.PNG)
Blake at 4 plus months. He will be with us tomorrow at Tybee.
Lynn plans on fattening him up because he looks so undernourished!
===
President 'photo op' does not like to engage in photo ops but somehow manages to do them selectively as long as they serve his narrow political purposes.
Obama feared a photo op at the border would turn into a photo flop!
What a lying fraud the unwashed elected. (See 1 below.)
No doubt they are prepared to do so again when and if Hillary runs.
Sen. Portman asserts Democrats want a fresh face not a tired old wrinkled one like Hillary's. (See 1a and 1b below.)
===
Do Republicans know how to fight or are they too patrician? (See 2 below.)
===
Will Netanyahu cave like Republicans have a history of doing or will Bibi do what he has to - destroy Hamas by dealing Gaza a death blow? (See 3 below.)
Hamas falls back on its usual tactics - manipulate a press more than willing to be duped. (See 3a below.)
===
Journalists who have been happy carrying Obama's water bucket and helped get him elected are now upset because he does not talk to them and does not let them take pictures of him blah blah blah.
You made your bed now lie in it and quit whining. (See 4 below.)
===
A very intuitive and insightful read.
It discusses Europe's weakness and lack of will, America's withdrawal and whether Europe can continue to depend upon a weakened America to protect them. (See 5 below.)
===
Black Americans are most negatively impacted by Democrat policies but they still do not get it because they are so dependent upon the poison of Liberal 'Kool Aid.' (See 6 below.)
===
I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting Ken Langone and served with him on elder President Bush's national finance committee.
Mr. Langone is a straight up guy, loyal and built an investment banking empire because he is a shrewd investor. (See 7 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Obama's Texas Two-Step
Instead of focusing on the plight of children massed at the border, the president
seems more intent on shifting blame and scoring political points against the GOP.
By James Oliphant
President Obama was 500 miles from the Mexican border when he spoke about the child-migrant crisis Wednesday evening, but he seemed to be even farther away than that.
Standing before an oddly nondescript background in Dallas (really, the president could have been anywhere), Obama kept his distance—from the border, from the thousands of refugee children in bureaucratic limbo there, and from a Congress, he told the public, that bears the brunt of the responsibility for solving the problem.
It was a president who, while bitterly complaining about the partisan divide in Washington, seemed more boxed in by it than ever, taking a decidedly binary approach to what his own White House has labeled a humanitarian crisis of epic dimension. In fact, for a president sometimes derided by conservative critics for placing too much importance on empathy, Obama spent little time dwelling on the huddled masses at the border, most of whom, he assured, would soon be sent packing
Perhaps the president felt so hemmed in by the stark lines of the immigration debate that he couldn't locate a less combative, more compassionate middle ground. Immigration advocates have asserted that the flow of children and mothers from Central America has its roots in violence there and not in U.S. immigration policy—and that many claims for asylum should be taken seriously. Obama didn't try to make that case to the public, instead needling House Republicans for failing to act on an immigration reform bill that has a strong border-security component, a bill he said, would have put more boots on the ground and "put us in a stronger position to deal with this surge and, in fact, prevent it."
At the same time, the president defended his record, dismissing the notion that his executive actions on immigration might have contributed to the problem, while seeming to suggest that his administration could not be looked to for a solution. Rather, it was more talk about his limits. At one point, he acidly referred to a lawsuit challenging his executive power threatened by House Speaker John Boehner as if to say, "OK, you guys take care of it, then."
All of it was an exercise in Washington's favorite activity: preemptive blame assignment. This was the White House laying a foundation in the event the president's $3.7 billion emergency budget request is rejected on the Hill. Republicans may seek some policy concessions in exchange for approval, but Obama did not seem particularly interested in playing ball. "Congress has the capacity to work with all parties concerned to directly address the situation," Obama said. "The supplemental [request] offers them the capacity to vote immediately to get it done."
If the bill fails, he said, it will be because of "politics."
"Are folks more interested in politics, or are they more interested in solving the problem?" Obama said. "If they're interested in solving the problem, then this can be solved. If the preference is for politics, then it won't be solved."
None of this, of course, is new. Since the Republican takeover of the House in 2011, this has been SOP for this POTUS. Obama sees it as an intractable situation, one he seems resigned to, but also one that affords him the opportunity to suggest that the outcome of everything he attempts is preordained. "If I sponsored a bill declaring apple pie American, it might fall victim to partisan politics," he said in response to reporter's question. "I get that."
