likely to depend even more on Iran for aid, increasing the spread of the Sunni-Shiite regional conflict.

The Administration's policy of strategic neglect toward Iraq has created a situation where al Qaeda effectively controls territories stretching for hundreds of miles through Anbar Province and into Syria. It will likely become worse for Iraq as the Assad regime consolidates its gains in Syria and gives ISIS an incentive to seek its gains further east. It will also have consequences for the territorial integrity of Iraq, as the Kurds consider independence for their already autonomous and relatively prosperous region.

All this should serve as a warning to what we can expect in Afghanistan as the Administration replays its Iraq strategy of full withdrawal after 2016. It should also serve as a reminder of the magnitude of the strategic blunder of leaving no U.S. forces in Iraq after the country finally had a chance to serve as a new anchor of stability and U.S. influence in the region. An Iraqi army properly aided by U.S. air power would not have collapsed as it did in Mosul.

In withdrawing from Iraq in toto, Mr. Obama put his desire to have a talking point for his re-election campaign above America's strategic interests. Now we and the world are facing this reality: A civil war in Iraq and the birth of a terrorist haven that has the confidence, and is fast acquiring the means, to raise a banner for a new generation of jihadists, both in Iraq and beyond.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)  Australian Warning of Asia Power Contest

A Controversial 2012 Book on Perils of U.S.-China Rivalry Now Looks Prescient

Hugh White's view that America and China are on a collision course is looking more prophetic, but not everybody agrees with his ideas for compromise. The WSJ's Andrew Browne has the details.

CANBERRA—China's moves to assert control over Asian waters have set off a raucous exchange between Beijing and Washington that has reverberated around the Asia-Pacific, including here in Australia.

In a country increasingly torn in its allegiances between its U.S. superpower ally and a rising China that devours its mineral riches, one academic's position that the U.S. and China are headed toward a dangerous rivalry for supremacy in Asia is now proving uncannily prescient.

In his 2012 book, "The China Choice," Hugh White, one of the region's most influential strategic thinkers, created a stir in policy circles by putting forward what some saw as a shocking proposition: The U.S. and China would have to sit down and negotiate a way to share power in Asia. He warned that without such a compromise—a grand bargain—they risked a devastating war.

For now, it's a war of words.

In the diplomatic equivalent of a shouting match at a security conference in Singapore recently, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel accused Beijing of "destabilizing, unilateral actions," while Chinese Lt. Gen. Wang Guanzhong assailed Mr. Hagel for being "full of hegemony, full of words of threat and intimidation."

Mr. White isn't surprised. It only amazes him that so few saw this competition coming. "What did people expect?" he asks.

Wealth translates into power, and Mr. White argues it was naive to assume that America's traditional dominance in Asia would remain unassailable even as China's economy grew to become the second-largest in the world.

It was equally wrong to think, as many did, that Chinese leaders "wouldn't be so dumb as to challenge the U.S."

But that's exactly what they're doing, he argues. "They really are serious about changing the old order," he says.

This is the context in which Mr. White, a former senior government defense official and now a professor of Strategic Studies at Australian National University, sees China's recent assertive moves in its neighborhood.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel listening to Lt. Gen. Wang Guanzhong, deputy chief of China's General Staff, at a recent meeting in Singapore. Associated Press

In November, China set up an Air Defense Identification Zone over the East China Sea, covering islands disputed with Japan. Then it asserted its rights to regulate fishing across all the reaches of the South China Sea. Now armadas of Chinese and Vietnamese naval and paramilitary vessels are jostling each other around a Chinese oil rig in disputed waters.

These events are simply tokens in a wider struggle for mastery in Asia, according to Mr. White.

The stakes are high, and it could end badly, he warns. That is, there's a real prospect that a war of words might progress into an actual war. The risks of a conflict more catastrophic than any since World War II, one that could end in nuclear exchanges, are "not remote or implausible," he writes in "The China Choice."

So what would compromise look like? America, at a minimum, must acknowledge China as an equal in the region, Mr. White asserts. For its part, China will have to accept that America is here to stay, and learn to share power. It's a long shot, he agrees, and flies in the face of both Chinese and American perceptions of themselves as "exceptional" nations destined to lead.

In Australia, Mr. White's book has provoked mixed reactions. Among analysts and politicians, there's broad agreement that his description of the emerging China-U.S. rivalry has been prophetic. "He's almost written the script for the past couple of years," says Mark Thomson, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, one of the country's leading think-tanks.

Are the successors of Presidents Xi and Obama destined for conflict? Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

But there's some skepticism about his conclusions among Mr. Thomson and others. "Hugh's got the diagnosis right. But I'm not sure there are a set of palatable concessions to end it all. Where do concessions end?" asks Mr. Thomson.

Others argue that he too easily dismisses the role of smaller countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. Will they simply accept a deal between the U.S. and China to share power that's negotiated over their heads?

And, say critics, he steps too lightly over the many ways in which China and America could cooperate to forge a peaceful future. Already, they are engaged in extensive dialogue over a host of global issues from terrorism to the environment.

One of Mr. White's university colleagues, Paul Dibb, accused him of exaggerating Sino-U.S. tensions and the risks of war. After all, he argued in an opinion piece in the newspaper the Australian, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union avoided a nuclear nightmare during the far more dangerous Cold War because both understood the cataclysmic consequences.

"Nuclear deterrence and increasing economic interdependence will act as a brake on military adventurism by both sides," he wrote.