The president's statement came on a trip while he's fully engaged in partisan politics, headlining Democratic fundraisers in Dallas and Austin—and he again resisted calls to go downstate and see the border crisis for himself. "This isn't theater. This is a problem," he said. "I'm not interested in photo-ops."
It was a tough line, a Clint Eastwood line (ignoring, for the moment, that at these fundraisers, there are inevitably photo-ops). Obama has consistently felt the need to sound strong on immigration, lest he give ground to his Republican critics. But even if the president stays away from the border, those children and their fates will be his responsibility. They've fled one hostile environment and, it seems, found their way to another.
1a)Portman Says Hillary's Not the One
A prominent Republican senator predicted that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be the 2016 Democratic presidential standard-bearer.
"I still think there's a good shot she won't be their nominee," said Ohio Senator Rob Portman at a Bloomberg News breakfast in Washington. "They are looking for someone new and fresh."
Portman, who earlier this week raised the possibility that he might seek his own party's nomination, downplayed that prospect, saying he intends to run for re-election; his seat is up in 2016.
The Ohio Republican charged that Ms. Clinton's record as secretary of state "is a tough one to sell."
"Name one success," he challenged.
He was a bit vague on who, if not Clinton, might be the Democrats' choice in in two years, citing possibility a "bunch of governors" and saying that "I hear Elizabeth Warren is looking at it." Warren is the populist freshman senator from Massachusetts.
He also questioned whether Hillary Clinton is in sync with today's Democratic party which he said "is more populist and more liberal than when she ran last time." That was in 2008.
Said Portman: "It's no longer the party of Bill Clinton."
1b) Hillary’s Long Journey
By Mladen Petkov
The American middle class is uncertain of its future, and everything shows that the field of this uncertainty is where the next battle for the White House is going to take place.
Translated By Mila AlexandrovaEdited by Bora Mici
She keeps on saying she hasn’t decided. Everyone else wants to know when, not if, she is going to announce her decision to take part in the fight for the White House.
Although there are two more years before the next U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton can no longer avoid the question — is she going to give it a try again, after losing the epic race for the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008? The carefully orchestrated tour promoting her recently released book "Hard Choices," in which she tells the story of her secretary of state years, has been widely seen as the beginning of her White House campaign. She keeps on giving evasive answers to the above question, but none of the other possible Democratic contenders dares reach for the candidacy. Among her own flock, she’s been criticized for occupying the rink. As for Republicans, they only want to know — is it possible to defeat her, and if it is, who can do the job?
Before even announcing her intention to take part in the 2016 fight, Hillary has become the candidate everyone reckons with, but before she becomes a memorable president, one that will hopefully be remembered for a lot more than being the first woman in the post, there is plenty of work to be done.
Everyone against Hillary
Her strengths are obvious. It is hard to find a candidate who has gone through the heat of so many battles and is still ready to take on the presidential one. As a former first lady, she knows the inner workings of the White House. As a former senator, she knows the corridors of Congress and the turns of domestic politics. As a former secretary of state, she is fluent in diplomacy. Besides, the Clinton brand has a powerful machinery of donors and supporters readily waiting to just hear the signal and spring into action.
Yet Hillary has many enemies as well, and they have started to attack her even before her official decision has been made. She left the Department of State with an approval rating of 70 percent — with the exception of Colin Powell, that’s higher than any of the incumbents after 1948 — and the negative baggage of the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three more Americans were killed. Regardless of how much effort Republicans are going to put into politicizing the subject and keeping up its presence in the media, the electorate is going to be tired of hearing about Libya until 2016. Up to now, the damage has been contained. According to ABC News and Washington Post polls, a year and a half after she left the Department of State, 59 percent of Americans approve of the work she did as secretary of state, and 67 percent think she is a strong leader.
But critics won’t stop with Libya. A recent intimation by Karl Rove, a former George Bush advisor, suggesting that Hillary may have brain damage as a result of the concussion she had in 2012, was a tactless way to draw attention to her age. Hillary Clinton is going to turn 69 in 2016. The remark was also an indicator of how ugly and poisonous the attacks against her could be.
Besides, Hillary’s own words opened a new front against her in an interview with ABC during which she mentioned that at the time she left the White House with Bill Clinton, they were totally broke. Media supporting the Republican Party immediately responded. A Fox News commentator maliciously pointed out that although Bill Clinton was making $200,000, the Clinton family was struggling to pay the bills for the Whitewater investigation and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "A former president and first lady know full well that they are highly marketable commodities," the anchor said, referring to the generous royalties the Clintons pick up for giving speeches and writing memoirs while "Uncle Sam [pays] much of their postage, phone and office rental expenses."
Believing they had found the Achilles heel of Hillary Clinton, her opponents vigilantly looked for other facts to support the idea that she is disconnected with the worries and troubles the average American faces, and therefore, her place is not in the White House. Politico stirred up a conversation by publishing information about Chelsea Clinton’s compensation as a special correspondent for NBC. The television channel refused to provide information on the subject, but rumor has it that Chelsea’s salary was around $600,000, while the national average is between $50 and $60,000 annually, even $40,000 in some cases. The publication got a lot of attention on Twitter, whose users ironically concluded this must be the American dream come true — rising from being the daughter of broke parents to earning $600,000.
Hillary admitted that her comment in regards to her financial situation after leaving the White House was "not artful," but added that they had owed over $10 million at the time. These facts are indeed a point of weakness. Anonymous sources who worked for the Obama campaign shared with The Washington Post that the finances of the Clinton family may turn into an issue, an issue that could be used against them the same way Obama attacked the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 for being a plutocrat who lives in another world at a time of economic hardship.
"The image of the wealthy guy has always been used in a presidential election,"* says Dr. Allen Louden, who teaches [a course called] "Presidential Rhetoric" at Wake Forest University. "It happened with Mitt Romney. It happened with John McCain. The latter wasn’t able to tell a reporter how many houses he has. This argument was used to point out that he is disconnected with reality. Obama also was portrayed as disconnected because he is too attached to intellectual circles. These types of accusations, though, usually fade away rather quickly because they are not perceived as substantial by the public."*
Is She the One?
It is not just the opponents. Aside from fighting them, Hillary will have to position herself in the space of her own party. One of the subjects dear to Democrats is the rights of gays and lesbians. While in 2008 Hillary opposed gay marriage, she said to a CNN reporter that now her opinion has evolved. Another issue important to Democrats is the legalization of marijuana; Hillary believes that individual states are to make the decision on it. Her view on marijuana legalization was interpreted as a curtesey gesture toward one of the Republican Party’s core values — as little intervention from the federal government as possible. All this reinforces Hillary’s image as a candidate whose political ideas revolve around the center of the political spectrum, someone who appeals to a larger audience outside the Democratic Party.
Another crucial question that raises doubts across the board is whether she will be able to put an end to the paralyzing political polarization in Washington. The rise of the tea party pushes Republicans toward more radical decisions, while a disappointing economy makes populism appealing to many Democrats.
Another challenge for Hillary would be to distinguish herself from Obama without looking disloyal or distancing the Democratic constituency. She has done that in regards to Syria, claiming she disagreed with the president and stood her ground on the subject. "While she was secretary of state, the impression was that she does not allow the White House to define foreign policy,"* says Allen Louden.
Does she also have her own vision for the painfully slow economic recovery, unemployment and social disparity? That is the most decisive question, whose answer remains to be seen. The American middle class is uncertain of its future, and everything shows that the field of this uncertainty is where the next battle for the White House is going to take place.
*Editor's note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) How Republicans Should Fight Back in the War on Women
Townhall.com News Editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich has a new book out this week titled, "Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women."
"Assault and Flattery is a book about women," Katie writes, "but it’s for fathers, husbands, sons, and boyfriends, too."
To that end, I asked Katie how specifically what conservatives could learn from the book.
CC: You write in the book that Republicans need to fight back hard against the Democrats War on Women. What specifically should Republicans be doing/saying?
KP: It's simple. If Republicans want to win and promote a pro-women, pro-free markets, pro-growth, pro-opportunity agenda then they have to have to courage to play hardball in the same way Democrats do. The only difference is that the GOP doesn't need to lie, exaggerate or scare in order to win. Not addressing this issue isn't an option and leads to failure. Go on offense, state a position and defend it with the truth.
CC: Can you give me one specific example of where Republicans should go on offense?