Still, "The China Choice" has influenced the national debate about China in Australia, which is boosting its defense spending, including on submarines, amphibious assault carriers and stealth fighters in support of U.S. efforts to counterbalance China's military expansion in the region.

And on one point, Mr. White's analysis is beyond question: China's rise, he says represents "the biggest redistribution of wealth and power in the world since the Industrial Revolution."

Nothing, he maintains, is more important to China than gaining great power status in its own region.

"If necessary, it will fight for it," he says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)By 

ERICA E. PHILLIPS 

CONNECT

Updated June 10, 2014 7:14 p.m. ET

A group of nine students representing five California public school districts have prevailed against the state and its two largest teachers' unions. Stanford professor William Koski discusses the ruling on the News Hub with Sara Murray. Photo: AP.

LOS ANGELES—A California judge declared the state's strong teacher-tenure laws unconstitutional in a rebuke that promises to spur similar challenges around the country.

The student plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state and two teachers unions successfully argued that statutes protecting teacher tenure, dismissal procedures and "last-in, first-out" layoff policies serve more often to keep ineffective instructors in the schools—hurting students' chances to succeed.

In Tuesday's decision in Vergara v. California, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu cited the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education "separate but equal" ruling, writing that the laws in this case "impose a real and appreciable impact on the students' fundamental right to equality of education."

The unions in the case—the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers—said they planned to appeal the ruling. The laws at issue will remain in effect pending that appeal.

The case seems certain to reverberate to other states. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the ruling "a mandate" for lawmakers and education leaders to address "practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students."

Julia Macias, a plaintiff in the suit that challenged California's teacher-employment laws, speaks Tuesday. Associated Press

California has some of the strongest teacher-employment protections in the nation, and is one of only 10 states that require seniority be considered in layoff decisions. It also is one of five states where tenure can be earned within two years or less.

The court found in Tuesday's decision that as a result of that policy, "teachers are being released who would not have been had more time been provided for the process"—hurting not only students, but also many younger teachers.

The ruling also agreed with the plaintiffs' arguments that the poorest-quality teachers tend to end up in economically underprivileged schools and "impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students." Judge Treu, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, found all five of the statutes challenged in the case to be unconstitutional.

William Koski, a law professor at Stanford University, said the case will have "ripple effects" nationally. "We are going to see some litigation" in other states, he said, "and it's going to raise some pretty thorny issues about the role of courts and the judiciary in teacher employment policies and more specifically in education policies."

Frank Wells, a spokesman for the California Teachers Association, said, "We don't believe the court is the place to be making these kinds of policy decisions," adding that the state legislature is currently working on ways to amend the laws in question.

At Issue

Vergara v. California challenged five elements of teacher employment law in the California Education Code. On Tuesday, a state Superior Court judge ruled all unconstitutional:

Permanent stature (commonly referred to as tenure): If given tenure in their second year on the job, teachers can't be let go without cause.

Teacher dismissal process (includes three statutes): Teachers are given 90 days to resolve concerns about their work. If problems aren't resolved, teachers are given notice of intended dismissal. Teachers can request hearings before various bodies and take an appeal to court.

Seniority-based layoffs (commonly referred to as LIFO for "last in, first out"): Requires seniority to be considered in all cases, though exceptions for less tenured teachers with specific skills are allowed.

Marcellus McRae, a lawyer representing the student plaintiffs in the California case, called the ruling "an enormous validation and recognition of the fundamental constitutional right of all California students to equal educational opportunity," describing the case as "a catalyst for a discussion at the national level."

Dave Welch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who funded the nonprofit advocacy group Students Matter, which brought the student plaintiffs together and filed the lawsuit, said after the ruling that it would be "within our realm to look at filing lawsuits in other states." Ted Olson, a U.S. solicitor general under PresidentGeorge W. Bush, leads the legal team.

Mr. Welch said Students Matter will "work tirelessly ourselves, as well as with other organizations" to "continue to fight for kids' rights to get what they deserve—a good education—throughout the country."

Research has pointed to teacher quality as the biggest in-school determinant for student performance. In recent years, many states have moved to simplify dismissal procedures for ineffective teachers and to encourage districts to consider teacher performance in layoff decisions rather than relying solely on seniority.

Such efforts to overhaul dismissal procedures in California failed in the legislature, so students and their advocates took the case to court—a novel way to test the longstanding state policies and one that could now become a template for a broader push. The trial, which ran for more than 30 days, concluded in late March.

"This is a huge deal," said Sandi Jacobs, a policy director for the National Council on Teacher Quality, a privately funded group that aims to change states' teacher-employment policies. "This has a huge ripple effect nationally in telling policy makers that policies that harm students can be challenged," said Ms. Jacobs, who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.

Ms. Jacobs's group points to Florida, Indiana and Colorado as having what it considers to be best-practice policies where classroom performance is a "top criterion" to be considered in layoff decisions.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers called it "a sad day for public education," saying the decision focused on a small number of bad teachers, and "strips the hundreds of thousands of teachers who are doing a good job to any right to a voice."

California school districts employ roughly 280,000 full-time equivalent teachers, and the average annual teacher's salary is just under $70,000. One in eight public-school students in the nation attend California public schools.

James Ryan, dean of Harvard University's graduate school of education, said the verdict "will likely cause lawyers in other states to think about bringing similar suits." But he pointed out that the decision explicitly called on the state Legislature to fix the unconstitutional statutes at issue. As a result, there will likely be "back-and-forth" between the Legislature and courts for many years to come.

"This has a long way before it's over in California and it hasn't even started yet in other states," Mr. Ryan said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------