KP: They should go on offense on every issue but specifically on the issue of contraception. I can't tell you how many women I spoke to during 2012 campaign who told me they voted for Obama over Romney because Romney would have "banned their birth control." That lie was repeatedly told by left but was only addressed by the right a handful of times. Bobby Jindal has some good ideas on the issue. Chris Christie's approach, stating his position and saying "take it or leave it," is another good way to handle it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Prof. Hillel Frisch
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: It is time for a full-scale offensive against Hamas and the other Islamist-Jihadist groups in Gaza. Israel should take over Gaza temporarily; destroy the terrorist infrastructure as much as possible, to the point where Israel will then be able to minimize future damage to its cities by limited military actions against the Hamas infrastructure. In short, Israel should adopt the highly successful anti-terrorist strategy it employed in the West Bank over the past decade. This will not completely end terrorism from Gaza, nor will it fully alleviate the plight of Israeli communities adjacent to Gaza, but it will considerably reduce the threat to Israel’s major population centers.
Israeli military strategy towards Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) has been vastly different from its strategy towards Gaza. Israel assessed correctly in the second intifada that the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Judea and Samaria was easy to penetrate because of its relatively low density of population, but difficult to contain because of its size and the length of the green line (over 300 kilometers long). Gaza, by contrast, was easy to contain but difficult to penetrate because of its small size and high density of population, especially its very large refugee camps.
Israeli moves, consciously or unwittingly, expressed these differences. In 2002, Israel engaged in two massive offensives against Yasser Arafat’s PA, its security forces, Fatah and the other terrorist organizations. It temporarily took over the big Palestinian towns, and has been “mowing the grass” ever since through daily preventive arrests of terrorist operatives across the entire area. This policy, coupled with security cooperation with more pliant PA security services under Muhammad Abbas’ rule, has had a dramatic effect. Terrorism in Judea and Samaria has declined to levels that prevailed before the first intifada and have remained low ever since.
In Gaza, Israel took a different path. Because Gaza was difficult to penetrate, but presumably easy to contain, Israel decided to withdraw unilaterally. The results, as we all know, were much more problematic. Improved rocketry eroded the assumption that Gaza could be contained. Meanwhile, Israel has avoided a massive ground attack on Gaza on the assumption that it is not only difficult to penetrate Gaza, but that such a ground attack will have no lasting effects and might even make the situation worse.
Proponents of the status-quo thesis argue that a massive attack on Gaza to destroy the military infrastructure of Hamas will lead to its “jihadization”; to a Gaza controlled by a variety of small Jihadist groups at Hamas’ expense. Unlike Hamas today, these groups will not be a stable “strategic address.” They neither will be deterred nor subject to pressure to desist from terrorist activity.
Is the status-quo thesis valid or is it now the time to engage in a full-scale offensive against Hamas and the other Islamist-jihadist groups in Gaza?
The answer is the latter; it is time for a full scale offensive. Israel should take over Gaza temporarily – destroy the terrorist infrastructure as much as possible, to the point where Israel will then be able to minimize future damage to its cities by limited military actions against the Hamas infrastructure. In short, Israel should adopt the highly successful anti-terrorist strategy it employed Judea and Samaria over the past decade. This will not completely end terrorism from Gaza, nor will it fully alleviate the plight of Israeli communities adjacent to Gaza, but it will considerably reduce the threat to Israel’s major population centers.
Maintaining the status quo, by contrast, is increasingly dangerous. After two rounds of punishing limited offensives, one can surmise that the strategic address argument hardly works. More worrisome, Hamas is aiming at linking Israeli moves against the Hamas infrastructure in Judea and Samaria to the escalation in rocket strikes against Israel.
Were Israel to implicitly accept this linkage – and it might be doing so already by curtailing its moves in the West Bank against Hamas to cajole the organization into agreeing to a lull – this would not only directly threaten the security of Israelis but also the longevity of Abbas’ PA.
Were Israel to accept this linkage, Hamas could kidnap, kill and build-up its infrastructure in the West Bank under the threat that Israeli moves against Hamas will provoke massive rocket attacks. Hamas would essentially be calling the cards in the West Bank, undoing the achievements of the 2002 offensive. Hamas infrastructure would pose a direct threat to the PA; a complete change in the balance of power between Israel and Hamas. Yet, this is what the return to the “status-quo” threatens to bring. In politics, there is rarely a prolonged status-quo, certainly not in a conflict as bitter as between Israel and Hamas.
The future ramifications of agreeing to the linkage might even be more severe. With the rising power of the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’ organization and the threat it poses to Jordan’s security, it is absolutely vital to maintain an Israeli free hand against all terrorism in West Bank.
Other arguments made in favor of the status-quo can also be questioned. A Hamas weakened by direct Israeli assault and threatened by other Jihadist groups, might be willing to be a more pliant strategic address just as was the PA after the 2002 ground offensive.
A weakened Hamas will also facilitate Israeli intelligence penetration in Gaza. At present, Hamas counter-intelligence has partially succeeded uncovering informants. The smaller Jihadist groups do not possess these capabilities nor will they be likely to possess them in the more fluid situation that will prevail in Gaza after the assault.
Even if Hamas were overwhelmed by other Jihadist groups they might spend more time fighting each other than against the Zionist enemy, as we see today in Syria. The Syrian regime has recently made major gains in large part because the ISIL is as busy fighting al-Nusra and other groups as it is against the Syrians. In Gaza, it will probably be little different. Certainly, these organizations will not have the capabilities of Hamas. They will hardly enjoy the same level of tactical support from Iran as Hamas enjoyed in the past.
A jihadist Gaza also will strengthen Egyptian-Israeli cooperation to counter the threat and might even garner the support of the Europeans worried by the Jihadi rise in Iraq and Syria, the increasing participation of European citizens in these battlefields, and the obvious ramification that their participation will have in increasing terrorism in Europe itself.
Israel should capitalize on these opportunities to strike hard against Hamas. It’s time to replicate in Gaza the success of the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank, even if the costs will be greater and the gains less spectacular.
Prof. Hillel Frisch, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of Political Science and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University. He specializes in Palestinian affairs; Israeli Arabs; Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East; Palestinian-Jordanian relations; and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan.
Author: Hana Levi Julian
The Hamas terrorist organization has begun to issue false reports to journalists as its desperation rises to win its conflict with Israel.
As it does in each mini-war, Hamas is already grinding out rumors and disinformation to gullible journalists who believe the reports of destroyed targets and dead Jews.
The latest false report – issued in the form of an “IDF Alert” – claimed a missile attack destroyed an oil refinery in Haifa. A second report issued shortly after claimed that 25 Jews were killed.
There are specific criteria for authentic IDF reports to journalists, which professional reporters recognize. The public is urged not to believe unsubstantiated reports of Jewish deaths and destroyed Israeli infrastructure: there’s a lot of Arab disinformation out there. It’s all part of the propaganda war.
Hana Levi Julian began her career in journalism out of boredom while earning a BA in Mass Communication, creating a news department at SCSU's radio station because all the disc jockey positions were filled. In addition to her former position as a Jewish Press columnist and senior correspondent and editor at Arutz-7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and numerous other media outlets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Obama taking more media heat as he skips border visit during crisis
By Howard Kurtz
President Obama is in Texas but isn’t visiting the border, which has been overwhelmed by vast waves of Central American children seeking refuge in the United States.
Does that matter?
How important is what political pros call the “optics” of the situation?
After all, the media hammered George W. Bush for flying over New Orleans after Katrina, rather than engage with victims on the ground.
Even House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer says that “visiting the border, I don’t think that would hurt. It would certainly signal his concern,” according to Politico.
Would a presidential visit solve anything? Not really.
And Obama dismissed the notion at a Dallas news conference last night, saying he wasn’t interested in “photo ops,” just fixing the problem.
But politics is about symbolism and projecting concern. On a visit to, say, Brownsville, Tex., the president could meet with Border Patrol agents and concerned citizens, showing that he’s engaged. The footage would send a message that his speeches and press conferences do not (and that a closed-door meeting with Rick Perry does not). That’s why presidents show up after big floods and hurricane—and this is a Category 5 crisis, with detractors calling it “Obama’s Katrina.”
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd offered this explanation: “This White House gets a little stubborn. They don’t like to be bullied into a decision based on politics.”
The reasons that more than 50,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, have surged across the border are complicated. They include poverty and political violence, false rumors (often spread by traffickers) that children who reach the U.S. from places like Honduras will be allowed to stay, and the administration’s ineffectiveness at combating such rumors. They also include a 2008 Bush-era law requiring due process for children once they cross the border.
The media, to their credit, have aggressively covered this saga. The network newscasts and major newspapers have run dozens of stories since the beginning of June, many of them reported from border towns.
But they have not really tried to assign political responsibility until recent days, when Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funds and Republicans pushed back hard, saying among other things that he needs to send in the National Guard. Some Democratic lawmakers have also criticized the president’s handling of the situation.
Now the media tone is really changing. On MSNBC, hosts Andrea Mitchell and Alex Wagner have pressed administration officials about the crisis. “With all due respect,” said Mitchell, “the reality on the ground is that the administration did not stay ahead of this.”
When you’ve lost MSNBC, you are losing your base, Mr. President.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told Obama late last month: “There’s a humanitarian crisis on the border. Some of your critics have said you need to speak out more directly to the people of Central America and say, don’t come. If you come, you will be deported.”
His colleague Jonathan Karl asked Josh Earnest how many immigrants who are released for a court hearing actually show up, and the White House spokesman said he didn’t know.
The story should not be reduced solely to a political blame game. But it’s time for the media to demand some political accountability.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) An Overwhelmed America Withdraws Itself
By Michael StürmerTranslated By Annaliese Stewart
Edited by Kyrstie Lane
America is indispensable and at the same time overwhelmed: because of itself, its geopolitical rivals, and the weakness of the Europeans. They will get the America they deserve.
The United States, the strongest military power in the world, is still the only superpower. To this end, it possesses everything that Harvard Professor Joseph Nye calls "soft power." This includes many things – from many of the rules and structures of financial markets to cyberspace and cyber warfare, from music and fashion to film and television, and all other modern forms of play. But the "sole surviving superpower" suffers from self-doubt – within reason.
After its triumph in the world turn of 1989-90, it did not escape the fate that sooner or later befalls all empires – even the liberal ones – which is inscribed in the chronicles of the 20th century as "imperial over-extension." The ancient Greeks recognized this, despite having difficulties with power, perhaps because of how Hubris and Nemesis, the ugly sisters, smiled at each other.
The Americans are undertaking some serious introspection, not only because of the runaway government budget or the erosion of the armed forces, but also because the old nice idea of making the world safe for democracy and via democracy no longer has the advantage for them that it once did in Asia and most parts of the world.
China's rise is shaking the political elite of Asia, leading them to ask for the recipe for future power and wealth, and Putin's "vertical of power" serves as internal political abutment for the reconstruction of the imperial space that was once filled by czars and commissars.
Does America Have to Take Care of the World?
All this has not passed by the Europeans without a trace. Looking at the ruins of what were halfway functioning dictatorships for the longest part of the 20th century is unpleasant, but from Syria to Egypt, lessons in realpolitik arise. After the withdrawal of 300,000 GIs who guarded the Iron Curtain from Bamberg to Kaiserslautern, the Europeans have felt unexpectedly what it means to stand alone, with Russia as a difficult and churlish resident in the European house.
The Europeans have, for better or worse, no choice but to step out from the roles of spectators, critics and know-it-alls. The minister of defense, the German foreign minister, and the president found the wise – but to date non-momentous – words for this at the Munich Security Conference.
From the "pivot to Asia," which America carried out in a way that was more forced than voluntary, to the unknown, but visible, conflicts over strategic benefits and the rising conflicts over global warming, new power geometries have arisen, which will decide who will inherit the earth. Nothing is certain anymore; no answer applies beyond the present.
As if there were an innate duty of America to take care of the rest of the world, the Europeans look to the U.S. in persistent fretfulness about America's sometimes rude methods, from the spying practices of the National Security Agency to extraterritorial legislative claims for help when things get tight. Relentlessly then, the question arises worldwide as to what America stands for, and for what God's own country is willing to put its goods and people on the line.
For Europeans, this is not an advanced seminar in regional studies, but a vital question because the certainty that America will always protect Europeans from the consequences of their weaknesses and their wishful thinking is faltering.
Europe Lacks Strength and Will
There have been requests from German political circles, up to the federal president, for the country to be more willing to assume more international responsibility, and "without us" is no option for the heavyweight in the middle of Europe – that reveals the late realization of the necessity:
Because it is still true that there can be a "West" as a global political pole only with the interaction of the countries on both shores of the Atlantic Ocean. For this, however, America is needed more than all the others combined. As Bill Clinton once said, it is "the indispensable nation."
But what if God's own country no longer believes in itself, the shining city on the hill, the new Jerusalem? "Novus ordo seclorum," the "New World Order" – Americans can read this on every dollar bill. But if America declares itself as unavailable, and no longer wants to police the world, who is going to protect the basic parameters of liberal world order, free trade, and freedom of the seas? China and Russia lack confidence, and Europe lacks strength and will.
Isolationism Remains Tempting
At West Point, in front of young officers, Barack Obama recently outlined a new security doctrine, and this must spur the Europeans into action. America is now its own neighbor. The allies were barely mentioned, as well as core interests, which must be defended if necessary.
But there was no mention of the "indispensable nation" and of the world order for which it stands. If America wins in Asia, the more the great red dragon will breathe fire on friends and allies, and also in Europe, NATO does not need to apologize for its existence, but leadership is different.
Since 1945, deterrence has been the end and means of the Pax Americana, but Obama has twice violated the basic rules of strategy, each time with good reason and bad consequences: first, when the Syrian dictator crossed America's "red line" with the use of chemical weapons; and second, when Obama announced strong sanctions against Putin's land grab – and left it at that. Every time, there were good reasons to be cautious, but security has a different logic.
America is far from indispensable, but isolationism is tempting, as well as the reminder of the early years to keep a distance from "entangling alliances." Because America is overwhelmed by itself, by its geopolitical rivals and by the weakness of the Europeans. They will get the America they deserve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
One of the sleeper issues surrounding the debate on amnesty for illegal immigrants – an inconvenient one that no proponent of a widespread amnesty wishes to acknowledge –is the devastating effect so-called immigration reform will have on African Americans. "The Democrats throw Black voters under the bus!"
The black unemployment rate is almost 11 percent, far higher than that of any other group profiled by labor statistics. African Americans are disproportionately employed in lower-skilled jobs – the very same jobs immigrants take. As Steven Camarota asked in a recent column, why double immigration when so many people already aren’t working?
Who will be harmed most by amnesty? African-Americans.
The issue resurfaced this week when aYouTube video emerged of two young African-Americans confronting pro-illegal-immigration demonstrators in Murrieta, California. Murrieta is one of the towns in which undocumented minors are being relocated — and supporters are squaring off with protestors.
The young man argues:
If somebody brought six children to your house and you ain’t got no job, are you gonna take them in?… What are you gonna do? Are you gonna try to go out there and take care of these children AND the children you got already that you can’t take care of?… What are we going to do for the people who are here who are starving already?… We got our OWN people that are starving and hungry…. Why would we add to the problem?!
He also laments the problems in black neighborhoods where prices “are upped on everything” after large groups of immigrants move in.
The young woman argues:
It’s just too much…. We already have our own poor people. Starvation, kids walking with no shoes…. We don’t need other people’s kids to bring more problems…. You’re gonna watch America go spiraling down… We’re already in debt as it is. [Now] we’re gonna need more money to support these kids.
Why are Democratic politicians disregarding the concerns and needs of black Americans in a push to address the concerns and needs… of foreigners? Amnesty proponents speak of the need to grant others a better life – but what of the need to look out for our fellow Americans? What of those black Americans whose ancestors quite literally built this nation through the sweat of their brows?
Instead, Democrats are chucking aside black voters in their rush to lock in the Latino vote (or so they’re hoping).Taken for granted as a given come election-time, blacks are now actively harmed as the Democrats vow to grow their voting base through importing more and more of what they see as future blue-voters. It’s the husband who leaves his wife of 30 years: ‘We had a good run, honey, but I’ve found someone new.’
Black attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Peter Kirsanow, serves as one of the lone voices of reason, repeatedly outlining the harm amnesty will cause black Americans.
In a 2013 letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, he wrote: “The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no.” Kirsanow’s statistics demonstrate the way in which immigration impacts the wages and employment opportunities of black males and hurts the black community.
But no one seems to listen to Kirsanow.
Meanwhile, the harm to African Americans is not limited to reduced wages, greater competition for jobs, and declining household incomes – now even the black history of suffering is being diluted. Liberal columnist and CNN pundit Sally Kohn penned a column last week arguing that the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is the same as the N-word. Kohn, is usually fair-minded and reasoned in her arguments, lumping black Americans’ unique history and suffering with that of certain Latino immigrants is absurd and offensive. Consider that the N-word was used to describe a person who was whipped daily, while ‘illegal immigrant’ is a word used to describe a person who receives free education (even in-state tuition!), housing, driver’s licenses, legal aid, food, and healthcare. To even claim the two words are similar is an unthinkable affront – and insult – to African-Americans.
Senator Jeff Sessions’s recent National Review column “On Immigration, It’s Time to Defend Americans,” hits the nail on the head. Sessions notes:
Harvard professor George Borjas estimated that high immigration rates from 1980 to 2000 resulted in a 7.4 percent wage reduction for lower-skilled American workers…. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a study based on Census data showing that “since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants.”… If mass immigration is so good for the economy, why then — during this long sustained period of record immigration into the U.S. — are incomes falling and a record number of Americans not working?
Birthright citizenship is already bad enough; largely refusing to deport illegal immigrants is already bad enough.But now, we’ve upped the ante even further. Overburdened taxpayers, including black taxpayers, are covering the cost to feed, clothe and educate illegals, and black Americans face the additional burden of having their historic suffering belittled and their precarious circumstances made even worse.
Democrats have built a brand as the party willing to stand up for black America that was. The message to black voters is: “Yes, your ancestors endured unimaginable hardships and helped build this country, and we said we’d help you out. But now we have a new trophy wife.”
A. J. Delgado is a conservative writer and lawyer. She writes about politics and culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------7) The Attorney General as Captain Ahab
From Eliot Spitzer to Eric Schneiderman, the weird vendetta against Hank Greenberg continues.
When a New York attorney general brings a lawsuit against a prominent business person, there are two things you can count on out of that office—lots of political bluster and little accountability.
Unfortunately, I have firsthand experience of the office's excesses. When then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued me in 2003 over my stewardship as a director of the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE's legal expenses were more than $100 million, which made it perhaps the priciest litigation in the state's history. The number of TV interviews, press gaggles, photo-ops and speeches Mr. Spitzer indulged in must also have set a record.
But in the end, as often happens in cases where defendants are in the right and stand their ground against legal bullies, the court threw out all charges, proving the case a total waste of time and resources. Mr. Spitzer refused to say how much his office had spent in his pointless endeavor, and he has never expressed a syllable of remorse to the state's taxpayers for his folly.
Now, my good friend Hank Greenberg, the former longtime chairman of AIG, finds himself in the ninth year of a similarly absurd legal steeplechase with the New York attorney general's office. It started in 2005, when Mr. Spitzer insisted on ABC's "This Week" that Mr. Greenberg had engaged in criminal fraud. But that single act of empty bluster has now outlived Mr. Spitzer's disgraced tenure in public office.
No criminal charges were ever presented to a court, of course, since the whole point was to get the attention of journalists, not court reporters. Instead, the case was relegated to civil court where it has been slowly whittled down to an academic argument about an obscure form of reinsurance that has been around in the insurance industry for ages, and that had no impact on the bottom line of AIG's financials.
Taxpayers would be right to wonder what principle of justice is served by this boondoggle. Since the current attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, is keeping the public in the dark about how much he has spent or how many hours his team have racked up persecuting Hank, New Yorkers will never know how much they've already lost.
Nor is there any chance taxpayers will be made whole at trial's end, since Mr. Schneiderman was forced to withdraw claims for monetary damages. He's seeking instead to bar Hank from working in the securities industry or serving on the board of a public company, neither of which Hank currently does. To help his chances of securing this empty "victory," Mr. Schneiderman has asked that Hank be denied a jury trial, resting his hopes on the honorable New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos (who presided over my own ordeal and seemed to enjoy his time in the spotlight immensely).
A lawsuit with no legal precedent, seeking no damages, from no jury, in the name of stopping something that isn't happening? Only in New York.
The awful truth is that this decade-long crusade against Hank Greenberg is one giant, pathetic exercise in face-saving. You see, when Mr. Spitzer managed to strong-arm the board into forcing Hank out of the company he helped build, AIG had a strong balance sheet and a healthy risk profile. It was Hank's Spitzer-approved successors who took all the brakes off and led AIG down the path to ruin and government takeover.
Mr. Spitzer could never bring himself to admit he was wrong or take any responsibility for his part in almost destroying AIG. And even though members of both parties have called for the suit to be dropped (including former Govs. Mario Cuomo and George Pataki on this very page), Mr. Spitzer's Democratic successors have kept his quixotic quest alive to distract from his folly. Mr.
Schneiderman's supporters should be especially annoyed that he is squandering precious resources on this case, since he was elected in 2010 at the height of "Occupy Wall Street" and promised to run real bad guys out of town, not straw men.
Hank is a decorated World War II veteran and the builder of successful businesses that have employed thousands and helped millions. His legacy is secure. Which makes the New York attorney general office's pointless vendetta all the more embarrassing.
Mr. Langone, a former director of the New York Stock Exchange and co-founder of Home Depot, is chairman of Invemed Associates.
No comments:
Post a Comment